SPL - Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
SPL - Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
SPL - Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
1. Mala in se v. Mala prohibita (Article 3) Philippines without an authorization by the Central Bank. Tourists and non-resident
visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign exchange in amounts
not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange brought in by them.
Tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing with them more than
US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies shall declare their foreign
Us v Go Chico exchange in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival
in the Philippines.
On or about the 4th day of August, 1908, appellant Go Chico displayed in one of o Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1883 provides that any person who shall engage in the
the windows and one of the show cases of his store in No. 89 Calle Rosario, Manila, trading or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing
a number of medallions, in the form of a small button, upon which were printed the laws or rules and regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the
miniature faces of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag or banner or device used during crime of blackmarketing of foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty
the late insurrection in the Phil. Islands to designate and identify those in armed of reclusion temporal (minimum of 12 years and 1 day and maximum of
insurrection against the United States. 20 years) and a fine of no less than P50,000.00.
On the day previous to the one set forth above, the appellant had purchased the At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from Hongkong,
said medallion sold at a public sale under the authority of the sheriff of the city of that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in business in the country
Manila. On the day in question, the appellant was arranging his stock of goods for with his business associates, and that he and his business associates declared all
the purpose of displaying them to the public, and in doing so, he placed the the money they brought in and all declarations were handed to and kept by him.
medallions in his showcase and on one of the windows of his store. Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that time, Lo Chi Fai was
The appellantwas ignorant of any law against the display of such medallions and urged by his business associates to come to Manila to bring the money out of the
had consequently no corrupt intention. The facts stated above are admitted. Philippines. Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a complaint
The appellant has two propositions for his acquittal: first is that before a conviction against Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.
can be had, a criminal intent upon the part of the accused must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. Second is that the prohibition of law is directed against the use ISSUE
of identical banners, devices or emblems actually used during the Philippine
insurrection by those in armed rebellion against the United States.
HELD
Issue: Whether or not criminal intent is necessary in crimes punishable by special laws.
Held:
The court ruled that the act alone, irrespective of its motive, constitutes the crime. The words
used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in
armed rebellion against the United States mean not only the identical flags actually used in Estrada v SB
the insurrection, but any flag which is of that type. The description refers not to a particular flag,
but to a type of flag. The literal interpretation of a statute may lead to an absurdity, or evidently
fail to give the real intent of the legislature. Facts:
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted
Padilla v Dizon under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder),
o 1 as amended by RA 7659,
Respondent Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision, the tourist and accused, Lo o 2 wishes to impress upon us that the assailed law is so defectively
Chi Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate the law. He also fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid
directed the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of US$3,000.00 under from the constitutionally infirm. He therefore makes a stringent call for this
Central Bank Circular No. 960. Court to subject the Plunder Law to the crucible of constitutionality mainly
Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila International Airport while because, according to him,
attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the o (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness;
country. An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec. o (b) it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal
6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 with a penal sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD NO. prosecutions; and,
1883. Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 provides that no person shall take out o (c) it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable
or transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form out of the under The Revised Penal Code, all of which are purportedly clear
1
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
Ratio:
2
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
In view of due process judicial. Statutes enacted by Congress cannot be expected to spell out with mathematical
On the second issue, petitioner advances the highly stretched theory that Sec. 4 of the precision how the law should be interpreted under any and all given situations. The
Plunder Law circumvents the immutable obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond application of the law will depend on the facts and circumstances as adduced by evidence
reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the crime of plunder when it requires only which will then be considered, weighed and evaluated by the courts. Indeed, it is the
proof of a pattern of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy. The constitutionally mandated function of the courts to interpret, construe and apply the law as
running fault in this reasoning is obvious even to the simplistic mind. In a criminal prosecution would give flesh and blood to the true meaning of legislative enactments.
for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused always has in his favor the presumption of
innocence which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in A construction should be rejected if it gives to the language used in a statute a meaning
demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled that does not accomplish the purpose for which the statute was enacted and that tends to
to an acquittal. defeat the ends that are sought to be attained by its enactment. Viewed broadly, "plunder
involves not just plain thievery but economic depredation which affects not just private parties
What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts or personal interests but the nation as a whole." Invariably, plunder partakes of the nature of
sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an "a crime against national interest which must be stopped, and if possible, stopped
amount of at least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove each and every other act permanently."
alleged in the Information to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill- gotten wealth.
In view of estoppel
Petitioner is not estopped from questioning the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080. The
In view of mens rea case at bar has been subject to controversy principally due to the personalities involved
As regards the third issue, again we agree with Justice Mendoza that plunder is a malum herein. The fact that one of petitioner's counsels was a co-sponsor of the Plunder Law and
in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Thus, he says, in his Concurring Opinion . . . petitioner himself voted for its passage when he was still a Senator would not in any put him
Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be in estoppel to question its constitutionality. The rule on estoppel applies to questions of fact,
proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges not of law. Moreover, estoppel should be resorted to only as a means of preventing injustice.
that the crime of plunder was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges To hold that petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity of R.A. No. 7080 because he
guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner. had earlier voted for its passage would result in injustice not only to him, but to all others who
may be held liable under this statute.
[With the government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services
to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates
to an actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the What is RICO
people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effect and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States federal law that
repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part
offenses involving government official, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized
be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society. Indeed, it would be absurd to Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is
treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. 19611968. While
Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to its intended use was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in
the inherent wrongness of the acts. organized crime, its application has been more widespread.
To clinch, petitioner likewise assails the validity of RA 7659, the amendatory law of RA In view of facial challenge
7080, on constitutional grounds. Suffice it to say however that it is now too late in the day for A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad
him to resurrect this long dead issue, the same having been eternally consigned by People v. because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen
Echegaray 38 to the archives of jurisprudential history. The declaration of this Court therein statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as
that RA 7659 is constitutionally valid stands as a declaration of the State, and becomes, by a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all
necessary effect, assimilated in the Constitution now as an integral part of it. society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly
broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his
own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity.'
In view of presumption of innocence
At all events, let me stress that the power to construe law is essentially judicial. To declare This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem
what the law shall be is a legislative power, but to declare what the law is or has been is effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason
3
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. The evidence for the prosecution has established that petitioner Edgar Teves, then mayor
In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. of Valencia, Negros Oriental, owned the cockpit in question.
Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves over the cockpit were transferred to his
wife, still he would have a direct interest thereon because, as correctly held by respondent
Sandiganbayan, they remained married to each other from 1983 up to 1992, and as such
Teves v COMELEC their property relation can be presumed to be that of conjugal partnership of gains in the
absence of evidence to the contrary.
Petitioner was a candidate for the position of Representative of the 3rd legislative o Hence, his interest in the Valencia Cockpit is direct and is, therefore, prohibited under
district of Negros Oriental during the May 14, 2007 elections. Section 89(2) of the LGC of 1991.
Respondent Herminio G. Teves filed a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground However, conviction under the second mode does not automatically mean that the
that in Teves v. Sandiganbayan,3 he was convicted of violating Section 3(h), same involved moral turpitude. A determination of all surrounding circumstances of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for the violation of the statute must be considered. Besides, moral turpitude does not
possessing pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit, which is prohibited under include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in
Section 89(2) of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. their being positively prohibited, as in the instant case.
Respondent alleged that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office The Court clarified that not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It is for
because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude which carries the this reason that "as to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to
accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. determine." In resolving the foregoing question, the Court is guided by one of the general
The COMELEC First Division disqualified petitioner from running for the position of rules that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do
member of House of Representatives and ordered the cancellation of his Certificate not.
of Candidacy. Moral turpitude implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is
Upon MR, COMELEC en banc denied the motion saying that since petitioner lost punishable by law or not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be
in the last 14 May 2007 congressional elections, it thereby rendered the instant MR inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the
moot and academic. moral turpitude.
Consequently, considering all circumstances, the Court held that petitioners
Issue: Whether petitioners violation of Section 3(h), R.A. No. 3019 involves moral turpitude. conviction does not involve moral turpitude.
The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While
Held: it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the people, there is nothing in the
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that matter, even
modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit.
social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general.
The essential elements of the violation of said provision are as follows: In the exercise of its own discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow
o 1) The accused is a public officer; it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever
o 2) he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits
contract or transaction; lotteries, cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such choices, Congress has consulted its
o 3) he either: a) intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review, much less reverse.
with such interest, or b) is prohibited from having such interest by the
Constitution or by law.
Thus, there are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction may violate Section 3(h) of R.A.
3019.
The first mode is when the public officer intervenes or takes part in his official
capacity in connection with his financial or pecuniary interest in any business,
contract, or transaction. 2. Relationship between special penal laws and RPC (Article 10)
The second mode is when he is prohibited from having such an interest by the
Constitution or by law. Offenses not subject to the provision of this code offenses which are in the future may be
In Teves v. Sandiganbayan, petitioner was convicted under the second mode for having punishable under SPECIAL LAWS are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit which is prohibited under Sec. 89(2) of the Local shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should provide to the contrary.
Government Code of 1991.
4
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the childs development. Contrary to
petitioners assertion, an accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a),
Sanchez v People Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein. The
Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse in an Information[6] dated prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation
August 29, 2001 which reads: have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of
the child is different from the former acts.
The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, hereby accuses Leonilo Sanchez
alias Nilo of Lajog, Clarin, Bohol of the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse, committed as Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word or is a disjunctive term signifying
follows: dissociation and independence of one thing from other things enumerated. It should, as a
rule, be construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of or in Section
That on or about the 2nd day of September, 2000 in the municipality of Clarin, province of 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase be responsible for other conditions
Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acting as a Family prejudicial to the childs development supposes that there are four punishable acts therein.
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to abuse, exploit and/or to inflict other First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child exploitation; and fourth, being
conditions prejudicial to the child's development, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs development. The fourth penalized act
feloniously abuse physically one [VVV],[7] a sixteen (16) year old minor, by hitting her thrice cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three other
in the upper part of her legs, and which acts are prejudicial to the child-victim's development acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does not warrant
which acts are not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, but the same are such construal.
covered by Art. 59, par. 8 of P.D. No. 603 as amended; to the damage and prejudice of the
offended party in the amount to be proved during the trial. Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be considered as child abuse but
merely as slight physical injuries defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised
The appellant argues that the injuries inflicted by him were minor in nature that it is not Penal Code. Appellant conveniently forgets that when the incident happened, VVV was a
prejudicial to the child-victims development and therefore P.D. No. 603 is not applicable and child entitled to the protection extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the
he should be charged under the Revised Penal Code for slight physical injuries. Constitution. As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether
the same is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within this definition. We,
ISSUE: therefore, cannot accept appellant's contention.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 10(a) in relation to Sections 3(a) and
Whether or not P.D. 603 as amended is applicable to the case at hand.
3(b) No. 1 of Rep. Act No. 7610 and Sec. 59(8) of PD 603, amended.
HELD:
In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 and Section 10(a) of R.A. No. People v Saley
7610. Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides:
Antonine B. Saley, a.k.a. Annie B. Saley, seeks a reversal of the verdict finding her
SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions guilty beyond reasonable doubt of eleven counts of estafa punishable under the
Prejudicial to the Child's Development. Revised Penal Code and six counts of illegal recruitment, one committed in large
scale, proscribed by the Labor Code.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or The consolidated petitions provide that appellant promised the complainants job
be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those opportunities in Korea. Appellant received acceptance fees and other fees from
covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the complainants and when the job promises did not materialize, appellant was not able
Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum to refund these to complainants.
period.
The defense posited the theory that appellant merely assisted the complainants in
applying for overseas employment with duly accredited travel agencies for and from
which she derived a commission.
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those enumerated under
Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) The trial court found her guilty and posited as follows:
child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the
childs development. The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and In fine, accused gave the distinct assurance, albeit false, that she had the ability to
separately defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts are send the complainants abroad for work deployment, thereby employing false
5
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
pretenses to defraud them. This was despite her knowing very well that she was 4. The trial court rendered its decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
not legally authorized. The complainants willingly parted with their money in the of the crimes charged. It found implausible appellant's claim that she was merely an
hope of overseas employment deceitfully promised them by the accused. What agent of Dynasty Travel and Tours and/or Maritess Tapia and Carol Cornelio.
makes matters worse is that these amounts given to the accused come from hard- 5. Appellant Antonine B. Saley, a.k.a. Annie B. Saley, seeks a reversal of the verdict
earned money, or worse, could have been borrowed from money lenders who have finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of eleven counts of estafa punishable
no qualms about collecting usurious interest rates. Complainants who faithfully under the Revised Penal Code and six counts of illegal recruitment, one committed
relied on the accused did not hesitate to painstakingly raise or even beg or borrow in large scale, proscribed by the Labor Code.
money just so they could give a decent future to their families even to the extent of
leaving them for far-off lands. But now, all their dreams are gone, their hopes ISSUE:
shattered. Some may not have even been able to pay back what they borrowed nor Whether ISL may be applied - YES
recoup their losses. Now, more than ever, their future appears bleaker. But this
time, a glimmering light appears at the end of the tunnel as the Court steps in to lay Whether a charge of illegal recruitment bar the prosecution for estafa? NO
down the iron fist of the law so as to serve the accused a lesson, a bitter one, with
the hope that those who are trekking or those who are about to trek the same Are the aggravating and mitigating circumstances applicable -NO
pilfered path that the accused took will reconsider their pursuits before it would be
too late, and in the end, this form of fraud which invariably victimizes the poor will 1) Whether the trial court had erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the
forever be stopped. complaining witnesses and in finding her guilty of the crimes charged? (NO)
6
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
o Illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal o Since BP Blg 22 does not prohibit the applicablity in a supplementary
intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction while estafa is character of the provisions of PRC, principle of conspiracy may be
malum in se which requires criminal intent to warrant conviction. apploed.
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the
offense (estafa) are that (1) the accused has defrauded another by abuse of ISSUES OF THE CASE: In this case Evangeline Ladonga is trying to contest
confidence or by means of deceit and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary her conviction on the grounds that she was not a party to the agreement and
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Clearly, these elements that she was not a signatory to the checks and that the decision of the Court
have sufficiently been shown in the cases under review. of Appeals with regard to her being a co-conspirator is w/o merit.
It would appear that of the seven complainants for illegal recruitment in large scale,
only five of them filed separate charges of estafa against appellant. Accordingly, Whether or not the cases citedby honorable CA in affirming in toto the
appellant was only and could only be held liable for five counts of estafa arising from conviction of petitioner as conspirator applying the suppletory character of
the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale. the RPC to Special laws like BP Blg 22 is applicable?
7
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
Criminal liability cannot be incurred based on general allegation of conspiracy. In the anti-carnapping law, such unlawful taking of a motor vehicle would fall within the
criminal cases, moral certainty -- not mere possibility -- determines the guilt or the purview of theft/robbery
innocence of the accused. Even when the evidence for the defense is weak, the o Exceptions to Carnapping law (Art 310, RPC is applicable)
accused must be acquitted when the prosecution has not proven guilt with the Roadrollers
requisite quantum of proof required in all criminal cases. Trolleys
Sweetsweepers
HELD: The instant petition is GRANTED. Evangeline Lodonga Acquitted. Sprinklers
Lawn mowers
Amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways
People v Bustinera Vehicles which run only on rails and tracks
Luisito D. Bustinera was held guilty for Qualified Theft for the unlawful taking of a Tractors
Daewoo Taxi and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He Trailers
was accused of carnapping when he failed to return the taxi to owner Edwin Cipriano. Tractor engines of all kinds and used exclusively for agricultural
He claims that he had returned the taxi but left his drivers license to Cipriano when purposes.
he failed to meet his boundary, hence he could not drive; He denies abandoning the While the act of taking motor vehicle was first lawful as he was hired as a taxi driver,
taxi his possession became unlawful when he failed to return the taxi to its owner. He
RTC still found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for qualified theft admits that he was aware that taxi was in his possession and without CIprianos
Bustinera appeals to the SC to review RTC decision consent.
There was intent to gain by mere use of a thing taken without the owners consent
ISSUE: evne though his alibi for not returning was his inability to remit boundary fee.
Whether RTC erred in concluding that his failure to return the taxi to the garage manifests VIllacorta v Insurance : there is taking even if motor vehicle is later returned. Taking
intent to gain? is temporary / for joy ride
* whether RTC is correct that the crime incurred is Qualified Theft and not Carnapping under
RA 6539? When penalties of SPL and RPC are different and distinct
Trial court erred in the imposition of penalty.
HELD: Penalties of RPC and Special law is different, the same penalties under RPC
RPC Special Law (Anti-Car Napping Act) cannot be applied to acts punished in the Statute when the latter provides
Theft Sec 2, RA 6539 defines distinct penalties applicable only to the statute and are outside the rules for
- taking of personal property CARNAPPING taking with intent to gain of felonies under the Code
-belongs to another a motor vehicle belonging to another without o In this case imprisonment for not less than 14 years and 8 months
- intent to gain the latters consent or by means of violence not more than 17 years and 4 months
-without consent of owner against or intimidation of persons or by o The alleged aggravating circumstance of garave abuse of confidence
-without use of violence/intimidation on using force upon things cannot be applied.
persons or force upon things
- the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle Indeterminate sentence law applies when offense is punishable by a special
Qualified law
- domestic servant o Maximum term not exceed maximum fixed by law and minimum term
- grave abuse of confidence not less than that prescribed by the same penalty imposed by a rance
-property stolen is motor vehicle
-consists of coconuts taken from premisses GO-Tan v Tan
-property stolen is fish Sharica Go-Tan and Steven Tan was married. They have two daughters.
-property taken on occasion of fire, etc Barely 6 months in the marriage, Sharica (petitioner) filed an action for temprorary
protection order against her husband and her parents-in-law for verbal,
psychological, economic, physical abuse and harrasment in violation of RA 9262 or
Crime here is CARNAPPING not Qualified theft. Anti Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004.
There is no arguing that the anti-carnapping law is a special law, different from the RTC granted it but the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss saying that RTC has
crime of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. However, the anti- no jurisdiction over the parents-in-law as they are not included in the definition of
carnapping law particularly deals with the theft or roberry of motor vehicles. Without the offender described under AWAC
8
SPL Atty. Axel Cruz (2A)
o Requires that
ISSUE: Whether the parents-in-law of petitioner may be included in the petition for temporary
protective order in accordance with AVAWC act of 2004?
HELD
Moreno :Court applied subsidiary penalty under Art. 39 of RPC to cases of violation of Revised
Motor Vehicle Law
Li Wai Cheung : applied rules on service of sentences provided in Art. 70 of RPC in favor of
accused found guilty of multiple violations under the Dangerous Drugs Act
Chowdury: applied Art. 17,18,19 of RPC to define words principal accomplices accessorie
under Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
Yu : applied subsidiary imprisonment under Art 39, RPC to BP Blg 22 / Bouncing Checks Law
Ladonga: applied principle of conspiracy under Art 8, RPC to BP Blg 22 in the absecnce of
contrary provision therein.
Petition granted.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
1. Pari materia every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other
statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence (People v Bustinera)
2. special legal provisions prevail over general ones. (Ladonga v People)
3. Look at the intent of the law express language