Criminal Law - 2022 Ust Golden Notes (Confidential)

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW (1734)
CRIMINAL LAW
2022 GOLDEN NOTES

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
MANILA
The UST GOLDEN NOTES is the annual student-edited bar review material of
the University of Santo Tomas, Faculty of Civil Law. Communications
regarding the Notes should be addressed to the Academics Committee of the
Team: Bar-Ops.
Address: Academics Committee

UST Bar Operations
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
España, Manila 1008
Tel. No: (02) 8731-4027

(02) 8406-1611 loc. 8578
Academics Committee
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
España, Manila 1008
All rights reserved by the Academics Committee of the Faculty of Civil Law of the Pontifical and Royal
University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines.
2022 Edition.
No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes,
whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devises or in any other
form, for distribution or sale, without a written permission.
A copy of this material without the corresponding code either proceeds from an illegal source or is in
possession of one who has no authority to dispose the same.
Released in the Philippines, 2022.

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)
ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-2022

CIVIL LAW STUDENT COUNCIL
NATHAN RAPHAEL D.L. AGUSTIN PRESIDENT
STEPHEN FLOYD A. GOPEZ VICE PRESIDENT INTERNAL
NICOLO B. BONGOLAN VICE PRESIDENT EXTERNAL
PATRICIA INGRID M. SEE SECRETARY
JULIENNE CELINE G. OGAYON TREASURER
IVAN ARNIE C. QUIAMCO PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
KAREN DARYL L. BRITO CHIEF-OF-STAFF
UST BAR-OPS
SARAH ANGELA D. EVA CHAIRPERSON

JUSTINE RENEE GERVACIO VICE-CHAIRPERSON
MA. ANDREA D. CABATU SECRETARY
JAN YSABEL U. DE LEON HEAD, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
PAULINNE STEPHANY G. SANTIAGO HEAD, FINANCE COMMITTEE
KAREN DARYL L. BRITO HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS COMMITTEE
RALPH DOMINIC V. MARTINEZ HEAD, LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
JEDIDIAH R. PADUA SENIOR MEMBER
SABINA MARIA H. MABUTAS SENIOR MEMBER
JOSEPHINE GRACE W. ANG SENIOR MEMBER
REBECCA JOY M. MALITAO SENIOR MEMBER
JOHN FREDERICK A. NOJARA SENIOR MEMBER
ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ADVISER
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2022

FRANCINE BLAISE M. LOJA SECRETARY GENERAL
JOANNA NICOLE A. PAZ SECRETARY GENERAL
MARC GABRIEL A. ABELLA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for LEGAL ETHICS
KIARA LOUISE T. BALIWAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for CRIMINAL LAW
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for LABOR LAW AND
DANIELLE B. BARANDA
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
MA. CARMINA A. DIETA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for CIVIL LAW
DAINIELE RENEE R. FAJILAGUTAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for REMEDIAL LAW
GEORJHIA CZARINAH Q. MALALUAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for COMMERCIAL LAW
MARIA CRISANTA M. PALOMA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for POLITICAL LAW
MIKAELA CECILLE S. SILVERIO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for TAXATION LAW
JERICHO SIMON H. DU COVER DESIGN ARTIST
CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEE 2022

LARISA C. SERRANO
CRIMINAL LAW SUBJECT HEAD
RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO ASST. HEAD, CRIMINAL LAW 1

MA. JERMAINE A. MARTINEZ ASST. HEAD, CRIMINAL LAW 2
IANA YSABEL A. ABELEDA ASST. HEAD, SPECIAL PENAL LAWS AND
PRACTICAL EXERCISES
MEMBERS
LYN JEEN I. BINUA FATIMA JOYCE C. LAXAMANA
MA. ANDREA D. CABATU JOSE MARI M. LEE
MARY GENELLE S. CLEOFAS RIZA FLOR S. MOSQUERA
PATRISHA LOUISE E. DUMANIL DANICA ELLA C. NAGORITE
DANA GINELLE A. DURAN ANGELA BEATRICE S. PEÑA
LEXI DEI G. FALGUI JHADE C. QUIAMCO
MOREL DEI G. FALGUI JONA CHRISTIA A. SALVADOR
HANNAH JOY C. IBARRA MONICA LEIRA C. SASI
ATTY. VINS PLATON

ATTY. EDREA JEAN V. RAMIREZ
ADVISERS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
ACADEMIC OFFICIALS
ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.
DEAN REGENT
ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

FACULTY SECRETARY
ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

LEGAL COUNSEL
UST CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTO CONCEPCION LEGAL AID CLINIC
JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

SWDB COORDINATOR
LENY G. GADIANA, R.G.C.

GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

MENTORS AND INSPIRATION
Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo
Judge Oscar B. Pimentel
Judge Christian Emmanuel G. Pimentel
Judge Pedro T. Dabu, Jr.
Judge Madonna C. Echiverri
Judge Jesusa R. Lapuz-Gaudiano
Judge Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag
Prosecutor Victoria C. Garcia
Atty. Ronald C. Chua
Atty. Gidget Rose V. Duque
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
Atty. Lorenzo Luigi T. Gayya
Atty. Alwyn Faye B. Mendoza
Atty. Jedrek C. Ng
For being our guideposts in understanding the intricate sphere of Criminal Law.
– Academics Committee 2022
DISCLAIMER
THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

REVIEW MATERIAL SHALL BE
BORNE BY THE USER
This page is intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
(Revised Penal Code – Book I)
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................................ 1

1. Mala in se and mala prohibita ................................................................................................. 1
2. Applicability and effectivity of the RPC ............................................................................... 2
a. Generality ....................................................................................................................................... 2
b. Territoriality ................................................................................................................................. 3
c. Prospectivity ................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Interpretation of penal laws ................................................................................................... 4
4. Retroactive effect of penal laws ............................................................................................. 5
B. FELONIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….6
1. Criminal liabilities and felonies............................................................................................. 6
a. Classifications of felonies (grave, less grave, and light felonies) ........................... 8
b. Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem .................................. 10
c. Impossible crime ...................................................................................................................... 14
d. Stages of execution .................................................................................................................. 16
e. Continuing crimes.................................................................................................................... 20
f. Complex crimes and composite crimes ......................................................................... 20
2. Circumstances affecting criminal liability ...................................................................... 23
a. Justifying circumstances ....................................................................................................... 23
b. Exempting circumstances .................................................................................................... 33
c. Mitigating circumstances ..................................................................................................... 41
d. Aggravating circumstances ................................................................................................. 53
e. Alternative circumstances ................................................................................................... 80
f. Absolutory causes .................................................................................................................... 83
3. Persons liable and degree of participation .................................................................... 85
a. Principals, accomplices, and accessories ...................................................................... 85
b. Conspiracy and proposal ...................................................................................................... 96
c. Multiple offenders………………………….……………………………………………………..100
i. Recidivism……………………………………………………………………………….100
ii. Habituality……………………………………………………………………………....100
iii. Quasi-recidivism ………………………….………………………………………….100
iv. Habitual delinquency ………………………….……………………………………100
4. Penalties .................................................................................................................................... 105
a. Imposable penalties ............................................................................................................. 105
b. Classification ........................................................................................................................... 108
c. Duration and effects ............................................................................................................ 109
d. Application and graduation of penalties .................................................................... 114
i. Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103)…………………………………121
e. Accessory penalties.............................................................................................................. 127
f. Subsidiary imprisonment .................................................................................................. 129
5. Execution and service of sentence ................................................................................... 130
a. Three-fold rule ....................................................................................................................... 132
b. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended) ................................................................ 132
c. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344, as amended) .......................... 137
d. Republic Act No. 10592 (Amendments to Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of the
RPC................................................................................................................................ 138
e. Community Service Act (R.A. No. 11362; A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC)....................... 142
6. Extinction of criminal liability (as amended by R.A. No. 10592) ................................ 145
7. Civil liability in criminal cases .......................................................................................... 154
II. CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE
(Revised Penal Code – Book 2)
A. Crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations ......................................................................160

B. Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State ...................................................................................171
C. Crimes against Public Order ..............................................................................................................................183
D. Crimes against Public Interest ..........................................................................................................................215
E. Crimes against Public Morals ............................................................................................................................240
F. Crimes Committed by Public Officers .............................................................................................................243
G. Crimes against Persons........................................................................................................................................272
H. Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security ............................................................................................316
I. Crimes against Property ......................................................................................................................................337
J. Crimes against Chastity .......................................................................................................................................372
K. Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons ....................................................................................................383
L. Crimes against Honor ...........................................................................................................................................388
M. Quasi-Offenses ........................................................................................................................................................400
III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
A. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs. 3[A-C], 4 And 5, R.A. No. 9775) ............................................406
B. Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs. 2 to 6, P.D. No. 1612) .................................................................................408
C. Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 3047, P.D. No. 677, P.D.
No. 1288, B.P. Blg. 195, and R.A. No. 10910) ........................................................................................................410
D. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 8049, as amended by R.A. No. 11053)………………………………………419
E. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. No. 9160) ...................................................................................424
F. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995) ........................................434
G. Anti-Plunder Act (Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659) .....................................435
H. Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (Secs. 3 [a, b], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9745) .................................................................437
I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs. 3 to 12, R.A. No. 9208) ....................................................442
J. Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A. No. 9262) .449
K. Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No. 4200) .......................................................................................456
L. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) ...................................................................................................................459
M. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2022 (R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640) .......464
N. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10175) ................................................................................488
O. New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs. 3 to 4, R.A. No. 10883) ...............................................................495
P. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (Secs. 3(a), 5
and 10, R.A. No. 7610) ..............................................................................................................................................498
Q. Swindling by Syndicate (P.D. No. 1689)............................................................................................................505
IV. PRACTICAL EXERCISES
A. Complaint-Affidavit ...............................................................................................................................................507
B. Information in Criminal Cases ..........................................................................................................................509
C. Counter-Affidavit ...................................................................................................................................................510
D. Affidavit of Desistance…………………………………………………………………...………………..……………..……..512
E. Petition for the Issuance of a Search Warrant ............................................................................................513
F. Search Warrant .......................................................................................................................................................514
G. Order of Arrest ........................................................................................................................................................515
Principles of Criminal Law – Book 1
Wrong merely
Wrong from its very
I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW because it is
nature
Revised Penal Code – Book 1 prohibited by statute
Criminal intent Criminal intent is not
governs necessary
Generally, it is Generally, it is
punishable under the punishable under
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
RPC special laws
NOTE: Not all violations of special laws are
mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished
Criminal Law under a special law, if the act punished is one
which is inherently wrong, the same is malum
Criminal law is a branch of law which defines in se, and, therefore, good faith and lack of
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for criminal intent are valid defenses unless they
their punishment. are the products of criminal negligence or
culpa.
Crime As to Attending Circumstances
Such circumstances
The generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing Mitigating and are not appreciated
punished either under the Revised Penal Code
aggravating unless the special law
(RPC) or under a special law. It is an act committed circumstances are has adopted the
or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding
appreciated in scheme or scale of
or commanding it. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,
imposing the penalties penalties under the
2012, as cited in Reyes, 2017) RPC
As to Legal Implication
Special Law
Not valid defenses:
Valid defenses:
A penal law which punishes acts not defined and (1) Good faith; or
penalized by the RPC. They are statutes enacted by (1) Good faith; (2) Lack of criminal
the legislative branch which are penal in character (2) Lack of criminal intent.
but are not amendments to the RPC. intent; or
(3) Negligence. It is enough that the
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege prohibition was
voluntarily violated
(There is no crime when there is no law punishing As to Criminal Liability
the same) No matter how wrongful, evil, or bad Criminal liability is Criminal liability is
the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the incurred even when generally incurred
same is not considered a crime. the crime is attempted only when the crime is
or frustrated consummated
1. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA As to Degree of Participation
The penalty is
Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (1999, 2001, computed on the basis The penalty of the
2003, 2005, 2010, 2017, 2019 BAR) of whether he is a offender is the same
principal offender, as they are all deemed
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA accomplice, or principals.
As to their Concepts accessory.
It is sufficient that the
There must be a NOTE: The crime of technical malversation,
prohibited act was
criminal intent punished under Art. 220 of the RPC, was held to be
done
1 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Criminal Law
a crime that is malum prohibitum. The law a. GENERALITY

punishes the act of diverting public property
earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular GR: Penal laws and those of public security and
public purpose for another public purpose. The safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
prohibited act is not inherently immoral, but sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the
becomes a criminal offense because positive law principles of international law and to treaty
forbids its commission on considerations of public stipulations. (Art. 14, New Civil Code)
policy, order, and convenience. Therefore, good
faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid XPNs:
defenses. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 1. Treaty stipulations and international
Nov. 2012) (2015 BAR) agreements, e.g., PH-US Visiting Forces
Agreement and Asian Development-
Violations of Special Laws which are Philippines Agreement (1966);
Considered Mala in Se
2. Laws of Preferential Application, e.g., R.A. No.
The following examples of violations under 75 penalizes acts which would impair the
special penal laws are considered mala in se: proper observance by the Republic and its
inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and
1. Piracy in Philippine waters (P.D. 532); privileges of duly accredited foreign
2. Brigandage in the highways (P.D. 532); and diplomatic representatives in the
3. Plunder (R.A. No. 7080). Philippines. (2014 BAR);
NOTE: When the special laws require that the 3. The principles of public international law;
punished act be committed knowingly and
willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved 4. Parliamentary Immunity: Members of the
before criminal liability may arise. Congress are not liable for libel or slander in
connection with any speech delivered on the
Effect on the Nature of the Crime when covered floor of the house during a regular or special
by Special Law and it Uses the Nomenclature of session. (Sec. 11, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution);
Penalties in the RPC
5. Public vessels of foreign friendly power; or
Even if a special law uses the nomenclature of
penalties under the RPC, that alone will not make 6. Members of foreign country stationed in the
the act or omission a crime mala in se. The special Philippines with its consent.
law may only intend for the Code to apply as
supplementary to the special law. (People v. Simon, Examples:
G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) a. Sovereigns and other Chiefs of States.
b. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
2. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVITY ministers residents, and charges d’ affaires.
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)
NOTE: Only the heads of the diplomatic missions,
as well as members of the diplomatic staff,
Three Cardinal Features or Main excluding the members of administrative,
Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law technical, and service staff, are accorded
(1998 BAR) diplomatic rank.
1. Generality A Consul is NOT Entitled to the Privileges and

2. Territoriality Immunities of an Ambassador or Minister
3. Prospectivity
Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 2

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
representatives of foreign nations are NOT A: The Philippine Courts. Art. 2 of the RPC
diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the provides that its provisions shall be applied to
penal laws of the country where they are those who “should commit an offense while on a
assigned. (Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, 11 Feb. Philippine ship or airship.” (Gapit, 2013)
2003)
Q: Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines,
b. TERRITORIALITY was about to depart for Hong Kong via an
Indonesian-registered commercial vessel.
GR: The penal laws of the country have force and While on board the vessel, which was still
effect only within its territory. (1994 BAR) docked at the port of Manila, she saw her
mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen. Ms.
XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC (2000 BAR) A was seated at the front portion of the cabin
and was busy using her laptop, with no idea
1. Should commit an offense while on a whatsoever that Ms. M was likewise onboard
Philippine ship or airship (fact of the ship.
registration is in the Philippines);
Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or stealthily approached the Australian from
currency note of the Philippine Islands or behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck
obligations and securities issued by the with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's
Government of the Philippine Islands (Arts. immediate death. Operatives from the
163 & 166, RPC); Philippine National Police – Maritime
Command arrested Ms. M for the killing of Ms.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the A and thereafter, intended to charge her under
introduction into these islands of the the RPC. Ms. M contended that the provisions
obligations and securities mentioned in the of the RPC cannot be applied and enforced
preceding number; against her because both she and the victim
are not Filipino nationals, and besides, the
4. While being public officers or employees, alleged crime was committed in an Indonesian
should commit an offense in the exercise of registered vessel.
their functions; or
Is Ms. M's contention against the application of
5. Should commit any of the crimes against the RPC against her tenable? Explain. (2019
national security and the law of nations. BAR)
(Arts. 114-123, RPC)
A: NO, the RPC can be applied and enforced
Extraterritoriality against Ms. M although both the offender and the
offended party are foreign nationals and the crime
It means the law will have application even was committed onboard a foreign vessel. Based on
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state. the territorial principle, the English rule adopted
(Gapit, 2013) in the Philippines, crimes perpetrated aboard
foreign vessels are generally triable in the courts
Q: X went to Ninoy Aquino International of the country within the territory in which they
Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City and boarded an were committed. (People v. Wong Chen, G.R. No. L-
airship of the Philippine Airlines destined for 18924, 19 Oct. 1922)
USA. As the airship passes the Pacific Ocean, X
killed Y, a fellow passenger. Which court can Moreover, under the Principle of Generality, the
try the case of murder committed by X: is it the penal laws of the Philippines apply to all who live
Philippine Courts or the U.S. Courts? or sojourn in the country regardless of their

Criminal Law
citizenship. The fact that the vessel was registered – page 5)

in Indonesia is likewise irrelevant. Thus, the
killing committed by Ms. M while onboard an 3. INTERPRETATION OF PENAL LAWS
Indonesian-registered vessel that is docked at the
port of Manila is triable within the jurisdiction of
When the law is clear and unambiguous, there is
the Philippines.
no room for interpretation but only for the
application of the law. However, if there is
c. PROSPECTIVITY
ambiguity:
GR: Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be

1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the
scrutinized in accordance with relevant penal
State and liberally in favor of the accused.
laws if committed after the effectivity of those
2. In the interpretation of the provisions of the
penal laws.
RPC, the Spanish text is controlling.
The law enforced at the time of the commission of

Doctrine of Pro Reo
a certain crime should be applied. Art. 366 of the
RPC provides that crimes are punished in
Under the doctrine of pro reo, penal laws are to be
accordance with the law in force at the time of
construed liberally to the offender as is consistent
their commission. (Gapit, 2013)
with the constitutional guarantee that an accused
shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is
NOTE: The maxim Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit
established beyond reasonable doubt. In dubio pro
means the law looks forward, never backward.
reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused.
XPN: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, Doctrine of Pro Reo in relation to Art. 48
although at the time of the publication of such (Penalty for Complex Crimes) of the RPC (2010
laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and BAR)
the convict is serving the same. (Art. 22, RPC)
Following the Doctrine of Pro Reo, crimes under
XPNs to the XPN: The new law cannot be given Art. 48 of the RPC are complexed and punished
retroactive effect even if favorable to the accused: with a single penalty (i.e., that prescribed for the
most serious crime and to be imposed in its
a. When the new law is expressly made maximum period). The rationale being that the
inapplicable to pending actions or existing accused who commits two crimes with a single
causes of actions. (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
922, 08 Nov. 1902) than when the crimes are committed by different
acts and several criminal resolutions. (People v.
b. When the offender is a habitual delinquent Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, 08 June 2004) However,
as defined in Rule 5 in Art. 62 of the RPC. (Art. Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring
22(5), RPC) about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the
penalties imposable for all the component crimes
Habitual Delinquent if prosecuted separately instead of being
complexed.
He is a person who, within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last conviction of Lenity Rule
the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, or
serious or less serious physical injuries, is found Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle
guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener. is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the
court is faced with two possible interpretations of
(See discussion on Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
accused and another that is favorable to him. The No. 169641, 10 Sept. 2009)
rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation
which is more lenient to the accused. (Ient v. Tullet Ex-post Facto Law
Prebon, G.R. No. 189158, 11 Jan. 2017)
It is an act which when committed was not a
Equipoise Rule crime, cannot be made so by statute without
violating the constitutional prohibition as to ex
Where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly post facto laws.
balanced, the constitutional presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.
Under this rule, where the evidence on an issue of

fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates, the party having the
burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds
application if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to
produce a conviction. (Maria Tin v. People, G.R. No.
126480, 10 Aug. 2001)
4. RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS

ART. 22, RPC
GR: Penal laws are applied prospectively.
XPNs: When retrospective application will be

favorable to the person guilty of a felony, provided
that:
1. The offender is NOT a habitual delinquent

under Art. 62(5); and
2. The new or amendatory law does NOT
provide against its retrospective application.
Reason for the Exception: The sovereign, in

enacting a subsequent penal law more favorable
to the accused, has recognized that the greater
severity of the former law is unjust.
Sec. 68 of R.A. No. 9344 allows the retroactive

application of the Act to those who have been
convicted and are serving sentence at the time of
the effectivity of this said Act, and who were below
the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the
commission of the offense. (People v. Sarcia, G.R.

Criminal Law
wrongful acts result from imprudence,

B. FELONIES negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
(unintentional, without malice).
Intentional Felony vs. Culpable Felony (1999,

1. CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES 2001, 2003, 2005, 2010 BAR)
Felonies DOLO CULPA

As to Malice
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the Act is malicious Act is not malicious
RPC. As to Intent
Injury caused is
NOTE: If it is not under the RPC, it is called an unintentional, it being
offense. With deliberate
an incident of another
intent
act performed without
Act as Contemplated in Criminal Law malice
As to the Source of Wrong Committed
An act refers to any bodily movement tending to Wrongful act results
produce some effect in the external world, it being Has intention to from imprudence,
unnecessary that the same be actually produced, cause a wrong negligence, lack of
as the possibility of its production is sufficient. foresight, or lack of skill
(Reyes, 2017)
Requisites of Dolo (I-F-In)
Omission as Contemplated in Criminal Law
NOTE: If any of the aforesaid requisites is absent,
An omission contemplated in criminal law means there is NO dolo.
inaction the failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do. There must be a law 1. Criminal Intent (mens rea) – the purpose to
requiring the doing or performance of a duty. use a particular means to effect such result.
(Reyes, 2017) Intent to commit an act with malice, being
purely a mental process, is presumed from the
Examples: Misprision of treason, failure of an proof of commission of an unlawful act. It is a
accountable officer to render accounts mental state; hence, its existence is shown by
overt acts.
Elements of Felonies (2015 BAR)
NOTE: If there is NO criminal intent, the act is
1. An act or omission; justified. Hence, offender incurs NO criminal
2. Punishable by the RPC; and liability.
3. The act is performed or the omission incurred
by means of deceit or fault. (People v. 2. Freedom of Action – voluntariness on the
Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, 19 Mar. 1990) part of the person to commit the act or
omission.
Kinds of Felonies
NOTE: If there is lack of freedom, the offender
1. Intentional Felonies (Dolo) – committed is exempt from liability.
with deliberate intent to cause injury to
another (with malice); 3. Intelligence – the capacity to know and
understand the consequences and morality of
2. Culpable Felonies (Culpa) – where the human acts.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
NOTE: If there is lack of intelligence, the the accompanying mental state of the actor.
offender is exempt from liability. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Requisites of Culpa (Ne-F-In) Examples:

1. In theft, the mens rea is the taking of property
1. Criminal Negligence on the part of the belonging to another with intent to gain.
offender, that is, the crime was the result of
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of 2. In falsification, the mens rea is the
foresight, or lack of skill; commission of forgery with intent to pervert
the truth.
2. Freedom of Action on the part of the offender,
that is, he was not acting under duress; and 3. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of
property belonging to another coupled with
3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in the employment of intimidation or violence
performing the negligent act. upon persons or things.
Negligence Intent
Deficiency in perception or lack of foresight, or Refers to the use of a particular means to effect the
failure to pay proper attention and to use due desired result. It is a mental state, the existence of
diligence in foreseeing injury or damage to be which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a
caused. person.
Imprudence Categories of Intent in Criminal Law
Deficiency in action or lack of skill, or failure to 1. General Criminal Intent – It is presumed

take necessary precaution to avoid injury to from the mere doing of a wrong act (or the
another. actus reus). This does not require proof.
Negligence vs. Imprudence NOTE: In felonies by means of dolo, the third

element of voluntariness is general intent.
NEGLIGENCE IMPRUDENCE
2. Specific Criminal Intent – It is not presumed
Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception
because it is an ingredient or element of a
Lack of foresight Lack of skill crime. It must be alleged in the information
and must be established and proven by the
Examples of Crimes which CANNOT be prosecutor.
Committed through Culpa (Negligence or
Imprudence) NOTE: In some felonies, proof of specific
intent is required to produce the crime such
1. Murder as in frustrated and attempted homicide,
2. Treason robbery, and acts of lasciviousness.
3. Robbery
4. Malicious mischief Presumption of Criminal Intent from the
Commission of an Unlawful Act
Mens rea
Criminal intent is always presumed to exist,
It is the criminal intent or evil mind. In general, the provided that there is proof of the commission of
definition of a criminal offense involves not only an unlawful act.
an act or omission and its consequences but also

Criminal Law
NOTE: This presumption does not arise when the prosecution of a malum prohibitum.
act performed is lawful. Moreover, the
presumption can always be rebutted by proof of Q: Liberato was found guilty of the crime of
lack of intent. (2014 BAR) Murder, qualified by treachery by the RTC,
which was affirmed by the CA. Liberato makes
Crimes that May be Committed Without the claim that the CA erred in convicting him
Criminal Intent (1996 BAR) despite the prosecution's failure to establish a
motive for the killing. Is Liberato’s claim
A crime may be committed without criminal proper?
intent if such is:
A: NO. Motive pertains to the reason which
1. A culpable felony, wherein intent is prompts the accused to engage in a particular
substituted by negligence or imprudence; criminal activity. It is not an essential element of a
2. A malum prohibitum. crime and need not be proven by the State in
criminal prosecutions. Hence, proof of motive
Motive alone will not establish guilt in the same way that
the absence thereof cannot establish innocence. In
It is the moving power or force which impels a previous occasions, the Court has held that the
person to a desired result. question of motive only becomes material when
there is doubt as to the identity of the malefactor
Motive as Determinant of Criminal Liability committing the offense charged. (People v.
(1999, 2013 BAR) Liberato Pentecostes, G.R. No. 226158, 08 Nov.
2017, J. Caguioa)
GR: Motive is not an element of a crime and
becomes immaterial in the determination of Motive vs. Intent
criminal liability.
MOTIVE INTENT
XPNs: Motive is material when: (V-I-E-T-NoEye-
Moving power which Purpose to use a
Sus)
impels one to act for a particular means to
definite result effect such result
1. The acts bring about Variant crimes;
It is NOT an essential
E.g., there is a need to determine whether element of a crime. Generally, it is an
direct assault is present, as in offenses against Hence, it need NOT be essential element of a
persons in authority when the assault is proved for purposes crime.
committed while not being in the of conviction.
performance of his duties;
a. CLASSIFICATIONS OF FELONIES
2. The Identity of the accused is doubtful; (GRAVE, LESS GRAVE & LIGHT FELONIES)
3. The Evidence on the commission of the crime ART. 9, RPC
is purely circumstantial;
4. In ascertaining the Truth between two Classifications of Felonies According to their
antagonistic theories or versions of the Gravity (2019 BAR)
killing; and
5. Where there are No Eyewitnesses to the 1. Grave – those to which the law attaches the
crime and where Suspicion is likely to fall capital punishment or penalties which in any
upon a number of persons. of their periods are afflictive, in accordance
with Art. 25 of the RPC. (Art. 9 (1), RPC)
NOTE: Good faith is not a defense to the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
2. Less Grave – those which the law punishes when committed against persons or property.
with penalties which in their maximum (Art. 7, RPC)
period are correctional, in accordance with
Art. 25 of the RPC. (Art. 9(2), RPC) NOTE: However, this provision is not always
applicable.
NOTE: The criminal can still be rehabilitated
and hence can be the subject of probation and Example: If the offender is only an accomplice
Alternative Dispute Resolution insofar as the and there are two or more mitigating
civil aspect is concerned. circumstances without any compensating
aggravating circumstance, the appropriate
3. Light – those infractions of law for the penalty will be two degrees lower. It must be
commission of which the penalty of arresto noted that the penalty lower than arresto menor is
menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000 pesos, public censure. There is no two degrees lower
or both, is provided. (Art. 9(3), RPC, as than arresto menor.
amended by R.A. No. 10951, 29 Aug. 2017)
Persons Liable in Light Felonies
Factors to be Considered in Imposing a Penalty
for Felonies Punished under RPC (P-E-C) Only the principals and their accomplices are
made liable for the commission of light felonies.
1. The degree of Participation; Accessories are not liable for the commission of
2. Stages of Execution; and light felonies. (Art. 19, RPC)
3. The presence of attending Circumstances.
Examples of Crimes considered as Light
NOTE: For special penal laws, it must be expressly Felonies
provided that the aforementioned factors are to
be considered. 1. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266, RPC);
2. Theft (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8, RPC);
Persons Liable for Grave or Less Grave 3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313, RPC);
Felonies 4. Malicious mischief (Art. 328 (3); Art. 329 (3),
RPC);
The principals, accomplices, and accessories. 5. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364, RPC); and
6. Alarms and Scandals. (Art. 155, RPC)
When Light Felonies are Punishable
NOTE: If one assists in the escape of another who
GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they committed Alarms and Scandals, he is not liable
are consummated. under the RPC but may be liable under P.D. 1829
penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension of
Examples: Prosecution of Criminal Offenders.
1. An attempt to conceal one’s true name is not
punishable. (Art. 178(2), RPC) Criminal Liability (1997, 1999, 2001, 2004,
2. Attempt to commit Alarms and Scandals is 2009 BAR)
not punishable. (Art. 15, RPC)
Criminal liability is incurred by any person:
Ratio: It involves insignificant moral and material
injuries, if not consummated, the wrong done is so 1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act
slight that a penalty is unnecessary (also known as done be different from that which he intended
the De Minimis principle). (Art. 4(1), RPC); and
XPN: Light felonies are punishable in all stages 2. Performing an act which would be an offense

Criminal Law
against persons or property, were it not for the 1. Mistake in Blow (aberratio ictus) – A person
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment directed the blow at an intended victim, but
or on account of the employment of inadequate because of poor aim, that blow landed on
or ineffectual means. (Art. 4(2), RPC) somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the
intended victim and the actual victim are both
Requisites for the Application of the Proximate at the scene of the crime.
Cause Doctrine (Art 4 (1), RPC)
Example: A was aiming to shoot B, but
1. That an intentional felony has been committed; because of lack of precision, hit C instead.
and (1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2015, 2018 BAR)
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be
the direct, natural, and logical consequence of NOTE: There are three persons involved: (1)
the felony committed by the offender. (U.S. v. the offender; (2) the intended victim; and (3)
Brobst, G.R. No. 4935, 25 Oct. 1909) the actual victim.
When Considered as the “direct, natural, and EFFECT: There are two crimes committed:
logical consequence” of the Felonious Act
a. Against the intended victim: attempted
1. Blow was efficient cause of death; stage of the felony;
2. Blow accelerated death; or b. Against the actual victim: the
3. Blow was the proximate cause of death. (Reyes, consummated or frustrated felony, as
2017) the case may be.
NOTE: It may give rise to a complex crime

Q: In an act to discipline his child, the father
under Art. 48 since it results from a single act.
claims that the death of his child was not
intended by him. Is his contention correct?
2. Mistake in Identity (error in personae) –
The offender intends the injury on one
A: NO. He is liable under Art. 4(1) of the RPC. In
person, but the harm fell on another. In this
order that a person may be criminally liable for a
situation, the intended victim was not at the
felony different from that which he intended to
scene of the crime.
commit, it is indispensable that: (a) a felony was
committed; and (b) the wrong done to the
Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead.
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the
(2003, 2015, 2017 BAR)
crime committed by the perpetrator.
NOTE: There are only two (2) persons

In beating his son and inflicting upon him physical
involved: (1) the actual but unintended
injuries, he committed a felony. As a direct
victim; and (2) the offender.
consequence of the beating suffered by the child,
the latter expired. His criminal liability for the
EFFECT: Art. 49 of RPC. It depends when the
death of his son is, thus, clear. (People v. Sales, G.R.
intended crime and the crime actually
No. 177218, 03 Oct. 2011)
committed are punished with different
penalties. (Reyes, 2017)
b. ABBERATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE,
AND PRAETER INTENTIONEM
If punished with same penalties: No effect.
Causes which May Produce a Result Different GR: If punished with different penalties, the
From that which the Offender Intended (2019 lesser penalty shall be imposed in its
BAR) maximum period. (Art. 49(1) and (2), RPC)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
NOTE: It becomes a mitigating circumstance. victim are all at the intended victim) and
scene of the crime. the offender.
XPN: If the acts committed by the guilty
person shall also constitute an attempt or NOTE: Error in Personae and Aberratio Ictus are
frustration of another crime. If the attempted NOT valid defenses under the Doctrine of
or frustrated crime has a higher penalty, that Transferred Intent wherein the law transfers the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum criminal intent to the actual victim.
period. (Art. 49 (3), RPC)
Q: A and B went on a drinking spree. While
3. Injurious consequences are greater than they were drinking, they had some arguments
that intended (praeter intentionem) – The so A stabbed B several times. A’s defense is
injury is on the intended victim, but the that he had no intention of killing his friend
resulting consequence is so grave a wrong and that he did not intend to commit so grave
than what was intended. It is essential that a wrong as that committed. Is praeter
there is a notable disparity between the intentionem properly invoked?
means employed or the act of the offender and
the felony which resulted. A: NO. Praeter intentionem is improperly invoked
because it is only mitigating if there is a notable
This means that the resulting felony cannot be disparity between the means employed and the
foreseen from the acts of the offender. resulting felony. The fact that several wounds
were inflicted on B is hardly compatible with the
Example: A, without intent to kill, struck the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a
victim on the back causing the victim to fall wrong as that committed.
and hit his head on the pavement. (2020-21
BAR) Mistake of Fact
EFFECT: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating The misapprehension of facts on the part of the
circumstance particularly covered by Art. person who caused injury to another. He is not,
13(3) of the RPC. however, criminally liable because he did not act
with criminal intent. It is necessary that had the
NOTE: The three enumerated situations are facts been true as the accused believed them to be,
always the result of an intentional felony or dolo. the act is justified. Moreover, the offender must
These situations do not arise out of criminal believe that he is performing a lawful act.
negligence.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the
Aberratio Ictus vs. Error in Personae presumption of criminal intent which arises upon
the commission of a felonious act.
ABERRATIO ICTUS ERROR IN PERSONAE
How Committed NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in
A person directed the The victim actually intentional felonies.
blow at an intended received the blow, but
victim, but because of he was mistaken for Requisites of Mistake of Fact
poor aim, that blow another who was not
landed on somebody at the scene of the 1. That the act done would have been lawful had
else. crime. the facts been as the accused believed them to
Parties Present be;
The offender, the There are only two 2. That the intention of the accused in performing
offended vicrtim, as persons present – the the act is lawful; and
well as the actual actual (not the 3. That the mistake must be without fault or

Criminal Law
carelessness on the part of the accused. motion other causes that resulted in the felony.
Q: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements. One Proximate Cause does not require that the
evening, before going to bed, he locked himself offender needs to actually touch the body of the
in his room and placed a chair against the offended party. It is enough that the offender
door. After going to bed, he was awakened by generated in the mind of the offended party the
someone who was trying to open the door. He belief that made him risk himself.
called out, “Who is there?” twice but received
no answer. He then said, “If you enter the If a man creates in another person’s mind an
room, I will kill you.” At that moment, he was immediate sense of danger, which causes such
struck by the chair. Believing he was being person to try to escape, and, in doing so, the latter
attacked, he took a kitchen knife and stabbed injures himself, the man who creates such a state
the intruder who turned out to be his of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries.
roommate. Is he criminally liable? (People v. Toling, G.R. L-27097, 17 Jan. 1975)
A: NO. There was mistake of fact in the instant Example: X and Y are crew members of a cargo
case. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed vessel. They had a heated argument. X, with a big
them to be, he would have been justified in killing knife in hand, threatened to kill Y. The victim Y,
the intruder under Art. 11, paragraph 1 on self- believing himself to be in immediate peril, threw
defense. (U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, 19 Mar. himself into the water. Y died of drowning. In this
1910) case, X is liable for homicide for the death of Y.
Proximate Cause Even if other causes cooperated in producing the

fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is
That cause, which, in natural and continuous dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening endanger life, the actor is liable. It is important
cause, produces the injury, and without which the that there be no efficient intervening cause.
result would not have occurred. (Vda. De Bataclan
v. Medina, G.R. No. L-10126, 22 Oct. 1957) Instances when the Felony Committed is NOT
the Proximate Cause of the Resulting Injury
As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the
consequences of his felonious act, although not 1. When there is an efficient intervening cause
intended, if the felonious act is the proximate between the felony committed and the
cause of the felony. resulting injury; or
2. When the resulting injury or damage is due to
Requisites of Proximate Cause the intentional act of the victim.
1. The direct, natural, and logical cause; Efficient Intervening Cause

2. Produces the injury or damage;
3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; It is an intervening active force which is a distinct
and act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious
4. Without which the result would not have act of the accused.
occurred.
Q: Cruz and Villacorta were regular customers
Difference between Immediate Cause and at Mendeja’s store. At around two o’clock in
Proximate Cause the morning of Jan. 23, 2002, while Cruz was
buying bread at Mendeja’s store, Villacorta
Immediate Cause may be a cause which is far and suddenly appeared and, without uttering a
remote from the consequence which sets into word, stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruz’s

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
body using a sharpened bamboo stick. When homicide against A. Is A liable?

Villacorta fled, Mendeja chased Villacorta but
failed to catch him. A: NO. Taking into account the incubation period
of tetanus bacteria, medical evidence was
When Mendeja returned to her store, she saw presented that tetanus bacteria is good only for
Aron removing the broken bamboo stick from two weeks. That if, indeed, the victim had incurred
Cruz’s body. Mendeja and Aron then brought tetanus infection out of the wound inflicted by A,
Cruz to Tondo Medical Center and was treated he would not have lasted two months. What
as an outpatient. Cruz was later brought to the brought about tetanus to infect the body of B was
San Lazaro Hospital on Feb. 14, 2002, where he his working in his farm using his bare hands.
died the following day of tetanus infection Because of this, the SC ruled that the act of B of
secondary to stab wound. What is the working in his farm where the soil is filthy, using
proximate cause for the death of Cruz? his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause
which relieves A of any liability for the death of B.
A: The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the A, if at all, is only liable for physical injuries
tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. There inflicted upon B. (Urbano v. IAC, G.R. No. 72964, 07
had been an interval of 22 days between the date Jan. 1988)
of the stabbing and the date when Cruz was
rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting Circumstances which are NOT considered as
symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz Efficient Intervening Causes
acquired severe tetanus infection from the
stabbing, then the symptoms would have 1. The weak physical condition of the victim;
appeared a lot sooner than 22 days later. Cruz’s 2. The nervousness or temperament of the
stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its victim;
subsequent infection with tetanus might have 3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such
been the proximate cause of Cruz’s death. The as the victim’s inability to swim;
infection of Cruz’s stab wound by tetanus was an 4. Refusal of the injured party to be subjected to
efficient intervening cause later or between the medical attendance;
time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his death. 5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment; or
(People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, 07 Sept. 6. Delay in the medical treatment. (Reyes, 2017)
2011)
NOTE: Although the above-mentioned
Q: A and B had a quarrel and started hacking circumstances may have intervened in the
each other. B was wounded at the back. Cooler commission of the crime, the offender is still liable
heads intervened and they were separated. for the resulting crime as it is the proximate cause.
Somehow, their differences were patched up. Because of such proximate cause, his act remains,
A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the and these circumstances are inefficient.
treatment of the wound of B and to pay him his
lost income. B, on the other hand, signed a When Death is Presumed to be the Natural
forgiveness letter in favor of A and on that Consequence of Physical Injuries Inflicted
condition, he withdrew the complaint that he
filed against A. The following facts must be established:
After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, 1. That the victim at the time the physical
the doctor pronounced the wound already injuries were inflicted was in normal health;
healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm. 2. That death may be expected from the
Two months later, B came home chilling. physical injuries inflicted;
Before midnight, he died out of tetanus 3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of

Criminal Law
c. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME Inherent Impossibility
Requisites of an Impossible Crime (2003, That under any and all circumstances, the crime
2004, 2009, 2014, 2015 BAR) (OPP-E-I-N) could not have materialized.
1. Act performed would be an Offense against Kinds of Inherent Impossibility

Persons or Property;
1. Legal Impossibility – occurs where the
Examples of Crimes against Persons: intended acts, even if completed, would not
Parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, amount to a crime (e.g., killing a person who
abortion, physical injuries, rape (see Title 8, is already dead)
Book 2 of the RPC)
2. Physical or Factual Impossibility – occurs
Examples of Crimes against Property: when extraneous circumstances unknown to
Robbery, brigandage, theft, usurpation, the accused prevented the consummation of
fraudulent insolvency, swindling (estafa), the intended crime (e.g., pickpocketing an
malicious mischief (see Title 10, Book 2 of the empty wallet) (2018 BAR)
RPC)
Employment of Inadequate Means
2. Act was done with Evil intent;
3. Accomplishment is Inherently impossible or It is the use of means whose quality or quantity is
means employed is either inadequate or insufficient to produce the intended felony.
ineffectual; and
4. Act performed should Not constitute a NOTE: The difference between attempted/
violation of another provision of the RPC. frustrated crime and impossible crime is that in
attempted/frustrated crime the means are
NOTE: The offender must believe that he can sufficient and adequate, but the intended crime
consummate the intended crime. A man stabbing was not produced.
another who he knew was already dead cannot be
liable for an impossible crime. Employment of Ineffectual Means
NOTE: There is no impossible crime of The means employed cannot in any way produce
kidnapping. the intended crime (e.g., poisoning a person with
sugar)
Essence of an Impossible Crime
Q: Fernando Adlawan. Hesson and Junello,
The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent together with Fernando went to Fernando’s
impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the house. Junello approached Fernando and
inherent impossibility of the means employed to asked for a cigarette lighter. After Fernando
bring about the crime. gave Junello the lighter, the latter struck
Fernando on the nape with a piece of firewood.
There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) Junello then took a bolo and hacked
physical impossibility of accomplishing the Fernando's body on the side. Fernando lost
intended act in order to qualify the act as an consciousness and as he laid motionless on the
impossible crime. (Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 21 ground, Hesson stabbed him twice in the chest
Oct. 1992) using a knife.
Both Hesson and Junello were charged with

murder. However, according to Hesson, he

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
must only be charged with the commission of Q: Four culprits, all armed with firearms and
an impossible crime as Fernando was already with intent to kill, went to the intended
dead when he stabbed him. Is he correct? victim’s house and after having pinpointed the
latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled
A: NO. The requisites of an impossible crime are: said room with bullets, thinking that the
(1) that the act performed would be an offense intended victim was already there as it was
against persons or property; (2) that the act was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that
done with evil intent; and (3) that its the intended victim did not come home that
accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that
means employed was either inadequate or time. Was it an impossible crime or attempted
ineffectual. murder?
The third element, inherent impossibility of A: Impossible crime. The factual situation in this
accomplishing the crime, was explained as case presents a physical impossibility which
occurring where the intended acts, even if rendered the intended crime impossible of
completed, would not amount to a crime. accomplishment. Under Art. 4 of the RPC, such is
sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.
The victim's fact of death before he was stabbed (Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 21 Oct. 1992) In the
by Hesson was not sufficiently established by the instant case, however, their acts constitute
defense. While Sario testified that he thought malicious mischief.
Fernando was already dead after he was hacked
by Junello because the former was already lying Q: A, a collector of Mega Foam failed to remit to
on the ground motionless, this statement cannot the company a check which was given to her as
sufficiently support the conclusion that, indeed, payment for a merchandise. She tried to
Fernando was already dead when Hesson stabbed deposit the check, but found out that the check
him. Sario's opinion of Fernando's death was bounced. What crime was committed?
arrived at by merely looking at the latter's body.
No other act was done to ascertain this, such as A: Impossible crime of theft. The evil intent
checking of Fernando's pulse, heartbeat or cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully
breathing. (People v. Hesson Callao and Junello taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed
Amad, G.R. No. 228945, 14 Mar. 2018, J. Caguioa) her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it
not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
Penalty Imposed on Impossible Crimes have received the face value thereof, which was
not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to
The penalty imposed shall be that of arresto mayor the extraneous circumstance of the check being
or a fine. (Art. 59, RPC) unfunded, a fact unknown to the accused at the
time, that prevented the crime from being
Reason for Penalizing Impossible Crimes produced. The thing unlawfully taken by the
accused turned out to be absolutely worthless,
To teach the offender a lesson because of his because the check was eventually dishonored, and
criminal perversity. Although objectively, no Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the
crime is committed, but subjectively, he is a value of said dishonored check. (Jacinto v. People,
criminal. G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009)
NOTE: It is a principle of criminal law that the Q: Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun.
offender will only be penalized for an impossible One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing
crime if he cannot be punished under some other poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can
provision of the RPC. An impossible crime is a get poison, he approached another classmate
crime of last resort. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan.

Criminal Law
Because he himself harbored resentment inadequate or

towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which ineffectual.
Buddy placed on Jun’s food. However, Jun did
not die because unknown to both Buddy and
Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk. d. STAGES OF EXECUTION
ART. 6, RPC
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and
Buddy commit? (1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2009
BAR) Stages in Committing a Crime
A: Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called 1. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of a
impossible crime because, with intent to kill, they person are not punishable. Had they been
tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a carried out, they would constitute a crime.
crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only
because the would-be killers were unaware that 2. External Acts – include: (a) preparatory acts;
what they mixed with the food of Jun was and (b) acts of execution.
powdered milk, not poison. Criminal liability is
incurred by them although no crime resulted, a. Preparatory Acts – those that do not
because their act of trying to poison Jun is have a direct connection with the crime
criminal. which the offender intends to commit
Impossible Crime – a Formal Crime GR: These are ordinarily not punishable.
By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal XPNs:

crime. It is either consummated or not i. When expressly provided for; or
consummated at all. There is therefore no
attempted or frustrated impossible crime. (2005 ii. When they are considered in
BAR) themselves as independent crimes
(e.g., possession of picklocks under
Impossible Crime vs. Unconsummated Art. 304, which is a preparatory act
Felonies (Attempted or Frustrated Felony) to the commission of robbery under
Arts. 299 and 302).
UNCONSUMMATED IMPOSSIBLE b. Acts of Execution – punishable under the

FELONIES CRIMES RPC
Intent is not accomplished.
Stages of Acts of Execution (C-F-A)
As to Possibility of Accomplishment
Intent of the offender Intent of the offender 1. Consummated
has possibility of cannot be 2. Frustrated (1992, 1994, 2009 BAR)
accomplishment. accomplished. 3. Attempted
As to Reason for Non-Accomplishment Purpose of the Classification of Felonies

Intent cannot be
Accomplishment is
accomplished because To bring about a proportionate penalty and
prevented by the
it is inherently equitable punishment.
intervention of a
impossible to
certain cause or
accomplish or because NOTE: The penalties are graduated according to
accident in which the
the means employed their degree of severity. The stages may not apply
offender had no part.
by the offender is to all kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do
not admit of division.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Phases of Felony doctor testified that all the injuries suffered by

Villostas were fatal and would cause his death
1. Subjective Phase – that portion of execution of were it not for the timely medical attention
the crime starting from the point where the given to him. Is Olarte, Ario, and Pasquin guilty
offender begins up to that point where he still of Frustrated Homicide?
has control over his acts. If the subjective phase
has not yet passed, the felony would be a mere A: YES. All the elements of frustrated homicide are
attempt. If it already passed, but the felony is present. First, their intent to kill is manifested by
not produced, as a rule, it is frustrated. (Reyes, the weapon used which is a pointed sharp object.
2017) Second, the victim suffered numerous fatal
wounds, but he did not die due to the timely
NOTE: If it reaches the point where he has no medical assistance given to him. Third, none of the
more control over his acts, the subjective phase qualifying circumstances for murder is present.
has passed.
Q: A, a doctor, conceived the idea of killing his
2. Objective Phase – the offender has performed wife, B. To carry out his plan, he mixed arsenic
until the last act and is no longer in control of with the soup of B. Soon after taking the
its natural course. poisonous food, A suddenly had a change of
heart and washed out the stomach of B. A also
Consummated Felony gave B an antidote. Is A liable for frustrated
parricide?
A felony is consummated when all the acts
necessary for its accomplishment and execution A: NO. The cause which prevented the
are present. (Art. 6, RPC) consummation of the crime was not independent
of the will of the perpetrator. It cannot be
Frustrated Felony considered attempted parricide because A already
performed all acts of execution. A can only be
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs liable for physical injuries.
all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a result, but which nevertheless do not Q: Jessiriel Leyble was waylaid and shot with a
produce it by reason of causes independent of the firearm by the group of Eden Etino, et al. Etino
will of the perpetrator. (Art. 6, RPC) only fired a single shot at close range, but did
not hit any vital part of the victim’s body. The
Q: X stabbed Y in the abdomen penetrating the victim's wounds, based on his Medical
liver and chest of Y. Y was rushed to the Certificate, were located at the right deltoid
hospital, was given immediate medical (through and through) and the left shoulder.
treatment, and survived. Is X liable for
consummated homicide? It appears that Leyble did not sustain any fatal
injury as a result of the shooting, considering
A: NO, because the prompt medical treatment that he and his companions even went in
received by the offended party saved his life. pursuit of Etino after the incident. The RTC
(People v. Honrada, G.R. No. 112178-79, 21 Apr. found Etino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
1995) the crime of frustrated homicide to which the
CA affirmed. Is petitioner Etino guilty of the
Q: Villostas went to a nearby videoke bar to crime charged?
buy cigarettes. Once inside the bar, he was
stabbed by Olarte, Ario, and Pasquin on A: NO. It cannot be reasonably concluded that
different parts of his body. When Villostas was petitioner's use of a firearm was sufficient proof
rushed to the hospital, he was treated and the that he had intended to kill the victim. After all, it

Criminal Law
is settled that ''Intent to kill cannot be by the offender, not the felony he has in his mind.
automatically drawn from the mere fact that the
use of firearms is dangerous to life." Rather, Attempted Felony vs. Frustrated Felony
"Animus interficendi” must be established with the
same degree of certainty as is required of the ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED
other elements of the crime. The inference of FELONY FELONY
intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence
of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent Offender has not accomplished his criminal
beyond reasonable doubt. purpose
As to Performance of
When the intent to kill is lacking, but wounds are All the Acts of Execution
shown to have been inflicted upon the victim, as in
Only commenced the
this case, the crime is not frustrated or attempted
commission of an act
homicide but physical injuries only. (Etino v.
directly by overt acts Has performed all the
People, G.R. No. 206632, 14 Feb. 2018)
but did not perform acts of execution
all the acts of
Crimes Without Frustrated Stage
execution
1. Rape – the gravamen of the offense is carnal As to Phase
knowledge, hence, the slightest penetration to
The offender has not The offender has
the female organ consummates the felony.
passed the subjective reached the objective
phase phase
2. Corruption of public officers – mere offer
consummates the crime.
Overt Acts
3. Physical injury – consummated at the
instance the injuries are inflicted. (2017 Some physical activity or deed, indicating the
BAR) intention to commit a particular crime, more than
mere planning or preparation, which if carried to
4. Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual its complete termination following its natural
congress. course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
5. Theft – the essence of the crime is the taking of perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen
property belonging to another. Once the thing into a concrete offense. (Reyes, 2017)
has been taken, or in the possession of another,
the crime is consummated. (2014 BAR) Indeterminate Offense
It is where the purpose of the offender in

Attempted Felony performing an act is not certain. Its nature and
relation to its objective is ambiguous. (Reyes,
There is an attempt when the offender 2017)
commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts and does not perform all the acts of Q: A person enters the dwelling of another.
execution which should produce the felony, by However, at the very moment of his entry and
reason of some cause or accident other than his before he could do anything, he was already
own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 6, RPC) apprehended by the household members. Can
he be charged with attempted robbery?
NOTE: The word directly emphasizes the
requirement that the attempted felony is that A: NO. The act of entering alone is not yet
which is directly linked to the overt act performed indicative of robbery although he may have

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
planned to do so. Instead, he may be held liable for attempted felony.

trespassing.
NOTE: The SC held that in case of killing, whether
Q: One night, Jugueta, with his cohorts, had parricide, homicide, or murder, the killing will be
gone to the residence of the victim where they in the frustrated stage if the injury sustained is
violated his domicile by first pulling off the fatal, sufficient to bring about death but death did
sack that covers their nipa hut where they not supervene because of the immediate medical
slept. The victim pleaded to accused Jugueta to intervention. If the wound inflicted was not fatal,
stop but the latter instead fired a shot wherein the crime is only in its attempted stage because
the victim used his body to cover his family. the offender still has to perform another act in
Jugueta still fired volleys of shots which landed order to consummate the crime. (People v.
fatally on the body of the daughters of the Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, 04 Feb. 2010)
victim. The two daughters expired upon
arrival in the hospital. Is Jugueta liable for Instances wherein the Stages of a Crime will
double murder and multiple attempted NOT apply
murder?
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws,
A: YES. Notwithstanding the other crimes Jugueta unless otherwise provided for;
committed, he is also liable for multiple attempted 2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, false
murder since the design of the crime was to testimony, etc.);
neutralize the entire family instead of the two 3. Impossible crimes;
daughters specifically. They have commenced all 4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
the acts of execution but was not able to push proposal or by overt act (e.g., attempt to flee to
through due to reasons unknown to them. (People an enemy country, corruption of minors,
v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 05 Apr. 2016) treason);
5. Felonies by omission; and
Criteria Involved in Determining the Stage 6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g.,
(whether it be in attempted, frustrated or betting in sports, corruption of public officers).
consummated stage) of the Commission of a
Felony (M-E-N) Q: Two police officers dressed as civilians were
conducting surveillance in Binangonan, Rizal.
1. The Manner of committing the crime; They went near a store when suddenly
2. The Elements of the crime; and Rolando and his wife arrived and approached
3. The Nature of the crime itself. the police officers not knowing their real
identity. Rolando spoke to one of the officers
The difference between the attempted stage and and asked, “Gusto mo bang umi-score ng
the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender shabu?” The officer replied, “Bakit, meron ka
has performed all the acts of execution for the ba?” Rolando answered in the affirmative and
accomplishment of a felony. then he took a sachet of shabu and showed it.
When the officer asked how much the shabu
Under Art. 6, if the offender has performed all the was, Rolando replied P200.
acts of execution which should produce the felony
as a consequence but the felony was not realized, Upon seeing the sachet, the police officers
then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. immediately introduced themselves and
arrested Rolando and his wife. They were
If the offender has not yet performed all the acts charged of attempted illegal sale of dangerous
of execution and was not able to perform all the drugs which is found under Sec 26 of R.A. No.
acts due to some cause or accident other than his 9165. Can there be an attempted stage in the
own spontaneous desistance, then it is an illegal sale of dangerous drugs?

Criminal Law
A: YES. According to the SC, the identities of the of the municipality, city, or province where any of
buyer and seller are present. The seller was the essential elements thereof took place.
Rolando while the buyers would be the officers.
The corpus delicti was also established. However, f. COMPLEX CRIMES (ART. 48, RPC)
there was no delivery because they immediately AND COMPOSITE CRIMES
introduced themselves as police officers.
Therefore, the consummated sale of the drugs was Plurality of Crimes
aborted by the act of the police introducing
themselves and arresting Rolando. Hence, the It is the successive execution by the same
crime committed is only attempted illegal sale of individual of different criminal acts upon any of
dangerous drugs. (People v. Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, which no conviction has yet been declared.
06 July 2011)
Kinds of Plurality of Crimes
Formal Crimes vs. Material Crimes
1. Formal or Ideal – only one criminal liability
FORMAL CRIMES MATERIAL CRIMES a. Complex crime (Art. 48, RPC)
Crimes which are b. When the law specifically fixes a single
consummated in one penalty for 2 or more offenses
Crimes which admit of committed
instant, no attempt
the three stages of c. Continued crimes (1996 BAR)
(e.g., physical injuries,
execution
false testimony, oral
defamation) 2. Real or Material – there are different crimes
in law and in the conscience of the offender. In
such cases, the offender shall be punished for
e. CONTINUING CRIMES
each and every offense that he committed.
Continued Crime or Continuous or Delito

Complex Crime
Continuado (1996 BAR)
Exists when two or more crimes are committed
It is a single crime consisting of a series of acts but
but they constitute only one crime in the eyes of
arising from one criminal resolution.
the law. Here, there is only one criminal intent;
hence, only one penalty is imposed.
Here, the offender is impelled by a SINGLE
CRIMINAL IMPULSE but committed a series of
Kinds of Complex Crimes (2019 BAR)
acts at about the same time in about the same
place and all the overt acts violate one and the
1. Compound Crime – when a single act
same provision of law.
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies. (Art. 48, RPC)
Example: Theft of 13 cows belonging to different
owners committed by the accused at the same
Requisites:
place and at the same time.
a. Only a single act is performed by the
offender; and
NOTE: A continued crime is NOT a complex crime.
b. The single act produces:
Continued Crime is Different from Transitory
i. Two or more grave felonies; or
Crime
ii. One or more grave and one or more
less grave felonies; or
Transitory crime, also called “moving crime,” is a
iii. Two or more less grave felonies.
concept in criminal procedure to determine the
venue. It may be instituted and tried in the court

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Q: The single act of A in firing a shot caused Palema, Palmea, and Manzanero approached
the death of two persons, arising from one them.
bullet, who were standing on the line of the
direction of the bullet. Is A liable for two Suddenly, Palema threw a punch at Enicasio in
separate crimes of homicide? an attempt to grab his phone. Palema
simultaneously pulled out a knife and tried to
A: NO. Since the deaths of the two victims stab him in the abdomen, but was warded off
were a result of one single act of firing a shot, by Jamie, making him drop his knife. Once he
a complex crime was committed. retrieved his knife, Palema stabbed Enicasio
on the right thigh, causing him to fall on the
2. Complex Crime Proper – when an offense is ground. Then, Grengia and Saldua arrived at
the necessary means for committing the other the scene and joined in beating Enicasio.
(Art. 48, RPC) Seated on the bench near Enicasio, Erickson
stood and tried to help his father, but Ladra
Requisites: stopped him.
a. At least two offenses are committed;
b. One or some of the offenses must be When Erickson resisted, Ladra attempted to
necessary to commit the other; and stab him, but he was able to evade the attack
c. Both or all the offenses must be and immediately look for a weapon. Upon
punished under the same statute. reaching his father, however, he saw that
Enicasio had already collapsed from the stab
NOTE: Only one penalty is imposed for wounds, but later died from blood loss. Are
complex crimes because there is only one Palema, Palmea, Saldua, and Grengia guilty
criminal act. Thus, there should only be one beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
information charging a complex crime. homicide?
3. Special Complex Crime or Composite Crime – A: YES. Robbery with homicide is a special
one in which the substance is made up of complex crime punished under Art. 294 of the
more than one crime, but which, in the eyes of RPC. It is perpetrated when, by reason or on the
the law, is only a single indivisible offense. occasion of robbery, homicide is committed. It
must be stressed that in robbery with homicide,
Examples of Special Complex Crimes the offender's original intent must be the
commission of robbery. The killing is merely
1. Qualified piracy, when piracy is accompanied incidental and subsidiary. It is clear that accused-
by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or appellants' primary objective was to rob Enicasio.
rape; But, by reason or on the occasion of the robbery,
2. Rape with homicide; Enicasio was stabbed and died as a result. (People
3. Kidnapping with rape; v. Palema, et al., G.R. No. 228000, 10 July 2019)
4. Kidnapping with homicide;
5. Kidnapping with physical injuries; Ordinary Complex Crime vs. Special Complex
6. Robbery with homicide; Crime (2003 BAR)
7. Robbery with rape;
8. Robbery with physical injuries; and ORDINARY SPECIAL COMPLEX
9. Robbery with arson. COMPLEX CRIME CRIME
As to Concept
Q: Enicasio Depante, his common-law spouse, It is made up of two or It is made up of two or
his son Erickson Depante, and his more crimes being more crimes which are
stepdaughter Jamie Rose Baya were sitting on punished under considered only as
the benches at the Calamba Town Plaza when distinct provisions of components of a single

Criminal Law
the RPC but alleged in indivisible offense 8. In continued crimes;

one information either being punished in one 9. Where the intent is really to commit the
because they were provision of the RPC. second crime but the first act although also a
brought about by a crime is incidental to the commission of the
single felonious act or crime; and
because one offense is
a necessary means for Example: When the intent of the offender in
committing the other taking away a woman is to rape her, the crime
offense or offenses. would only be simple rape as the abduction
As to Penalties would be absorbed as an incident in the
Only one penalty is commission of rape.
specifically prescribed
for all the component 10. Special complex crimes.
crimes which are
regarded as one NOTE: A light felony CANNOT be complexed with
The penalty for the indivisible offense. a grave or less grave felony. It is either treated as
most serious crime The component crimes a separate offense or considered absorbed in the
shall be imposed and are not regarded as grave or less grave felonies.
in its maximum distinct crimes and so
period. the penalty to be NOTE: There can be no complex crime proper if
imposed is that the other crime is punishable by a special law. To
specifically provided be a complex crime proper, both crimes must be
for under the special punished under the RPC.
complex crime
committed. Q: Jason Ivler was involved in a vehicular
collision resulting to the injuries of Evangeline
Instances when there is NO Complex Crime Ponce and the death of her husband. He was
charged of two offenses: (1) Reckless
1. Kidnapping (Art. 267, RPC); Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical
2. Occupation of real property or usurpation of Injuries; and (2) Reckless Imprudence
real rights in property (Art. 312, RPC); Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
3. Search warrants maliciously obtained (Art. Property. Can Ivler be convicted with the two
129, RPC) in relation to perjury; offenses? (2013 BAR)
4. When one offense is committed to conceal the
other; A: NO. Reckless imprudence is a single crime. Its
5. When one crime is an element of the other, for consequences on persons and property are
in that case, the former shall be absorbed by material only to determine the penalty. Reckless
the latter. e.g. trespassing which is an element imprudence under Art. 365 is a single quasi-
of the robbery with force upon things; offense by itself and not merely a means of
6. When the crime has the same elements as the committing other crimes such that conviction or
other crime committed; acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent
prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
Example: Estafa and falsification of private regardless of its various resulting acts. (Ivler v. San
documents have the same element of damage. Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 Nov. 2010)
Thus, there is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of private document. Penalty for Complex Crimes under Art. 48
7. When one of the offenses is penalized by a GR: When a complex crime is committed, the
special law; penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
period shall be imposed. 2. Exempting circumstances;

3. Mitigating circumstances;
XPN: When the law imposes a single penalty for 4. Aggravating circumstances; and
special complex crime. 5. Alternative circumstances.
Complex Crime of Coup d’état with Rebellion Other Circumstances Found in the RPC
(2003 BAR) Affecting Criminal liability
There can be a complex crime of coup d’état with 1. Absolutory Causes – has the effect of an
rebellion if there was conspiracy between the exempting circumstance as it is predicated on
offender/s committing the rebellion. By lack of voluntariness.
conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of
the other and vice versa. This is possible because Example: Spontaneous desistance in
the offender in coup d’état may be any person or attempted felonies
persons belonging to the military or the national
police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does 2. Extenuating Circumstances – has the effect
not so require. of mitigating the criminal liability of the
offender.
Moreover, the crime of coup d’état may be
committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a Examples: In the offense of infanticide,
public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow concealment of dishonor is an extenuating
the duly constituted government. Since the two circumstance insofar as the pregnant woman
crimes are essentially different and punished with and the maternal grandparents are
distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to concerned. In the offense of abortion under
the application of Art. 48 of the RPC. Art. 258, the liability of a pregnant woman
will be mitigated if her purpose is to conceal
Complex Crime of Coup d’état with Sedition dishonor. (Such circumstance is not available
(2003 BAR) to the parents of the pregnant woman).
Furthermore, under Art. 333, if the person
Coup d'état can be complexed with sedition guilty of adultery committed the offense while
because the two crimes are essentially different being abandoned without justification, the
and distinctly punished under the RPC. penalty next lower in degree shall be
imposed.
Sedition may not be directed against the
government or be non-political in objective, a. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
whereas coup d'état is always political in objective ART. 11, RPC
as it is directed against the government and led by
persons or public officer holding public office Justifying Circumstances
belonging to the military or national police. Art. 48
of the Code may apply under the conditions Justifying circumstances are those where the acts
therein provided. of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so
that such person is deemed not to have
2. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING transgressed the law and is free from both
CRIMINAL LIABILITY criminal and civil liability.
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability There is no civil liability, except in Art. 11(4)
(J-E-M-A-A) (State of Necessity), where the civil liability is
borne by the persons benefitted by the act. (Reyes,
1. Justifying circumstances; 2017)

Criminal Law
They are: (Se-D2-A-F-O) 1. SELF-DEFENSE

1. Self-defense; ART. 11(1), RPC
2. Defense of relatives;
3. Defense of stranger; Rights included in Self-Defense
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury (or State of
Necessity); Self-defense includes not only the defense of the
5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or person or body of the one assaulted but also that
office; and of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected
6. Obedience to an order of a superior. by law. Thus, it includes: (Ho-La-Ho-P)
Basis 1. Defense of the person’s Home;

2. Defense of rights protected by Law;
The basis for these justifying circumstances is the
3. The right to Honor;
lack of criminal intent, and with the maxim actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (an act does not
NOTE: Hence, a slap on the face is considered
make the doer guilty, unless the mind is guilty),
there is no crime and there is no criminal in the as unlawful aggression since the face
situations contemplated in this article provided represents a person and his dignity. It is a
serious, personal attack. (Rugas v. People, G.R.
the respective elements are all present.
No. 147789, 14 Jan. 2004); and
Burden of Proving the Existence of Justifying
4. The defense of Property rights can be invoked
Circumstances
if there is an attack upon the property coupled
In cases where the accused interposes justifying with an attack upon the person of the owner
of the premises. All the elements for
circumstances, this prosecutorial burden is
shifted to the accused who himself must prove all justification must however be present.
(People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, 20
the indispensable ingredients of such defense.
Apr. 1983);
(People v. Roxas, G.R. No. 218396, 20 Feb. 2016)
Example: If A snatches the watch of B inside

El incombit probotion qui decit non qui negat — He
a running passenger jeep, and then B punches
who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.
A to protect the possession of his watch, and
A fell from the running jeep, his head hitting a
Civil Liability in the Circumstances mentioned
hard pavement causing his death, B is not
in Art. 11
criminally liable for the defense of his
property rights. There was no attack against
GR: Since there is no crime, necessarily, there is no
B’s person.
civil liability ex delicto.
NOTE: What is important is not the duality of the

XPN: Art. 11(4) (State of Necessity), wherein civil
attack but whether the means employed is
liability may be adjudged against those who
benefited from the act which caused damage to reasonable to prevent the attack.
the property of the victim but spared their own
Reason for Justifying Self-Defense
properties from consequent damages. The civil
liability in par. 4 is provided for in Art. 101, and is
It is impossible for the State to protect all its
commendably in line with the rule against unjust
enrichment. citizens. Also, a person cannot just give up his
rights without resistance being offered.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Effects of Self-Defense 1st Requisite:

Unlawful Aggression
1. When all the elements are present – the
person defending himself is free from criminal
For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there
liability and civil liability.
must be an “actual, sudden and unexpected attack,
or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
2. When only a majority of the elements are
threatening or intimidating attitude” and the
present – privileged mitigating circumstance,
accused must present proof of positively strong
provided there is unlawful aggression.
act of real aggression. (People v. Sabella, G.R. No.
183092, 30 May 2011; People v. Campos and Acabo,
Nature of Self-Defense
G.R. No. 176061, 04 July 2011)
The rule consistently adhered to in this

NOTE: Self-defense is not feasible as in case of a
jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is
fight. There is no unlawful aggression when there
self-defense, he thereby admits being the author
was an agreement to fight and the challenge to
of the death of the victim. Thus, it becomes
fight has been accepted. The parties are
incumbent upon him to prove the justifying
considered aggressors as aggression is bound to
circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.
arise in the course of the fight. But aggression
(People v. Del Castillo et al., G.R. No. 169084, 18 Jan.
which is ahead of a stipulated time and place is
2012)
unlawful.
Requisites of Self-Defense (U-R-L) (1993,

Nature of the Unlawful Aggression (1993, 2004
1996, 2002, 2003, 2005 BAR)
BAR)
1. Unlawful aggression;
If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
to prevent or repel. The second requisite of defense
employed to prevent or repel it; and
will have no basis. (Reyes, 2017)
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite
or condition sine qua non for self-defense to arise.
No Transfer of Burden of Proof when Pleading
Self-Defense
Elements of Unlawful Aggression (P-A-U)
The burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable

1. There must be a Physical or material attack or
doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State
assault;
which carries it until the end of the proceedings. It
2. The attack or assault must be Actual, or at least,
is the burden of evidence that is shifted to the
imminent; and
accused to satisfactorily establish the fact of self-
3. The attack or assault must be Unlawful. (People
defense. In other words, only the onus probandi
v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, 23 Nov. 2011)
shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an
affirmative allegation that must be established
Lawful Aggression
with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.
(People v. Del Castillo et al., G.R. No. 169084, 18 Jan.
The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in
2012)
a more or less violent manner is an aggression, but
it is lawful. (Reyes, 2017)
Example: The act of a chief police who used

violence by throwing stones at the accused when
the latter was running away from him to elude

Criminal Law
arrest for a crime committed in his presence, is not Test for Unlawful Aggression in Self-Defense
unlawful aggression, it appearing that the purpose
of the peace officer was to capture the accused and The test for the presence of unlawful aggression
place him under arrest. (People v. Gayrama, G.R. under the circumstances is whether the
Nos. L-39270 and L-39271, 30 Oct. 1934) aggression from the victim puts in real peril the
life or personal safety of the person defending
NOTE: If a public officer exceeded his authority, himself. (People v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, 23 Nov.
he may become an unlawful aggressor. 2011)
Q: Accused B was charged with murder for

Two Kinds of Unlawful Aggression (2017 BAR) killing the victim A. According to B, A drew a
knife tucked in the waistband of his pants and
1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression approached him. B tried to escape by moving
means an attack with physical force or with a backwards and, while doing so, he got hold of
weapon, an offensive act that positively the victim's right hand where he was able to
determines the intent of the aggressor to disarm B. When he got hold of the knife, he
cause the injury; and then stabbed the victim several times on the
chest.
2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression means an
attack that is impending or at the point of B interposed self-defense in order to
happening; it must not consist in a mere exonerate him of the charge. Is B correct?
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely
imaginary, but must be offensive and A: NO. In pleading self-defense, the accused must
positively strong (like aiming a revolver at establish: (a) that there was unlawful aggression
another with intent to shoot or opening a by the victim; (b) that the means employed to
knife and making a motion as if to attack) prevent or repel such aggression were
(People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July reasonable; and (c) that there was lack of
2018) sufficient provocation on his part. Of the three,
unlawful aggression is the foremost requirement;
Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the absent such element, self-defense, whether
firearm at any particular target is not complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated.
sufficient to conclude that one’s life was in
imminent danger. (People v. Maghuyop, G.R. Unlawful aggression is predicated on an actual,
No. 242942, 05 Oct. 2020) sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger - not
merely a threatening or intimidating action.
Kind of Threat that will Amount to Unlawful
Aggression In People v. Escarlos, the Court ruled that the mere
drawing of a knife by the victim does not
In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, constitute unlawful aggression, whether actual or
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause imminent, as the peril sought to be avoided by the
injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected, accused was both premature and speculative. The
or imminent danger - not merely threatening and alleged act of simply drawing a knife from A’s
intimidating action. It is present only when the waist fell short of the threshold required by law
one attacked faces real and immediate threat to and prevailing jurisprudence. At that point, there
one’s life. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, was yet no actual risk or peril to the life or limb of
14 Sept. 2011 reiterating People v. Gabrino, G.R. No. B. (People v. Lorenzo Raytos, G.R. No. 225623, 07
189981, 09 Mar. 2011 and People v. Manulit, G.R. June 2017, J. Caguioa)
No. 192581, 17 Nov. 2010)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Effect if there was a Mistake of Fact on the Part Doctrine of Rational Equivalence
of the Accused
The reasonable necessity of the means employed
In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the does not imply material commensurability
accused may be considered in determining the between the means of attack and defense. What
existence of unlawful aggression. the law requires is rational equivalence, in the
consideration of which will enter the principal
Example: There is self-defense even if the factors: the emergency, the imminent danger to
aggressor used a toy gun provided that the which the person attacked is exposed, and the
accused believed it to be a real gun. instinct, more than the reason, that moves or
impels the defense, and the proportionateness
Person who Employed the Unlawful thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but
Aggression rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.
(Espinosa v. People, G.R. No. 181071, 15 Mar. 2010)
To constitute an element of self-defense, the
unlawful aggression must come, directly or Factors Taken into Consideration in
indirectly, from the person who was subsequently Determining the Reasonableness of Means
attacked by the accused. (People v. Gutierrez, G.R. Employed by the Person Defending Himself
No. 31010, 26 Sept. 1929)
1. Means were used to prevent or repel;
Q: A claims that the death of B was an accident 2. Means must be necessary and there is no
and his act was just for self-defense when his other way to prevent or repel it; and
revolver accidentally hit the victim while he 3. Means must be reasonable – depending on the
was struggling the same with his real enemy, C. circumstances, but generally proportionate to
Is his contention correct? the force of the aggressor.
A: NO. In this case, A was not repelling any In determining the reasonable necessity of the
unlawful aggression from B, thereby rendering his means employed, the courts may also look at and
plea of self-defense unwarranted. His act consider the number of wounds inflicted. A large
amounted to aberratio ictus. (Matic v. People, G.R. number of wounds inflicted on the victim can
No. 180219, 23 Nov. 2011) indicate a determined effort on the part of the
accused to kill the victim and may belie the
2nd Requisite: reasonableness of the means adopted to prevent
Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed or repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. (People v.
to Prevent or Repel it Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018)
Test of Reasonableness: 3rd Requisite:

Sufficient Provocation
1. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor; Sufficient provocation refers to “any unjust or
2. Physical condition, character, size, and other improper conduct or act of the victim adequate
circumstances of both the offender and enough to excite a person to commit a wrong,
defender; and which is accordingly proportionate in gravity.”
3. Place and occasion of the assault. (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 216642, 02 Sept. 2020, J.
Caguioa)
NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons
used by the one defending himself and that of the Sufficient provocation should not come from the
aggressor is not required. What the law requires person defending himself, and it must
is rational equivalence. immediately precede the aggression.

Criminal Law
Instances when There Can be Lack of Sufficient position to ensure the success of the attack which
Provocation on the Person Defending Himself has begun.
1. No provocation at all was given to the Q: One night, Lina, a young married woman,
aggressor by the person defending himself; was sound asleep in her bedroom when she
felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her
2. Even if provocation was given, it was not husband Tito, who came home a day early
sufficient; from his business trip, Lina allowed him to
have sex with her. After the act, the man said,
3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not
given by the person defending himself; recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina
that the man was not Tito, her husband.
4. Even if provocation was given by the person Furious, Lina took out Tito's gun and shot the
defending himself, it was not proximate and man. Charged with homicide, Lina denies
immediate to the act of aggression; and culpability on the ground of defense of honor.
Is her claim tenable? (1998, 2000 BAR)
5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage
caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to A: NO. Lina's claim that she acted in defense of
its commission. honor is not tenable because the unlawful
aggression on her honor had already ceased.
Control of Blows of Person Defending Himself Defense of honor, as included in self-defense, must
have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful
The person defending himself cannot be expected aggression. There is no defense to speak of where
to think clearly so as to control his blow. The the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be
justified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted Q: Gain, Mercado, Rey, and Manzo were
at a time when the elements of complete self- strolling at the Municipal Park, when they
defense are still present. were blocked by four (4) persons, namely
Lalog, Concepcion, Ramirez, and Litada.
Q: A unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then Mercado was walking ahead of Gain. When he
took out his gun which caused A to run away. looked back, he saw Gain being ganged upon
B, after treating his wounds, pursued A and by the group of the accused-appellants who
shot him. Can B invoke self-defense? held both the hands of Gain, while Lalog
stabbed Gain. Lalog admitted stabbing Gain in
A: NO. The unlawful aggression, which has begun, self-defense. Will his defense lie?
no longer exists. When the aggressor runs away,
the one making a defense has no more right to kill A: NO. Lalog’s defense will not lie. To avail of self-
or even to wound the former aggressor. In order defense as a justifying circumstance so as not to
to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, incur any criminal liability, it must be proved with
it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the certainty by satisfactory and convincing evidence
defendant be simultaneous with the attack made which excludes any vestige of criminal aggression
by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded on the part of the person invoking it.
each other without appreciable interval of time.
The testimony of prosecution witness Mercado
NOTE: GR: When the aggressor retreats, the that Gain was stabbed at his back by Lalog while
aggression ceases. both his hands were being held by the other
appellants is more logical, believable, and in
XPN: Unlawful aggression still continues when consonance with the physical evidence.
retreat is made to take a more advantageous Furthermore, the number of wounds sustained by

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Gain is indicative of Lalog’s desire to kill the forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
former and not really defend himself because not man to coerce her to do something he wants her
a single moment of the incident was his life and to do without any concern for her rights.
limb being endangered which is the essence of
self-defense. NOTE: To be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at
The crime committed was murder because least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
treachery is present in this case. (People v. Lalog, abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs
G.R. No. 196753, 21 Apr. 2014) a second time, and she remains in the situation,
she is defined as a battered woman. (People v.
Self-Defense vs. Retaliation Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 Jan. 2004)
SELF-DEFENSE RETALIATION “Battered Woman Syndrome" (BWS)

The unlawful
It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
aggression still The inceptual
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
existed when the unlawful aggression
women living in battering relationships as a result
aggressor was injured had already ceased
of cumulative abuse. (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9262)
or disabled by the when the accused
person making the attacked him.
Battered women include wives or women in any
defense.
form of intimate relationship with men. (Reyes,
2017)
“Stand ground when in the right” doctrine
NOTE: VAWC may be committed “against a

A rule which does not require a person, who is
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual
where he has a right to be, to retreat in the face of
or dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the
a rapidly advancing attacker threatening him with
gender-neutral word “person” who has or had a
a deadly weapon, but entitles him to do whatever
sexual or dating relationship with the woman
he believes is necessary to protect himself from
encompasses even lesbian relationships. (Garcia
great bodily harm. (U.S. v. Domen, G.R. No. L-12963,
v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013; Reyes,
25 Oct. 1917)
2021)
NOTE: Stand ground when in the right doctrine is

Battery
the rule followed in the Philippines as opposed to
the retreat to the wall doctrine.
It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the
woman or her child resulting to physical,
Retreat to the Wall doctrine
psychological, or emotional distress. (Sec. 3(b),
R.A. No. 9262)
This doctrine makes it the duty of a person
assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is
Cycle of Violence (2010 BAR)
justified in meeting force with force. (U.S. v.
Domen, G.R. No. L-12963, 25 Oct. 1917)
The battered woman syndrome is characterized
by the so-called cycle of violence, which has 3
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
phases: (T-A-T)
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)
(Discussed further under SPLs – page 449)
1. Tension-building phase;
2. Acute battering incident; and
Battered Woman 3. Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent)
phase.
A woman who is repeatedly subjected to any

Criminal Law
NOTE: The defense should prove all three (3) 4. A woman with whom he has a common child,
phases of cycle of violence characterizing the or against her child whether legitimate or
relationship of the parties. (People v. Genosa, G.R. illegitimate, within or without the family
No. 135981, 15 Jan. 2004) abode.
BWS used as a Defense (2014, 2015 BAR) 2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

ART. 11(2), RPC
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to
be suffering from battered woman syndrome do Requisites of Defense of Relatives (U-R-I)
not incur any criminal or civil liability 1. Unlawful aggression;
notwithstanding the absence of any of the 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
elements for justifying circumstances of self- to prevent or repel it; and
defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262) 3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making a defense
In layman’s terms, if an abused woman kills or had no part therein.
inflicts physical injuries on her abusive husband
or live-in partner, and the trial court determines Meaning of the Third Requisite
that she is suffering from “Battered Woman
Syndrome,” the court will declare her not guilty. There is still a legitimate defense even if the
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 Jan. 2004) relative being defended has given provocation.
The law now allows the battered woman Relatives Covered under the Justifying
syndrome as a valid defense in the crime of Circumstance
parricide – independent of self-defense under the
RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262) 1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants;
In the determination of the state of mind of the 3. Descendants;
woman who was suffering from battered woman 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
syndrome at the time of the commission of the sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert degree (namely, ascendants-in-law,
psychiatrists/psychologists. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. descendants-in-law, and siblings-in-law); and
9262) 5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil
degree.
NOTE: Only a certified psychologist or
psychiatrist can prove the existence of a Battered NOTE: If the degree of consanguinity or affinity is
Woman Syndrome in a woman. beyond the fourth degree, it will be considered
defense of a stranger.
Women who can Avail of BWS as a Defense
NOTE: Death of one spouse does not terminate the
1. Wife; relationship by affinity established between the
2. Former wife; surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the
3. A woman with whom the person has or had a deceased. (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales
sexual or dating relationship; and Vda. De Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11
Feb. 2010)
NOTE: The “dating relationship” that the law
contemplates can exist even without a sexual NOTE: Motive is relative in this kind of defense.
intercourse taking place between those
involved.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
3. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER such force as may be reasonably necessary to

ART. 11(3), RPC repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.”
Requisites of Defense of Stranger (U-R-N) (Art. 429, NCC)
1. Unlawful aggression; “Damage to another”

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and Covers injury to persons and damage to property.
3. The person defending be Not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. “Evil”
Who are deemed Strangers Harmful, injurious, disastrous, and destructive. As

contemplated, it must actually exist. If it is merely
Any person not included in the enumeration of expected or anticipated, the one acting by such
relatives mentioned in Art. 11 (2), RPC. notion is not in a state of necessity.
NOTE: The indispensable requisite for either of Person incurring Benefit is Civilly Liable
the justifying circumstances of self-defense and
defense of a stranger is that the victim must have The persons for whose benefit the harm has been
mounted an unlawful aggression against the prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to
accused or the stranger. (People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. the benefit which they received.
227421, 23 July 2018)
NOTE: The civil liability referred to herein is
4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR based not on the act committed, but on the benefit
STATE OF NECESSITY derived from the state of necessity. Therefore, the
ART. 11(4), RPC accused will not be civilly liable if he did not
receive any benefit out of the state of necessity.
Persons who did not participate in the damage
Requisites of State of Necessity (1990 BAR)
would be civilly liable if they derived benefit out
(P-I-E-D)
of the state of necessity.
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
State of Necessity vs. Accident
2. Injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
STATE OF
3. There be no other Practical and less harmful ACCIDENT
NECESSITY
means of preventing it; and ART. 12 (4), RPC
ART. 11 (4), RPC
4. That the state of necessity or emergency was
not Due to the fault or negligence of the Offender deliberately Offender accidently
person claiming the defense. caused damage. caused damage.
NOTE: The state of necessity must not have been

5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
brought about by the negligence or imprudence
ART. 11(5), RPC
by the one invoking the justifying circumstances.
(1998, 2004 BAR)
Requisites of Fulfillment of Duty (Pe-N)
Doctrine of Self-Help
1. Accused acted in the Performance of a duty or
“The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment
and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use 2. Injury caused or offense committed be the

Criminal Law
Necessary consequence of the due 6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED

performance of duty or the lawful exercise of FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
such right or office. ART. 11(6), RPC
Q: Lucresia was robbed of her bracelet in her Requisites of Obedience to an Order Issued for
home. The following day, Lucresia, while in her Some Lawful Purpose (M-O-L)
store, noticed her bracelet wound around the
right arm of Jun-Jun. 1. An Order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some Lawful purpose;
As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a and
nearby police station and sought the help of 3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out
Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the said order is lawful.
house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat.
Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and NOTE: Both the person who gave the order and
tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and the person who executed it must be acting within
ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two the limitations prescribed by law.
warning shots in the air but Jun-Jun continued
to run. Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun- The application of the law is not limited to orders
Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled made by public officers to inferior public officials.
towards a fence, intending to pass through an Thus, a driver of an escaping prisoner who did not
opening underneath. know that his employer is leaving the prison
compound, as he used to drive for him to go to his
When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he office in previous incidents in order to escape,
fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the cannot be held criminally liable.
right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to
the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, Materiality of Good Faith on the Part of the
he eventually died. Pat. Reyes was Subordinate
subsequently charged with homicide. During
the trial, Pat. Reyes raised the defense, by way If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being
of exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment aware of its illegality, he is not liable. However, the
of a duty. Is the defense tenable? (2000 BAR) order must not be patently illegal. If the order is
patently illegal, this circumstance cannot be
A: NO. The defense of having acted in the validly invoked.
fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter
alia, that the injury or offense committed be the NOTE: Even if the order is patently illegal, the
unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due subordinate may still be able to invoke an
performance of the duty. (People v. Oanis, G.R. No. exempting circumstance: (1) having acted upon
L-47722, 27 July 1943). the compulsion of an irresistible force; or (2)
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear.
It is not enough that the accused acted in
fulfillment of a duty. After Jun-Jun was shot in the Q: Mayor Adalin was transferred from the
right leg and was already crawling, there was no provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the
need for Pat. Reyes to shoot him any further. residence of Governor Ambil upon the
Clearly, he acted beyond the call of duty, which issuance of the order granting the jail warden
brought about the cause of death of the victim. of such actions.
Gov. Ambil tried to justify the transfer by

stating that it was caused by the imminent
threats upon Mayor Adalin. Sandiganbayan

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
convicted the jail warden and Gov. Ambil act with due care, causes an injury by mere
guilty for violating Sec 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Accident without the fault or intention of
causing it; (1992, 2000 BAR)
May the governor’s actions be justified on the
ground that he merely acted in the fulfillment 4. Any person who acts under the compulsion of
of his duty? May the actions of the jail warden an Irresistible force;
be justified as he was merely following orders
from the governor? 5. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
A: NO. A governor of a province has no power to injury; and
order the transfer of a detention prisoner. Nor can
the provincial jail warden follow such an unlawful 6. Any person who fails to perform an act
order. Thus, neither of them can invoke the required by law, when prevented by some
justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of office Lawful or insuperable cause. (1994 BAR)
or obedience to a lawful order. (Ambil v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, 06 July 2011) Basis for Exemption from Criminal Liability
b. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES EXEMPTING

BASIS
ART. 12, RPC CIRCUMSTANCE
Insanity/Imbecility Lack of intelligence
Exempting Circumstances (non-imputability)
Minority Lack of intelligence
These are grounds for exemption from Accident without fault or Lack of criminal
punishment because there is wanting in the agent intention of causing it intent
of the crime any of the conditions which make the Irresistible force Lack of freedom
act voluntary or negligent. (Reyes, 2017)
Uncontrollable fear Lack of freedom
GR: No criminal liability, but there is civil liability. Prevented by some
Lack of criminal
lawful or insuperable
intent
XPN: Under Art. 12(4) (Accident) and (7) (Lawful cause
or Insuperable Cause), the offender is exempted
from both criminal and civil liability. Q: In cases of exempting circumstances, is
there a crime committed?
The Following are Exempted from Criminal
Liability (U-M-A-L-I2) A: YES. There is a crime committed but no
criminal liability arises from it because of the
1. An Imbecile or an insane person, unless the complete absence of any of the conditions which
latter has acted during a lucid interval; constitute free will or voluntariness of the act.
2. Minority Justifying Circumstances vs. Exempting

a. A child under 15 years of age; Circumstances (2002 BAR)
b. A child over 15 years of age and under
18, unless he has acted with JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
discernment, in which case, such child CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
shall be subject to appropriate
As to its Effect
proceedings in accordance with R.A. No.
The circumstance
9344; (2000 BAR) The circumstances
affects the act, not the
affect the actor.
actor.
3. Any person who, while performing a lawful

Criminal Law
As to Existence of a Crime As to Exemption from Criminal Liability

Since the act Not exempt from
complained of is criminal liability if it
Exempt from criminal
The act complained of actually wrong, there can be shown that he
liability in all cases.
is considered to have is a crime. But acted during a lucid
been done within the because the actor interval.
bounds of law; hence, acted without
it is deemed as if no voluntariness, there Tests for Exemption on Grounds of Insanity
crime is committed. is absence of dolo or
culpa. Hence, there is 1. Test of Cognition – whether the accused acted
no criminal. with complete deprivation of intelligence in
As to Liability committing said crime.
GR: Since there is no
crime or criminal, 2. Test of Volition – whether the accused acted in
there is no criminal total deprivation of freedom of will.
liability as well as civil
liability. NOTE: Test of Cognition is followed in the
GR: There is civil
Philippines. Case law shows common reliance on
liability for the wrong
XPN: Art. 11(4) – the test of cognition, rather than on a test relating
done.
State of Necessity to "freedom of the will." Examination of our case
law has failed to turn up any case where this Court
XPN: In paragraphs 4
The persons for has exempted an accused on the sole ground that
and 7 of Art. 12, there
whose benefit the he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will,"
is neither criminal nor
harm has been i.e., without an accompanying "complete
civil liability.
prevented shall be deprivation of intelligence." This is perhaps to be
civilly liable in expected since a person's volition naturally
proportion to the reaches out only towards that which is presented
benefit which they as desirable by his intelligence, whether that
received. intelligence be diseased or healthy.
1. IMBECILITY AND INSANITY In any case, where the accused failed to show
ART. 12(1), RPC complete impairment or loss of intelligence, the
Court has recognized at most a mitigating, not an
Imbecility vs. Insanity exempting, circumstance in accord with Art. 13(9)
of the RPC: "Such illness of the offender as would
IMBECILITY INSANITY diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of the
As to its Definition
consciousness of his acts.” (People v. Rafanan, G.R.
An imbecile is one No. L-54135, 21 Nov. 1991)
who, while advanced Insanity exists when
in age, has a mental there is a complete Presumption is in Favor of Sanity
development deprivation of
comparable to that of intelligence in The defense must prove that the accused was
children between two committing the act. insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
to seven years of age.
NOTE: Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities
As to its Existence of Lucid Interval are not enough.
No lucid interval There is lucid interval

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Q: Rosalino stabbed Mrs. Sigua to death in her Appreciation of Insanity as an Exempting

office. During trial, he pleaded insanity and Circumstance
presented several witnesses, including
doctors from the National Mental Hospital, Insanity presupposes that the accused was
who all said that he was suffering from organic completely deprived of reason or discernment
mental disorder secondary to cerebro- and freedom of will at the time of the commission
vascular accident or stroke. It appears that he of the crime. Only when there is a complete
was working in Lebanon a few years back and deprivation of intelligence at the time of the
in Riyadh a few months after. While he was in commission of the crime should the exempting
Riyadh, he suffered a stroke. According to the circumstance of insanity be considered. (People v.
doctors, this event triggered the mental Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 05 Oct. 2011)
disability since when he returned to the
Philippines, his attitude had changed Effects of Insanity of the Accused
considerably.
1. At the time of the commission of the crime –
The prosecution claimed that during the exempted from criminal liability.
commission of the crime, it was a lucid interval
for Rosalino because when he was being 2. During trial – proceedings are suspended
treated in the mental hospital, he was shouting until the mental capacity of the accused is
that he killed Mrs. Sigua. Can defense of restored to afford him fair trial. Accused is
insanity be appreciated? then committed to a hospital.
A: NO. Insanity in our law exists when there is a 3. After judgment or while serving sentence –
complete deprivation of intelligence. The execution of judgment is suspended and the
statement of one of the witnesses that the accused accused will be committed to a hospital. The
knew the nature of what he had done makes it period of confinement in the hospital is
highly doubtful that he was insane when he counted for the purpose of the prescription of
committed the act charged. Generally, in criminal the penalty.
cases, every doubt is resolved in favor of the
accused. But in the defense of insanity, doubt as to Other Instances of Insanity
the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of
sanity. The burden of proving the affirmative 1. Dementia praecox (Schizoprenia) is covered
allegation of insanity rests on the defense. The by the term insanity because homicidal attack
quantum of evidence required to overthrow the is common in such form of psychosis. It is
presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable characterized by delusions that they are being
doubt. Insanity is a defense in a confession and interfered with sexually, or that his property
avoidance and as such must be proved beyond is being taken, thus the person has no control
reasonable doubt. Insanity must be clearly and over their acts. (People v. Bonoan, G.R. No. L-
satisfactorily proved in order to acquit the 45130, 17 Feb. 1937)
accused.
Q: Verdadero repeatedly stabbed Romeo with
In this case, Rosalino has not successfully the use of a Rambo knife causing the latter’s
discharged the burden of overcoming the death. To evade culpability, Verdadero raises
presumption that he committed the crime as insanity under Art. 12 of the RPC as a defense
charged freely, knowingly, and intelligently. claiming that he had suffered a relapse of his
(People v. Dungo, G.R. No 89420, 31 July 1991) schizophrenia at the time of the incident. The
psychiatrist, an expert witness, categorically
claimed that Verdadero was diagnosed with
schizophrenia and was suffering a relapse of

Criminal Law
his schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing schizophrenia is not automatically accompanied
incident. The witness for the prosecution, a by loss of intelligence. Complete deprivation of
long-time neighbor of Verdadero, likewise intelligence has been equated to “defect of the
perceived that Verdadero was again of understanding” such that the accused must have
unsound mind on the day of the stabbing “no full and clear understanding of the nature and
incident, noting that the latter had reddish consequences of [their] acts.” (People v. Paña, G.R.
eyes and appeared to be drunk. Is Verdadero No. 21444, 17 Nov. 2020)
liable for homicide?
2. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal,
A: NO. It is true that there is no direct evidence to persistent impulse or tendency to steal, to be
show Verdadero's mental state at the exact considered exempting will still have to be
moment the crime was committed. This, however, investigated by a competent psychiatrist to
is not fatal to the finding that he was insane. His determine if the unlawful act is due to
insanity may still be shown by circumstances irresistible impulse produced by his mental
immediately before and after the incident. The defect, thus loss of willpower. If such mental
psychiatrist categorically testified that Verdadero defect only diminishes the exercise of his
was suffering a relapse at the time of the stabbing willpower and did not deprive him of the
incident. In contrast, the psychiatrist was hesitant consciousness of his acts, it is only mitigating.
to opine that Verdadero might have been in a lucid
interval because of the medications taken. Thus, it 3. Epilepsy which is chronic nervous disease
is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the characterized by compulsive motions of the
testimony of an expert witness, that Verdadero muscles and loss of consciousness may be
was of unsound mind at the time he stabbed covered by the term “insanity.”
Romeo. Further, the finding of Verdadero’s
insanity is supported by the observations made by 4. The SC considered the following as included
the witness for the prosecution. in the term “insanity”: lack of controlled
consciousness, such as while dreaming
The Court notes that at the very first opportunity, (People v. Taneo, G.R. No. L-37673, 31 Mar.
Verdadero already raised the defense of insanity 1933), and somnambulism or sleepwalking.
and remained steadfast in asserting that he was (People v. Gimena, G.R. No. L-33877, 06 Feb.
deprived of intelligence at the time of the 1931)
commission of the offense. He no longer offered
any denial or alibi and, instead, consistently NOTE: Feeble-mindedness is not exempting
harped on his mental incapacity. Unlike in because the offender could distinguish right from
previous cases where the Court denied the wrong. An imbecile or an insane cannot
defense of insanity as it was raised only when the distinguish right from wrong. (People v.
initial defense of alibi failed to prosper, Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, 29 Nov. 1950)
Verdadero's alleged insanity was not a mere
afterthought. (Verdadero v. People, G.R. No. 2 and 3. MINORITY
216021, 02 Mar. 2016) ART. 12(2 and 3), RPC
as amended by R.A. No. 9344,
Schizophrenia, Not Automatically as further amended by R.A. No. 10630
Accompanied by Loss of Intelligence
Discernment
Save for People v. Austria (G.R. Nos. 111517-19, 31
July 1996) and Verdadero v. People (supra), The mental capacity to understand the difference
schizophrenia, which has often been cited to between right and wrong including the capacity to
support a claim of insanity, has usually never fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful
passed the test of cognition. This is because act. Such capacity may be known and should be

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
determined by taking into consideration all the evidence of physical appearance, attitude, or
facts and circumstances afforded by the records in deportment not only before and during the
each case, the manner the crime was committed, commission of the act, but also after and during
and the conduct of the offender after its the trial.
commission. (People v. Doqueña, G.R. No 46539, 27
Sept. 1939) Intent and discernment are two different
concepts. Intent is a determination to do a certain
Intent vs. Discernment thing which comprises the third element of dolo as
a means of committing a felony, freedom and
intelligence being the other two. On the other
INTENT DISCERNMENT
hand, the discernment that constitutes an
The mental capacity exception to the exemption from criminal liability
The determination to
to tell right from of a minor under eighteen (18) years of age but
do a certain thing, an
wrong. It relates to the over fifteen (15), who commits an act prohibited
aim, or purpose of the
moral significance by law, is his mental capacity to understand the
mind. It is the design
that a person ascribes difference between right and wrong.
to resolve or
to his act and relates
determination by
to the intelligence as In the present case, neither the RTC nor the CA
which a person acts.
an element of dolo. discussed whether Tennyson acted with
discernment. The CA only noted Tennyson’s age in
NOTE: Discernment is manifested through its discussion of the penalty to be imposed on him.
manner of committing the crime and conduct of Both the RTC and the CA erred in convicting
the offender. Tennyson, as they both equated "intent to kill" –
which was admittedly established through the
Q: Private complainant Rudy was sent by his evidence presented by the prosecution – with
mother Rachel to buy iced tea powder from a acting with discernment, which, on the contrary,
store and saw Tennyson, a 17-year-old minor, was not proved by the prosecution.
Jayson, and Miko there. Tennyson suddenly
poked a gun at the face of Rudy. Tennyson With the foregoing, the Court acquits Tennyson
pulled the trigger several times but the gun did for the crime of Frustrated Homicide. (People v.
not fire. Tennyson then hit (hinataw) the left CICL XXX, G.R. No. 237334, 14 Aug. 2019, J.
temple and top of the head of Rudy with the Caguioa)
gun. Jayson and Miko held the arms of Rudy
while Tennyson punched him several times. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and
Jayson then hit the head of Tennyson with a Treatment of Child Below the Age of
stone causing the latter to lose consciousness. Responsibility (R.A. No. 9344, as amended by
R.A. No. 10630) (2017 BAR)
Rudy was in a coma for 7 days while he was
confined at the East Avenue Medical Center. AGE CRIMINAL
TREATMENT
Tennyson was charged with frustrated BRACKET LIABILITY
homicide. Is Tennyson liable for the crime The child shall
charged? be subjected to
15 years old a community-
Exempt
A: NO. When a minor above fifteen (15) but below or below based
eighteen (18) years old is charged with a crime, it intervention
cannot be presumed that he or she acted with program.
discernment. The prosecution must specifically Above 15 The child shall
prove as a separate circumstance that the minor years old but Exempt be subjected to
committed the alleged crime with discernment by below 18 a community-

Criminal Law
years old, who based Accident

acted without intervention
discernment program. It is something that happens outside the sway of
Above 15 our will, and although it comes about through
years old but Such child shall some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of
below 18 Not be subjected to humanly foreseeable consequences. It
years old, who exempt a diversion presupposes a lack of intention to commit the
acted with program. wrong done. (People v. Del Cruz, G.R. No. 187683,
discernment 11 Feb. 2010)
NOTE: The exemption from criminal liability in If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will
the cases specified above does not include be a case of negligence.
exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced in accordance with existing laws. (Sec. 6, Exemption from Criminal and Civil Liability
R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
The infliction of the injury by mere accident does
4. ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR not give rise to a criminal or civil liability, but the
INTENTION OF CAUSING IT person who caused the injury is duty bound to
ART. 12(4), RPC attend to the person who was injured.
Elements of Accident: (Law-D-A-W) Illustration: A chauffeur, while driving his

automobile on the proper side of the road at a
1. A person is performing a Lawful act; moderate speed and with due diligence, suddenly
and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle
NOTE: The act causing the injury should be coming from the sidewalk and crossing the street
lawful, that is, permitted not only by law but without any warning that he would do so. Because
also by regulations. it was not physically possible to avoid hitting him,
the said chauffeur ran over the man with his car. It
2. With Due care; was held that he was not criminally liable, it being
3. He causes injury to another by mere Accident; a mere accident. (U.S. v. Tayongtong, G.R. No. 6897,
and 15 Feb. 1912)
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Q: A and B are both security guards. A turned
over to B a service firearm who held it with
NOTE: If not all the conditions necessary to
both hands, with the muzzle pointed at A and
exempt a person from liability are present, the act
the butt towards B. At that moment, B held
should be considered as:
opposite the muzzle of the gun where the
trigger is, and almost slip with it while in the
1. Reckless Imprudence, if the act is executed
act of gripping and then immediately the gun
without taking those precautions or measures
went off and accidentally shot A. A was able to
which the most common prudence would
recover from the shot. B was then charged with
require; or
frustrated homicide. Can B raise the defense of
accident to mitigate his liability?
2. Simple Imprudence, if it is a mere lack of
precaution in those cases where either the
A: NO. It is axiomatic that a person who invokes
threatened harm is not imminent or the
accident must prove that he acted with due
danger is not openly visible. (Art. 365, RPC)
care. This was belied by the conduct of the
accused when he allegedly received the shotgun
from the private complainant. As he himself

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
admitted, he received the shotgun by placing his bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of
pointer finger, also known as the trigger finger, to future injury is not enough. The compulsion must
squeeze the trigger, inside the trigger guard and be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
over the trigger itself. Worse, he did so while the to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
barrel of the gun was pointed at the private combat. (People v. Loreno, G.R. No. L-54414, 09 July
complainant. 1984)
According to him, he knew that it was not proper Q: Baculi, who was not a member of the band
for a person to receive a firearm from another by which murdered some American school
immediately inserting a finger inside the trigger teachers, was in a plantation gathering
guard. Likewise, he knew that the hand-over of a bananas. Upon hearing the shooting, he ran.
firearm with its barrel pointed towards the giver However, Baculi was seen by the leaders of the
or any other person was not proper. That he did band who called him and struck him with the
these improper acts despite his training and butts of their guns. They compelled him to
experience as a security guard undermines any bury the bodies. Is he liable as an accessory to
notion that he had acted with due care during the the crime of murder?
subject incident. (People v. Lanuza, G.R. No.
188562, 17 Aug. 2011) A: NO. Baculi is not criminally liable as accessory
5. COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE for concealing the body of the crime of murder
ART. 12(5), RPC committed by the band because he acted under
the compulsion of an irresistible force. (U.S. v.
Basis of Exemption Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, 29 Mar. 1905)
The complete absence of freedom – an element of Q: Rogelio Delos Reyes, along with Roderick
voluntariness. Licayan and Roberto Lara, were charged with
the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. In his
Irresistible Force defense, Delos Reyes argued that he was
merely passing by at the crime scene when one
It is a degree of force which is external or physical, of the co-accused pointed a gun at him and
which reduces the person to a mere instrument, forced him to guard the victims. Hence, he is
and the acts produced are done without and entitled to the exempting circumstance of
against his will. compulsion due to irresistible force. Is the
exempting circumstance of compulsion due to
Requisites of Compulsion of Irresistible Force irresistible force present?
(P-I-T)
A: NO. A person invoking the exempting
1. Compulsion is by means of Physical force; circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible
2. Physical force must be Irresistible; and force admits in effect the commission of a
3. Physical force must come from a Third punishable act, which must show that the
person. irresistible force reduced him to a mere
instrument that acted not only without will but
Nature of Physical Force Required in Art. 12(5) also against his will. The duress, force, fear, or
intimidation must be present, imminent and
The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor impending; and it must be of such a nature as to
to a mere instrument who acts not only without a induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
will but against his will. The duress, force, fear, or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.
intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending, and of such a nature as to induce a It is hard to believe that a person who accidentally
well-grounded apprehension of death or serious discovers kidnap victims would be held at

Criminal Law
gunpoint by the kidnappers to guard said victims. The uncontrollable

(People v. Licayan, et al., G.R. No. 203961, 29 July fear may be generated
The irresistible force
2015) by a threatened act
must have been made
directed to a third
to operate directly
6. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR person, such as the
upon the person of
ART. 12(6), RPC wife of the accused
the accused, and the
who was kidnapped,
injury feared may be
Basis of Exemption but the evil feared
of a lesser degree than
must be greater or at
the damage caused by
The absence of freedom. least equal to the
the accused.
damage caused to
Elements of Uncontrollable Fear (R-U-G) avoid it.
1. Existence of an Uncontrollable fear; The person who used the force or created the fear
2. Fear must be Real and imminent; and is criminally and primarily civilly liable, but the
3. Fear of an injury is Greater than or equal to accused who performed the act involuntarily and
that committed. under duress is still secondarily civilly liable. (Art.
101, RPC)
Requisites of Uncontrollable Fear Q: The evidence on record shows that at the
time the ransom money was to be delivered,
1. Threat, which causes the fear, is of an evil appellants Arturo Malit and Fernando
greater than or at least equal to that which he Morales, unaccompanied by any of the other
is required to commit; and accused, entered the van wherein Feliciano
Tan was. At that time, Narciso Saldaña, Elmer
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and Esguerra, and Romeo Bautista were waiting
imminence that the ordinary man would have for both appellants from a distance of about
succumbed to it. one kilometer. Both appellants raise the
defense of uncontrollable fear. Is their
NOTE: A threat of future injury is not enough. The contention tenable?
compulsion must be of such character as to leave
no opportunity to the accused for escape or self- A: NO. By not availing of this chance to escape, the
defense in equal combat. appellants' allegation of fear or duress becomes
untenable. It was held that in order for the
In case of uncontrollable fear, it is necessary that circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it
the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear on is necessary that the compulsion is of such a
the offender must be present, clear, and personal. character as to leave no opportunity for escape or
It must not only be/merely an imagined threat or self-defense in equal combat. Moreover, the
court interfered threat. reason for their entry to the van could be taken as
their way of keeping Feliciano Tan under further
Irresistible Force vs. Uncontrollable Fear surveillance at a most critical time. (People v.
Saldana, G.R. No. 148518, 15 Apr. 2004)
IRRESISTIBLE UNCONTROLLABLE
FORCE FEAR 7. LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
ART. 12(7), RPC
A person is compelled
A person is compelled
by another to commit
by another to commit Basis of the Exempting Circumstance
a crime by means of
a crime by means of
violence or physical
intimidation or threat. The absence of intent.
force.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Insuperable Cause so grave a wrong);

4. Sufficient threat or provocation;
Some motive which has lawfully, morally, or 5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense;
physically prevented a person from doing what 6. Passion or obfuscation;
the law commands. 7. Voluntary surrender, and voluntary
confession of guilt;
Requisites of Lawful or Insuperable Cause 8. Physical defect;
(Law-Re-F) 9. Illness of the offender; and
10. Similar and analogous circumstances.
1. An act is Required by law to be done;
2. A person Fails to perform such act; and NOTE: In Jarillo v. People, the Supreme Court
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some mitigated the penalty imposed upon the petitioner
Lawful or insuperable cause. for humanitarian purposes. (G.R. No. 164435, 29
Sept. 2009)
NOTE: It applies to felonies by omission.
NOTE: Mitigating circumstances must be present
c. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
ART. 13, RPC the offense, except voluntary surrender or
confession of guilt by the accused. (Art. 13(7), RPC)
Mitigating Circumstances
Effects of Mitigating Circumstances in the
Those which, if present in the commission of the Nature of the Crime
crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
liability but serve only to reduce the penalty. They reduce the penalty but do not change the
nature of the crime.
One single act cannot be made the basis of more
than one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a Exempting Circumstances vs. Mitigating
mitigating circumstance arising from a single act Circumstances
absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances
arising from the same act. EXEMPTING MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES
Basis of Mitigating Circumstances The offender acted
The offender acted WITH voluntariness,
The basis is diminution of either freedom of totally WITHOUT but there is a
action, intelligence, or intent or on the lesser voluntariness. diminution on his
perversity of the offender. Therefore, he is voluntariness, either
exempted from on his criminal intent,
NOTE: It is not considered in Art. 365 of the RPC criminal liability. freedom of action, or
(Imprudence and Negligence). intelligence.
Circumstances which can Mitigate Criminal Classes of Mitigating Circumstances

Liability (V-I3-S2-P3-A)
1. Ordinary mitigating
1. Incomplete justifying or exempting 2. Privileged mitigating
circumstance;
2. Age
a. over 15 but under 18; or
b. over 70 years old;
3. Praeter Intentionem (no intention to commit

Criminal Law
Ordinary Mitigating vs. Privileged Mitigating 5. Abandonment without justification of the

spouse who committed adultery (Art. 333(3),
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED RPC); and
MITIGATING MITIGATING
As to Offsetting by Aggravating Circumstance 6. Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide.
(Art. 255(2), RPC)
Can be offset by Can never be offset by
aggravating any aggravating
NOTE: If it is the maternal grandparent who
circumstances. circumstance.
committed infanticide to conceal dishonor, the
As to Reduction of Penalty penalty imposed is one degree lower.
Ordinary mitigating Privileged mitigating
circumstances, if not circumstances If it is the pregnant woman who committed
offset, will operate to operate to reduce the infanticide to conceal dishonor, the penalty
reduce the penalty to penalty by one to two imposed is two degrees lower.
the minimum period, degrees, depending
provided the penalty upon what the law NOTE: In case of concealing dishonor by a
is a divisible one. provides. pregnant woman in abortion, the imposable
As to Impact on Imposable Penalty penalty is merely lowered by period and not by
Not considered in the degree, hence, not a privileged mitigating
determination of the circumstance. (Art. 255, RPC)
proper penalty when Privileged Mitigating Circumstances
Always considered
the penalty contemplated under Art. 69, RPC
regardless of the
prescribed by law for
penalty imposed.
the single crime is a
single indivisible Incomplete justifying (Art. 11, RPC) and
penalty. incomplete exempting (Art. 12, RPC)
circumstances, provided that the majority of their
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances under the conditions are present.
RPC
For this article to apply, it is necessary that:
1. When the offender is a minor under 18 years
of age (Art. 68, RPC); (2013, 2014 BAR) 1. Some of the conditions required to justify the
deed or to exempt from criminal liability are
2. When the crime committed is not wholly lacking;
excusable (Art. 69, RPC);
2. The majority of such conditions are
3. When there are two or more mitigating nonetheless present; and
circumstances and no aggravating
circumstance, the court shall impose the 3. When the circumstance has an indispensable
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, element, that element must be present in the
in the period that it may deem applicable, case. (Regalado, 2007)
according to the number and nature of such
circumstances (Art. 64(5), RPC); (1997 BAR)
4. Voluntary release of the person illegally

detained within 3 days without the offender
attaining their purpose and before the
institution of the criminal action (Art. 268(3),
RPC);

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR Effects on the Criminal Liability of the Offender

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE of Incomplete Self-defense, Defense of
ART. 13(1), RPC Relative, or Defense of Stranger
Incomplete Justifying or Exempting 1. If only the element of unlawful aggression is

Circumstance present, the other requisites being absent –
ordinary mitigating circumstance
It means that not all the requisites to justify the act
or to exempt the offender from criminal liability 2. If aside from the element of unlawful
are present. aggression, another requisite but not all is
present – privileged mitigating
Effect on the Criminal Liability of the Offender circumstance
of Incomplete Justifying Circumstances or
Incomplete Exempting Circumstances NOTE: In such a case, the imposable penalty
shall be reduced by one or two degrees
Rules: depending upon how the court regards the
1. If majority of the requisites needed to justify importance of the requisites present.
the act or exempt from criminal liability are
present, the offender shall be given the 3. If there are at least three (3) mitigating
benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstances – in the first two, the penalty is
circumstance. The imposable penalty shall lowered by one degree while the last
be lowered by one or two degrees. mitigating circumstance is imposed in
minimum period after being lowered by one
2. If less than the majority of the requisites degree
necessary to justify the act or exempt from
Not Applicable to Exempting Circumstance of
criminal liability are present, the offender
Accident
shall only be entitled to an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
Under Art. 12(4), there are four requisites for the
3. When there are only two requisites to justify
exempting circumstance of accident: (1) a person
the act or to exempt from criminal liability,
must be performing a lawful act; (2) such must be
the presence of one shall be regarded as the
done with due care; (3) an injury was caused to
majority. Therefore, the offender shall be
another by mere accident; and (4) there is no fault
entitled to a privileged mitigating
or intention of causing such injury.
circumstance.
If the act was performed with due care, but there

Unlawful Aggression: Condition Necessary
was fault in causing an injury, the case will fall
Before Incomplete Self-defense, Defense of
under Art. 365, felonies by negligence or
Relative, or Defense of Stranger May be
imprudence. The effect would be like a mitigating
Invoked
circumstance since the said article states that the
penalty will be lower than if the felony was
The offended party must be guilty of unlawful
committed intentionally.
aggression. Without unlawful aggression, there
can be no incomplete self-defense, defense of
If the person is performing a lawful act but has the
relative, or defense of stranger.
intention to cause an injury, it will be an
intentional felony, the second and third requisite
will no longer apply.
NOTE: There is no incomplete exempting

circumstance of insanity. There is no middle

Criminal Law
ground between sanity and insanity. exempting circumstance.
2. AGE 3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A

(OVER 15 BUT UNDER 18; WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD) ART. 13(3), RPC
ART. 13(2), RPC
Basis
Basis
The basis is the diminution of intent.
Diminution of intelligence – a condition of
voluntariness. It is necessary that there be a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed by
Coverage the offender compared to that of the resulting
felony. If the resulting felony could be expected
Offenders who are: from the means employed, the circumstance of
1. Over 15 but under 18 years old who acted praeter intentionem cannot be availed.
with discernment; and
2. Over 70 years old Factors in Order to Ascertain the Intention
NOTE: It is the age of the accused at the time of the 1. Weapon used;
commission of the crime which should be 2. Part of the body injured;
determined. 3. Injury inflicted; and the
4. Manner it is inflicted.
Legal Effects of the Various Age Brackets of the
Offender with respect to his Criminal Liability This provision addresses the intention of the
offender at the particular moment when the
AGE EFFECT ON CRIMINAL offender executes or commits the criminal act and
BRACKET LIABILITY not during the planning stage.
Under 15 Exempting circumstance GR: Praeter Intentionem is a mitigating

Over 15 Exempting circumstance, if he circumstance.
under 18 acted without discernment
18 to 70 Full criminal responsibility XPNs:
Mitigating circumstance; no 1. Felonies by negligence;
imposition of death penalty; 2. Employees of brute force; and
Over 70 execution of death sentence, if 3. Anti-Hazing Law.
already imposed, is suspended
and commuted Effect if the Victim does NOT Die in Crimes
against Persons
Senility and its Effect
The absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony
Senility, or “second childhood,” is generally used to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as
to describe the state of a person of very old age mitigating. It is only mitigating when the victim
with impaired or diminished mental faculties dies.
similar to but not on the level of the early years of
infancy. It can, at most, be only a mitigating Not Applicable to Felonies by Negligence
circumstance, unless the mental deterioration has
become a case of senile dementia approximating The reason is that in felonies through negligence,
insanity, in which case it may be considered as an the offender acts without intent. The intent in

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, the injury sustained by the victim.

imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill in
culpable felonies. Hence, in felonies through Here, the records showed that Buenamer boxed or
negligence, there is no intent on the part of the struck Tan with such force that the latter lost his
offender which may be considered as diminished. grip on the estribo or handle bar of the vehicle, fell
(Reyes, 2017) off and run over by the vehicle's rear tire. He
subsequently died. The legal postulate enshrined
Applicable only to offenses resulting to physical under Art. 3 of the RPC decrees that every person
injuries or material harm. Hence, it cannot be shall be held responsible for all the natural and
appreciated in cases of defamation or slander. logical consequences of his felonious act and,
(Reyes, 2017) complementing this Art. 3 is Art. of the same RPC,
which provides that “criminal liability shall be
NOTE: The mitigating circumstance of lack of incurred (1) by any person committing a felony,
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually although the wrongful act done be different from
perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts that which he intended.” These two articles of the
employed by the accused were reasonably RPC must thus apply with implacable force against
sufficient to produce and did actually produce the Buenamer; he must be called to account for all the
death of the victim. (People v. Sales, G.R. No. natural and logical consequences of his felonious
177218, 03 Oct. 2011) act; and hence must be deemed to have incurred
criminal liability, although the felonious act he
Q: Buenamer committed robbery inside a committed might have been different from that
passenger FX by threatening to shoot the which he intended. (People v. Buenamer, G.R. No.
passengers if they do not give their wallets and 206227, 31 Aug. 2016)
cellphones. Buenamer was successful in taking
the things of the passengers. Tan, one of the 4. SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION
passengers, chased Buenamer who boarded a ART. 13(4), RPC
passenger jeepney in order to escape.
Buenamer boxed Tan when he held on to the Sufficient Provocation
handlebar of the jeepney, causing him to lose
his grip and fall from the jeepney and As a mitigating circumstance, sufficient
thereafter was ran over by the rear tire of said provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or
jeepney and died. act of the victim adequate enough to excite a
Buenamer contends that he should be given person to commit a wrong, which is accordingly
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to proportionate in gravity. The victim must have
commit so grave a wrong. Is Buenamer committed a prior act that incited or irritated the
entitled to the mitigating circumstance? accused. Likewise, in order to be mitigating, the
provocation must be sufficient and should
A: NO. This mitigating circumstance addresses immediately precede the act. (Miranda v. People,
itself to the intention of the offender at the G.R. No. 234528, 23 Jan. 2019)
particular moment when the offender executes or
commits the criminal act. This mitigating Requisites of Sufficient Threat or Provocation
circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable (S-O-I)
disparity between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the resulting 1. Provocation must be Sufficient;
crime committed. 2. It must Originate from the offended party;
and
The intention of the accused at the time of the 3. It must be Immediate to the act.
commission of the crime is manifested from the
weapon used, the mode of attack employed, and NOTE: The sufficient provocation against the

Criminal Law
accused must come from the victim or the with regard to the other victims who did not
offended party, and not from a third person. participate in the provocation. (U.S. v. Malabanan,
G.R. No. L-3964, 26 Nov. 1907)
Basis
Reason Why the Law Requires that
The diminution of intelligence and intent. “provocation must be immediate to the act,”
(i.e., to the commission of the crime by the
Threat Need Not be Offensive and Positively person who is provoked)
Strong
If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the
Threat should not be offensive and positively offended party could not have excited the accused
strong because if it was, the threat to inflict real to the commission of the crime, he having had
injury becomes unlawful aggression, which may time to regain his reason and to exercise self-
give rise to self-defense and, thus, no longer a control. Moreover, the law presupposes that
mitigating circumstance. during that interval, whatever anger or
diminished self-control may have emerged from
“Sufficient threat or provocation as a the offender had already vanished or diminished.
mitigating circumstance” vs. “Threat or
provocation as an element of self-defense” As long as the offender, at the time he committed
(People v. CA, G.R. No. 103613, 23 Feb. 2001) the felony, was still under the influence of the
outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is
SUFFICIENT acting under a diminished self-control. This is the
THREAT OR
THREAT OR reason why it is mitigating. However, there are
PROVOCATION AS
PROVOCATION AS A two criteria that must be taken into consideration:
AN ELEMENT OF
MITIGATING
DEFENSE
CIRCUMSTANCE 1. If there is a material lapse of time and there is
It pertains to its no finding that the effect of the threat or
It pertains to its
absence on the part of provocation had prolonged and affected the
presence on the part
the person defending offender at the time he committed the crime,
of the offended party.
himself. then the criterion to be used is based on time
element.
Sufficiency of Threat or Provocation Depends 2. However, if there is that time element and at
on: the same time, there is a finding that at the
time the offender committed the crime, he is
1. The act constituting the provocation; still suffering from outrage of the threat or
2. The social standing of the person provoked; provocation done to him, then, he will still get
and the benefit of this mitigating circumstance.
3. Time and place the provocation took place.
5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF
Q: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills A GRAVE OFFENSE
Tomas because of the insults. Can Petra avail ART. 13(5), RPC
of the mitigating circumstance?
Basis
A: NO. There is no mitigating circumstance
because it was the mother who insulted her, not The diminution of the conditions of voluntariness.
Tomas. The liability of the accused is mitigated
only insofar as it concerns the harm inflicted on NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person.
the person who made the provocation, but not It concerns the good names and reputation of the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
individual. (U.S. v. Ampar, G.R. No. L-12883, 26 Nov. accused to regain his composure. (People v.
1917) Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, 5 July 2004)
Requisites of Vindication of a Grave Offense Where four days elapsed from the knowledge of
(G-F) the supposed sexual assault and the attack, there
was sufficient time to regain composure and self-
1. A Grave offense has been done to the one control. Thus, there was no “immediate
committing the felony, his spouse, vindication of a grave offense.” (People v. Rebucan.
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural G.R. 182551, 27 July 2011)
or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degree; and Circumstances of Sufficient Threat or
Provocation vs. Immediate Vindication of a
2. A Felony is committed in vindication of such Grave Offense
grave offense.
SUFFICIENT IMMEDIATE
“Offense” Contemplated THREAT OR VINDICATION OF A
PROVOCATION GRAVE OFFENSE
The word offense should not be construed as As to Against Whom it is Made
equivalent to crime. It is enough that a wrong- The grave offense may
doing was committed. It is made directly
be committed also
only to the person
against the offenders’
Factors to be Considered in Determining the committing the
relatives mentioned
Gravity of the Offense felony.
by the law.
As to Cause
1. Social standing of the person; The offended party
2. Place; and The cause that must have done a
3. Time when the insult was made. (Reyes, 2017) brought about the grave offense against
provocation need not the offender or their
Lapse of Time Allowed between the be a grave offense. relatives mentioned
Vindication and the Doing of the Grave Offense by the law.
As to Interval of Time
The word “immediate” in Art. 13(5) of the RPC is It is necessary that the The vindication of the
not an accurate translation of the Spanish text provocation or threat grave offense may be
which uses the term “proxima.” A lapse of time is immediately proximate, which
allowed between the grave offense and the actual preceded the act. admits of interval of
vindication. (People v. Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, There must be no time between the
30 Sept. 2003) interval of time grave offense
between the committed by the
It is enough that: provocation and the offended party and the
1. The offender committed the crime; commission of the commission of the
2. The grave offense was done to them, their crime. crime by the accused.
spouse, their ascendant or descendant or to
their brother or sister, whether natural,
6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
adopted or legitimate; and
ART. 13(6), RPC
3. The grave offense is the proximate cause of
the commission of the crime.
Basis
However, this mitigating circumstance cannot be
Loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby
considered where sufficient time elapsed for the
diminishing the exercise of his will power.

Criminal Law
Passion or Obfuscation (2013 BAR) Offense, or Passion or Obfuscation, or vice-versa.

Only one of the three mitigating circumstances
Refers to emotional feeling which produces should be given in favor of the offender.
excitement so powerful as to overcome reason
and self-control. It must come from prior unjust XPN: If the mitigating circumstances of Sufficient
or improper acts. The passion and obfuscation Threat or Provocation, Immediate Vindication of a
must emanate from legitimate sentiments. Grave Offense, and Passion and Obfuscation arise
from different sets of facts, they may be
Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating appreciated together, although they may have
circumstance need not be felt only in the seconds arisen from one and the same case.
before the commission of the crime. It may build
up and strengthen over time until it can no longer Circumstances where Passion or Obfuscation
be repressed and will ultimately motivate the is NOT a Mitigating Circumstance
commission of the crime. (People v. Oloverio, G.R.
No. 211159, 18 Mar. 2015) If the act is committed in the spirit of:
1. Lawlessness; or
Elements of Passion or Obfuscation 2. Revenge
1. There is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to The obfuscation must originate from lawful
produce such a condition of mind; and feelings. The turmoil and unreason which
naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not
2. The said act which produced the obfuscation be confused with the sentiment or excitement in
was not far removed from the commission of the mind of a person injured or offended to such a
the crime by a considerable length of time, degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-
during which the perpetrator might recover control. The excitement which is inherent in all
his normal equanimity. persons who quarrel and come to blows does not
constitute obfuscation. (People v. Sabalberino, G.R.
“Considerable length of time” No. 241088, 03 June 2019)
There is no uniform rule on what constitutes "a Appreciation of Passion and Obfuscation as a
considerable length of time." The provocation and Mitigating Circumstance
the commission of the crime should not be so far
apart that a reasonable length of time has passed It may be appreciated even if the reported acts
during which the accused would have calmed causing obfuscation was not true, as long as it was
down and be able to reflect on the consequences honestly and reasonably believed by the accused
of his or her actions. What is important is that the to be true. (People v. Guhiting, G.R. No. L-2843, 14
accused has not yet "recovered his normal May 1951)
equanimity" when he committed the crime.
(People v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, 18 Mar. 2015) Passion or Obfuscation vs. Provocation
Applicable Rule when the Three Mitigating PASSION OR

PROVOCATION
Circumstances of Sufficient Threat or OBFUSCATION
Provocation (Art. 13[4]), Immediate As to Effect
Vindication of a Grave Offense (Art. 13[5]) and
The effect is the loss of reason and self-control
Passion or Obfuscation (Art. 13[6]) are Present
As to Source
It is produced by an The provocation
GR: If the offender is given the benefit of Sufficient
impulse which may comes from the
Threat or Provocation, they cannot be given the
cause provocation. injured party.
benefit of Immediate Vindication of a Grave

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
As to Immediateness of Commission the effort, time, and expenses to be incurred in

The offense need not searching for them.
be immediate. It is It must immediately
only required that the precede the Two (2) Mitigating Circumstances under this
influence thereof lasts commission of the Paragraph
until the moment the crime.
crime is committed. 1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority
or their agents; and
Passion or Obfuscation vs. Irresistible Force
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court
PASSION OR IRRESISTIBLE prior to the presentation of evidence for the
OBFUSCATION FORCE prosecution.
As to Type of Circumstance
NOTE: When both are present, they should have
Mitigating Exempting
the effect of two independent mitigating
circumstance circumstance
circumstances.
As to Presence of Physical Force
It cannot give rise to
Requisites of Voluntary Surrender (No-Su-Vo)
irresistible force
It requires physical
because passion or
force. 1. Offender had Not been actually arrested;
obfuscation has no
2. He Surrendered himself to a person in
physical force.
authority or to the latter’s agent; and
As to Source of Circumstance
3. The surrender was Voluntary.
The passion or
It must come from a
obfuscation is on the When Surrender is Considered as Voluntary
third person.
offender himself.
As to Source of Sentiments Surrender is considered voluntary when it is
spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit
It must arise from The force used is
himself unconditionally to the person in authority
lawful sentiments. unlawful.
or his agent, either:
Invocation of Passion or Obfuscation 1. Because they acknowledge their guilt; or

2. Because they wish to save them the trouble
As a rule, passion or obfuscation can only be used and expense necessarily included for their
as a mitigating circumstance. However, under Art. search and capture.
247 (Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional
Circumstances), it may be used as an exempting Whether a warrant of arrest had been issued
circumstance if an injury is inflicted other than against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant.
serious physical injuries and killing. The criterion is whether or not the offender had
gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into
7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND hiding and the law enforcers do not know of their
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT whereabouts.
ART. 13(7), RPC
GR: There was no voluntary surrender if the
warrant of arrest showed that the defendant was,
Basis
in fact, arrested.
The lesser perversity of the offender. The offender
XPN: If after committing the crime, the offender
is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong
did not flee and instead waited for the law
he has done which, thereby, saves the government
enforcers to arrive, and then they surrendered the

Criminal Law
weapon they used in killing the victim, voluntary court or governmental corporation, board, or
surrender is mitigating. However, if after commission.
committing the crime, the offender did not flee
and instead they went with the responding law Agent of a Person in Authority
enforcers meekly, voluntary surrender is not
applicable. A person who, by direct provision of law, or by
election, or by appointment by competent
“Spontaneous” authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life
It emphasizes the idea of inner impulse acting and property and any person who comes to the aid
without external stimulus. The conduct of the of persons in authority.
accused, not their intention alone, after the
commission of the offense determines the Q: If the accused escapes from the scene of the
spontaneity of the surrender. crime in order to seek advice from a lawyer,
and the latter ordered them to surrender
Lack of Resistance does Not Necessarily voluntarily to the authorities, which the
Equate to Voluntary Surrender accused followed by surrendering themself to
the municipal mayor, will their surrender be
There was no showing of spontaneity on the part considered mitigating?
of accused-appellant as it was not he who asked
for the police to go to their house. Neither was A: YES. They fled to the scene of a crime not to
there proof that he acknowledged his guilt when escape but to seek legal advice.
apprehended by the police authorities. While it
appears that he did not resist when the police Q: Y, while alighting from his vehicle, was hit
officers brought him to the police station for by X with his car. This caused Y to be thrown
questioning, such lack of resistance does not four meters away from his jeepney.
necessarily equate to his voluntary surrender. The Afterwards, X proceeded to the police camp to
voluntariness of one's surrender should denote a surrender and report the incident. X was
positive act and not a mere compliant or charged with Frustrated Murder and was
submissive behavior in the presence of subsequently convicted in the RTC of
authorities. (People v. Sabalberino, G.R. No. Frustrated Homicide. Upon appeal to the CA,
241088, 03 June 2019) the crime was modified to Reckless
Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical
Requirement that the Accused Surrender Injuries. X contends that the CA should have
Prior to the Order of Arrest appreciated voluntary surrender as a
mitigating circumstance in his favor. Is X’s
The law does not require that the accused contention correct?
surrender prior to the order of arrest. What
matters is the spontaneous surrender of the A: NO. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
accused upon learning that a warrant of arrest had surrender cannot be appreciated in his favor. Art.
been issued against them and that voluntary 365(5) of the RPC expressly states that in the
surrender is obedience to the order of arrest imposition of the penalties, the courts shall
issued against them. (People v. Yecla, et al., G.R. No. exercise their sound discretion, without regard to
L-46612, 14 Oct. 1939) the rules prescribed in Art. 64 of the RPC.
Person in Authority The rationale of the law, according to People v.

Medroso, Jr., can be found in the fact that in quasi-
One who is directly vested with jurisdiction, offenses penalized under Art. 365, the
whether as an individual or as a member of some carelessness, imprudence or negligence which

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
characterizes the wrongful act may vary from one BAR)

situation to another, in nature, extent, and
resulting consequences, and in order that there A: NO. Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating
may be a fair and just application of the penalty, circumstance of voluntary surrender as his going
the courts must have ample discretion in its to the police station is only for the purpose of
imposition, without being bound by what We may verification of the news that he is wanted by the
call the mathematical formula provided for in Art. authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender
64 of the RPC. (Mariano v. People, G.R. No. 178145, must be spontaneous and that he acknowledges
07 July 2014) his guilt. Neither is his plea of guilty a mitigating
circumstance because it was a qualified plea.
Requisites of Voluntary Confession of Guilt Besides, Art. 13(7) of the RPC provides that
(1999 BAR) (S-O-P) confession of guilt must be done before the
prosecution had started to present evidence.
1. The offender Spontaneously confessed their
guilt; NOTE: Where in the original information the
2. It was made in Open court (that is, before the accused pleaded not guilty but he pleaded guilty
competent court that is to try the case); and to the amended information, it is considered as a
3. It was made Prior to the presentation of voluntary plea of guilty and considered a
evidence for the prosecution. mitigating circumstance. (People v. Ortiz, G.R. No L-
19585, 29 Nov. 1965)
NOTE: Qualified plea/plea of guilty to lesser
offense than that charged is not mitigating. For 8. PHYSICAL DEFECT
voluntary confession to be appreciated, the ART. 13(8), RPC
confession must not only be made unconditionally
(i.e., not subject to any condition) but the accused Basis
must admit the offense charged.
The diminution of the element of voluntariness.
Plea of Guilty Not Applicable to All Crimes
Physical Defect
A plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable
felonies and in crimes punished by special penal A person's physical condition, such as being deaf
laws, unless otherwise provided therein (e.g., Anti- and dumb, blind, armless, cripple, or stutterer,
Plunder Act [R.A. No. 7080]), or if the special penal whereby their means of action, defense, or
law adopts the same nomenclature of penalties as communication with others are restricted or
that of the RPC, in which case, Art. 10 of the RPC limited. The physical defect that a person may
shall apply (e.g., Comprehensive Firearms and have must have a relation to the commission of the
Ammunition Regulation Act [R.A. No. 10591]). crime.
Q: Upon learning that the police wanted him Requisites of Physical Defect (P-R)
for the killing of Polistico, Jeprox decided to
visit the police station to make inquiries. On 1. The offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or
his way, he met a policeman who immediately otherwise suffering from some Physical
served upon him the warrant for his arrest. defect; and
During the trial, in the course of the
presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, 2. Such physical defect Restricts his means of
Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty. action, defense, or communication with their
fellow beings.
Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender and plea of guilty? (1992 NOTE: The physical defect of the offender must

Criminal Law
have a relation to the offense committed. (See discussion on imbecility and insanity as an
exempting circumstance – page 34)
Q: Suppose X is deaf and dumb, and he has
been slandered, he cannot talk so what he did NOTE: A polio victim, in their younger days of
was he got a piece of wood and struck the limping while they walk, cannot claim mitigating
fellow on the head. X was charged with circumstance in the crime of oral defamation.
physical injuries. Is X entitled to a mitigating
circumstance by reason of his physical defect? 10. SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES
A: YES. The Supreme Court held that being a deaf ART. 13(10), RPC
and dumb is mitigating because the only way to
vindicate himself is to use his force because he Examples of Similar and Analogous
cannot strike back by words. Circumstances
NOTE: The law says that the offender is deaf and 1. The act of the offender of leading the law
dumb, meaning not only deaf but also dumb, or enforcers to the place where they buried the
that they are blind, meaning in both eyes, but even instrument of the crime has been considered
if they are only deaf and not dumb, or dumb but as equivalent to voluntary surrender.
not deaf, or blind only in eye, they are still entitled
to a mitigating circumstance under this article as 2. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out
long as their physical defects restrict their means of extreme poverty is considered as
of action, defense, or communication with their analogous to incomplete state of necessity
fellowmen. (People v. Macbul, G.R. No. 48976, 11 Oct.
1943), unless they became impoverished
NOTE: The law does not distinguish between because of their own way of living his life, e.g.,
educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind he had so many vices.
persons. The Code considers them as being on
equal footing. (Reyes, 2017) 3. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing
eyesight is similar to a case of a person over
9. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER 70 years of age. (People v. Reantillo and Ruiz,
ART. 13(9), RPC C.A. G.R. No. 301, 27 July 1938)
Basis 4. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion

and obfuscation. (People v. Libria, G.R. No. L-
Diminution of intelligence and intent. 6585, 16 July 1954)
Requisites of Illness (Di-No) 5. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to

voluntary surrender. (Nizurtado v.
1. Illness of the offender must Diminish the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, 07 Dec. 1994)
exercise of will power; and
2. Such illness should Not deprive the offender 6. Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken
of consciousness of their acts. for ransom is analogous to vindication of
grave offense. (People v. Monaga, G.R. No. L-
If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of 38528, 19 Nov. 1982)
the offender’s will power but deprives them of the
consciousness of their acts, it becomes an 7. Esprit de corps is similar to passion and
exempting circumstance to be classified as obfuscation.
insanity or imbecility.
NOTE: Esprit de corps refers to the common

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
spirit existing in the members of a group and with the complainant was later on declared void
inspiring enthusiasm, devotion, and strong ab initio on account of the latter’s psychological
regard for the honor of the group. (Meriam- incapacity, by reason of which, the wife was
Webster Dictionary) subjected to manipulative abuse. (G.R. No. 164435,
29 Sept. 2009)
8. Wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal
possession of firearm after the liberation Circumstances which are Neither Exempting
(People v. Quemuel, G.R. No. L-77, 15 Feb. nor Mitigating
1946), as being similar to lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong. 1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus;
2. Entrapment;
9. Testifying for the prosecution without being 3. Accused is over 18 years of age; and
discharged from the information (People v. 4. Performance of righteous action.
Narvasca, et al., G.R. No. L-28107, 15 Mar.
1977), as being like a plea of guilty. d. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
ART. 14, RPC
10. Acting out of embarrassment and fear caused
by the victim because of gambling debts of the Aggravating Circumstances
accused (People v. Ong, et al., G.R. No. L-34497,
30 Jan. 1975), as akin to passion or Those which, if attendant in the commission of the
obfuscation. crime:
11. Retaliating for having been assaulted during a 1. Serve to increase the penalty without,
public dance where the accused was well however, exceeding the maximum of the
known and respected (People v. Libria, G.R. No. penalty provided by law for the offense; or
L-6585, 16 July 1954), as similar to 2. Change the nature of the crime.
vindication.
Basis
12. When the petitioner submits extrajudicial
confession through the handwritten letter They are based on the greater perversity of the
coupled with her act of surrendering the offender manifested in the commission of the
redeemed pawn tickets and thereafter going felony as shown by the:
to the police station (Frontreras v. People, G.R.
No. 190583, 07 Dec. 2015), as an analogous 1. Motivating power itself;
circumstance of voluntary surrender. 2. Place of commission;
3. Means and ways employed;
Significance of this Paragraph 4. Time; and
5. Personal circumstances of the offender or the
The significance is that even though a particular offended party.
circumstance does not fall under any of the
enumerated circumstances in Art. 13, the court is Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances (1999
authorized to consider in favor of the accused “any BAR) (Gene-S-I-S-Q)
other circumstance of a similar nature and
analogous to those mentioned.” 1. Generic – those that can generally apply to
almost all crimes.
In Jarillo v. People, the SC ruled that an abandoned
wife, who remained and was found guilty of Examples:
Bigamy, is entitled to a mitigating circumstance a. Taking advantage of public position;
“for humanitarian purposes” since her marriage b. Contempt or insult to public authorities;

Criminal Law
c. Dwelling; 4. Inherent – those that must of necessity

d. Abuse of confidence or obvious accompany the commission of the crime. They
ungratefulness; are already elements in the commission of the
e. Palace of Chief Executive and places of crime. Thus, they are no longer considered
commission of offenses; against the offender so as to increase the
f. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band; imposable penalty. (Art. 62(2), RPC)
g. Recidivism;
h. Reiteracion; Examples:
i. Craft, fraud, or disguise; a. Abuse of public office in bribery;
j. Unlawful entry; b. Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into
k. Breaking wall; and a house in robbery with the use of force
l. Aid of minor or by means of motor upon things;
vehicle. c. Fraud in estafa;
d. Deceit in simple seduction;
2. Specific – those that apply only to particular e. Ignominy in rape;
crimes. f. Evident premeditation in robbery and
estafa;
Examples: g. Disregard of respect due the offended
a. Cruelty in crimes against persons only party on account of rank in direct
(Art. 14, RPC); assault;
b. Treachery in crimes against persons h. Superior strength in treason; and
only (Art. 14, RPC); i. Cruelty in mutilation.
c. The victim is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, 5. Special – those which arise under special
teachers, or persons in authority, in less conditions to increase the penalty of the
serious physical injures (Art. 265, par. 3, offense and cannot be offset by mitigating
RPC); circumstances, except for privileged
d. Unlicensed firearms in robbery in band mitigating circumstances.
(Art. 296, RPC);
e. Abuse of authority or confidential Examples:
relations by guardians or curators in a. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160, RPC);
seduction, rape, acts of lasciviousness, b. Complex crime (Art. 48, RPC);
white slavery and corruption of minors c. Taking advantage of public position and
(Art. 346, RPC); and membership in an organized or
f. Positive finding in the use of dangerous syndicated crime group (Art. 62(1)(a),
drugs for crimes punishable under R.A. RPC);
No. 9165. (Dela Cruz v. People, GR No. d. The use of a loose firearm when inherent
200748, 23 July 2014) in the commission of a crime (Sec. 29,
R.A. No. 10591); and
3. Qualifying – those that change the nature of e. Organized or syndicated crime group.
the crime. (Art. 62, RPC)
Examples: NOTE: Under Secs. 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the

a. By means of poison; Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating
b. With the aid of armed men; circumstances must be alleged in the information
c. Treachery, in killing persons; and or complaint; otherwise, they cannot be properly
d. Grave abuse of confidence which makes appreciated.
stealing as qualified theft.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Generic Aggravating vs. Qualifying 10. Reiteracion, Habitual delinquency, or Quasi-

Aggravating Circumstances recidivism;
11. Price, reward, or promise;
GENERIC QUALIFYING 12. By means of Inundation, fire, poison,
AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional
CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive,
or by the use of any other artifice involving
As to Effects
great waste or ruin.;
Affects only the Affects the nature of 13. Evident premeditation; (1991, 2009 BAR)
imposition of the the crime or brings 14. Craft, fraud or disguise; (1995 BAR)
penalty prescribed, about a penalty higher 15. Abuse of superior strength or means to
but not the nature of in degree than that weaken the defense;
the crime committed. ordinarily prescribed. 16. Treachery;
17. Ignominy;
As to Offsetting
18. Unlawful entry;
GR: Cannot be offset 19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, or door;
by any mitigating 20. Aid of persons under 15 years old or by means
Can be offset by an circumstances. of Motor vehicle or other similar means; and
ordinary mitigating 21. Cruelty. (1994 BAR)
circumstance. XPN: Privileged
mitigating Position and Standing of the Accused
circumstances Considered as Aggravating
As to Requirement to be Alleged
in the Information Where a person found guilty of violation of
Both must be alleged in the information in Gambling law is a man of station or standing in the
order to be appreciated. community, the maximum penalty should be
imposed. (U.S. v. Salaveria, G.R. No. L-13678, 12
NOTE: When there is more than one qualifying Nov. 1918)
aggravating circumstance present, one of them
will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating Aggravating Circumstances which do NOT
while the others will be considered as generic have the Effect of Increasing the Penalty
aggravating.
1. Those circumstances which, in themselves,
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal constitute a crime especially punishable by law
Liability (TaCO-DAPaNiC-APIERe2-CACTI-ABU) (Art. 62(1), RPC);
1. Taking advantage of public position; 2. Those circumstances included by law in

2. Contempt or insult to public authorities; defining a crime and prescribing penalty (Art.
3. Disregard of rank, age, sex, or dwelling of the 62(1), RPC); and
offended party; (1996, 2009 BAR)
4. Abuse of confidence and Obvious 3. Those circumstances inherent in the crime to
ungratefulness; such a degree that it must of necessity
5. Palace and places of commission of offense; accompany the commission thereof. (Art.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band; 62(2), RPC)
(1994, 1997, 2009 BAR)
7. On occasion of Calamity or misfortune;
8. Aid of armed men, or persons to insure or
afford impunity;
9. Recidivist; (1993, 2009, 2014 BAR)

Criminal Law
Aggravating Circumstances which are 1. Abused his public position; or

Personal to the Offenders 2. At least, the use of the same facilitated the
commission of the offense.
Aggravating circumstances which arise from:
NOTE: To be applicable, the public officer must
1. The moral attributes of the offender; have used their:
2. His private relations with the offended party;
and 1. Influence;
3. Any other personal cause. 2. Prestige; or
3. Ascendancy.
Appreciation of Personal Aggravating
Circumstances NOTE: There is no abuse of public position when
the offender could have perpetuated the crime
It shall only serve to aggravate the liability of even without occupying their position.
those persons as to whom such circumstances are
attendant. (Art. 62(3), RPC) Taking Advantage of Public Position is a
Special Aggravating Circumstance
Appreciation of an Aggravating Circumstance
if there are Several Accused When in the commission of the crime, advantage
was taken by the offender of his public position,
GR: The circumstances which serve to aggravate the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum
or mitigate the liability of those persons only who regardless of mitigating circumstances. (Art. 62,
had knowledge of them at the time of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659)
execution of the act or their cooperation therein
are those which consist in the: When Taking Advantage of Public Position
NOT considered as an Aggravating
1. Material execution of the act; or Circumstance
2. Means employed to accomplish it.
This circumstance is not applicable in offenses
XPN: When there is proof of conspiracy, in which where taking advantage of official position is
case the act of one is deemed to be the act of all, made by law an integral element of the crime, such
regardless of lack of knowledge of the facts as in malversation or in falsification of document
constituting the circumstance. (Art. 62(4), RPC) committed by public officers.
1. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION 2. CONTEMPT OR INSULT

ART. 14 (1), RPC TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
ART. 14 (2), RPC
Basis
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by the: The greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by their lack of respect for the public authorities.
1. Personal circumstances of the offender; and
2. Means used to secure the commission of the Requisites of Contempt or Insult to Public
crime. Authorities as an Aggravating Circumstance
(P-E-N-K)
Taking Advantage of Public Position
1. That the public authority is Engaged in the
The public officer: exercise of their functions;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
2. Such authority is Not the person against whom 3. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE,
the crime is committed; SEX, OR DWELLING
3. Offender Knows them to be a public authority; ART. 14 (3), RPC
and
4. Their Presence has not prevented the offender Par. 3 provides for four (4) aggravating
from committing the crime. circumstances which, if present in the same case,
should be considered independently of each other
Public Authority and numerically reckoned accordingly. (People v.
Santos, et al., G.R. No. L-4189, 21 May 1952)
Public authority, also called a “person in
authority,” is a public officer directly vested with Basis
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a
member of some court or governmental The greater perversity of the offender, as shown
corporation, board, or commission, shall be by the personal circumstances of the offended
deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain party and the place of commission.
and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a
person in authority. (Art. 152, as amended by P.D. Ways of Committing the Aggravating
No. 1232) Circumstance under this paragraph
NOTE: Teachers, professors, and persons charged The act must be committed: (2017 BAR)
with the supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities, and 1. With insult or in disregard of the respect due
lawyers in the actual performance of their to the offended party on account of his:
professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance, are persons in authority only for a. Rank
purposes of direct assault and simple resistance. b. Age
c. Sex
The Crime should NOT be Committed Against
the Public Authority 2. In the Dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given sufficient provocation.
If the crime is committed against a public
authority while he is in the performance of his NOTE: Disregard of rank, age, or sex is essentially
official duty, the offender commits direct assault applicable only to crimes against honor or
(Art. 148) without this aggravating circumstance, persons. They are NOT taken into account in
because it is not a crime committed “in contempt crimes against property. They do not apply to the
of or with insult” to him, but a crime directly special complex crime of robbery with homicide
committed against him. (Reyes, 2017) which is classified as crime against property. (U.S.
v. Samonte, G.R. No. L-3422, 03 Aug. 1907)
Necessity that the Offender has Knowledge NOTE: Disregard of rank, age, or sex cannot co-
that the Public Authority is Present exist with passion or obfuscation.
Knowledge that a public authority is present is “With insult or in disregard”

essential. Lack of such knowledge indicates lack of
intention to insult the public authority. In the commission of the crime, the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or
age of the offended party.

Criminal Law
1. Rank 4. Dwelling
It refers to official, civil, or social position or A building or structure exclusively used for rest or
standing. It is the designation or title of distinction comfort, which includes temporary dwelling,
used to fix the relative position of the offended dependencies, foot of the staircase, and enclosure
party in reference to others. There must be a of the house. It does not necessarily refer to the
difference in the social condition of the offender permanent residence or domicile of the offended
and the offended party. party or that he must be the owner thereof. He
must, however, be actually living or dwelling
2. Age therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.
It is not necessary that the accused should have

The circumstance of lack of respect due to age
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to
applies in cases where the victim is of tender age
commit the offense. It is enough that the victim
as well as of old age.
was attacked inside his own house, although the
assailant may have devised means to perpetrate
The circumstance of old age cannot be considered
the assault (e.g., triggerman fired the shot from
aggravating in the absence of evidence that the
outside the house, while his victim was inside).
accused deliberately intended to offend or insult
the age of the victim. (People v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-
Instances when Dwelling is NOT Aggravating
24002, 21 Jan. 1974)
1. When the owner of the dwelling gave

3. Sex sufficient and immediate provocation;
Sex refers to the female sex, not to the male sex. 2. When the offender and the offended party are
occupants of the same house except in case of
Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the same is
of evidence that the accused deliberately intended aggravating; however, if one of the dwellers
to offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed therein becomes a paramour, the applicable
manifest disrespect to her womanhood. aggravating circumstance is abuse of
confidence; and
Q: What if all four aggravating circumstances
are present? 3. When dwelling is inherent in the commission
of the crime:
A: They have the weight of one aggravating
circumstance only. (Reyes, 2017) a. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280, RPC);
b. Robbery by use of force upon things.
When Aggravating Circumstance of Disregard (Art. 299, RPC)
of Rank, Age, or Sex NOT Considered for the
Purpose of Increasing Penalty NOTE: Dwelling is not absorbed or included in
1. When the offender acted with passion or treachery.
obfuscation (all three circumstances);
Provocation in the Aggravating Circumstance
2. When there exists a relationship between the of Dwelling
offended party and the offender; or
The provocation must be:
3. When the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the crime. 1. Given by the owner or occupant of the
(e.g., rape, abduction and seduction) dwelling;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
2. Sufficient; and Instances when Abuse of Confidence is NOT

3. Immediate to the commission of the crime. Considered as an Aggravating Circumstance
NOTE: If all of these are present, the offended 1. Malversation (Art. 217, RPC);
party is deemed to have given provocation and the 2. Qualified Theft (Art. 310, RPC);
fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of 3. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation
the offended party is NOT an aggravating (Art. 315, RPC); and
circumstance. 4. Qualified Seduction (Art. 337, RPC).
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR Reason: Abuse of confidence is inherent in the

OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS abovementioned crimes; hence, they are not
ART. 14 (4), RPC considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Basis 2. Obvious Ungratefulness
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown The ungratefulness must be of such clear and
by the means and ways employed. manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused.
NOTE: These are two separate aggravating Requisites of Obvious Ungratefulness (T-A-O)
circumstances under Art. 14(4):
1. That the offended party had Trusted the
1. Abuse of confidence offender;
2. Obvious ungratefulness 2. Abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party; and
1. Abuse of Confidence 3. That the act be committed with Obvious
ungratefulness.
This circumstance exists only when the offended
party has trusted the offender who later abuses 5. PALACE AND PLACES OF COMMISSION
such trust by committing the crime. OF THE OFFENSE
ART. 14 (5), RPC
Requisites of Abuse of Confidence (T-A-F)
Basis
1. The offended party had Trusted the offender;
2. The offender Abused such trust by The greater perversity of the offender, as shown
committing a crime against the offended by the place of the commission of the crime, which
party; and must be respected.
3. The abuse of confidence Facilitated the
commission of the crime. Places of Commission of Offenses
(PaPres-PuRe)
Nature of Confidence Necessary under this
Circumstance 1. In the Palace of the Chief Executive;
The confidence between the parties must be 2. In his Presence (of the Chief Executive);
immediate and personal, as would give the
accused the advantage or make it easier for him to 3. Where Public authorities are engaged in the
commit the crime. The confidence must be a discharge of their duties; or
means of facilitating the commission of a crime.
4. In a place dedicated to Religious worship.

Criminal Law
The Chief Executive need Not be Engaged in his Place Dedicated to Religious Worship
Official Functions
The place must be permanently dedicated to
It is NOT necessary that the Chief Executive is public religious worship.
engaged in his official functions. The presence of
the Chief Executive alone in any place where the Places NOT Considered as Dedicated to
crime is committed is enough to constitute the Religious Worship
aggravating circumstance, but the offender must
be aware of the presence of the President. 1. Private chapels
2. Cemeteries
Necessity of Public Authorities to be Engaged
in the Discharge of their Duties NOTE: To be considered aggravating, the accused
must have purposely sought the place for the
Public authorities must actually be engaged in the commission of the crime and that he committed it
discharge of their duties, there must be some there notwithstanding the respect to which it was
performance of public functions. entitled, and not where it was only an accidental
or incidental circumstance. (People v. Jaurigue, et.
Committed in the Palace of the Chief Executive al., C.A. No. 384, 21 Feb. 1946)
vs. Committed in Contempt of Public
Authorities 6. NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED
PLACE, OR BY A BAND
COMMITTED IN ART. 14 (6), RPC
COMMITTED IN THE
CONTEMPT OF
PALACE OF THE
PUBLIC Three (3) Aggravating Circumstances under
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITIES Art. 14(6) of the RPC (N-U-B)
ART. 14 (5), RPC
ART. 14 (2), RPC
As to Place of Performance of Public Duty 1. Nighttime
2. Uninhabited Place
Public duty is Public duty is 3. By a Band
performed in their performed outside
office. their office. These circumstances should be considered
As to Offended Party separately.
The offended party Public authority
Instances when Nighttime, Uninhabited Place
may or may not be should not be the
or By a Band is Considered Aggravating
the public authority. offended party.
As to Performance of Public Duties 1. It facilitated the commission of the crime;
In both, public authorities are in the
performance of their duties. 2. It is especially sought for by the offender to
ensure the commission of the crime; and
Crimes Committed in the Malacañang Palace
NOTE: “Especially sought” means that the
or in Church are Always Aggravating
offender sought it in order to realize the crime
with more ease.
This is true regardless of whether State or Official
or Religious Functions are being held.
3. The offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
“Impunity” means to prevent the offender from

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
being recognized or to secure himself against XPN: Where both the treacherous mode of attack
detection and punishment. and nocturnity were deliberately decided upon,
they can be considered separately if such
“Took advantage” means that the accused circumstances have different factual bases.
availed himself thereof for the successful
consummation of his plans. 2. Uninhabited Place
1. Nighttime It is where there are no houses at all, a place at a

considerable distance from town or where the
Nighttime or nocturnity is a period from after houses are scattered at a great distance from each
sunset to sunrise, from dusk to dawn. It is other. It is not determined by the distance of the
necessary that the commission of the crime was nearest house to the scene of the crime but
commenced and completed at nighttime. whether or not in the place of the commission of
the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of
Darkness of the night makes nighttime an the victim receiving some help.
aggravating circumstance. Hence, when the place
of the crime is illuminated or sufficiently lighted, Instances when Uninhabited Place is
nighttime is not aggravating. Aggravating
It is also necessary that the commission of the To be aggravating, it is necessary that the offender
crime was begun and completed at nighttime. took advantage of the place and purposely availed
Hence, where the series of acts necessary for its of it as to make it easier to commit the crime.
commission was begun at daytime and was
completed that night (People v. Luchico, G.R. No. The offender must choose the place as an aid
26170, 06 Dec. 1926), or was begun at night and either to:
consummated the following day (U.S. v. Dowdell,
Jr., et al., G.R. No. 4191, 18 July 1908), the 1. An easy and uninterrupted accomplishment
aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not of their criminal designs; or
applied. 2. Insure concealment of the offense.
NOTE: Even if the offender sought nighttime, the 3. By a Band

moment the scene of the crime has been
illuminated by any light, nighttime will not be
It means that there are at least four (4) armed
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
malefactors acting together in the commission of
the offense.
Reasons why Nighttime is Considered
Aggravating
NOTE: All must be armed; otherwise, the
aggravating circumstance under Art. 14(8) (Aid of
1. During nighttime, recognition of the accused
Armed Men) shall apply.
is more difficult.
2. Harder for the victim to defend himself.
The RPC does not require any particular arms or
3. Nighttime provides security for the accused.
weapons. Hence, any instrument or implement
4. Mere presence of darkness gives others
which, by reason of the intrinsic nature or the
anxiety or fear.
purpose for which it was made or used by the
accused, is capable of inflicting serious injuries.
Rule in the Appreciation of Nighttime and
Treachery in the Commission of a Crime
NOTE: If the group of two or more persons falls
under the definition of an organized or syndicated
GR: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.

Criminal Law
crime group under Art. 62, as amended, it is a “Calamity or misfortune”

special aggravating circumstance.
Refers to other conditions of distress similar to
Applicability of Band as an Aggravating the enumeration preceded by it.
Circumstance
8. AID OF ARMED MEN
1. The aggravating circumstance of by a band is ART. 14 (8), RPC
considered in crimes against property or
against persons including the crime of illegal When Circumstance is Present
detention or treason.
When the crime to which it is attached to is
NOTE: This aggravating circumstance is not committed with the aid of:
applicable in crimes against chastity.
1. Armed men; or
2. Inherent in brigandage (not considered as an 2. Persons who insure or afford impunity.
aggravating circumstance).
Requisites of Aid of Armed Men (Took-Av)
3. Abuse of superior strength and use of
firearms, absorbed in aggravating 1. That armed men or persons Took part in the
circumstance of “by a band.” commission of the crime, directly or indirectly;
and
4. All armed men must take a direct part in the
execution of the act constituting the crime. 2. That the accused Availed himself of their aid or
relied upon them when the crime is committed.
NOTE: If one of the four armed persons is a
principal by inducement, they do not form a NOTE: Arms is not limited to firearms. Bolos,
band. knives, sticks, and stones are included. Aid of
armed men includes armed women.
7. ON OCCASION OF CONFLAGRATION,
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR Circumstances when Aid of Armed Men is NOT
OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE Considered as an Aggravating Circumstance
ART. 14 (7), RPC
1. When both the attacking party and the party
Basis attacked were equally armed;
The time of the commission of the crime. The 2. When the accused as well as those who
reason is the debased form of criminality met in cooperated with him in the commission of the
one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead crime acted under the same plan and for the
of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their same purpose; and
suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune.
3. The casual presence of the armed men near
When Considered as an Aggravating the place where the crime was committed
Circumstance when the accused did not avail himself of their
aid or relied upon them to commit the crime.
1. The crime is committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, Q: What aggravating circumstance will be
epidemic, or other; and considered if there are four armed men?
2. The offender takes advantage of it.
A: If there are four armed men, aid of armed men

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
is absorbed in employment of a band. If there are Requisites of Recidivism (TriPS-Con)

three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be
the aggravating circumstance. 1. That the offender is on Trial for an offense;
2. He was Previously convicted by final
By a Band vs. Crime With the Aid of Armed Men judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offense are
WITH THE AID OF embraced in the Same title of the RPC; and
BY A BAND
ARMED MEN 4. Offender is Convicted of the new offense.
Par. 6, RPC
Par. 8, RPC
As to Number Effect of Recidivism in the Application of
Requires more than 3 At least 2 armed Penalties
armed malefactors malefactors
GR: Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance,
As to Participation of Armed Malefactors
recidivism affects only the periods of a penalty.
This circumstance is
At least four
present even if one of XPN: In prostitution (Art. 202, as amended by R.A.
malefactors shall have
the offenders merely 10158), and gambling, (P.D. 1602, which repealed
acted together in the
relied on their aid, Art. 192 of the RPC) wherein recidivism increases
commission of an
actual aid is not the penalties by degrees.
offense
necessary
As to Criminal Liability “At the time of his trial for one crime”
Band members are all Armed men are mere
principals accomplices It is employed in its generic sense, including the
rendition of judgment. It is meant to include
9. RECIDIVISM everything that is done in the course of the trial
ART. 14 (9), RPC from arraignment until after sentence is
announced by the judge in open court.
Recidivist
Q: Suppose the first offense in 1975 was
homicide, then the second offense in 2004 was
One who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
murder. Can aggravating circumstance of
have been previously convicted by final judgment
recidivism be appreciated?
of another crime embraced in the same title of the
RPC.
A: YES. Homicide and murder are crimes both
under crimes against persons. Hence, both crimes
Basis
are embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his
Necessity of Conviction to Come in the Order in
inclination to crimes.
which they are Committed
Ratio
There is no recidivism if the subsequent
conviction is for an offense committed prior to the
The law considers this an aggravating
offense involved in the previous conviction.
circumstance because when a person has been
Example: The accused was convicted of robbery
committing felonies embraced in the same title,
with homicide which was committed on Dec. 23,
the implication is that he is specializing on such
1947. He was previously convicted of theft
kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any
committed on Dec. 30, 1947.
specialization.
NOTE: If both offenses were committed on the

Criminal Law
same date, they shall be considered as only one; 2. That he Previously served his sentence for:
hence, they cannot be separately counted in order a. Another crime to which the law attaches
to constitute recidivism. Moreover, judgments of an Equal or Greater penalty; or
conviction handed down on the same day shall be b. 2 or more crimes to which it attaches
considered as only one conviction. lighter penalty than that for the new
offense; and
Effect of Pardon to Recidivism
3. That he is Convicted of the new offense.
GR: Pardon does not obliterate recidivism, even if
it is absolute because it only excuses the service of NOTE: It is the penalty attached to the offense, not
the penalty, not the conviction. the penalty actually imposed that is actually
considered.
XPN: If the offender had already served out his
sentence and was subsequently extended pardon. Four (4) Forms of Habituality (Re2-QuasH)
NOTE: If the President extends pardon to 1. Recidivism

someone who already served out the principal 2. Reiteracion (Habituality)
penalty, there is a presumed intention to remove 3. Quasi-recidivism
recidivism. 4. Habitual delinquency
Effect of Amnesty to Recidivism Reiteracion vs. Recidivism
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects; REITERACION RECIDIVISM

thus, it obliterates recidivism. As to Requirement of Service of Sentence
It is necessary that the Not necessary. It is
Recidivism NOT subject to Prescription offender shall have enough that a final
served out his judgment has been
No matter how long ago the offender was sentence for his first rendered in the first
convicted, if he is subsequently convicted of a offense. offense.
crime embraced in the same title of the RPC, it is As to Offenses Committed
taken into account as aggravating in imposing the Previous and
penalty. (People v. Colocar, G.R. No. 40871, 10 Nov. subsequent offenses Offenses should be
1934) must NOT be included in the same
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
(See also discussion on recidivism under Multiple title of the RPC.
Offenders – page 100) As to Consideration in Fixing Penalty
Always to be taken
10. REITERACION Not always an into consideration in
ART. 14 (10), RPC aggravating fixing the penalty to
circumstance. be imposed upon the
Basis accused.
The greater perversity of the offender as shown (See also discussion on reiteracion (habituality)
by his inclination to commit crimes. under Multiple Offenders – page 100)
Requisites of Reiteracion (Tri-PAGE2-Con)
1. That the accused is on Trial for an offense;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
11. IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, kill him this afternoon” and so, B told him, “If you
REWARD, OR PROMISE do that, I’ll give you P5,000.00.” After killing X, A
ART. 14 (11), RPC again approached B, told him he had already killed
X, and B, in compliance with his promise,
Basis delivered the P5,000 to A. In this case, the
aggravating circumstance is NOT present because
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown the offer of B was not the primary reason of A in
by the motivating power itself. committing the crime. A resolved to kill X even
before B offered him the money.
Requisites of In Consideration of a Price,
Reward, or Promise 12. BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE,
EXPLOSION, POISON, ETC.
1. There are at least 2 principals: ART. 14 (12), RPC
a. principal by inducement
b. principal by direct participation; and Basis
2. The price, reward, or promise should be The means and ways employed.
before and in consideration of the
commission of the criminal act. Aggravating Circumstances under this
Paragraph
NOTE: The price, reward, or promise need not
consist of or refer to material things, or that the If the crime be committed by means of: (IF-
same were actually delivered, it being sufficient PESDA)
that the offer made by the principal by
inducement be accepted by the principal by direct 1. Inundation;
participation before the commission of the 2. Fire;
offense. 3. Poison;
4. Explosion;
Appreciation of this Circumstance 5. Stranding of the vessel or intentional damage
thereto;
It is appreciated against both the principal by 6. Derailment of locomotive; or
inducement and principal by direct participation. 7. By use of any other Artifice involving great
waste and ruin.
Effect on Criminal Liability of the One Giving
the Offer NOTE: Any of these circumstances cannot be
considered to increase the penalty or to change
This aggravating circumstance affects or the nature of the offense, unless used by the
aggravates not only the criminal liability of the offender as means to accomplish a criminal
receiver of the price, reward, or promise but also purpose.
the criminal liability of the one giving the offer.
It is also not aggravating when the law in defining
To consider this circumstance, the price, reward, the crime includes them (e.g., Fire is not
or promise must be the primary reason or the aggravating in the crime of arson).
primordial motive for the commission of the
crime. NOTE: Under Art. 14 (12), the crime is committed
by means of any of such acts involving great waste
Illustration: A approached B and asked the latter or ruin. Under Art. 14 (7), the crime is committed
what he thought of X. B answered, “He is a bad on the occasion of a calamity or misfortune.
man,” to which A retorted, “You see I am going to

Criminal Law
Rules as to the Use of Fire (2019 BAR) 2. An Act manifestly indicating that the culprit
has clung to his determination (preparation);
In cases where both burning and death occur, in and
order to determine what crime was committed,
there is a need to ascertain the main objective of 3. A Sufficient lapse of time between the
the malefactor: determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and
a. If the main objective is the burning of the to allow his conscience to overcome the
building or edifice but death results by reason resolution of his will (time).
or on occasion of arson, the crime is simply
arson, and the resulting homicide is Reason for Requiring Sufficient Time
absorbed;
The offender must have an opportunity to coolly
b. If the main objective is to kill a particular and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning
person who may be in the building or edifice, and the consequences of what he planned to do, an
when fire is resorted to as a means to interval long enough for his conscience and better
accomplish such goal, the crime committed is judgment to overcome his evil desire.
murder only; and
NOTE: Evident premeditation is absorbed in
c. If the objective is to kill a particular person, treachery.
and in fact the offender has already done so,
but the fire is resorted to as a means to cover Appreciation of Evident Premeditation
up the killing, then there are two separate and
distinct crimes committed – For evident premeditation to be appreciated, it is
homicide/murder and arson. (People v. Sota indispensable to show concrete evidence on how
and Gadjadli, G.R. No. 203121, 29 Nov. 2017) and when the plan to kill was hatched or how
much time had elapsed before it was carried out.
13. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
ART. 14 (13), RPC To qualify an offense, the circumstance must not
merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident
Basis premeditation." Hence, absent a clear and positive
proof of the overt act of planning the crime, mere
The ways of committing the crime. presumptions and inferences thereon, no matter
how logical and probable, would not be enough.
Essence Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to
qualify the offense in this case. (People v. Agramon,
The execution of the criminal act must be G.R. No. 212156, 20 June 2018, J. Caguioa)
preceded by cool thought and upon reflection to
carry out the criminal intent during the space of Q: Samuel and his wife, Marissa, were talking
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. at the doorway of their house when they saw
Ordona loitering by the corner of their house
NOTE: Evident premeditation is appreciated only who appeared to be waiting for someone. After
in crimes against persons. some time, Ordona left but returned five (5)
minutes later. Meanwhile, Hubay emerged
Requisites of Evident Premeditation (T-A-S) from the house, holding some food.
1. The Time when the offender determined to Ordona approached Hubay with a stainless
commit the crime (determination); knife, called his attention by saying "Pare," and
suddenly stabbed him in the left shoulder.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Hubay managed to run away but Ordona gave Conspiracy presupposes Premeditation
chase and eventually caught up with him.
Ordona stabbed him in the left torso. Hubay GR: Conspiracy generally denotes premeditation.
immediately died when he was brought to the
hospital. Was the killing attended with the XPN: In implied conspiracy, evident
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the
premeditation? absence of proof as to how and when the plan to
kill the victim was hatched or what time had
A: NO. The killing was not attended with the elapsed before it was carried out.
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation.
It is indispensable for the prosecution to establish 14. CRAFT, FRAUD, OR DISGUISE
"how and when the plan to kill was hatched or ART. 14 (14), RPC
how much time had elapsed before it was carried
out." It must be based on external facts which are Appreciation of Craft, Fraud, or Disguise
evident, not merely suspected, which indicate
deliberate planning. To be appreciated, these circumstances must have
facilitated or be taken advantage of by the
There must be direct evidence showing a plan or offender in the commission of a crime.
preparation to kill, or proof that the accused
meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill NOTE: According to Justice Regalado, the fine
the victim. Criminal intent must be evidenced by distinction between craft and fraud as ordinary
notorious outward acts evidencing a aggravating circumstances is unnecessary as
determination to commit the crime. In order to be these terms are variants of means employed to
considered an aggravation of the offense, the deceive the victim and if all these are present in
circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" the same case, they shall be applied as a single
but must be "evident premeditation." The date aggravating circumstance. (Campanilla, 2020)
and, if possible, the time when the malefactor
determined to commit the crime is essential, Craft
because the lapse of time for the purpose of the
third requisite is computed from such date and Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the
time. (People v. Ordona, G.R. No. 227863, 20 Sept. part of the accused in order not to arouse the
2017) suspicion of the victim.
Appreciation of Evident Premeditation in Fraud

Error in Personae and Aberratio Ictus
Refers to the insidious words or machinations
GR: Evident premeditation is NOT appreciated in used to induce the victim to act in a manner which
error in personae and aberratio ictus. enables the offender to carry out his design.
NOTE: However, it is not necessary to have the NOTE: Craft and fraud may be absorbed in
intent to kill a particular person. treachery if they have been deliberately adopted
as means, methods, or forms for the treacherous
XPNs: strategy, or they may co-exist independently
1. When there is no particular intended victim where they are adopted for a different purpose in
or particular person to kill; and the commission of the crime.
2. Where the victim belonged to the same
class or family designated by the accused. Disguise
Resorting to any device to conceal identity.

Criminal Law
NOTE: The test of disguise is whether the device Requisites of Abuse of Superior Strength (No-
or contrivance, or even the assumed name Ad)
resorted to by the offender was intended to make
identification more difficult. 1. That there be Notorious inequality of forces
between the offender and the offended party
Necessity of the Fact that the Accused was Able in terms of their age, size, and strength; and
to Hide his Identity all Throughout the
Commission of the Crime 2. That the offender took Advantage of this
inequality of forces to facilitate the
It is NOT necessary that the accused be able to commission of the crime.
hide his identity all throughout the commission of
the crime. The accused must be able to hide his When Abuse of Superior Strength considered
identity during the initial stage, if not all as Aggravating
throughout the commission of the crime, and his
identity must have been discovered only later on The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is
to consider this aggravating circumstance. present whenever there is inequality of force
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a
Test in Order to Determine if Disguise Exists situation of superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter
Whether the device or contrivance resorted to by takes advantage of it in the commission of the
the offender was intended to or did make crime. Evidence must show that the assailants
identification more difficult, such as the use of a consciously sought the advantage or that they had
mask or false hair or beard. If in spite of the the deliberate intent to use this advantage.
disguise, the offender was recognized, disguise
cannot be appreciated as an aggravating The appreciation of the aggravating circumstance
circumstance. of abuse of superior strength depends on the age,
size and strength of the parties. Thus, in a long line
Craft vs. Fraud vs. Disguise of cases, the Court has consistently held that an
attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon
an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes
CRAFT FRAUD DISGUISE
the circumstance of abuse of that superiority
Involves the
which his sex and the weapon used in the act
use of Involves the
Involves the afforded him, and from which the woman was
intellectual use of direct
use of unable to defend herself. (People v. Serafin, G.R. No.
trickery and inducement by
devise to 246197, 29 July 2020)
cunning not insidious
conceal
to arouse the words or
identity Test in Determining the Presence of Abuse of
suspicion of machinations
Superior Strength
the victim
For abuse of superior strength, the test is the
15. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH relative strength of the offender and his victim,
OR MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO and whether or not he took advantage of his
WEAKEN THE DEFENSE greater strength. Superiority in number does not
ART. 14 (15), RPC necessarily mean superiority in strength. The
accused must have cooperated and intended to
Abuse of Superior Strength use or secure advantage from their superiority in
strength. (People v. Basas, G.R. No. L-34251, 30 Jan.
It is the use of purposely excessive force out of 1982)
proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Q: Alberto Berbon was shot in the head and namely treachery, and the circumstance of means
different parts of the body in front of his house to weaken the defense will already be absorbed.
by unidentified malefactors who immediately
fled the crime scene on board a waiting car. Requisites of Means to Weaken Defense
Reyes confided to the law enforcers that he
was willing to give vital information regarding 1. Means were purposely sought to weaken the
the Berbon case. Reyes claimed that on Dec. defense of the victim to resist the assault; and
15, 1996, he saw Espineli and Sotero Paredes
board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber 2. The means used must not totally eliminate
firearm and armalite, respectively; and that possible defense of the victim, otherwise, it
Espineli told Paredes that "ayaw ko na ng will fall under treachery.
abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon."
NOTE: In People v. Maron, the Supreme Court held
Are the qualifying circumstances of abuse of that abuse of superior strength and employment
superior strength and nighttime present in of means are taken as one and the same
this case? aggravating circumstance. Further, it appears that
employment of means to weaken the defense is, at
A: NO. Espineli is guilty only of the crime of the very least, subsumed under the qualifying
homicide in view of the prosecution's failure to circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
prove any of the alleged attendant circumstances
of abuse of superior strength and nighttime. Thus, in determining whether the qualifying
circumstance of employing means to weaken the
The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is defense is present, the Court shall be guided by the
present whenever there is inequality of forces same standard in determining the presence of
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a abuse of superior strength, i.e., "notorious
situation of superiority of strength notoriously inequality of forces between the victim and the
advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously
takes advantage of it in the commission of the advantageous to the aggressor's and purposely
crime. However, as none of the prosecution selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
witnesses saw how the killing was perpetrated, commission of the crime.” (G.R. No. 232339, 20
abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated Nov. 2019)
in this case. Neither can nighttime serve as an
aggravating circumstance, the time of the 16. TREACHERY
commission of the crime was not even alleged in ART. 14 (16), RPC
the Information. (Espineli v. People, G.R. No.
179535, 09 June 2014) Basis
“Means be Employed to Weaken Defense” The means and ways employed in the commission
of the crime.
It exists when the offended party’s resisting
power is materially weakened. Treachery (alevosia)
NOTE: Means to weaken the defense may be Refers to the employment of means, methods, or
absorbed in treachery (e.g., when the accused forms in the commission of the crime against
throws a sand directly into the eyes of his victim, persons which tend directly and specially to
this has the effect of weakening the defense of his insure its execution without risk to himself arising
victim as well as insuring the execution of his act from the defense which the offended party might
without risk to himself). In this case, only one make.
aggravating circumstance will be appreciated,

Criminal Law
This also means that the offended party was not lead pipes. Some sustained injuries which
given the opportunity to make a defense. required hospitalization. One of them,
Venturina, died due to traumatic head injuries.
Elements of Treachery (Emp-Del) Informations for murder for Venturina’s
death, as well as the attempted murder and
1. The Employment of means, methods or forms frustrated murder of some Sigma Rho
in the execution of the criminal act which members were filed against members of
gives the person attacked no opportunity to Scintilla Juris fraternity (Feliciano, et al.) and
defend himself or to retaliate; and seven others.
2. The said means, methods, or forms of The RTC convicted Feliciano, et al. of murder
execution were Deliberately or consciously and attempted murder, and acquitted the
adopted by the assailant. other co-accused, holding that Feliciano, et al.
were positively identified by witnesses as the
NOTE: The test of treachery is not only the attackers. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, but
relative position of the parties but more modified their criminal liabilities and ruled
specifically whether or not the victim was out the presence of treachery. Is treachery
forewarned or afforded the opportunity to make a attendant in the present case?
defense or to ward off the attack.
A: YES. Treachery attended the attack against
Essence of Treachery private complainants. The essence of treachery is
that the attack comes without a warning and in a
The suddenness, surprise and the lack of swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner,
expectation that the attack will take place, thus, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting
depriving the victim of any real opportunity for victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery
self-defense while ensuring the commission of the to be considered, two elements must concur: (1)
crime without risk to the aggressor. Likewise, the employment of means of execution that gives
even when the victim was forewarned of the the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
danger to his person, treachery may still be themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of
appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution were deliberately or consciously
execution of the attack made it impossible for the adopted.
victim to defend himself or to retaliate (People v.
Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, 07 Sept. 2011). The victims in this case were eating lunch on
campus. They were not at a place where they
In order to appreciate treachery, both elements would be reasonably expected to be on guard for
must be present. It is not enough that the attack any sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The
was "sudden", "unexpected," and "without any victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked
warning or provocation”. There must also be a with lead pipes and baseball bats. The swiftness
showing that the offender consciously and and the suddenness of the attack gave no
deliberately adopted the particular means, opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to
methods and forms in the execution of the crime defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was
which tended directly to insure such execution, present in this case. (People v. Feliciano, G.R. No.
without risk to himself. (People v. Corpin, G.R. No. 196735, 05 May 2014)
232493, 19 June 2019, J. Caguioa)
Q: Angel was watching games at a billiard hall
Q: Seven members of the Sigma Rho fraternity with his son, nephew, and two others. While he
were eating lunch in UP Diliman when they was sitting, Carlo, clearly drunk, approached
were suddenly attacked by several masked him and without saying a word, stabbed him
men who were armed with baseball bats and with a fan knife. Despite being brought to the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
hospital, Angel died. Carlo was charged and charged with Murder and was convicted by the
convicted with Murder. On appeal, he argued RTC and CA and found that treachery attended
that the charge was incorrect since the the killing. Are the courts correct in
qualifying circumstance of treachery and appreciating treachery despite the attack
evident premeditation were not proven. Carlo being frontal?
correct?
A: YES. In People v. Perez, it was explained that a
A: YES. Carlo attacked the victim in the place frontal attack does not necessarily rule out
familiar to the latter and in the presence of at least treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden
four other people, two of whom are related to the and unexpected attack, without the slightest
victim. Jurisprudence dictates that when aid is provocation on the part of the party attacked. The
easily available to the victim, such as when the prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, who
attendant circumstances show that there were was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, and
several eyewitnesses to the incident, including the without any provocation, punched and shot him
victim's family, no treachery could be appreciated on the chest. Although the attack was frontal, the
because if the accused indeed consciously adopted sudden and unexpected manner by which it was
means to insure the facilitation of the crime, he made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend
could have chosen another place or time. As for himself, adding too that he was unarmed. (People
evident premeditation, absent a clear and positive v. Matibag, G.R. No. 206381, 25 March 2015)
proof of the overt act of planning the crime, it
cannot be appreciated. (People v. Magbuhos y NOTE: There is no treachery if the attack was
Diola, G.R. No. 227865, 07 Nov. 2018, J. Caguioa) made at the spur of the moment.
Rules regarding Treachery Q: On the evening of Nov. 15, 1998, Susan

Lalona was at Murillo's Restaurant with her
1. Applicable only to crimes against persons; friend Julius Joshua Mata. They were the only
customers at that time. Later, Orozco, Osir,
2. Means, methods, or forms insure its execution Castro, and Maturan, apparently drunk,
but need not insure accomplishment of crime; entered and occupied the table in front of
them. Orozco approached Mata from behind
3. The mode of attack must be thought of by the and stabbed him twice with a small bolo. Mata
offender, and must not spring from the shouted that he was stabbed. Lalona grabbed
unexpected turns of events; hence not Orozco and wrestled with him, but he pushed
applicable when the attack is incidental or her back. When Mata tried to run out, the rest
accidental. of the accused caught him.
Frontal Attack does NOT Negate the Presence While Maturan and Osir held Mata's arms,
of Treachery Castro stabbed him in the chest. The four (4)
accused continued stabbing Mata and ran
Although frontal, if the attack was unexpected, away when Lalona shouted for help. Lalona
and the unarmed victim was in no position to took Mata to the Caraga Regional Hospital on a
repel the attack, treachery can still be appreciated. tricycle, but Mata was pronounced dead on
(People v. Pelis, G.R. No. 189328, 21 Feb. 2011) arrival. Is the killing was attended by
circumstances which qualify the crime as
Q: One night, while walking, Matibag murder?
confronted Duhan and without a warning,
Matibag punched Duhan on the left cheek and A: YES. The circumstances proved by the
subsequently pulled out his gun and shot the prosecution amply show that treachery attended
latter which caused his death. Matibag was the killing of Mata. Mata was completely helpless.

Criminal Law
His hands were held by two other persons while the existence of treachery. There was no evidence
he was stabbed. To make matters worse, four of a modicum of premeditation indicating the
persons, who were armed with knives, ganged-up possibility of choice and planning fundamental to
on Mata. Certainly, Mata was completely deprived achieve the elements of treachery. (Cirera v.
of any prerogative to defend himself or to People, G.R. No. 181843, 14 July 2014)
retaliate. Mata was helpless against a group of
persons with knives, who ganged up on him and Clear and Convincing Evidence regarding
held his hands while stabbing him. (People v. Commencement of the Attack Required in
Orozco, G.R. No. 211053, 29 Dec. 2017) Appreciating Treachery
Q: Austria was playing a lucky nine game at a Treachery cannot be appreciated where the
wake. Cirera arrived, asking money from prosecution only proved the events after the
Austria so he could buy liquor. Austria asked attack happened, but not the manner of how the
Cirera "to keep quiet." An altercation then attack commenced or how the act which resulted
ensued between Naval and Cirera when Naval in the victim's death unfolded. In treachery, there
asked Austria to go home. Thereafter, Austria must be clear and convincing evidence on how the
stood up and felt that he was stabbed. As he aggression was made, how it began, and how it
ran home, he noticed Cirera armed with a developed. Where no particulars are known as to
knife, this time chasing Naval, who was also the manner in which the aggression was made or
stabbed on the back. Austria and Naval were how the act which resulted in the death of the
hospitalized and were confined for more than victim began and developed, it cannot be
a month, and for six days, respectively. established from suppositions drawn only from
circumstances prior to the very moment of the
Two informations for frustrated murder were aggression, that an accused perpetrated the killing
filed against Cirera. The RTC found him guilty with treachery. Accordingly, treachery cannot be
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes considered where the lone witness did not see the
charged, and ruled that there was treachery on commencement of the assault. (People v. Enriquez,
Cirera’s end, considering the length of time it G.R. No. 238171, 19 June 2019, J. Caguioa)
took private complainants to realize that they
were stabbed. The CA affirmed the finding of Appreciation of Treachery in Error in Personae
the RTC that there was treachery because “the and Aberratio Ictus
attack was so sudden and unexpected, that
self-defense was not possible.” Is treachery Treachery is appreciated in error in personae and
present in this case? aberratio ictus, provided that the offender
consciously employed treacherous means to
A: NO. Treachery did not exist and, hence, ensure the execution of the crime and to render
petitioner may only be convicted of two counts of the victim defenseless.
frustrated homicide. The unexpectedness of an
attack cannot be the sole basis of a finding of Appreciation of Both Evident Premeditation
treachery even if the attack was intended to kill and Treachery
another as long as the victim’s position was
merely accidental. The means adopted must have Evident premeditation and treachery can co-exist
been a result of a determination to ensure success because evident premeditation refers to the
in committing the crime. commission of the crime while treachery refers to
the manner employed by the offender in
Petitioner’s action was an impulsive reaction to committing the crime.
being dismissed by Austria, his altercation with
Naval, and Naval’s attempt to summon Austria
home. Generally, this type of provocation negates

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Appreciation of Treachery in Robbery with loses his reason and self-control could not
Homicide deliberately employ a particular means, method
or form of attack in execution of crime.
Treachery can be appreciated in Robbery with
homicide even though it is a crime against Q: Several witnesses saw Camposano and De
property because one of its components is a crime Los Reyes chasing Ilao and when he fell on the
against person. ground, appellants took turns in stabbing him
with a deadly weapon. Camposano and De Los
Instances that may be Absorbed by Treachery Reyes argues that their guilt is not established
beyond reasonable doubt since that the
1. Abuse of superior strength testimonies of the witnesses for the
2. Aid of armed men prosecution did not dovetail in all particulars:
3. By a band the weapon used, relative position of
4. Means to weaken the defense appellants when they inflicted the mortal stab
5. Craft wound/s, and who between the appellants was
6. Nighttime first to inflict the stab wound. Is their
contention meritorious?
Time when the Element of Treachery must be
Present A: NO. The alleged inconsistencies in the
witnesses' testimonies, if they be such at all,
1. When the aggression is continuous – referred merely to minor and inconsequential
treachery must be present at the beginning of details, which did not at all affect the substance of
the assault. their testimonies, much less impair their
credibility.
2. When the assault was NOT continuous - it is
sufficient that treachery was present when In the ultimate analysis, what really matters in this
the fatal blow was given. case is that the prosecution witnesses did in fact
see that it was the appellants who assaulted and
Q: A followed the unsuspecting victim, B when killed Ilao that tragic morning. (People v.
he was going home and thereafter, Camposano and De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 207659, 20
deliberately stabbed him in the back which April 2016)
resulted in B falling to the ground and was
thereby further attacked by A. Was there 17. IGNOMINY
treachery? ART. 14 (17), RPC
A: YES. B was defenseless and he was not given Ignominy

the opportunity to resist the attack or defend
himself. A employed means which insured the It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
killing of B and such means assured him from the which adds disgrace to the material injury caused
risk of B’s defense. Stabbing from behind is a good by the crime. Ignominy adds insult to injury or
indication of treachery. (People v. Yanson, G.R. No. adds shame to the natural effects of the crime.
179195, 03 Oct. 2011) Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man.
NOTE: Treachery CANNOT co-exist with passion Application of Ignominy

or obfuscation, for while in mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation, the 1. Crimes against chastity,
offender loses his reason and self-control, in the 2. Less serious physical injuries,
aggravating circumstance of treachery, the mode 3. Light or grave coercion; and
of attack must be consciously adopted. One who 4. Murder.

Criminal Law
No Ignominy when a Man is Killed in the Requisites of Breaking Wall, Roof, Floor, Door,
Presence of his Wife or Window
The circumstance of ignominy will not be 1. A wall, roof, floor, door, or window was
appreciated if the offender employed no means broken; and
nor did any circumstance surround the act 2. They were broken to effect entrance.
tending to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating. NOTE: It is aggravating only where the offender
resorted to any of said means to enter the house.
Ignominy when a Woman is Raped in the
Presence of her Husband Instances where Breaking is Lawful
Ignominy can be appreciated. Rape is now a crime 1. An officer, in order to make an arrest, may
against persons (R.A. No. 8353). Presence of the break open a door or window of any building
husband qualifies the crime of rape under Art. in which the person to be arrested is or is
266, RPC. reasonably believed to be (Sec. 11, Rule 113,
Rules of Court [RoC]);
18. UNLAWFUL ENTRY
ART. 14 (18), RPC 2. An officer, if refused admittance, may break
open any door or window to execute the
Unlawful Entry search warrant or liberate himself (Sec. 7, Rule
126, RoC); and
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is
effected by a way not intended for the purpose. 3. Replevin. (Sec. 4, Rule 60, RoC)
When Unlawful Entry is Aggravating Breaking Wall, etc. vs. Unlawful Entry
When one who acts, not respecting the walls BREAKING WALL,
UNLAWFUL ENTRY
erected by men to guard their property and ETC.
provided for their personal safety, shows greater It involves the It presupposes that
perversity, a greater audacity and hence the law breaking of the there is no such
punishes him with more severity. enumerated parts of breaking as by entry
the house. through the window.
NOTE: This circumstance is inherent in the crimes
of trespass to dwelling and robbery with force 20. AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE
upon things. But it is aggravating in the crime of OR BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
robbery with violence against or intimidation of OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS
persons. ART. 14 (20), RPC
19. BREAKING WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, Two (2) Aggravating Circumstances under Art.
DOOR OR WINDOW 14 (20)
ART. 14 (19), RPC
1. Aid of persons under 15 years of age
Basis 2. By means of motor vehicles, or other similar
means
The means and ways employed to commit the
crime.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
1. Aid of Persons under 15 years intended to prolong the suffering of the victim,
causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain.
The use of a minor in the commission of the crime

Requisites of Cruelty (Ali-En)
shows the greater perversity of the offender
because he is educating the innocent minor in
1. That at the time of the infliction of the physical
committing a crime. It is intended to discourage
pain, the offended party is still Alive; and
the exploitation of minors by criminals taking
advantage of their irresponsibility and the
2. That the offender Enjoys and delights in
leniency of the law for the youthful offender.
seeing his victim suffer gradually by the
infliction of the physical pain.
2. By Means of a Motor Vehicle
Cruelty NOT Inherent in Crimes against
The use of motor vehicles in the commission of a Persons
crime poses difficulties to the authorities in
apprehending the offenders. This circumstance is In order for it to be appreciated, there must be
aggravating only when used to facilitate the positive proof that the wounds found on the body
commission of the offense. of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive
to unnecessarily prolong physical suffering.
NOTE: If motor vehicle is used only in the escape
of the offender, the use of a motor vehicle is not NOTE: There is no cruelty when other wrong was
aggravating as the law says that “the crime was done after the victim was dead. However, in
committed by means of motor vehicle.” mutilation, outraging of a corpse is considered as
an aggravating circumstance. If the victim was
“Other similar means” already dead when the acts of mutilation were
being performed, this would qualify the killing to
It should be understood as referring to motorized murder due to outraging of his corpse.
vehicles or other efficient means of transportation
similar to automobile or airplane. Ignominy vs. Cruelty
NOTE: If the killing of a person is committed by IGNOMINY CRUELTY

means of a motor vehicle, it is a qualifying Cruelty refers to the
aggravating circumstance under Art. 248 of the physical suffering of
RPC which shall qualify the crime to murder. If the Ignominy refers to the the victim purposely
motor vehicle is used in the commission of any moral effect of a crime intended by the
other crime, it is a mere generic aggravating and it pertains to the offender.
circumstance. moral order, whether
or not the victim is It is necessary that the
21. CRUELTY dead or alive. victim was still alive
ART. 14 (21), RPC when the wounds
were inflicted.
Basis
Other Special Aggravating Circumstances
The means and ways employed in the commission
of the crime. 1. Organized or syndicated crime group;
2. Under influence of dangerous drugs; and
Cruelty 3. Use of unlicensed firearm.
There is cruelty when the wrong done was

Criminal Law
USE OF LOOSE FIREARMS UNDER R.A. NO. prision mayor in its minimum period punishable
10591 AND USE OF EXPLOSIVES UNDER R.A. under the RPC or other special laws of which
NO. 8294 AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE he/she is found guilty. (Sec 29(1), R.A. No. 10591)
NOTE: P.D. 1866 (as amended by R.A. No. 8294) Q: If an unlicensed firearm was used to kill a
has been superseded by the Comprehensive person, can he be held guilty for a separate
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (R.A. offense of illegal possession of firearms aside
No. 10591). from murder or homicide?
Loose Firearm A: NO. Where murder or homicide results from

the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is no
An unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered longer qualified illegal possession, but murder or
firearm, firearm which has been lost or stolen, homicide, as the case may be. In such a case, the
illegally manufactured firearms, registered use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as
firearms in the possession of an individual other a separate crime but shall be appreciated as an
than the licensee and those with revoked licenses aggravating circumstance. (People v. Avecilla, G.R.
in accordance with the rules and regulations. (Sec. No. 117033, 15 Feb. 2001)
3(v), R.A. No. 10591)
NOTE: The same ruling will be applicable under
Use of Loose Firearm considered Absorbed as R.A. No. 10591.
an Element of the Crime of Rebellion,
Insurrection, or Attempted Coup d’état Use of Explosives
If the use of loose firearm is in furtherance of or When a person commits any of the crimes defined
incident to, or in connection with the crime of: in the RPC or special laws with the use of hand
grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives,
1. Rebellion including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov
2. Insurrection; or cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary
3. Attempted coup d’état such shall be absorbed devices capable of producing destructive effect on
as an element of the crimes mentioned. (Sec. contiguous objects or causing injury or death to
29(2), R.A. No. 10591) any person, which results in the death of any
person or persons, the use of such explosives,
Effect of the Use of Loose Firearm when it is detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
Inherent in the Commission of the Crime considered as an aggravating circumstance.
(Sec. 2, R.A. No. 8294)
The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under the RPC Presentation of the Firearm to Consider Illegal
or other special laws, shall be considered as an Possession of Firearm as an Aggravating
aggravating circumstance. (Sec 29(1), R.A. No. Circumstance, NOT Necessary
10591)
It is not necessary to present the firearm before
NOTE: If the crime committed with the use of a the court in order for illegal possession of firearm
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
maximum penalty which is lower than that It can be appreciated even though the firearm
prescribed in the preceding section for illegal used was not recovered. The actual firearm itself
possession of firearm, the penalty for the crime need not be presented if its existence can be
charged: Provided further, that if the crime proved by the testimonies of witnesses or by other
committed with the use of loose firearm is evidence presented. (People v. Agcanas, G.R. No.
penalized by the law with a maximum penalty of 174476, 11 Oct. 2011)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Instances Required to be Proven in cases of around, he was nevertheless convicted for the
Illegal Possession of Firearms subject violation for a Memorandum Receipt and
Mission Order cannot take the place of a duly
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, issued firearm license. The accused cannot invoke
the prosecution has the burden of proving the good faith as a defense against a prosecution for
elements thereof, viz: illegal possession of firearm, as this is a malum
prohibitum. (Sayco v. People, G.R. 159703, 03 Mar.
1. The existence of the subject firearm; and 2008)
2. The fact that the accused who owned or
possessed it does not have the license or NOTE: If the crime is committed by the person
permit to possess the same. without using the loose firearm, the violation of
this Act shall be considered as a distinct and
The essence of the crime of illegal possession is separate offense. (Sec. 29 (3), R.A. No. 10591)
the possession, whether actual or constructive, of
the subject firearm, without which there can be no USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
conviction for illegal possession. UNDER R.A. NO. 9165 AS QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
After possession is established by the prosecution,
it would only be a matter of course to determine Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
whether the accused has a license to possess the contrary, a positive finding for the use of
firearm. Possession of any firearm becomes dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
unlawful only if the necessary permit or license is aggravating circumstance in the commission of
not first obtained. The absence of license and legal a crime by an offender, and the application of the
authority constitutes an essential ingredient of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code
offense of illegal possession of firearm and every shall be applicable. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165) (2005,
ingredient or essential element of an offense must 2009 BAR)
be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. (People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. NOTE: The drug test in Sec. 15 does not cover
174476, 11 Oct. 2011) persons apprehended or arrested for any
unlawful acts listed under Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.
Good Faith is NOT a Valid Defense against Thus, this qualifying aggravating circumstance
Prosecution for Illegal Possession of Firearm shall be considered only to crimes punishable
under R.A. No. 9165. (Dela Cruz v. People, GR
Illegal Possession of Firearm is malum prohibitum. 200748, 23 July 2014)
Illustration: The accused was apprehended for Other Aggravating Circumstances in Drug
carrying a cal. 9mm firearm and ammunitions Related Cases
without the proper license to possess the same. He
claimed to be a confidential agent of the AFP and 1. If the sale, trading, administration,
in that capacity received the said firearm and dispensation, delivery, distribution or
ammunitions, which are government properties transportation of any dangerous and/or
duly licensed to the Intelligence Security Group controlled precursor and essential chemical
(ISG) of the AFP and so could not be licensed transpired within one hundred (100) meters
under his name. from the school. (Sec. 5(2), R.A. No. 9165)
Although the accused had a Memorandum Receipt 2. For drug pushers who use minors or mentally
and A Mission Order issued by ISG, whereby he incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers
was entrusted with such firearm and and messengers, or in any other capacity
ammunitions which he was authorized to carry directly connected to the dangerous drug

Criminal Law
and/or controlled precursor and essential ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug
chemical trade. (Sec. 5(3), R.A. No. 9165) into the body, during parties, social
gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate
3. If the victim of the offense is a minor or company of at least two (2) persons. (Sec. 14,
mentally incapacitated individual, or should a R.A. No. 9165)
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemicals involved in any IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
offense be the proximate cause of the death of AND PUNISHMENT UNDER R.A. No. 9165
the victim. (Sec. 5(4), R.A. No. 9165)
Requisites to be Exempted from Prosecution

4. In case the clandestine laboratory is
and Punishment under R.A. No. 9165
undertaken or established under the
following circumstances:
Any person who:
a. Any phase of the manufacturing process

1. Has violated Sec. 7 (Employees and Visitors of
was conducted in the presence or with
a Den, Dive or Resort), Sec. 11 (Possession of
the help of minor/s;
Dangerous Drugs), Sec. 12 (Possession of
b. Any phase of the manufacturing process Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
was established or undertaken within Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drug), Sec. 14
one hundred (100) meters of a (Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
residential, business, church or school Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
premises; Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings), Sec. 15 (Use of
c. Any clandestine laboratory was secured Dangerous Drugs), and Sec. 19 (Unlawful
or protected by booby traps; Prescription of Dangerous Drugs), Art. II of R.A.
No. 9165
d. Any clandestine laboratory was
concealed with legitimate business 2. Voluntarily gives information about any
operations; or violation of:
e. Any employment of a practitioner, a. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or

chemical engineer, public official or Controlled Precursors and Essential
foreigner. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9165) Chemicals (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9165);
5. In case the person uses a minor or a mentally b. Sale, Trading, Administration,

incapacitated individual to deliver Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. (Sec. and/or Controlled Precursors and
10(3), R.A. No. 9165) Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5, R.A. No.
9165);
6. Any person found possessing any dangerous
drug during a party, or a social gathering or c. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort
meeting, or in the proximate company of at (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9165);
least two (2) persons. (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9165)
d. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs
7. Possession or having under his/her control and/or Controlled Precursors and
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 8, R.A. No.
other paraphernalia fit or intended for 9165);
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
e. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, further consideration for the grant of

Instrument, Apparatus, and Other immunity from prosecution and
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs punishment.
and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals (Sec. 10, R.A. No. Provided, further, that this immunity may be
9165); enjoyed by such informant or witness who
f. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During does not appear to be most guilty of the
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings offense with reference to which his/her
(Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9165); information or testimony were given.
g. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified Provided, finally, that there is no direct

as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources evidence available for the State, except for the
Thereof (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9165); information and testimony of the said
informant or witness.
h. The offenses mentioned if committed by
a drug syndicate; or NOTE: This applies notwithstanding the
provisions of Sec. 17, Rule 119 of the Revised
i. Leading to the whereabouts, identities Rules of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of
and arrest of all or any of the members R.A. No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security
thereof. and Benefit Act of 1991.
3. Willingly testifies against such persons as Termination of Immunity from Prosecution

described above. and Punishment
Provided, that the following conditions The immunity shall not attach should it turn out
concur: subsequently that the information and/or
testimony is false, malicious or made only for the
a. The information and testimony are purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way
necessary for the conviction of the prejudicing the persons described in Sec. 33
persons described above; against whom such information or testimony is
directed. In such case, the informant or witness
b. Such information and testimony are not shall be subject to prosecution and the enjoyment
yet in the possession of the State; of all rights and benefits previously accorded him
under the law or any other law, decree or order
c. Such information and testimony can be shall be deemed terminated.
corroborated on its material points;
In case an informant or witness under the Law
d. The informant or witness has not been fails or refuses to testify without just cause, and
previously convicted of a crime involving when lawfully obliged to do so, or should he/she
moral turpitude, except when there is no violate any condition accompanying such
other direct evidence available for the immunity as provided above, his/her immunity
State other than the information and shall be removed and he/she shall likewise be
testimony of said informant or witness; subject to contempt and/or criminal prosecution
and as the case may be, and the enjoyment of all rights
and benefits previously accorded him under the
e. The informant or witness shall strictly Law or in any other law, decree or order shall be
and faithfully comply without delay, any deemed terminated. (Sec. 34, R.A. No. 9165)
condition or undertaking, reduced into
writing, lawfully imposed by the State as

Criminal Law
MINOR OFFENDERS UNDER R.A. 9165 NOTE: If the sentence promulgated by the court
requires imprisonment, the period spent in the
Center by the accused shall be deducted from the
Sec. 66, R.A. No. 9165 - An accused who is over
sentence to be served. (Sec. 70, R.A. No. 9165)
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense mentioned in Sec. 11 of
R.A. No. 9165 but not more than eighteen (18) e. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
years of age at the time of when the judgment ART. 15, RPC
should have been promulgated after having been
found guilty of said offense, may be given the Alternative Circumstances
benefits of a suspended sentence, subject to the
following conditions: Those circumstances which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating
1. He/she has not been previously convicted of according to the nature and effects of the crime
violating any provisions of R.A. No. 9165, or of and the other conditions attending its
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as commission.
amended; or of the RPC; or any special penal
laws; These are: (R-I-D)
1. Relationship;
2. He/she has not been previously committed to 2. Intoxication;
a Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited 3. Degree of instruction and education of the
physician; and offender.
3. The Board favorably recommends that 1. RELATIONSHIP

his/her sentence be suspended. ART. 15 (2), RPC
NOTE: If the accused first-time minor offender Relationships Taken into Consideration
violates any of the conditions of his/her
suspended sentence, the applicable rules and When the offended party is the: (SAD-LAR)
regulations of the Board exercising supervision
and rehabilitative surveillance over him, including 1. Spouse;
the rules and regulations of the Center should 2. Ascendant;
confinement be required, the court shall 3. Descendant;
pronounce judgment of conviction and he/she 4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted Brother or
shall serve sentence as any other convicted Sister;
person. (Sec. 69, R.A. No. 9165) 5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of
the offender; and
Grant of Probation or Community Service in 6. Other relatives included by Analogy to
case of a First-time Minor Offender ascendants and descendants (e.g.,
stepparents – it is their duty to bestow upon
The court may grant probation or community their stepchildren a mother/father’s
service in lieu of imprisonment in case of a first- affection, care and protection).
time minor offender. Upon promulgation of the
sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the Appreciation of Relationship
accused under probation, even if the sentence
provided under this Act is higher than that 1. Exempting:
provided under existing law on probation or
impose community service in lieu of a. In the case of an accessory who is related
imprisonment. to the principal within the relationship
prescribed in Art. 20, RPC.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
b. In Art. 247, RPC, a spouse will not incur 2. Mitigating:

criminal liability if less serious physical
injuries or slight physical injuries was a. In crimes against property, by analogy to
inflicted after having surprised his or her Art. 332 which exempts the accused from
spouse or paramour or mistress criminal liability for the crimes of theft,
committing actual sexual intercourse. estafa and malicious mischief, relationship
The same shall apply to parents, with is mitigating in the crimes of Robbery (Arts.
respect to their daughters under eighteen 294-302, RPC), Usurpation (Art. 312, RPC),
(18) years of age, and their seducer, while fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314, RPC) and
the daughter is living with their parents. Arson. (Arts 320-322, 325-326, RPC; P.D.
1613 repealed Arts. 321, 322, 323, 325 to 326
c. Under Art. 332, RPC, in the crime of theft, of the RPC)
malicious mischief and swindling or estafa,
there is no criminal liability if the offender b. In physical injuries, relationship is
is related to the offended party as: mitigating when the offense committed is
less serious physical injuries or slight
i. Spouse, ascendant, or descendant, or physical injuries, and the offended party is
relatives by affinity in the same line; a relative of a lower degree. (Reyes, 2008)
NOTE: Stepfather and stepmother are c. In cases of infanticide (Art. 255, RPC) and
included as ascendants by affinity. abortion (Art. 258, RPC), the killing or
(People v. Alvarez, G.R. No. 28447, 13 abortion to conceal dishonor is a mitigating
Sept. 1928) circumstance. In infanticide, the
concealment made by the maternal
ii. The widowed spouse with respect to grandparents is mitigating. (Boado, 2008)
the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same d. In trespass to dwelling. (U.S. v. Ostrea, G.R.
passed into the possession of No. 1114, 31 Mar. 1903)
another.
3. Aggravating: (1994 BAR)
iii. If the offender is a brother or sister or
brother-in-law or sister-in-law of the a. In crimes against persons
offended party and they are living
together. i. Where the offended party is a
relative of a higher degree than the
NOTE: Art. 332 is exclusive; hence, if the offender;
crime is robbery, or estafa through
falsification, this Article does not apply. If ii. When the offender and the offended
the son committed estafa through party are relatives of the same level,
falsification of a commercial document such as killing a brother; (El Pueblo
against his father, he is criminally liable de Filipinas v. Alisub, G.R. No. 46588,
for the crime of falsification. (Reyes, 2012) 20 Jan. 1940), brother-in-law
(People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 27415,
The exemption does not include 29 Nov. 1927), a half-brother (People
strangers who cooperate in the v. Nargatan, G.R. No. 24619-20, 16
commission of the crime. Dec. 1925), or adopted brother.
(People v. Mangcol, G.R. No. L-2544,
30 June 1950)

Criminal Law
iii. In case of murder or homicide, if the Intoxication considered Mitigating (2000,

act resulted in the death of the 2002 BAR)
victim even if the accused is a
relative of a lower degree; and If intoxication is:
iv. In rape, relationship is aggravating 1. Not habitual;

when a stepfather raped his 2. Not subsequent to the plan to commit a
stepdaughter (People v. De Leon, G.R. felony; or
No. 26867, 10 Aug. 1927) or in a case 3. At the time of the commission of the crime,
when a father raped his own the accused has taken such quantity of
daughter. (People v. Porras, G.R. No. alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and
38107, 16 Oct. 1933) deprive him of certain degree of control.
b. In physical injuries For the alternative circumstance of intoxication to

be treated as a mitigating circumstance, the
i. Serious physical injuries – even if defense has the burden of evidence to show “that
the offended party is a descendant of the intoxication is not habitual, not subsequent to
the offender; except when committed a plan to commit a felony and the accused's
by the parent who shall inflict drunkenness affected his mental faculties."
physical injuries to his child due to (Planos v. People, G.R. No. 232506, 18 Nov. 2020)
excessive chastisement.
Intoxication considered Aggravating
ii. Less serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries – if the If intoxication is:
offended party is a relative of a
higher degree of the offender. 1. Habitual; or
2. Intentional. (subsequent to the plan to
2. INTOXICATION commit a felony)
ART. 15 (3), RPC
NOTE: The moment intoxication is shown to be
Intoxication as an Alternative Circumstance habitual or intentional to the commission of the
crime, the same will immediately aggravate,
Intoxication is neither a justifying nor exempting regardless of the crime committed.
circumstance that completely negates criminal
liability. Under Art. 15 of the RPC, it is an In both circumstances, the liquor must be so
alternative circumstance that may either intoxicating as to diminish a man’s rational
aggravate or mitigate the offense depending on capacity.
the circumstances. (Planos v. People, G.R. No.
232506, 18 Nov. 2020) Person considered as “habitual drunkard”
It is an alternative circumstance because it He is one given to intoxication by excessive use of

impairs the exercise of one’s will-power. When a intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and
person is under the influence of liquor, his confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of
exercise of will power is impaired and his daily occurrence. It lessens individual resistance
resistance to evil is lessened. (People v. Tambis, to the evil thought and undermines will-power
G.R. No. 124452, 28 July 1999) making its victim a potential evildoer. (People v.
Camano, G.R. No. L-36662-63, 30 July 1982)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Basis of whether Intoxication is Mitigating or special knowledge as a lawyer and he took

Not advantage of his learning in committing the crime.
The basis is the effect of the alcohol upon the Test of Instruction as a Mitigating
offender, not the quantity of the alcoholic drink he Circumstance
had taken in.
Test of lack of instruction as a mitigating
NOTE: Under R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against circumstance is not illiteracy alone, but rather lack
Women and Their Children Act of 2004), raising of sufficient intelligence.
defenses as being under the influence of alcohol,
any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering Lack and High Degree of Instruction and
substance shall not be appreciated. (Sec. 27, R.A. Education are Two Distinct Circumstances
No. 9262)
One may not have any degree of instruction but is
3. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION nevertheless educated.
Lack or Low Degree of Instruction and Low degree of education is never aggravating in
Education the manner that high degree is never mitigating.
GR: Lack or low degree of instruction is a f. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

mitigating circumstance.
Absolutory Causes
XPNs: Not mitigating in:
Those where the act committed is a crime but for
1. Crimes against property (e.g., arson, estafa, reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no
threat) penalty imposed.
2. Theft and robbery (People v. Macatanda, G.R.
No. L-51368, 6 Nov. 1981) or assault upon the Examples of Absolutory Causes
persons of another. (People v. Enot, G.R. No.
L-17530, 30 Oct. 1962) 1. Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies
3. Crimes against chastity (Art. 6(3), RPC);
4. Murder or homicide
5. Rape 2. Light felonies in the attempted or frustrated
6. Treason – because love of country should be stage, except in crimes against persons or
a natural feeling of every citizen, however property (Art. 7, RPC);
unlettered or uncultured he may be. (People
v. Lansanas, G.R. No. L-1622, 2 Dec. 1948) 3. Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16, RPC);
High Degree of Instruction and Education 4. Accessory is a relative of the principal, except
when he has profited or assisted in profiting
High degree of instruction or education is from the effects of the crime (Art. 20, RPC);
aggravating when the offender took advantage of
his learning in the commission of the crimes. 5. Discovering secrets of ward through seizure
of correspondence by their guardian (Art. 290,
Example: If the offender is a lawyer who RPC);
committed rape, the fact that he has knowledge of
the law will not aggravate his liability; but, if a 6. When only slight or less serious physical
lawyer committed falsification, that will aggravate injuries are inflicted by the person who
his criminal liability if it be proven that he used his surprised his/her spouse or daughter in the

Criminal Law
act of sexual intercourse with another person crime.

(Art. 247, RPC);
NOTE: In instigation, the offender simply acts as a
If death or serious physical injuries were tool of the law enforcers. Therefore, he is acting
inflicted by the accused under the situation without criminal intent because without the
subject of Art. 247, no absolutory cause can be instigation, he would not have done the criminal
involved but in effect a mitigating act which he did upon instigation of the law
circumstance is present, since the accused is enforcers. This is based on the rule that a person
criminally liable but he is punished with the cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal.
reduced penalty of destierro;
7. Crime of theft, swindling or malicious Person who May Commit Instigation
mischief committed against as spouse,
ascendant, or descendant or if the offender is Only public officers or private detectives may
a brother or sister or brother-in-law or sister- commit such. If the one who made the instigation
in-law of the offended party and they are is a private individual, not performing a public
living together (Art. 332, RPC); (2018 BAR) function, both he and the one induced are
criminally liable, the former as principal by
8. Instigation; inducement and the latter as principal by direct
participation.
9. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of
entering another’s dwelling against the Entrapment is NOT an Absolutory Cause
latter’s will is to prevent some serious harm
to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a Entrapment does not exempt the offender, nor
third person, or for the purposes of rendering mitigate his criminal liability.
some services to humanity or justice, or when
entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public Determination of whether the Act is an
houses, while the same are open. (Art. 280(2), Entrapment or Instigation
RPC)
Courts have adopted the objective test. In the case
Q: Are the grounds for total extinguishment of of People v. Doria (G.R. No. 125299, 22 Jan. 1999),
criminal liability (Art. 89, RPC) and express the SC held that the conduct of the apprehending
pardon or marriage of the accused and the officers and the predisposition of the accused to
victim in crimes against chastity (Art. 344, commit the crime must be examined.
RPC) absolutory causes?
In buy-bust operations, the details of the
A: NO. An absolutory cause prevents criminal purported transaction must be clearly and
liability from attaching or arising from the acts of adequately shown. This must start from the initial
the accused. Art. 89 which speaks of contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher,
extinguishment of criminal liability presupposes the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of
that the accused was deemed criminally liable; the consideration until the consummation of the
otherwise, there would be no liability to sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of
extinguish. The same is true with respect to the sale.
marriage of the parties in crimes against chastity.
The manner by which the initial contact was made
Instigation - whether or not through an informant - the offer
to purchase the drug - the payment of the "buy-
Happens when a public officer induces an bust" money - and the delivery of the illegal drug -
innocent person to commit a crime and would whether to the informant alone or the police
arrest him upon or after the commission of the officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
courts to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not As to Criminal Liability

unlawfully induced to commit an offense. This circumstance
The circumstance is absolves the accused
Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the no bar to prosecution from criminal liability.
same time, however, examining the conduct of the and conviction of the (People v. Dante
police should not disable courts into ignoring the lawbreaker. Marcos, G.R. No.
accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If 83325, 08 May 1990)
there is overwhelming evidence of habitual
delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal Instigation is the means by which the accused is
proclivity, then this must also be considered. lured into the commission of the offense charged
Courts should look at all factors to determine the in order to prosecute him. On the other hand,
predisposition of an accused to commit an offense entrapment is the employment of such ways and
in so far as they are relevant to determine the means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a
validity of the defense of inducement. (People v. lawbreaker.
Medenilla, G.R. No. 131638-39, 26 Mar. 2001)
Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their
Frame-up and Extortion as Common Defense, agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused
and the Presumption of the Regular into committing an offense which he or she would
Performance of Public Officers otherwise not commit and has no intention of
committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent
Such defense is viewed by the Court with disfavor, or design to commit the offense charged
because it can be easily concocted. To substantiate originates in the mind of the accused, and law
such defense, including instigation, the evidence enforcement officials merely facilitate the
must be clear and convincing because of the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses
presumption that public officers acted in the and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his
regular performance of their official duties. or her conduct.
(People v. De la Pena, G.R. 92534, 09 July 1991)
In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-
Entrapment vs. Instigation (1990, 1995, 2003 principals, the accused will have to be acquitted.
BAR) But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and
conviction. As has been said, instigation is a "trap
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION for the unwary innocent" while entrapment is a
As to Intent "trap for the unwary criminal." (People v. Amurao,
G.R. No. 229514, 28 July 2020, J. Caguioa)
The idea and design to
The criminal design
bring about the
originates from and is 3. PERSONS LIABLE AND
commission of the
already in the mind of DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION
crime originated and
the lawbreaker even
developed in the mind
before entrapment.
of the law enforcers. a. PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES
As to Means and Ways AND ACCESSORIES
The law enforcers
The law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a Persons Criminally Liable
resort to ways and person who is not
means for the purpose minded to commit a For Grave and Less Grave Felonies:
of capturing the crime and would not 1. Principals;
lawbreaker in otherwise commit it, 2. Accomplices; and
flagrante delicto. into committing the 3. Accessories.
crime.

Criminal Law
For Light Felonies: 2. Quasi-collective Criminal Responsibility –

Some offenders in the crime are principals
1. Principals; and and the others are accomplices.
2. Accomplices
3. Collective Criminal Responsibility – Where
Light felonies are punishable in attempted and there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
frustrated stage but only principal and accomplice all. All conspirators are liable as co-principals
are liable. regardless of the extent and character of their
participation.
Reason: The social wrong as well as the individual
prejudiced is so small that a penal sanction is Kinds of Principals (D-I-C)
deemed not necessary for accessories. (Reyes,
2012) 1. Principal by Direct participation;
This classification is true only under the RPC and 2. Principal by Induction/inducement; and
is not used under special laws, because the 3. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
penalties under special laws are never graduated.
However, if a special law provides for the same 1. PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
graduated penalties as those provided under the
RPC, the classification under the RPC may be
Principals by direct participation are those who
adopted.
materially execute the crime. They appear at the
crime scene and perform acts necessary for the
Parties in the Commission of a Crime
commission of the crime.
1. Active Subject (the criminal) – only natural

Requisites of Principal by Direct Participation
persons can be the active subject of crime
because of the highly personal nature of the
1. They participated in the criminal resolution;
criminal responsibility.
and
2. They carried out the plan and personally took
2. Passive Subject (the injured party) – the
part in its execution by acts, which directly
holder of the injured right: natural person,
tended to the same end.
juridical person, group, and the State.
“Personally took part in the commission of the

NOTE: Corpses and animals cannot be passive
crime”
subjects because they have no rights that may be
impaired, except in the cases of corpses, the crime
1. The principal by direct participation must be
of defamation may be committed if the imputation
at the scene of the commission of the crime,
tends to blacken the memory of one who is
personally taking part in its execution; and
dead. (Art. 353, RPC)
2. If there is conspiracy, although he was not

PRINCIPALS present in the scene of the crime, he is equally
ART. 17, RPC liable as a principal by direct participation.
Different Classifications of Criminal A conspirator who does not appear at the scene of
Responsibility the crime is not liable. His non-appearance is
deemed a desistance on his part unless he is the
1. Individual Criminal Responsibility – When mastermind.
there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is
liable only for his personal act.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Liability of Conspirators for Another principals by inducement?

Conspirator’s Acts which Differ Radically and
Substantially from that which is Intended to be A: A and B are not principals by inducement
Committed because they did not directly induce D to kill X.
However, C is a principal by inducement because
Conspirators are liable for the acts of another he directly induced D to kill X.
conspirator even though such acts differ radically
and substantially from that which they intend to NOTE: Inducement must be strong enough that
commit. the person induced could hardly resist. This is
tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the
Liability of Conspirators for Another’s Killing person induced to carry out the execution of the
which is NOT Covered in the Conspiracy crime. Thoughtless expression without intention
to produce the result is not an inducement to
When the conspirators select a particular commit a crime.
individual to be a victim, and another person was
killed by one of them, only that conspirator who Ways of Becoming a Principal by Inducement
killed another person would be liable.
1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime by:
2. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
a. Using irresistible force – such physical
force that would produce an effect upon
Those who directly force or induce another to
the individual that in spite of all
commit a crime. To be a principal by inducement,
resistance, it reduces him to a mere
it is necessary that the inducement be the
instrument.
determining cause of the commission of the crime
by the principal by direct participation that is,
b. Causing uncontrollable fear –
without such, the crime would not have been
compulsion by means of intimidation or
committed.
threat that promises an evil of such
gravity and eminence that the ordinary
Requisites of Principal by Inducement
man would have succumbed to it.
1. That the inducement be made directly with

NOTE: Only the one using force or causing fear
the intention of procuring the commission of
is criminally liable. The material executor
the crime; and
is not criminally liable because of exempting
circumstances of irresistible force and
2. That the inducement be the determining
uncontrollable fear under par. 5 & 6 of Art. 12.
cause of the commission of the crime by the
material executor.
2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime
by:
NOTE: The inducement should precede the
commission of the crime because one cannot be a. Giving price, offering, reward or
held guilty of having instigated the commission of promise
the crime without first being shown that the crime
was actually committed (or attempted) by Requisites:
another. i. Inducement must be made directly
with the intention of procuring the
Q: A induced B to kill X by giving him commission of the crime; and
Php500,000. For his part, B induced C to kill X
for Php300,000. C induced D to kill X for ii. Such inducement be the
Php200,000. D killed X. Are A, B, and C determining cause of the

Criminal Law
commission of the crime by the Thus, because Mayor Sanchez was a co-principal
material executor. and co-conspirator, and because the act of one
conspirator is the act of all, the mayor was
b. By using words of commands rendered liable for all the resulting
crimes. (People v. Janjalani et. al., G.R. No.
Requisites: 188314, 10 Jan. 2011)
i. The one uttering the words of Illustrative Cases of Principal by Inducement

command must have the intention by Using Words of Command
of procuring the commission of the
crime; 1. In a prosecution for falsification of public
documents by “causing it to appear that
ii. He must have an ascendancy or persons participated in an act or a proceeding
influence over the person who when they did not in fact so participate”, Ltc.
acted; Guillergan ordered Technical Sergeant
Butcon to sign the “received” portion of the
iii. Words used must be so direct, so payrolls as payee to make it appear that
efficacious, and powerful as to persons whose names appeared on the same
amount to physical or moral had signed the document when they in fact
coercion; did not. (Guillergan v. People, G.R. 185493, 02
Feb. 2011)
iv. Words of command must be uttered
prior to the commission of the 2. A married woman suggested to her paramour,
crime; and with whom she had been maintaining illicit
relations, to kill her husband. After killing the
v. Material executor of the crime has husband, the guilty parties immediately
no personal reason to commit the escaped and lived together as husband and
crime. wife until the time of their arrest. (U.S. v.
Indanan, G.R. No. L-8187, 29 Jan. 1913)
NOTE: The one who used the words of command
is a principal by inducement, while the one Q: A asked B to kill C because of grave injustice
committing the crime because of the words of done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was
command is a principal by direct participation. willing to kill C, not so much because of the
There is a collective criminal responsibility. reward promised to him but because he also
had his own long-standing grudge against C,
Extent of Inducement for a Person to be held who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed
Liable as Principal by Inducement by B, would A be liable as a principal by
inducement? (2002 BAR)
The inducement must be “so influential in
producing the criminal act that without it, the act A: NO. A would not be liable as principal by
would not have been performed.” inducement because the reward he promised B is
not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill
In People v. Sanchez, et al. (G.R. No. 121039-45, 25 C. To bring about the criminal liability of a co-
Jan. 1999), the Court ruled that, notwithstanding principal, the inducement made by the inducer
the fact that Mayor Sanchez was not at the crime must be the sole consideration which caused the
scene, evidence proved that he was the person induced to commit the crime and without
mastermind of the criminal act or the principal by which the crime would not have been committed.
inducement. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
kill C out of a long-standing grudge. producing the criminal act that without it the act
would not have been perfected.
Q: While in training, Asali and others were told
that their mission was to plant bombs in malls, When the Criminal Liability of the Principal by
the LRT, and other parts of Metro Manila. Inducement Arises
Rohmat called Asali to confirm that Trinidad
would get two kilos of TNT from him, as they It arises only when the crime is committed by the
were “about to commence” their “first principal by direct participation.
mission.” They made two separate attempts to
bomb a bus in Metro Manila, but to no Principal by Inducement vs. Proposal to
avail. The day before the Valentine’s Day Commit a Felony
bombing, Trinidad got another two kilos of
TNT from Asali. PRINCIPAL BY PROPOSAL TO
INDUCEMENT COMMIT A FELONY
On Valentine’s Day, the Abu Sayyaf Group In both, there is an inducement to
announced that they had a gift for the former commit a crime.
President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. On their GR: Proposal to commit a
third try, their plan finally succeeded. Right felony is not punishable.
after the bomb exploded, the Abu Sayyaf Group
declared that there would be more bombings XPN: Proposal to commit
in the future. Asali then received a call from treason, coup d’état,
Rohmat, praising the former: “Sa wakas nag Liable only when
rebellion, sedition
success din yung tinuro ko sayo.” What is the the crime is
liability of Rohmat? committed by the
NOTE: However, the
principal by direct
person to whom the
A: Rohmat is criminally responsible as “principal participation.
proposal is made should
by inducement.” The instructions and training he not commit the crime;
had given Asali on how to make bombs – coupled otherwise, the proponent
with their careful planning and persistent becomes a principal by
attempts to bomb different areas in Metro Manila inducement.
and Rohmat’s confirmation that Trinidad would
be getting TNT from Asali as part of their mission Effect of the Acquittal of the Principal by Direct
– prove the finding that Rohmat’s co-inducement Participation on the Liability of the Principal
was the determining cause of the commission of by Inducement
the crime. Such “command or advice was of such
nature that, without it, the crime would not have 1. Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-
materialized.” (People v. Janjalani et. al, G.R. No. defendant.
188314, 10 Jan. 2011)
2. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated
Q: Marivic confided to her friend Gigi that her the commission of a crime without first being
marital life had been miserable because she shown that the crime has been actually
married an irresponsible and philandering committed by another.
husband. Gigi remarked: “A husband like that
deserves to be killed.” Marivic killed her NOTE: If the one charged as principal by direct
husband. Is Gigi a principal by inducement? participation is acquitted because he acted
without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is
A: NO. A thoughtless expression is not an not a ground for the acquittal of the principal by
inducement to kill. The inducement must precede inducement.
the act induced and must be so influential in

Criminal Law
3. PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE An Accused may be Both a Principal by Direct

COOPERATION Participation and a Principal by Indispensable
Cooperation (Amurao, 2013)
A principal by indispensable cooperation is one
Illustration: When Sergio had sexual intercourse
who:
with the complainant against her will by
employing force and intimidation, the crime
1. Participated directly in the criminal
committed is rape through direct participation.
resolution; or
When he aided Berto and made it possible for the
2. Cooperated in the commission of the crime by
latter to have carnal knowledge of complainant
performing an act, without which it would not
also against her will and through force and
have been accomplished.
intimidation, the accused committed another
crime of rape through indispensable cooperation.
Cooperation in the Commission of the Offense
Thus, Sergio is guilty of two crimes of
consummated rape.
Cooperation in the commission of the offense
means to desire or wish a common thing. But that
Q: May there be cooperation by acts of
common will or purpose does not necessarily
negligence?
mean previous understanding, for it can be
explained or inferred from the circumstances of
A: YES. One who, by acts of negligence, cooperates
each case.
in the commission of estafa through falsification
or malversation through falsification, without
NOTE: If the cooperation is not indispensable or
which negligent acts the commission of the crime
with or without his act the crime will be
could not have been accomplished, is a co-
accomplished, the offender is only an accomplice.
principal. But one who cooperated in the
commission of the crime was held guilty of the
NOTE: A principal by indispensable cooperation
same crime through reckless imprudence.
may be a co-conspirator under the doctrine of
(Samson v. CA, G.R. Nos. L-10364 and L-10376, 31
implied conspiracy. He becomes a co-conspirator
March 1958; People v. Rodis, 105 Phil. 1294
by indispensable cooperation, although the
[Unrep.])
common design or purpose was not previously
agreed upon.
ACCOMPLICES
Illustration: X wanted to kill Y who resides in an ART. 18, RPC
island. The only means to reach the island is to
ride on the motorboat owned by A. X told A to Accomplice (2007, 2009 BAR)
bring him to the island because he is going to kill
Y. A brought X to the island where X killed Y. A is a One who, not being included in Art. 17 as
principal by indispensable cooperation. His principal, cooperates in the execution of the
motorboat is the only means to reach the island offense by previous or simultaneous acts which
where Y resides. Without his cooperation, X would are not indispensable to the commission of the
not have killed Y. crime.
NOTE: If contributory acts were made after the Elements: (Com-Pe-D)

crime was committed, the accused cannot be
considered to be a principal by indispensable 1. The Community of criminal design, that is,
cooperation. knowing the criminal design of the principal
by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
2. The Performance of previous or simultaneous crime without

acts which are not indispensable to the participating as a
commission of the crime (People v. Tamayo, principal, by prior or
G.R. No. 138608, 24 Sept. 2002); and simultaneous acts.
As to Criminal Liability
3. That there be a Direct relation between the Incurs criminal
acts done by the principal and those liability not only for his
attributed to the person charged as an individual acts in the
accomplice. execution of the crime
but also from the acts
NOTE: In case of doubt, the participation of the of the other
offender will be considered that of an accomplice Incurs criminal participants in the
rather than that of a principal. liability in an commission of the
individual capacity crime collectively.
Q: A, wanting to kidnap B while playing at a by his act alone of
park, forced B to come with him at a nearby cooperating in the NOTE: The acts of the
wharf. There, he saw C and D ready to leave, execution of the other participants in
with their boats. C, without putting any crime. the execution of the
resistance and fully acquiescing to the acts of A crime are considered
allowed him, to transport the kidnapped also as acts of a
victim, thereby facilitating the commission of conspirator for
the crime. Is C liable as an accomplice or a purposes of collective
principal by indispensable cooperation? criminal
responsibility.
A: C is liable as an accomplice. His act was not As to Criminal Design
indispensable to the commission of the crime Participates in the
because A may also use the boat of D in order to execution of a crime Participates in the
accomplish his criminal design. His simultaneous when the criminal adoption or making of
act was necessary in the execution of the crime. If design or plan is the criminal design.
C was the only one who is present in the wharf, already in place.
and A could not have accomplished the crime As to Penalty
except with the participation of C, then C would be Subjected to a
a principal by indispensable cooperation. penalty one degree Incurs the penalty of a
lower than that of a principal.
Test in Determining whether the Offender is a principal
Principal or Accomplice
Other Examples of Cooperation by an
In determining whether the offender is a principal Accomplice
or accomplice, the basis is the importance of the
cooperation to the consummation of the crime. 1. By Previous Act – e.g., lending a knife or a gun
to the murderer knowing the latter’s criminal
Accomplice vs. Conspirator (2007 BAR) purpose
ACCOMPLICE CONSPIRATOR 2. By Simultaneous Act – e.g., The defendant

As to Participation who held one of the hands of the victim and
Incurs criminal tried to take away the latter’s revolver, while
Participates in the
liability by merely his co-defendant was attacking him, is an
commission of a crime
cooperating in the accomplice for he cooperated in the execution
as a co-principal.
execution of the of the crime by simultaneous act without any

Criminal Law
previous agreement or understanding. as spouse, or as an ascendant, or descendant

(Estrada, 2008) or as brother or sister whether legitimate,
natural or adopted or where the accessory is
ACCESSORIES a relative by affinity within the same degree,
ART. 19, RPC unless the accessory himself profited from the
effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the
Accessories (1992, 1998, 2004, 2008 BAR) offender to profit therefrom. (Art. 20, RPC)
Those who do not participate in the criminal Reason: The ties of blood and the
design, nor cooperate in the commission of the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name
felony, but with knowledge of the commission of compels one to conceal crimes committed by
the crime, he subsequently takes part in three relatives.
ways by: (Pro-C-Har)
1. PROFITING OR ASSISTING OFFENDER TO
1. Profiting themselves or assisting the offender PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME
to profit by the effects of the crime;
Illustration: If a person not having participated
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the as principal or accomplice in robbery or theft but
crime or the effects thereof in order to knowing that the property being offered to him is
prevent its discovery; and the proceeds or subject matter of the said crime,
bought or purchased or dealt in any manner with
NOTE: Where the accused misleads the which such property, obtaining benefit from said
authorities by giving them false information, transaction or helping the thief or robber to profit
such act is equivalent to concealment and he therefrom.
should be held as an accessory.
NOTE: The accessory must receive the property
3. Harboring, concealing, or assisting in the from the principal. He should not take it without
escape of the principal of the crime. (2008 the consent of the principal. If he took it without
BAR) the consent of the principal, he is not an accessory
but a principal in the crime of theft.
The accessory comes into the picture when the
crime is already consummated, not before the P.D. 1612 (Fencing) vs. Art. 19(1) of the RPC
consummation of the crime. (Accessory)
NOTE: One cannot be an accessory unless he FENCING ACCESSORY

knew of the commission of the crime; however, he
As to Scope
must not have participated in its commission.
Fencing is limited to
theft and robbery. The
If the offender has already involved himself as a
terms theft and
principal or an accomplice, he cannot be held as an
robbery are used as a
accessory any further even if he performed acts Not limited in scope
generic term to refer to
pertaining to an accessory.
any kind of unlawful
taking, not just theft or
Instances when Accessories are NOT
robbery
Criminally Liable
As to Presumption
1. When the felony committed is a light felony. Mere possession of There is no

stolen items creates a presumption of being
2. When the accessory is related to the principal presumption of fencing an accessory

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
As to Proof of Robbery of Theft 2. CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY

It is necessary to OF THE CRIME OR THE EFFECTS THEREOF IN
prove that the ORDER TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY
Fencing is a principal principal committed
crime in itself. As such, the crime. Hence,
Corpus Delicti (2000 BAR)
it can stand on its own. before an accessory
There is no need to could be held liable,
Literally means the body or substance of the crime
prove that one is guilty the principal must
or the fact that a crime has been committed but
of theft or robbery have been convicted
does not include the identity of the person who
first of the crime
committed it.
charged
As to Penalty
The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, not
The penalty is higher Penalty is less than necessarily the corpse. Thus, even if the corpse is
than the penalty of an that imposed in not recovered, as long as the killing is established
accessory fencing beyond reasonable doubt, criminal liability will
As to Nature arise and if there is someone who destroys the
Malum prohibitum and Malum in se and corpus delicti in order to prevent discovery, such
therefore there is no therefore there is a act would make him an accessory. (Inovero v.
need to prove criminal need to prove Coronel, 65 O.G. 3160)
intent criminal intent
As to Person Liable Elements of Corpus Delicti:
The fence need not be a
natural person but may 1. The existence of a certain act or result
be a firm, association, forming the basis of the criminal charge; and
Natural person only
corporation or 2. The existence of a criminal agency as the
partnership or other cause of the act or result.
organization
The mere act of a person of carrying the cadaver
One who is Charged as an Accessory under Art. of one unlawfully killed, when it was buried to
19(1) May be Likewise Charged under P.D. prevent the discovery thereof is sufficient to make
1612 for the Same Act him responsible as an accessory under par. 2 of
Art. 19. (People v. Galleto, G.R. No L-1095, 31 July
What is prohibited under the Constitution is the 1947)
prosecution of the accused twice for the same
offense. Misleading the investigating police officer to
prevent the discovery of the crime or to help the
NOTE: The State may choose to prosecute the offender escape is also an act of destroying
offender either under the RPC or P.D. 1612 the corpus delicti.
although preference for the latter would seem
inevitable considering that fencing is a
crime malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a
presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher
penalty based on the value of the property. (Dizon-
Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 111426, 11 July 1994)

Criminal Law
3. HARBORING OR CONCEALING 2. Private person

AN OFFENDER
Requisites:
a. Accessory is a private person;
Persons that May be Held Guilty as an
Accessory by Harboring, Concealing or
b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the
Assisting in the Escape of the Principal of the
escape of the author of the crime (he
Crime
could be a principal, accomplice, or an
accessory); and
1. Public officers
c. The crime committed by the principal

Requisites:
is either:
a. Accessory is a public officer;
i. Treason
ii. Parricide
b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the
iii. Murder
escape of the principal;
iv. Attempt against the life of the
President
c. He acts with abuse of his public
v. That the principal is known to be
functions; and
habitually guilty of some other
crime.
d. The crime committed by the principal
is any crime, provided it is not a light
Correlation of Guilt of the Principal and
felony.
Accessory
In the case of a public officer, the crime committed
GR: The accessory cannot be held criminally liable
by the principal is immaterial. Such officer
without the principal being found guilty of any
becomes an accessory by the mere fact that he
such crime.
helped the principal escape by harboring,
concealing, making use of his public function and
XPN: When the principal was not held liable
thus, abusing the same, but the offender whom he
because of an exempting circumstance under Art.
harbors, conceals, or assist in the escape must be
12.
a principal.
Accessories who are Exempt from Criminal

Illustration: Abusing his public office, the
Liability (1998, 2004, 2010 BAR)
president of the town of Cabiao refused to
prosecute the crime of homicide and thus made it
GR: An accessory is exempt from criminal liability,
possible for the principal to escape. He refused to
when the principal is his: (S-A-D-Le-R)
make an investigation of the serious occurrence,
of which complaint was made to him. The
1. Spouse;
municipal president was found guilty as an
2. Ascendant;
accessory. (U.S. v. Yacat, G.R. No. 110, 24 Oct. 1902)
3. Descendant; or
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother,
If the public officer assisted in the escape of an
sister; or
accomplice or an accessory, he is not liable under
5. Relative by affinity within the same degree.
Art. 19(3) of the RPC. He is liable, however, under
P.D. 1829 for obstruction of justice.
XPN: Accessory is not exempt from criminal
liability even if the principal is related to him, if
such accessory:

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
1. Profited by the effects of the crime; or days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house. A
2. Assisted the offender to profit from the week later, Jake was apprehended by the
effects of the crime. police. Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made
criminally liable as accessories to the crime of
The exemption provided in this article is based on murder? (2010 BAR)
the ties of blood and the preservation of the
cleanliness of one’s name, which compels one to A: The mother is exempt from criminal liability
conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as under Art. 20 of the RPC as a result of her
those mentioned in this article. Nephew and niece relationship to her son; however, the aunt is liable
are not included. as an accessory under Art. 19(3) of the RPC if the
author of the crime is guilty of murder. The
A public officer contemplated under Art. 19(3) is relationship between an aunt and a nephew does
exempt by reason of relationship to the principal, not fall within the classification for exemption.
even if such public officer acted with abuse of his
public functions. Obstruction of Justice (P.D.1829) in
Comparison with Accessories Exempt from
Certain Accomplices to be Punished as Criminal Liability
Principals in Certain Crimes against Chastity
While Art. 20 exempts certain persons from
Under Art. 346 of RPC, an ascendant, guardian, criminal liability, for being an accessory, P.D. 1829
curator, teacher and any person who, by abuse of (Obstruction of Justice Law) penalizes the act of
authority or confidential relationship, shall any person, without any distinction, who
cooperate as an accomplice in the perpetration of knowingly or wilfully obstructs, impedes,
the crimes embraced in Chapter 2, 3, and 4 of Book frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects
2, Title 11 (Crimes against Chastity) shall be and the investigation and prosecution of criminal
punished as principals. (Amurao, 2008) cases, which is an act of an accessory. Thus, those
exempted as accessory to the crime committed
Q: DCB, the daughter of MSB, stole the earrings under the RPC can still be prosecuted as principals
of a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with for Obstruction of Justice under P.D. 1829. The
TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for Php500 loan. benefits of the exception provided in Art. 20 of the
During the trial, MCB raised the defense that RPC do not apply to P.D. 1829 since under Art. 10
being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held of the RPC, offenses which are punishable under
liable as an accessory. Will MCB’s defense special laws are not subject to the provisions of
prosper? (2004 BAR) the Code and shall only be supplementary to such
laws. P.D. 1829, being a special law, is thus
A: NO. MCB’s defense will not prosper because the controlling, with regard to offenses specially
exemption from criminal liability of an accessory punished.
by virtue of relationship with the principal does
not cover accessories who themselves profited Accessory Charged Simultaneously under Art.
from or assisted the offender to profit by the 19(3) and for Violating P.D. 1829
effects or proceeds of the crime. This non-
exemption of an accessory, though related to the A person who harbors, conceals, or assist in the
principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. escape of an author of the crime can be charged
20 of the RPC. simultaneously as accessory under Art. 19(3) and
for violating P.D. 1829. What the Constitution
Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake prohibits is putting an accused twice in jeopardy
went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother for the same offense.
told him to hide in the maid’s quarter until she
finds a better place for him to hide. After two

Criminal Law
b. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL performed overt acts with such closeness and
ART. 8, RPC coordination as to indicate a common purpose or
design to commit the felony.
Conspiracy
The overt act may consist of active participation in
Exists when two or more persons come to an the actual commission of the crime itself or it may
agreement concerning the commission of a felony consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators
and decide to commit it. (1996, 1997, 1998, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other
2003, 2005 BAR) co-conspirators by moving them to execute or
implement the conspiracy. The community of
GR: When conspiracy exists, the degree of design to commit an offense must be a conscious
participation of each conspirator is not considered one. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement
because the act of one is the act of all; thus, they to cooperate, mere presence at the scene of the
have equal criminal responsibility. crime at the time of its commission, and mere
companionship, are insufficient to constitute one
XPN: Even though there was conspiracy, if a co- as part to a conspiracy. (Macarain v. People, G.R.
conspirator merely cooperated in the commission No. 215104, 18 Mar. 2021, J. Caguioa)
of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts,
such that even without his cooperation, the crime The overt act may consist of:
could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator 1. Active participation in the actual
should be punished as an accomplice only. (People commission of the crime itself;
v. Niem, CA No. 521, 20 Dec. 1945) 2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by
being present at the commission of the
XPN to the XPN: When the act constitutes a single crime; or
indivisible offense. 3. Exerting moral ascendancy over the other
co-conspirators.
Requisites of Conspiracy
Two (2) Kinds of Conspiracy
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. Agreement concerned the commission of a 1. Conspiracy as a Crime – The mere conspiracy
crime; and is the crime itself. This is only true when the
3. Execution of a felony was decided upon. law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy.
Otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring
NOTE: Mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or about the commission of the crime because
approval of the act, without cooperation or at conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere
least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to preparatory act.
constitute a conspiracy. Except when he is the
mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a Conspiracy must be proven on the same
conspirator should have performed some overt quantum of evidence as the felony subject of
act as a direct or indirect contribution in the the agreement of the parties. It may be
execution of the crime planned to be committed. proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the
Overt Act Necessary alleged conspirators prior to, during, and
after the commission of the felony to achieve
While direct proof is not necessary to establish a common design or purpose. (Franco v.
conspiracy, it is vital for the prosecution to show, People, G.R. No. 171328, 16 Feb. 2011)
at the very least, with the same degree of proof
required to establish the crime – proof beyond Examples: Conspiracy to commit treason,
reasonable doubt – that all participants conspiracy to commit rebellion, conspiracy to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
commit acts like sale, importation and by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an
distribution of drugs, conspiracy to commit overt act and both will incur criminal liability.
access devise fraud, conspiracy to commit Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his
terrorism participation in jointly devising the criminal plan
with Juan – to kill Joel and it was pursuant to that
NOTE: If one of the traitors/rebels actually conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. There being a
commits treason/rebellion, conspiracy loses conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo,
its juridical personality and it becomes a therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator.
mode to commit a crime.
Effect of Conspiracy if Not All the Elements of
2. Conspiracy as a Basis of Incurring Criminal the Crime is Present as regards the Co-
Liability – When the conspiracy is only a basis conspirator
of incurring criminal liability, there must be
an overt act done before the co-conspirators GR: When there is conspiracy, it is immaterial if
become criminally liable. (1996, 1997, 1998, the element of the offense is not present as
2003, 2005 BAR) regards one of the conspirators.
GR: If he appeared in the scene of the crime, XPNs:

he is liable as a co-conspirator. 1. In parricide – the element of relationship
must be present as regards the offenders.
XPNs:
1. If he is a mastermind, he does not have 2. In murder – where treachery is an element
to be in the scene of the crime to be co- of the crime, all offenders must have
conspirator. knowledge of the employment of the
treachery at the time of the execution of the
2. If he performs an overt act in the act.
performance of the conspiracy, even if it
is not in the scene of the crime per se Ways in Committing Conspiracy (1996 BAR)
(e.g., the driver of a get-away car who
planned the crime as well, or the man 1. Direct or Express Conspiracy – There is an
who pressed the button of a remote- express agreement.
control bomb and the bomb exploded a
few streets away) GR: The liability of the conspirators is only for
the crime agreed upon.
Q: Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder XPNs:
Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan a. The other crime was committed in their
will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot presence and they did not prevent its
Joel when the latter passes through on his way commission;
to work. Arturo will come from the other end
of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from b. When the other crime is the natural
behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was consequence of the crime planned (e.g.,
apprehended by the authorities before homicide resulting from physical
reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as injuries); or
planned, he was unaware that Arturo was
arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability c. When the resulting crime was a
of Arturo, if any. composite crime or a special complex
crime.
A: Arturo, being one of the two who devised the
plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes co-principal

Criminal Law
2. Implied Conspiracy – The offenders acted in not an active party. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
concert in the commission of the crime. Their No. 158754, 10 Aug. 2007)
acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way
indicative that they are pursuing a common Wheel or Circle Conspiracy vs. Chain
criminal objective, and they shall be deemed Conspiracy (2017 BAR)
to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal
liability shall be collective, not individual. 1. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy
Instances where Unity of Purpose and There is a single person or group called the “hub,”
Intention in the Commission of the Crime is dealing individually with two or more other
Shown persons or groups known as the “spokes” and the
rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of in the overall conspiracy. (Estrada v.
the commission of the crime is sufficient to Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, 26 Feb. 2002)
create joint responsibility.
2. Chain Conspiracy in Dangerous Drugs
2. Active cooperation by all offenders in the
perpetuation of a crime will create joint There is successive communication and
responsibility. cooperation in much the same way as with
legitimate business operations between
Q: Cesario died as he was stoned, shot, and was manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler
attempted to be pierced by an arrow by his and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.
relatives. Eddie was the one who shot the (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra)
victim while the other accused threw stones
and fired an arrow (but missed). They were all These are series of overlapping transactions
adjudged guilty of murder by conspiring with which are construed to involve only one overall
each other. They claimed that it was only Eddie agreement. The different transactions are
who shot Cesario and therefore the others considered the links in the overall agreement,
shall not be liable. Who are liable? which is considered the chain. However, the
transactions will only be considered links in a
A: All are liable. Conspiracy was proven in this chain if each link knows that the other links are
case. Conspiracy may also be proven by involved in the conspiracy and each link has a
circumstantial evidence when it can be inferred vested interest in the success of the overall series
from the acts which would prove a joint purpose of transactions. (Bruno v. U.S., 308 U.S. 287, 04 Dec.
and design, concerted action, and community of 1939)
interest. Evident Premeditation in Conspiracy
They "performed specific acts with closeness and Evident premeditation is not automatic in
coordination as to unmistakably indicate a conspiracy. It shall depend on the kind of
common purpose and design to ensure the death conspiracy employed. It may be appreciated in
of Cesario. (People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, 14 express conspiracy. In implied conspiracy,
Dec. 2011) generally, it cannot be appreciated, absent any
proof showing how and when the plan to kill the
Overlapping Conspiracy victim was hatched or the time that elapsed when
it was carried out.
It depicts a picture of a conspirator in the first
level of conspiracy performing acts which
implement, or in furtherance of, another
conspiracy in the next level of which the actor is

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Legal Effects of Implied Conspiracy (1998, Q: Does conspiracy exist when the acts of the
2003 BAR) accused were caused by their being frightened
by the police officers who were allegedly in full
1. Not all those who are present at the scene will battle gear and the fortuitous and unexpected
be considered as conspirators; character of the encounter and the rapid turn
of events?
2. Only those who participated by criminal acts in
the commission of the crime will be considered A: YES. The rapid turn of events cannot be
as co-conspirators; and considered to negate a finding of
conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is
3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there
commission of the crime, without any act of be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full
criminal participation, shall not render one opportunity for meditation and
criminally liable as co-conspirator. reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very
moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly,
NOTE: In order to hold someone criminally liable to commit the subject felony. (People v.
for implied conspiracy, in addition to mere Carandang, et al., G.R. No. 175926, 06 July 2011)
presence, there should be overt acts that are
closely related and coordinated to establish the Q: Can a head of office be held criminally liable
presence of common criminal design and as conspirator on the basis of command
community of purpose in the commission of the responsibility?
crime.
A: NO. A head or chief of office cannot be held
Proof of a Previous Agreement to Commit a criminally liable as a conspirator simply on the
Crime NOT a Requirement basis of command responsibility. All heads of
offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their
In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct subordinates and on the good faith of those who
evidence of a previous agreement to commit a prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into
crime. Proof of a previous agreement and decision negotiations. It would be a bad precedent if a head
to commit the crime is not essential. It is sufficient of office plagued by all-too-common problems –
that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork,
the same objective. (People v. Agacer, et al., G.R. No. multiple assignments or positions, or plain
177751, 14 Dec. 2011) incompetence – is suddenly swept into a
conspiracy conviction simply because he did not
Conspiracy may be proven by direct or personally examine every single detail,
circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and
or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, investigate the motives of every person involved
during, and after the commission of the felony to in a transaction before affixing his signature as the
achieve a common design or purpose. Proof of the final approving authority. (Arias v.
agreement need not rest on direct evidence and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563, 19 Dec. 1989)
may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them Mere Signature or Approval Appearing on a
with respect to the commission of the offense. It is Document NOT Enough to Establish Existence
likewise not necessary to show that such persons of Conspiracy
met together and entered into an explicit
agreement setting out the details of an unlawful A mere signature or approval appearing on a
scheme or the details by which an illegal objective document does not meet the required quantum of
is to be carried out. (People v. Pepino and Gomez, proof to establish the existence of conspiracy. Not
G.R. No. 174471, 12 Jan. 2016) every person who signs documents required in

Criminal Law
standard operating procedures automatically As to its Occurrence

becomes a conspirator in a crime. There must be Proposal is true only
other positive and clear evidence showing each of up to the point where
the accused's conscious and intentional Once the proposal is
the party to whom the
participation in the planning, preparation and accepted, a conspiracy
proposal was made
execution of crime charged. (Macarain v. People, arises.
has not yet accepted
G.R. No. 215104, 18 Mar. 2021, J. Caguioa) the proposal.
As to the Number of Parties
Proposal
Proposal is unilateral;
Conspiracy is
Exists when the person who has decided to one party makes a
bilateral. It requires
commit a felony proposes its execution to some proposition to the
two parties.
other person or persons. other.
Requisites of a Proposal c. MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
1. A person has decided to commit a felony; 1. Recidivism – the offender at the time of his
2. He proposes its execution to other person or trial for one crime shall have been previously
persons; and convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. The proposal need not be accepted or else it embraced in the same title of the RPC.
shall be a conspiracy.
2. Reiteracion (Habituality) – the offender has
Punishment for Conspiracy and Proposal to been previously punished for an offense
Commit a Felony which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
GR: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony attaches a lighter penalty.
are not punishable because they are mere
preparatory acts. 3. Quasi-recidivism — Any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted
XPN: When the law specifically provides a penalty by final judgment before beginning to serve
thereof, i.e., treason, rebellion and coup d’etat such sentence or while serving such sentence
shall be punished by the maximum period
NOTE: If there is conspiracy to commit rebellion, prescribed by law for the new felony. (Art.
and rebellion is thereafter committed, the accused 160, RPC)
is liable only for rebellion, the conspiracy now
being merely proof of the rebellion. 4. Habitual Delinquency — the offender within
the period of 10 years from the date of his
Conspiracy vs. Proposal to Commit a Felony release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries,
CONSPIRACY PROPOSAL robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found
As to its Existence guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or
oftener. (Art. 62, RPC)
It exists when two or There is proposal
more persons come to when the person who
NOTE: It is important that the previous
an agreement has decided to commit
convictions refer to the felonies enumerated
concerning the a felony proposes its
in Art. 62 of the RPC. If, for example, the
commission of a execution to some
accused was convicted for illegal sale of
felony and decide to other person or
dangerous drugs, he cannot be considered a
commit it. persons.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
habitual delinquent. (People v. Dalawis, G.R. time a habitual delinquent, the penalty for the
No. 197925, 09 Nov. 2015) crime for which he will be convicted will be
increased to the maximum period, unless offset by
Recidivism and Reiteracion are generic a mitigating circumstance. After determining the
aggravating circumstances which can be offset by correct penalty for the last crime committed, an
mitigating circumstances. Habitual delinquency added penalty will be imposed in accordance with
and Quasi-Recidivism, on the other hand, are Art. 62.
special aggravating circumstances which cannot
be offset. Illustration: If the 1st conviction is for serious
physical injuries or less serious physical injuries
(See also discussion on recidivism and reiteracion and the 2nd conviction is for robbery, theft or
under Aggravating Circumstances – page 64) estafa and the 3rd is for falsification, then the
moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth
Requisites of Habitual Delinquency as an conviction, he is a habitual delinquent and at the
Aggravating Circumstance same time a recidivist because at least, the fourth
time will have to fall under any of the three
1. Within a period of 10 years from the date of categories.
his release or last conviction;
2. Of the crime of serious or less serious physical But there is a limitation in the imposition of
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification; additional penalties. Under Art. 62, “The penalty
and of the last crime to be committed and the
3. He is found guilty of said crimes a third time additional penalty for the habitual delinquent
or oftener. shall not be more than 30 years.”
Q: In Nov. 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal, Habitual Delinquency Without Being a

was found guilty of three (3) counts of Murder Recidivist (2009, 2001 BAR)
and was consequently sentenced with the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. A Convict can be a habitual delinquent without
month after, he was likewise found guilty of being a recidivist when two of the crimes
five (5) counts of Grave Threats in a separate committed are NOT embraced in the same title of
criminal proceeding, and hence, meted with the Code.
the penalty of prision mayor for each count. Is
Mr. N considered a habitual delinquent? Additional Penalties for Habitual Delinquency
Explain. (2019 BAR)
1. Upon 3rd conviction – Prision correctional in
A: NO, Mr. N is not a habitual delinquent. Under its medium and maximum periods
Art. 62 of the RPC, a person shall be deemed to be 2. Upon 4th conviction – Prision mayor in its
a habitual delinquent, if within the period of 10 minimum and medium periods
years from the date of his last release or last 3. Upon 5th or additional conviction – Prision
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious mayor in its maximum period to Reclusion
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or temporal in its minimum period
falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said
crimes a third time or oftener. Here, Mr. N did not NOTE: The total penalties must not exceed 30
commit the specific crimes above mentioned. years. (Art. 62, RPC)
Offender can be a Recidivist and a Habitual Total Penalties

Delinquent at the Same Time
1. For the last crime of which he is found guilty;
When the offender is a recidivist and at the same and

Criminal Law
2. Additional penalty. recidivism under Art. 160 of the RPC, it will be

appreciated whether the crime for which an
NOTE: The imposition of additional penalty for accused is serving sentence at the time of the
habitual delinquency is constitutional because it is commission of the offense charged, falls under
neither an ex post facto law nor an additional said Code or under a special law. (People v. Peralta,
punishment for former crimes. It is simply a et. al., G.R. No. L-15959, 11 Oct. 1961)
punishment on future crimes, the penalty being
enhanced on account of the criminal propensities Q: Defendant-appellant, while serving
of the accused. (People v. Montera, G.R. No. L- sentence for the crime of homicide, killed one
34431, 11 Aug. 1931) Sabas Aseo, for which the CFI of Manila found
him guilty with the crime of murder, meting
Elements of Quasi-recidivism him the penalty of death. On appeal to the
Supreme Court, appellant contend that the CFI
1. Offender was already convicted by final erred in applying Art. 160 of the RPC as it is
judgment of one offense; and applicable only when the new crime which is
2. He committed a new felony before beginning committed by a person already serving
to serve such sentence or while serving the sentence is different from the crime for which
same. he is serving sentence. Is the defendant
correct?
The offender must be serving sentence by virtue
of final judgment to trigger the application of Art. A: NO. As the new offense need not be different or
160 of the RPC on quasi-recidivism. be of different character from that of the former
offense. The deduction of the appellant from the
Applicability of Quasi-recidivism (2018 BAR) head note of Art. 160 of the word “another” is not
called for. The language is plain and ambiguous.
Art. 160 of the RPC applies although the next There is not the slightest intimation in the text of
offense is different in character from the former Art. 160 that said article applies only in cases
offense for which the defendant is serving where the new offense is different in character
sentence. It makes no difference whether the from the former offense for which the defendant
crime for which an accused is serving a sentence is serving the penalty. Hence, even if he is serving
at the time of the commission of the offense sentence for homicide and was later found to be
charged falls under the RPC or under a special law. guilty of murder, Art. 160 applies. (People v. Yabut,
G.R. No. 39085, 27 Sept. 1933)
Q: The CFI of Rizal found the defendants guilty
of the crime of murder and imposed upon Q: While serving sentence for robbery in the
them the penalty of death by reason of the New Bilibid Prisons, defendants attacked and
existence of special aggravating circumstance stabbed three inmates who were confined in
of quasi-recidivism. On automatic review by the prison hospital, resulting in the death of
the Supreme Court, the counsel of the one and the infliction of numerous stab
defendants contends that the allegation of wounds on the others. After said incident, the
quasi-recidivism in the Information is defendants voluntarily surrendered to the
ambiguous, as it fails to state whether the authorities and plead guilty to said crimes.
offenses for which the defendants were The lower court found the defendants guilty of
serving sentence at the time of the commission the crime of murder and imposed the penalty
of the crime charged were penalized by the of death.
RPC, or by a special law. Is the argument of the
counsel correct? On automatic review by the Supreme Court,
defendants contend that they should have
A: NO. For purposes of the effect of quasi- been given the benefit of the mitigating

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
circumstances of voluntary surrender and Without warning and acting in concert they
plea of guilty. Is their argument correct? swiftly took turns in stabbing Gasang, and as a
result, the victim died.
A: NO. As quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by
ordinary mitigating circumstances. Quasi- The four were charged with and convicted of
recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance murder under Art. 248, in relation to Art. 160
which imposes the maximum of the penalty for the of the RPC, with the aggravating circumstances
new offense. Art. 160 specifically provides that the of (1) recidivism against Layson and Ragub,
offender “shall be punished by the maximum and (2) all of them with two or more prior
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the convictions. Is the RTC judge correct?
new felony.” Notwithstanding, therefore, the
existence of mitigating circumstances of voluntary A: NO. It was error for the trial judge to consider
surrender and plea of guilty, the imposition of the against the accused the aggravating circumstance
supreme penalty is in order. (People v. Alicia and of having been previously punished for two or
Bangayan, G.R. No. L-38176, 22 Jan. 1980) more crimes to which the law attaches lighter
penalties because the said aggravating
Pardon of a Quasi-recidivist circumstance of "reiteracion" requires that the
offender against whom it is considered shall have
GR: served out his sentences for the prior offenses.
1. When he has reached the age of 70 and has
already served out his original sentence; or Here, all the accused were yet serving their
2. When he shall complete it after reaching said respective sentences at the time of the
age. commission of the murder. However, the special
circumstance of quasi-recidivism was correctly
XPN: Unless by reason of his conduct or other considered against all the accused who were at the
circumstances, he shall not be worthy of such time of the commission of the offense were
clemency. undoubtedly serving their respective sentences.
(People v. Layson, et. al., G.R. No. L-25177, 31 Oct.
NOTE: This is only directory as the President 1969)
cannot be compelled to grant pardon.
Quasi-recidivism and Reiteracion Cannot Co-

exist
Quasi-recidivism refers to a situation where the

second crime is committed DURING the service of
sentence for the first crime. Reiteracion refers to
a situation where the second crime is committed
AFTER service of sentence for the first crime. As
to reiteracion, the law says “previously punished.”
Q: Layson, Ragub, Fugoso, and Garces were all

serving their sentences in Davao Penal Colony.
One morning, the four, armed with bladed
weapons, entered the cell of the victim Gasang.

Criminal Law
Recidivism, Reiteracion, Habitual delinquency, and Quasi-recidivism Distinguished
REITERACION HABITUAL
RECIDIVISM QUASI-RECIDIVISM
(HABITUALITY) DELIQUENCY
As to Definition
There are at least two There are at least three
convictions. No convictions. Within a Felony was committed
There are two
prescriptive period on period of 10 years from after having been
convictions. It is
the commission of the the date of release or convicted by final
necessary that the
offense; it does not last conviction of the judgment of an offense,
offender shall have
prescribe. It is enough crimes covered, he is before beginning to
served out his sentence
that a final judgment found guilty of any of serve sentence or
for the first offense.
has been rendered in said crimes a third time while serving the same.
the first offense. or oftener.
As to Crimes or Offenses
Offender has
previously served
sentence for another
crime to which the law
First crime for which
Requires that the attaches an equal or
the offender is serving
offenses be included in greater penalty or for Crimes covered are
sentence may be a
the same Title of the two or more crimes to serious or less serious
felony under the RPC
RPC which it attaches a physical injuries,
or an offense under a
lighter penalty. robbery, theft, estafa,
SPL but the second
Covers felonies under and falsification
crime must be a felony
RPC only The previous and
under the RPC
subsequent offenses
must NOT be embraced
in the same Title of the
RPC.
As to Effect
Not always Shall be punished by
aggravating; its the maximum period of
It increases the penalty Shall suffer additional
appreciation is within the penalty prescribed
to its maximum period penalty
the discretion of the by law for the new
court felony
As to Offsetting
Special aggravating
Extraordinary circumstance which
aggravating may be offset by
A generic aggravating A generic aggravating circumstance which special privileged
circumstance circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating
mitigating circumstances not by
circumstance ordinary mitigating
circumstances
NOTE: If recidivism and reiteracion are both present, only recidivism must be appreciated because it is
easier to prove.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
4. PENALTIES Situations when a Defendant May Benefit
from a Favorable Retroactive Effect of a New

Penalties
Law
The punishment inflicted by the State for the

1. The crime has been committed and
transgression of a law.
prosecution begins;
2. Sentence has been passed but service has not
Juridical Conditions of Penalty
begun; and
3. The sentence is being carried out. (Escalante
1. Productive of suffering, without affecting the
v. Santos, G.R. No. L-36828, 02 Feb. 1932)
integrity of the human personality.
2. Commensurate with the offense
Applicability of the Principle of Retroactivity
3. Personal – no one should be punished for the
to Special Laws
crime of another
4. Legal – it must be a consequence of a
It is applicable even to special laws which provide
judgment according to law
more favorable conditions to the accused. (U.S. v.
5. Certain – no one may escape its effects
Soliman, G.R. No. 11555, 06 Jan. 1917)
6. Equal to all
7. Correctional (Reyes, 2017)
Illustration: R.A. No. 9346 expressly recognized
that its enactment would have retroactive
Purpose of the State in Punishing Crimes
beneficial effects; referring as it did to "persons
whose sentences were reduced to reclusion
The State has an existence of its own to maintain,
perpetua by reason of this Act". The benefit of Art.
a conscience to assert, and moral principles to be
22 has to apply, except as to those persons
vindicated. Penal justice must, therefore, be
defined as "habitual criminals." (People v. Bon,
exercised by the State in the service and
G.R. 166401, 30 Oct. 2006)
satisfaction of a duty and rests primarily on the
moral rightfulness of the punishment inflicted.
Non-applicability of Principle of Retroactivity
(Albert)
1. The new law increases the civil liability; and

NOTE: The basis of the right to punish violations
2. The new law is expressly made inapplicable.
of penal law is the police power of the State.
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF

a. IMPOSABLE PENALTIES
DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
ART. 21, RPC
(R.A. No. 9346)
Only that penalty prescribed by law prior to the

Effect of R.A. No. 9346
commission of the felony may be imposed. No
person shall be subject to criminal prosecution
The penalty meted out was reduced to reclusion
for any act of his until after the State has defined
perpetua. Furthermore, Sec. 3 (R.A. No. 9346)
the crime and has fixed a penalty therefore (U.S.
provides that “persons convicted of offenses
v. Parrone, G.R. No. L-7038, 07 Jan. 1913). It is a
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
guaranty to the citizen of this country that no act
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
of his will be considered criminal until the
by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for
government has made it so by law and has
parole under Act No. 4103, known as the
provided a penalty.
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”

Criminal Law
Death Penalty NOT Abolished Effect of an Absolute Repeal of Penal Laws
Death penalty is not abolished. It is only GR: The effect of depriving a court of its authority
prohibited to be imposed. (People v. Muñoz, G.R. to punish a person charged with violation of the
No. L-38969-70, 09 Feb. 1989) old law prior to its repeal. (Boado, 2008)
For the purposes of determining the proper XPNs:

penalty due to the presence of mitigating and 1. Inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing
aggravating circumstances, or due to the nature statute that provides that the repeal shall
of the participation of the offender, it remains in have no effect on pending actions.
the statute, and it shall be reckoned with.
2. Where the repealing act re-enacts the
What is prohibited in R.A. No. 9346 is only the former statute and punishes the act
imposition of the death penalty. previously penalized under the old law. In
such instance, the act committed before the
NOTE: However, the corresponding civil liability re-enactment continues to be an offense in
should be the civil liability corresponding to the statute books and pending cases are not
death. (People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077, 31 Aug. affected, regardless of whether the new
2006) penalty to be imposed is more favorable to
the accused. (Benedicto v. CA, G.R. 125359, 04
Reason: The rights of the offended persons or Sept. 2001)
innocent third parties are not within the gift of
arbitrary disposal of the state. Example: R.A. No. 10158, otherwise known
as “An Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy”.
Penalties Imposed in Lieu of the Death
Penalty NOTE: There can be an implied repeal of a
penal statute when it is favorable to the
1. Reclusion perpetua – when the law violated accused. Otherwise, it will have no
makes use of the nomenclature of the application pursuant to the rule of
penalties of the RPC; or interpretation against implied repeal of
penal statutes.
2. Life imprisonment – when the law violated
does not make use of the nomenclature of the Repeals by implication are not favored as
penalties of the RPC. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 9346) laws are presumed to be passed with
deliberation and full knowledge of all laws
Persons convicted of offenses punished with existing on the subject, the congruent
reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be application of which the courts must
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this generally presume. (Philippine International
Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. Trading Corp. v COA, G.R. No. 183517, 22 June
4103 otherwise known as the Indeterminate 2010)
Sentence Law. (Sec 3, R.A. No. 9346, as amended)
Effect of Pardon by the Offended Party (Art.
Purpose of the Law 23, RPC)
For justice, because the State has an existence of GR: Pardon by the offended party does NOT
its own to maintain, a conscience to assert, and extinguish the criminal liability of the offender.
moral principles to be vindicated. Penal justice
rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of the Reason: A crime committed is an offense against
punishment imposed. (Gregorio, 2008) the State. Only the Chief Executive can pardon the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
offenders. In criminal cases, the intervention of 3. Rape (as amended by R.A. No. 8353)
the aggrieved parties is limited to being
witnesses for the prosecution. (Reyes, 2017) The subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall
Compromise upon the civil liability arising from extinguish criminal liability or the penalty
an offense may be had; but such compromise imposed. In case the legal husband is the
shall not extinguish the public action for the offender, subsequent forgiveness by the wife
imposition of the legal penalty. (Art. 2034, NCC) as offended party shall also produce the same
effect. This however is not applicable in rape
A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the where there are two or more principals
right to prosecute an offense or waiving the involved.
criminal liability is VOID. (Arts. 1306, 1352, and
1409, NCC) Measures of Prevention that are NOT
Considered as Penalty
XPN: Pardon by the offended party will bar
criminal prosecution in the following crimes: 1. The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their detention by
1. Adultery and Concubinage (Art. 344, RPC) reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
requiring their confinement in a hospital;
EXPRESS or IMPLIED pardon must be given
by the offended party to BOTH offenders. 2. The commitment of a minor to any of the
Pardon must be given PRIOR to the institutions mentioned in Art. 80 (now P.D.
institution of criminal action. 603, amended by Sec. 36(2) and (3) of R.A. No.
9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10603) and for
2. Seduction, Abduction, Acts of the purposes specified therein;
Lasciviousness (Art. 344, RPC)
3. Suspension from the employment or public
Pardon must be given PRIOR to the office during the trial or in order to institute
institution of the criminal action. However, proceedings;
marriage between the offender and the
offended party EVEN AFTER the institution 4. Fines and other corrective measures which,
of the criminal action or conviction of the in the exercise of their administrative or
offender will extinguish the criminal action disciplinary powers, superior officials may
or remit the penalty already imposed against impose upon their subordinates; and
the offender, his co-principals, accomplices,
and accessories after the fact. (People v. Dela 5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations
Cerna, G.R. No. 136899-904, 09 Oct. 2002) which the civil law may establish in penal
form.
Pardon by the offended party under Art. 344
is only a bar to criminal prosecution; it is not NOTE: The aforementioned measures are not
a ground for extinguishment of criminal penalties because they are not imposed as a
liability. Civil liability may be extinguished by result of judicial proceedings. They are
the express waiver of the offended party. PREVENTIVE MEASURES only.
Art. 89, providing for total extinction of Purposes for the Imposition of Penalty under
criminal liability, does not mention pardon the RPC
by the offended party as one of the causes of
totally extinguishing criminal liability. 1. Retribution or Expiation – penalty is
(Reyes, 2017) commensurate with the gravity of the

Criminal Law
offense. Penalties according to Subject Matter
2. Correction or Reformation – as shown by 1. Corporal (death)

the rules which regulate the execution of the 2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision,
penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty. arresto)
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro)
4. Social Defense – shown by its inflexible 4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and
severity to recidivists and habitual suspension)
delinquents. 5. Pecuniary (fine)
b. CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES Penalties according to their Gravity

ART. 25, RPC
1. Capital – death
General Classifications of Penalties 2. Afflictive – reclusion perpetua to prision
mayor
1. Principal Penalties – those expressly 3. Correctional – prision correccional to
imposed by the court in the judgment of destierro
conviction. 4. Light – arresto menor
2. Accessory Penalties – those that are deemed NOTE: This classification corresponds to the
included in the imposition of the principal classification of the felonies in Art. 9: grave, less
penalties. (Reyes, 2017) grave, and light.
3. Subsidiary Penalties – those imposed in lieu Penalties that can Either be Principal or
of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment in Accessory
case of inability to pay the fine.
1. Perpetual or temporary absolute
Scale in Art. 25 – General classification based on disqualification
severity, nature, and subject matter. 2. Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification
Scale in Art. 70 – For successive service of 3. Suspension
sentences imposed on the same accused, in
consideration of the severity and nature. Illustration: Art. 236, punishing the crime of
Anticipation of Duties of a Public Office, provides
Scale in Art 71 – For graduating penalties by for suspension as a principal penalty.
degrees in accordance with the rules of Art 61.
Arts. 226, 227, and 228, punishing Infidelity of
Principal Penalties according to their Public Officers in the Custody of Documents,
Divisibility provide for temporary special disqualification as a
principal penalty.
DIVISIBLE INDIVISIBLE
Those which have no NOTE: It is necessary to employ legal
fixed duration. terminology in the imposition of penalties
Those that have fixed because of the substantial difference in their
duration and are e.g., Death, reclusion corresponding legal effects and accessory
divisible into three perpetua, perpetual penalties. (Boado, 2008)
periods. absolute or special
disqualification, Thus, a sentence of “five years in Bilibid” is
public censure defective because it does not specify the exact

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
penalty on RPC. (U.S. v. Avillar, G.R. No, 9609-11, and proceeds of the offense
02 Oct. 1914) 7. Payment of Costs
Scale of Principal and Accessory Penalties c. DURATION AND EFFECTS

(Art. 25, RPC) ART. 27-45, RPC
SCALE OF PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Duration of Each of Different Penalties

(D – Rec2Dis2May – PASD – AP – FB)
PENALTY DURATION
1. Capital Punishment (D)
a. Death Reclusion 20 yrs. and 1 day to 40
Perpetua yrs.
2. Afflictive Penalties (RR-PPP) Reclusion 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20
a. Reclusion Perpetua Temporal yrs.
b. Reclusion Temporal
c. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute 6 yrs. and 1 day to 12
Disqualification yrs., except when
d. Perpetual or Temporary Special Prision Mayor and disqualification is
Disqualification Temporary accessory penalty, in
e. Prision Mayor Disqualification which case its duration
is that of the principal
3. Correctional Penalties (PASD) penalty
a. Prision Correccional 6 mos. and 1 day to 6
b. Arresto Mayor yrs., except when
Prision
c. Suspension suspension is an
Correccional,
d. Destierro accessory penalty, in
Suspension, and
which case its duration
Destierro
4. Light Penalties (AP) is that of the principal
b. Arresto Menor penalty
c. Public Censure
Arresto Mayor 1 mo. and 1 day to 6 mos.
5. Penalties Common to the Three Preceding Arresto Menor 1 day to 30 days

Classes (FB) The period during which
a. Fine Bond to Keep the bond shall be
b. Bond to Keep the Peace the Peace effective is discretionary
on the court.
SCALE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES
(Dis2 – SuC – InForC)
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
1. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification 1. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
2. Perpetual or Temporary Special
Disqualification a. DEATH
3. Suspension from public office, the right to
vote and be voted for, the profession or
NOTE: The imposition of death penalty is now
calling
prohibited under R.A. No. 9346.
4. Civil interdiction
5. Indemnification
(See discussion on R.A. No. 9346 under Imposable
6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments
Penalties – page 105)

Criminal Law
Accessory Penalties of Death Accessory Penalties of Reclusion Perpetua
Death, when not executed by reason of 1. Civil Interdiction for life or during the period
commutation or pardon, shall carry with it: of the sentence.
2. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which
1. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification shall still be served even if the principal
2. Civil Interdiction during the first thirty (30) penalty has been pardoned, unless when the
years following the date of the sentence. (Art. same has been expressly remitted in the
40, RPC) pardon. (Art. 41, RPC)
NOTE: Such accessory penalties shall be b. RECLUSION TEMPORAL

continuously suffered by the convict even if the
principal penalty has been pardoned; unless such
Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
penalties have been expressly remitted in the
pardon.
NOTE: Reclusion Temporal has the same
accessory penalties as that of Reclusion Perpetua.
2. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
c. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE

a. RECLUSION PERPETUA DISQUALIFICATION
Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years (2019 Disqualification may be a Principal or

BAR) Accessory Penalty
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification

(1994, 2001, 2009 BAR) and Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification may either be a principal penalty
RECLUSION LIFE or an accessory penalty.
PERPETUA IMPRISONMENT
As to Applicability Duration
Pertains to the Pertains to the penalty
penalty imposed for imposed for violation 1. If PERPETUAL – for life
violation of the RPC of special laws
2. If TEMPORARY:
As to Duration
a. Principal – 6 years and 1 day to 12
It has no fixed years;
It has fixed duration
duration b. Accessory – its duration shall be that of
As to Accessory Penalties the principal penalty (Art. 27, RPC)
It carries with it It does not carry with

Effects of Perpetual or Temporary ABSOLUTE
accessory penalties it accessory penalty
Disqualification for Public Office
NOTE: Although reclusion perpetua has been 1. Deprivation of the public offices and
given a fixed duration, it has remained to be an employments which the offender may have
indivisible penalty. Indivisible penalties have held, even if conferred by popular election;
no durations. (Mercado v. People, G.R. No. 149375,
26 Nov. 2002) 2. Deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular elective office or to
be elected to such office;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
3. Disqualification for the offices or public He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
employments and for the exercise of any of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
the rights mentioned; and which carried the accessory penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification. President
4. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or pension Arroyo subsequently issued an Order of
for any office formerly held. Commutation which reduced his prison term.
In case of temporary disqualification, such After serving his sentence, he filed his
disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 certificate of candidacy seeking to run as
and 3 shall last during the term of sentence. (Art. mayor. Jalosjos contends that Art. 30 of RPC
30, RPC) was partially amended by the Local
Government Code and thus, his perpetual
Perpetual Absolute Disqualification vs. absolute disqualification had already been
Temporary Absolute Disqualification removed. Is the contention meritorious?
PERPETUAL TEMPORARY A: NO. Well-established is the rule that every

ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTE new statute should be construed in connection
DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFICATION with those already existing in relation to the same
subject matter and should be made to harmonize
As to Period of Effectivity
and stand together, if possible.
Disqualification lasts
during the term of the
In this case, while Sec. 40(a) of the LGC allows a
sentence, and is
prior convict to run for local elective office after
removed after the
the lapse of two (2) years from the time he serves
service of the
his sentence, the said provision should not be
same, except:
deemed to cover cases wherein the law imposes a
penalty, either as principal or accessory, which
1. Deprivation of
has the effect of disqualifying the convict to run
the public office/
for elective office. In this relation, Art. 30 of the
employment; and
RPC, as earlier cited, provides that the penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification has the effect
Effective during the 2. Loss of all rights
of depriving the convicted felon of the privilege to
lifetime of the convict to retirement pay
run for elective office. (Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R.
and even after the or other pension
No. 205033, 18 June 2013)
service of the for any office
sentence. formerly held.
d. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
NOTE: Plebiscite is DISQUALIFICATION
NOT mentioned or
even contemplated Effects of Perpetual or Temporary SPECIAL
under Art. 30(2); Disqualification
hence, the offender
may vote in that For Public Office, Profession, or Calling
exercise, subject to
the provisions of 1. Deprivation of the office, employment,
pertinent election profession or calling affected; and
laws. 2. Disqualification for holding similar offices
or employments perpetually or during the
Q: Jalosjos was convicted by final judgment of term of the sentence. (Art. 31, RPC)
the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness.

Criminal Law
For the Exercise of the Right of Suffrage the right to hold public office, and the right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence. (Art. 44,
1. Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected RPC)
to any public office; and
2. Cannot hold any public office during the c. SUSPENSION
period of disqualification. (Art. 32, RPC)
Duration
e. PRISION MAYOR
1. If imposed as a principal penalty: 6 months
Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years (2019 and 1 day to 6 years
BAR) 2. If imposed as an accessory penalty: its
duration shall be that of the principal penalty
Accessory Penalties of Prision Mayor (Art. 27, RPC)
1. Temporary Absolute Disqualification Effects of Suspension

2. Perpetual Special Disqualification of the right
to suffrage which the offender shall suffer Suspension from:
even if the principal penalty has been 1. Public office;
pardoned, unless the same has been 2. Profession or calling;
expressly remitted in the pardon. (Art. 42, 3. Right of suffrage. (Art. 33, RPC)
RPC)
d. DESTIERRO
3. CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years

a. PRISION CORRECCIONAL
NOTE: The RPC does not provide for any
Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years accessory penalty for destierro.
Accessory Penalties of Prision Correccional Nature of Destierro
a. Suspension from public office and the right to Destierro is a principal penalty. It is a punishment
practice a profession or calling. whereby a convict is banished to a certain place
and is prohibited from entering or coming near
b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from the that place designated in the sentence, which shall
right of suffrage if the duration of the be not more than 250 and not less than 25
imprisonment shall exceed 18 months, which kilometers from the place designated. (Art. 87,
shall be suffered even if the principal penalty RPC)
has been pardoned, unless the same has been
expressly remitted in the pardon. (Art. 43, NOTE: If the convict should enter the prohibited
RPC) places, he will be committing the crime of evasion
of service of sentence under Art. 157.
b. ARRESTO MAYOR
Cases when Destierro can be Imposed
Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 years

1. Serious physical injuries or death under
exceptional circumstances (Art. 247);
Accessory Penalties of Arresto Mayor
2. In the crime of grave threats or light threats,
when the offender is required to put up a
Arresto mayor shall carry with it suspension of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
bond for good behavior but failed or refused not exceeding P40,000, it is a light
to do so (Art. 284); P40,000 is a light penalty.
3. As a penalty for the concubine in felony.
concubinage (Art. 334); and
4. In cases where, after reducing the penalty by NOTE: If the fine prescribed by the law for a
one or more degrees, destierro is the proper felony is exactly P40,000, it is a light felony
penalty. because Art. 9(3), which defines light felony,
should prevail.
4. LIGHT PENALTIES
Considerations by the Court in Imposing the
Amount of Fine
a. ARRESTO MENOR
1. The mitigating and aggravating

Duration: 1 day to 30 days
circumstances; and
NOTE: Arresto menor carries with it the same

NOTE: Modifying circumstances are only of
accessory penalties as that of arresto mayor. secondary importance. There is subsidiary
imprisonment if the penalty of fine is not
b. PUBLIC CENSURE paid. (Regalado, 2007)
Nature of Public Censure 2. More particularly, the wealth or means of the

culprit.
Public censure is a principal and indivisible
penalty that has no fixed duration. NOTE: This is the main consideration in the
imposition of fines.
5. PENALTIES COMMON TO THE THREE
PRECEDING CLASSES Penalty Cannot be Imposed in the Alternative
The law does not permit any court to impose a

a. FINE
sentence in the alternative, its duty being to
(Art. 26, as amended by R.A. No. 10951)
indicate the penalty imposed definitely and
positively. (People v. Mercadejas, C.A., 54 O.G.
When a Fine is considered Afflictive, 5707; People v. Tabije, C.A., 59 O.G. 1922)
Correctional, or Light Penalty
Under the Bench Book in Criminal Procedure
FINE (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 10951) issued by the SC, the imposition of the alternative
Afflictive Over P1,200,000 penalty may be considered during the plea
Correctional P40,000 - P1,200,000 bargaining in the pre-trial of criminal cases.
Light Not exceeding P40,000
Q: E and M are convicted of a penal law that
NOTE: Same basis may be applied by analogy to imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or
Bond to Keep the Peace. both fine and imprisonment. The judge
sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly, and
Light Felony under Art. 9 vs. Classification of severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in
Fine under Art. 26 case of insolvency. (2005 BAR)
ART. 9(3) ART. 26 1. Is the penalty proper? Explain.

A felony punishable by If the amount of fine
arresto menor or a fine imposed is less than A: NO. Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and

Criminal Law
severally on E and M is not proper. The penalty Bond to Keep the Peace vs. Bond for Good
should be imposed individually on every person Behavior
accused of the crime. Any of the convicted
accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the BOND TO KEEP THE BOND FOR GOOD
fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment. PEACE BEHAVIOR
As to Effect of Failure to Post Bond
2. May the judge impose an alternative Failure to post a bond
penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain. to keep the peace
results to The legal effect of
A: NO. The judge may not validly impose an imprisonment either failure to post a bond
alternative penalty. Although the law may for 6 months or 30 for good behavior is
prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it days, depending on not imprisonment
does not mean that the court may impose the whether the felony but destierro under
alternative penalties at the same time. The committed is grave or Art. 284.
sentence must be definite; otherwise, the less grave on one hand,
judgment cannot attain finality. or it is light only.
As to Applicability
b. BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE Applicable only to
Not applicable to any cases of grave
Duties of a Person Sentenced to Give Bond to particular case threats and light
Keep the Peace threats
1. Present two sufficient sureties who shall d. APPLICATION AND

undertake that the offender will not commit GRADUATION OF PENALTIES
the offense sought to be prevented, and that ART. 46-77, RPC
in case such offense be committed, they will
pay the amount determined by the court; or Basis of Application of Penalties
2. Deposit such amount with the clerk of court 1. The stages of commission of the felony:
to guarantee said undertaking; or a. Consummated
b. Frustrated
3. The offender may be detained, if he cannot c. Attempted
give the bond, for a period not to exceed 6
months if prosecuted for grave or less grave 2. The offenders and their participation:
felony, or for a period not to exceed 30 days, a. Principal
if for a light felony. (Art. 35, RPC) b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
Bond to Keep the Peace vs. Bail Bond
3. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
BOND TO KEEP
BAIL BOND
THE PEACE COMPUTATION OF PENALTY
It is posted for the
provisional release of an Rules for the Computation of Penalties
accused person after his
It is imposed as a
arrest or during trial but The following rules must be observed by the
distinct penalty.
before final judgment of Director of Prisons or the warden when
(Art. 284)
conviction. (Rule 114, computing the penalties imposed upon the
Revised Rules of Criminal convicts:
Procedure)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
1. When the offender is in prison – duration of PRESCRIBED OR GRADUATED PENALTY

temporary penalties is from the day on which
the judgment of conviction becomes final. Prescribed Penalty
Ratio: The duration of temporary penalties The prescribed penalty is that found in Book II of
shall be computed only from the day the the RPC.
judgment of conviction becomes final, and
not from the day of his detention because Graduated Penalty
under Art. 24 the arrest and temporary
detention of the accused is not considered a The graduated penalty is the imposable penalty
penalty. after taking into consideration certain graduating
factors.
2. When the offender is NOT in
prison – duration of penalty consisting in What are the Graduating Factors
deprivation of liberty, is from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of judicial 1. Stages of execution;
authorities for the enforcement of the 2. Nature of participation; and
penalty. 3. Presence of privileged mitigating
circumstance.
3. Duration of other penalties – duration is
from the day on which the offender NOTE: For Nos. 1 and 2, see table on the
commences to serve his sentence. application of Arts. 50-57 of the RPC – page 120.
Examples of Temporary Penalties: Temporary PRIVILEGED ORDINARY

absolute disqualification, Temporary special MITIGATING MITIGATING
disqualification, Suspension CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
Adjust the penalty Adjust the penalty
Applicability of the Rules in Cases of by degree by period
Temporary Penalties, when the Offender is Not subject to the Subject to the
NOT under Detention because he has been offset rule offset rule
Released on Bail
The duration is from the day on which the Privileged Mitigating Circumstances under
offender commences to serve his sentence. the RPC
Examples of Penalties consisting in 1. When the offender is a minor under 18 years

Deprivation of Liberty of age (Art. 68, RPC) (2013, 2014 BAR);
1. Imprisonment; and 2. When the crime committed is not wholly

2. Destierro. excusable (Art. 69, RPC);
Factors that should be Considered in 3. When there are two or more mitigating
Computing the Proper Imposable Penalty circumstances and no aggravating
circumstance, the court shall impose the
1. Prescribed or graduated penalty penalty next lower to that prescribed by law,
2. Indivisible or divisible penalty in the period that it may deem applicable,
3. Applicability or non-applicability of the according to the number and nature of such
Indeterminate Sentence Law circumstances (Art. 64(5), RPC) (1997 BAR);
4. Voluntary release of the person illegally

Criminal Law
detained within 3 days without the offender case. (Regalado, 2007)

attaining his purpose and before the
institution of the criminal action (Art. 268(3), Instances when Mitigating and Aggravating
RPC); Circumstances are NOT Considered in the
Imposition of Penalty
5. Abandonment without justification by the
offended spouse in case of adultery (Art. 1. When penalty is single and indivisible;
333(3), RPC); and 2. In felonies thru negligence;
3. The penalty to be imposed upon a Moro or
6. Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide. other non-Christian inhabitants. It lies in the
(Art. 255(2), RPC) discretion of the trial court, irrespective of
the attending circumstance;
NOTE: If it is the maternal grandparent who 4. When the penalty is only a fine imposed by an
committed the offense to conceal dishonor, the ordinance; and
penalty imposed is one degree lower. If it is the 5. When the penalties are prescribed by special
pregnant woman who committed the offense to laws.
conceal dishonor, the penalty imposed is two
degrees lower. In case of concealing dishonor by Two Classifications of Penalties
a pregnant woman in abortion, the imposable
penalty is merely lowered by period and not by 1. Indivisible
degree, hence, not a privileged mitigating 2. Divisible – can be divided into 3 periods:
circumstance. a. Minimum
b. Medium
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances c. Maximum
contemplated under Art. 69 of the RPC
Period vs. Degree
1. Incomplete justifying circumstances (Art. 11,
RPC); and PERIOD DEGREE
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance (Art. 12, Refers to each of the
RPC) three equal parts of Refers to the diverse
a divisible penalty penalties mentioned by
Provided, that the majority of their conditions are (Minimum, Medium, name in the RPC.
present. Maximum)
For Art. 69 of the RPC to apply, it is necessary Rules on Graduation of Penalties

that:
1st RULE: Where the graduated penalty
1. Some of the conditions required to justify the is a single full penalty
deed or to exempt from criminal liability are
lacking; Single penalty – one full penalty
Compound penalty – composed of two penalties
2. The majority of such conditions are Complex penalty – consists of three penalties
nonetheless present; and
Whether the prescribed penalty is single,
NOTE: If there are only two requisites, the compound, or complex, the graduated penalty is
presence of one is already considered as single and full penalty.
majority.
Examples:
3. When the circumstance has an indispensable a. Homicide – prescribed penalty is single
element, that element must be present in the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
penalty of reclusion temporal: in its medium period
one degree lower is prision mayor c. Simple robbery – the prescribed penalty is
two degrees lower is prision complex period of prision correccional in its
correccional maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period:
b. Murder – prescribed penalty is compound
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: one degree lower is arrestor mayor in
its maximum period to prision
one degree lower is reclusion temporal correccional in its medium period
two degrees lower is prision mayor
two degrees lower is destierro in its
c. Treason committed by a resident alien – maximum period to arresto mayor in its
prescribed penalty is complex penalty of medium period
reclusion temporal to death:
3rd RULE: When the prescribed penalty is
one degree lower is prision mayor composed of a full penalty and
two degrees lower is prision penalties with period
correccional
Example: Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610 – the prescribed
2ndRULE: If the prescribed penalty is in penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period, then the graduated penalty period to reclusion perpetua – the graduated
is also in period penalty must be a complex period. One degree
lower is prision mayor in its medium period to
Single period – one full period reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Compound penalty – composed of two periods
Complex penalty – consists of three periods DIVISIBLE OR INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Examples: Rules for the Application of Indivisible

a. Technical malversation – the prescribed Penalties (Art. 63, RPC)
penalty is single period of prision
correccional in its minimum period: What are the Indivisible Penalties:
one degree lower is arresto mayor in its 1. Reclusion perpetua;

maximum period 2. Death; and
two degrees lower is arresto mayor in 3. Reclusion perpetua to death. (Campanilla,
its medium period 2017)
b. Theft – the prescribed penalty is compound 1st RULE: The law prescribes a single
period of prision correccional in its medium indivisible penalty
period to prision correccional in its maximum
period: Whatever may be the nature or number of
aggravating or mitigating circumstance that may
one degree lower is arresto mayor in its have attended the commission of the crime, the
maximum period to prision correccional court shall apply the prescribed penalty.
in its minimum period
Examples:
two degrees lower is arresto mayor in a. Simple rape – the prescribed penalty is
its minimum period to arrestor mayor reclusion perpetua

Criminal Law
b. Qualified rape – the prescribed penalty is perpetua to death for the following crimes under
death the RPC:
Q: The crime committed is simple rape, and 1. Parricide; (Art. 246, RPC)
the penalty is reclusion perpetua. There are 2. Robbery with homicide; (Art. 294(1), RPC)
two mitigating circumstances. Can you 3. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
appreciate the two mitigating circumstances, without intention to exort ransom; and (Art.
to appreciate the special mitigating 267, RPC)
circumstance, for purposes of making the 4. Rape committed with the use of a deadly
penalty one degree lower? weapon or by two or more persons. (Art. 266-
B, RPC)
A: NO. The special mitigating circumstance
consisting of two mitigating circumstances is Applying the off-set rule, only one aggravating
found under Art. 64. There is no special circumstance will remain. Thus, the greater
circumstance in Art. 63 of the RPC. penalty which is death is the proper imposable
penalty. However, because of R.A. No. 9346, the
2nd RULE: The law prescribes two (2) penalty will be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
indivisible penalties
Q: The crime is parricide. There are two (2)
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible aggravating circumstance and two (2)
penalties, the following rules shall be observed: mitigating circumstance. What is the proper
imposable penalty?
1. When there is only one aggravating
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be A: Applying the off-set rule, no modifying
imposed; circumstance will remain. Since there is neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the
2. When there is neither mitigating nor lesser penalty which is reclusion perpetua is the
aggravating circumstances, the lesser proper imposable penalty.
penalty shall be imposed;
Two Kinds of Reclusion Perpetua
3. When there is a mitigating circumstance
and no aggravating circumstance, the 1. Reclusion perpetua as a reduced penalty –
lesser penalty shall be imposed; and the penalty is death but it was reduced to
reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall 2. Reclusion perpetua as a prescribed penalty
allow them to offset one another. (1995 – reclusion perpetua is the penalty
BAR) prescribed by law. (A.C. No. 15-8-2, 04 Aug.
2015)
If the law prescribes 2 indivisible
penalties NOTE: Whether reclusion perpetua is a reduced
Only 1 AC Greater penalty penalty or a prescribed penalty, the accused is
No MC and No AC Lesser penalty not eligible for parole. Accordingly, the
1 MC and No AC Lesser penalty Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable.
Offset, then apply the
1 MC and 1 AC
prior rules
There is only one prescribed penalty consisting of

two (2) indivisible penalties, that is reclusion

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Rules for the Application of Divisible

Penalties (Art. 64, RPC) If the penalty is composed of 3 periods:
No MC and No
Medium period
What are the Divisible Penalties: AC
1. Penalty composed of three (3) periods; 1 MC Minimum period
2. Penalty not composed of three (3) periods; 1 AC Maximum period
3. Complex penalty; and 1 MC and 1 AC Offset
4. Penalty without a specific legal form. Penalty next lower, in the
(Campanilla, 2017) 2 or more MC period applicable, accdg.
and No AC to the number and nature
Penalty composed of Three (3) Periods of such circumstances
When the penalty is composed of three (3) Application of Graduated Scale (Art. 71, RPC)
periods, the following rules shall be observed:
The graduated scale is followed when the law
a. When there is neither aggravating nor prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or
mitigating: the penalty in its medium period more degrees than another given penalty.
shall be imposed;
SCALE 1 SCALE 2
b. When there is only a mitigating
circumstance: the penalty in its minimum 1. Death 1. Perpetual or
period shall be imposed; 2. Reclusion Perpetua Temporary
3. Reclusion Absolute
c. When there is only an aggravating Temporal Disqualification
circumstance: the penalty in its maximum 4. Prision Mayor 2. Suspension from
period shall be imposed; 5. Prision Public Office, the
Correccional right to vote and
d. When there are aggravating and mitigating 6. Arresto Mayor to be voted for,
– the court shall offset those of one class 7. Destierro the profession or
against the other according to relative 8. Arresto Menor calling
weight; 9. Public censure 3. Public Censure
10. Fine 4. Fine
e. Two or more mitigating and no
aggravating – penalty next lower, in the Rule in Increasing the Penalty of Fine by One
period applicable, according to the number or More Degrees (Art. 75, RPC)
and nature of such circumstances; and
Fines shall be increased or reduced for each
f. No penalty greater than the maximum degree by ¼ of the maximum amount. The
period of the penalty prescribed by law minimum amount prescribed by law shall not be
shall be imposed, no matter how many changed.
aggravating circumstances are present.

Criminal Law
Penalties Imposed on Principals, Accomplices, Accessories, in accordance with the Stages of

Committing a Felony (Art. 50-57, RPC)
CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED

Principals
1 degree lower than the penalty 2 degrees lower than the penalty
Penalty prescribed by law for
prescribed by law prescribed by law
the offense.
(Art. 50, RPC) (Art. 51, RPC)
Accomplices
1 degree lower than the penalty 2 degrees lower than the penalty 3 degrees lower than the penalty
prescribed by law prescribed by law prescribed by law
(Art. 52, RPC) (Art. 54, RPC) (Art. 56, RPC)
Accessories
2 degrees lower than the penalty 3 degrees lower than the penalty 4 degrees lower than the penalty
prescribed by law prescribed by law prescribed by law
(Art. 53, RPC) (Art. 55, RPC) (Art. 57, RPC)
GR: Penalties to be Imposed upon Principals when

1. Penalties are imposed upon the principals. the Crime Consummated was Different from
2. Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a that which was Intended (Art. 49, RPC)
felony in general terms, it shall be
understood to apply to a consummated Rules:
felony. 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed is higher than the penalty
XPNs: This shall not apply if: prescribed for the felony originally
intended, the penalty corresponding to the
1. The law expressly provides penalties latter shall be imposed in its maximum
for accomplices and accessories of a crime. period.
2. The law expressly provides penalties for
frustrated and attempted stages. 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed is lower than the penalty
Additional Penalties Imposed on Certain prescribed for the felony originally intended,
Accessories (Art. 58, RPC) the penalty corresponding to the former shall
be imposed in its maximum period.
Those accessories falling within the terms of par.
3, Art. 19 of the RPC who shall act with abuse of The rule in the next preceding paragraph
their public functions shall suffer an additional shall not apply if the acts committed by the
penalty of: guilty person shall constitute an attempt or
frustration of another crime. If the law
1. Absolute Perpetual Disqualification, if the prescribes a higher penalty for either of the
principal offender is guilty of a grave felony. latter offenses, such penalty shall be imposed
in its maximum period.
2. Absolute Temporary Disqualification, if the
offender is guilty of a less grave felony. Penalties that May be Simultaneously Served
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification

2. Perpetual special disqualification

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
3. Temporary absolute disqualification the “maximum” and “minimum” terms. The

4. Temporary special disqualification maximum shall, in view of the attending
5. Suspension circumstances, be properly imposed under the
6. Destierro rules of the RPC, and the minimum shall be within
7. Public censure the range of the penalty next lower to that
8. Fine and bond to keep the peace prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the
9. Civil interdiction offense is punished by any other law (special
10. Confiscation and payment of costs law), the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
(R.A. No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225) said law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the same. (Sec.
Indeterminate Sentence 1, Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225)
An indeterminate sentence is a sentence with a Imposition of Minimum or Maximum Term

minimum term and a maximum term which the
court is mandated to impose for the benefit of the The term minimum refers to the duration of the
guilty person who is not disqualified to avail sentence which the convict shall serve as a
thereof. The maximum imprisonment of the minimum to be eligible for parole. The term
guilty person must exceed 1 year. maximum refers to the maximum limit of the
duration that the convict may be held in jail. For
special laws, it is anything within the inclusive
Purpose range of prescribed penalty. The determination
of the minimum and maximum terms is left
To uplift and redeem valuable human material entirely to the discretion of the trial court, the
and prevent unnecessary and excessive exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal
deprivation of personal liberty and economic unless there is clear abuse. (People v. Medroso,
usefulness. (People v. Ducosin, G.R. No. L-38332, 14 G.R. No. L-37633, 31 Jan. 1975)
Dec. 1933)
Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
To avoid prolonged imprisonment because it is must be considered when required to solve
proven to be more destructive than constructive penalties under Art. 64 (Rules for the application
to offenders. of penalties which contain three periods). (2014
BAR)
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the RPC or special penal laws, the MAXIMUM TERM MINIMUM TERM
court shall sentence the accused to an Revised Penal Code (RPC)
indeterminate sentence, which has a maximum Maximum Term – is Minimum Term – is
and a minimum term based on the penalty that which in view of within the range of
actually imposed. the attending circum- the penalty next
stances could be lower to that
Q: Explain the application of the properly imposed prescribed by the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW). (2012, under the RPC. RPC.
2016 BAR)
Basis: The basis is the
A: The court must, instead of a single fixed imposable penalty. The Basis: The basis is the
penalty, except where the imposable penalty is rules of offseting the prescribed penalty,
one (1) year or less, determine two penalties, modifying not the imposable
referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law as penalty.

Criminal Law
circumstances are 6. If sentenced with a penalty of Death or life

applicable. imprisonment;
NOTE: The prescribed penalty is what the
penalty is without looking at the NOTE: Although the penalty prescribed for
circumstances, as opposed to imposed penalty the felony committed is death or reclusion
which considers the circumstances. perpetua, if after considering the attendant
Special Laws (2017 BAR) circumstances, the imposable penalty is
Maximum Term – Minimum Term – reclusion temporal or less, the ISLAW
must not exceed the must not be less than applies.
maximum term fixed the minimum term
by said law. prescribed by the 7. If convicted of Piracy;
same. (2003 BAR) 8. Those who Violated the terms of conditional
GR: In special laws, the presence of modifying pardon of the Chief Executive; and
circumstances does not affect the imposition of 9. If convicted by final Judgment at the time of
the penalty. the effectivity of Act No. 4103.
Q: X was convicted of a complex crime of

XPN: If the special law adopts the technical
direct assault with homicide aggravated by
nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC,
the commission of the crime in a place where
the rules under the RPC shall apply. (e.g., R.A.
public authorities are engaged in the
No. 10591 [Comprehensive Firearms and
discharge of their duties. The penalty for
Ammunition Regulation Act], R.A. No. 9262
direct assault is prision correccional in its
[Anti-VAWC Law])
medium and maximum period. What is the
correct indeterminate penalty? (2012 BAR)
Rules in Imposing a Penalty under the ISLAW
(1999, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2013 BAR)
A: 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17
years & 4 months of reclusion temporal as
GR: The ISLAW is mandatory in all cases where
maximum.
the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds one
(1) year.
Reason: 17 years and 4 months is the
commencement of the duration of the maximum
XPN: If the accused fall in any of the following
period of reclusion temporal while 10 years is
exceptions: (METH-1DeaP-VJ)
part of prision mayor, the penalty next lower in
degree to reclusion temporal.
1. If convicted of Misprision of treason,
sedition, rebellion or espionage;
NOTE: In determining penalties for a complex
2. Those who Escaped from prison or evaded
crime, the graver penalty shall be considered,
sentence;
thus, direct assault is there to confuse the
3. If convicted of Treason, conspiracy,
examiner. What should be considered is the
proposal to commit treason;
penalty for homicide since it is graver. The
4. If the offender is a Habitual delinquent;
maximum should not exceed what is prescribed
by the penalty. The minimum should be a period
NOTE: Recidivists, who are not habitual
less than what is prescribed as a minimum for the
delinquents, are entitled to the benefit of the
penalty.
Indeterminate Sentence Law. (People v.
Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547, 22 Feb. 1974)
Q: In Nov. 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal,
was found guilty of three (3) counts of Murder
5. Where the maximum term of imprisonment
and was consequently sentenced with the
does not exceed 1 year;
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
A month after, he was likewise found guilty of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
five (5) counts of Grave Threats in a separate circumstances (voluntary surrender and plea of
criminal proceeding, and hence, meted with guilt) without any aggravating circumstance
the penalty of prision mayor for each count. under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively,
which lowers the prescribed penalty for
May Mr. N avail of the benefits of the homicide which is reclusion temporal to prision
Indeterminate Sentence Law with respect to correccional.
his convictions for Murder and Grave
Threats? Explain. (2018 BAR) Further Explanation
A: As to the crime of Murder, Mr. N cannot avail In this kind of question, the Bar examiner wants
of the benefits of the Intermediate Sentence Law you to determine whether there was self-defense
(ISLAW). Reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible or not. The problem provides that the defense
penalty, with no minimum or maximum periods. was able to prove that it was the man who first
Hence, the ISLAW cannot be properly applied and attacked Bruno; therefore, there was unlawful
a straight penalty of reclusion perpetua should be aggression. But there was no provocation coming
imposed. from Bruno, therefore, there was a lack of
sufficient provocation. Hence, two elements of
However, ISLAW can be applied to the 5 counts of self-defense are present.
Grave Threats, so long as the penalty imposed for
each count does not exceed 6 years Q: How about the 3rd element of self-defense,
reasonable necessity of the means employed
Q: Bruno was charged with homicide for to prevent or repel the attack, is this present?
killing the 75-year-old owner of his rooming
house. The prosecution proved that Bruno A: NO. The third element of self-defense is absent
stabbed the owner causing his death, and that because based on the facts proven by Bruno,
the killing happened at 10 in the evening in although it was the man who attacked Bruno first,
the house where the victim and Bruno lived. he prevailed upon the man because he made use
Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved of a knife and stabbed the man. While the man
that he voluntarily surrendered to the attacked Bruno by means of his fist, it is not
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the reasonably necessary for Bruno to make use of a
crime charged; that it was the victim who first knife in killing the man. So what we have is an
attacked and did so without any provocation incomplete self-defense.
on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed
because he managed to draw his knife with Under Art. 13(1), in case of incomplete self-
which he stabbed the victim. defense, if aside from unlawful aggression,
another element is present but not all, we have a
The penalty for homicide is reclusion privileged mitigating circumstance. Therefore,
temporal. Assuming a judgment of conviction this incomplete self-defense shall be treated as a
and after considering the attendant privileged mitigating circumstance.
circumstances, what penalty should the judge
impose? (2013 BAR) Q: The prosecution was able to prove that the
man is 75 years old. Would you consider the
A: Bruno should be sentenced to an aggravating circumstance of disrespect of
indeterminate sentence penalty of arresto mayor age?
in any of its period as minimum to prision
correccional in its medium period as maximum. A: NO. Even if Bruno killed the said 75-year-old
Bruno was entitled to the privileged mitigating man, there was no showing in the problem that
circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the he disrespected the age of the man.
presence of at least two ordinary mitigating

Criminal Law
Q: Would you consider nighttime as an mitigating with no aggravating, lower the penalty
aggravating circumstance? by one degree. Therefore, if you lower it by one
degree, it is now prision correccional.
A: NO. Even if the problem says that the crime
was committed at 10 in the evening, it did not say 3. Determine the MAXIMUM term of the
whether the house was lighted or not. There was sentence after considering all the
also no showing that the offender deliberately justifying, exempting, mitigating, and
sought nighttime to commit the crime. aggravating circumstances, if any.
Q: Would you consider dwelling? You have already applied everything so it will
become prision correccional in its medium period.
A: NO. In the said dwelling, both Bruno and the
victim are residing therein. Therefore, dwelling is 4. Determine the MINIMUM term of the
not an aggravating circumstance because both of sentence.
them are living in the same dwelling. It cannot be
said that when Bruno killed the man, he You go one degree lower and that is arresto
disrespected the dwelling of the said man. mayor. Therefore, arresto mayor in its medium
Therefore, we have no aggravating circumstance period (or any period in the discretion of the
present. court) is the minimum term of the sentence.
Bruno was able to prove voluntary surrender, Q: Simon was arrested during a buy bust
voluntary plea of guilt, and then we have an operation at Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga
incomplete self-defense — a privileged after he sold two marijuana tea bags for
mitigating circumstance. P40.00 to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-
Applying these conclusions, we have two (2) buyer. Another two marijuana tea bags were
ordinary mitigating circumstances with one (1) found in possession of Simon. Simon was
privileged mitigating circumstance and with no charged with a violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A.
aggravating circumstance. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, for the sale of
How to Determine the Indeterminate the four marijuana tea bags with a total
Sentence weight of only 3.8 grams. The trial court
convicted Simon as charged but only in
1. Consider first the Privileged Mitigating relation to the sale of the two marijuana tea
Circumstance, if any. bags, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of
Whenever there is a privileged mitigating P20,000.00, and to pay the costs.
circumstance present, apply it first before
computing the penalty. In this example, since we a. Is the trial court correct in imposing the
have incomplete self-defense, you have to lower penalty of life imprisonment?
the penalty by one degree because it is a
privileged mitigating circumstance. Thus, it will A: NO. As applied to the present case, Sec. 4 of R.A.
become prision mayor. No. 6425, as now further amended, imposes the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
2. Consider the Ordinary Mitigating ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000 upon any
Circumstance. person who shall unlawfully sell, administer,
deliver, give away, distribute, dispatch in transit
So now, there are two ordinary mitigating or transport or act as broker to such transactions
circumstances with no aggravating circumstance. in any prohibited drug. That penalty, according to
Art. 64 provides that when there are two the amendment to Sec. 20 of the law, shall be

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
applied if what is involved is 750 grams or more rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances
of Indian hemp or marijuana otherwise, if the under the RPC cannot and should not be applied.
quantity involved is less, the penalty shall range A review of such doctrines as applied in previous
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor
depending upon the quantity. was because the special laws involved provided
their own specific penalties for the offenses
In other words, there is an overlapping error in punished thereunder, and which penalties were
the provisions on the penalty of reclusion not taken from or with reference to those in the
perpetua by reason of its dual imposition, that is, RPC.
as the maximum of the penalty where the
marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also as the The situation, however, is different where
minimum of the penalty where the marijuana although the offense is defined in and ostensibly
involved is 750 grams or more. The same error punished under a special law, the penalty
has been committed with respect to the other therefor is actually taken from the RPC in its
prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its
Sec. 20. duration, correlation and legal effects under the
system of penalties native to the RPC.
To harmonize such conflicting provisions in
order to give effect to the whole law, the penalty In the case of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as now
to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs amended by R.A. No. 7659, by the incorporation
involved is less than the quantities stated in the and prescription therein of the technical
first paragraph, shall range from prision penalties defined in and constituting integral
correccional to reclusion temporal, and not parts of the three scales of penalties in the RPC,
reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant with with much more reason should the provisions of
the fundamental rule in criminal law that all the RPC on the appreciation and effects of all
doubts should be construed in a manner attendant modifying circumstances apply in
favorable to the accused. fixing the penalty. Likewise, the different kinds or
classifications of penalties and the rules for
If the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the graduating such penalties by degrees should have
penalty to be imposed shall be prision supplementary effect on R.A. No. 6425, except if
correccional; from 250 to 499 grams, prision they would result in absurdities. Mitigating
mayor; and 500 to 749 grams, reclusion temporal. circumstances should be considered and applied
Parenthetically, fine is imposed as a conjunctive only if they affect the periods and the degrees of
penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to the penalties within rational limits.
death.
While modifying circumstances may be
Now, considering the minimal quantity of the appreciated to determine the periods of the
marijuana subject of the case at bar, the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the
imposable penalty under R.A. 6425, as amended penalty by degrees, in no case should such
by R.A. 7659, is prision correccional, to be taken graduation of penalties reduce the imposable
from the medium period thereof pursuant to Art. penalty beyond or lower than prision
64 of the RPC, there being no attendant mitigating correccional. It is for this reason that the three
or aggravating circumstance. component penalties in the second paragraph of
Sec. 20 shall each be considered as an
b. Should modifying circumstances be taken independent principal penalty, and that the
into account in this case? lowest penalty should in any event be prision
correccional in order not to depreciate the
A: YES. In the past, it was held that in imposing seriousness of drug offenses.
the penalty for offenses under special laws, the

Criminal Law
c. Is Simon entitled to the application of the Therefore, in view of the foregoing, Simon must
Indeterminate Sentence Law? be sentenced to serve an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
A: YES. Since drug offenses are not included in the minimum, to six (6) years of prision
nor has Simon committed any act which would correccional, as the maximum thereof. (People
put him within the exceptions to said law and the v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994)
penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion
perpetua or death; provided, of course, that the Conditions to Release Prisoner on Parole
penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one
year of imprisonment. Prisoner is qualified for release on parole
whenever he shall:
R.A. No. 6425, as now amended by R.A. No. 7659,
has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the 1. Have served the minimum penalty imposed
RPC in their technical terms, hence with their upon him;
technical signification and effects. In fact, for
purposes of determining the maximum of said 2. Appear to the Board of Indeterminate
sentence, the Court applied the provisions of the Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner’s
amended Sec. 20 of said law to arrive at prision work and conduct, and from the study and
correccional and Art. 64 of the RPC to impose the investigation made by the board itself that:
same in the medium period. Such offense,
although provided for in a special law, is now in a. Fitted by his training for release;
effect punished by and under the RPC. b. Reasonable probability that such
prisoner will live and remain at liberty
Correlatively, to determine the minimum, we
must apply the first part of Sec. 1 of the without violating the law;
Indeterminate Sentence Law which directs that c. Release will not be incompatible with the
"in imposing a prison sentence for an offense welfare of society. (Sec. 5, Act 4103, as
punished by the RPC, or its amendments, the amended)
court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of NOTE: If a prisoner, even if he has already served
which shall be that which, in view of the attending the minimum sentence but the Board found out
circumstances, could be properly imposed under that he is not fit for release on parole, he shall
the rules of the RPC, and the minimum which shall continue to serve until the end of the maximum
be within the range of the penalty next lower to term.
that prescribed by the RPC for the offense."
Prisoner on Parole is Entitled to Final Release
It is thus both amusing and bemusing if, in the and Discharge
case at bar, Simon should be begrudged the
benefit of a minimum sentence within the range If during the period of surveillance, such paroled
of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision prisoner shall:
correccional which is the maximum range the
Court has fixed through the application of Arts. 61 1. Show himself to be a law-abiding citizen; and
and 71 of the RPC. For, with fealty to the law, the 2. Not violate any law. (Sec. 6, Act No. 4103, as
court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months amended)
of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day
NOTE: The Board may issue a final certification in
of prision correccional. The difference, which
his favor for his final release and discharge. (Sec.
could thereby even involve only one day, is hardly
6)
worth the creation of an overrated tempest in the
judicial teapot.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Consequences when the Prisoner Violates v. Corral, G.R. No. 42300, 31 Jan. 1936)
Any of the Conditions of his Parole
Q: Cataquiz argues that the imposition of the
The paroled prisoner may be: principal penalty of dismissal is rendered
impossible by his removal from office.
1. Rearrested; and Consequently, citing the rule that the
2. Thereafter, he shall serve the remaining accessory follows the principal, he insists that
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence the accessory penalties may no longer be
for which he was originally committed to imposed on him. Is he correct?
prison. (Sec. 8, Act No. 4103, as amended)
A: NO. The accessory penalties of disqualification
e. ACCESSORY PENALTIES from re-employment in public service and
forfeiture of government retirement benefits can
1. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY still be imposed on him, notwithstanding the
ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION impossibility of effecting the principal penalty of
dismissal because of his removal from office.
Even if the most severe of administrative
2. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY
sanctions – that of separation from service – may
SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION
no longer be imposed, there are other penalties
which may be imposed on her if she is later found
NOTE: See discussion on Perpetual or Temporary guilty of administrative offenses charged against
Absolute Disqualification, and Perpetual or her, namely, the disqualification to hold any
Temporary Special Disqualification under government office and the forfeiture of benefits.
Penalties: Duration and Effects – page 109. (O.P. v. Cataquiz, G.R. No. 183445, 14 Sept. 2011,
reiterating Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr.)
3. SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE
RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, 4. CIVIL INTERDICTION
THE PROFESSION OR CALLING
Civil Interdiction
Effects of the Penalties of Suspension from
any Public Office, Profession, or Calling, or the It is an accessory penalty which produces the
Right of Suffrage (Art. 33, RPC) following effects: (Pa-Ma-Ma-D)
1. Disqualification from holding such office or 1. Deprivation of the rights of Parental

exercising such profession or calling or right authority or guardianship of any ward;
of suffrage during the term of the sentence; 2. Deprivation of Marital authority; and
and 3. Deprivation of the right to Manage his
property; and
2. If suspended from public office, the offender 4. Deprivation of the right to Dispose of such
cannot hold another office having similar property by any act or any conveyance inter
functions during the period of suspension. vivos. (Art. 34, RPC)
Disqualification is Not a Denial of One’s Right NOTE: Offender may dispose such property
by will or donation mortis causa.
Disqualification is withholding of privilege only.
It is imposed for protection not for punishment.
The presumption is that one rendered infamous
by conviction of felony, or other base offenses
indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit to exercise
the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. (People

Criminal Law
5. INDEMNIFICATION determination of whether or not any article

confiscated in relation to the unlawful act would
Indemnification be subject of forfeiture could be made only when
the judgment is to be rendered in the
Refers to moral, exemplary, and actual damages. proceedings. (PDEA v. Brodett, G.R. No. 196390, 28
Sept. 2011)
6. FORFEITURE OR CONFISCATION OF THE
PROCEEDS OR INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME 7. PAYMENT OF COSTS
GR: Every penalty imposed shall carry with it the Costs

confiscation of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was Cost shall include fees and indemnities in the
committed. Such proceeds, instruments or tools course of judicial proceedings.
shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government. To Whom Costs are Chargeable
XPN: They are properties belonging to a third 1. In case of conviction – chargeable to the
person who is not liable for the offense. accused
2. In case of acquittal – costs are de officio;
NOTE: Said properties should not have been each party shall bear his own expenses.
placed under the jurisdiction of the court because
No Costs against the Republic
they must be presented in evidence and
identified in judgment.
No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of
the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by
XPN to the XPN: Articles which are not subject to
law. (Sec. 1, Rule 142, Rules of Court)
lawful commerce shall be destroyed. (Art. 45,
RPC)
Payment of Costs is Discretionary
Such matter rests entirely upon the discretion of
Q: Can a third person invoke the provision of
courts. The Government may request the court to
Art. 45 of the RPC or Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 9165
assess costs against the accused, but not as a
(which provides that every penalty imposed
right.
therein shall carry with it forfeiture and
confiscation in favor of the government
Pecuniary Liabilities of Persons Criminally
unless they are property of a third person not
Liable (2005 BAR) (R-I-F-C)
liable for the unlawful act) to recover his
property which has been taken by the
1. Reparation of damage caused;
authorities while the main case is ongoing?
2. Indemnification of the consequential
damages;
A: NO. The status of any article confiscated in
3. Fine;
relation to the unlawful act for the duration of the
4. Costs of proceedings. (Art. 38, RPC)
trial in the RTC as, being in custodia legis, is
primarily intended to preserve it as evidence and
This article applies when the property of the
to ensure its availability as such. To release it
offender is not sufficient to pay for all of his
before the judgment is rendered is to deprive the
pecuniary liabilities.
trial court and the parties’ access to it as evidence.
The court CANNOT disregard the order of

Forfeiture, if warranted pursuant to either Art. 45
payment, pecuniary liabilities in this article must
of the RPC and Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 9165, would be
be observed.
a part of the penalty to be prescribed. The

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Pecuniary Penalties vs. Pecuniary Liabilities f. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT

(2005 BAR) ART. 39, RPC
PECUNIARY PECUNIARY Subsidiary Penalty or Imprisonment (2005

PENALTIES LIABILITIES BAR)
Those which a
Those which a Subsidiary personal liability is to be suffered by
convicted offender is
convicted offender the convict who has no property with which to
required to pay in
may be required to meet the fine, at the rate of one day for each
money to the offended
pay in money to the amount equivalent to the highest minimum
party and to the
Government. wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
government.
time of the rendition of judgment of
Consists of: Reparation conviction by the trial court. (R.A. No. 10159
of the damage caused, approved on 10 Apr. 2012)
Indemnification of
Consists of: Fines and
consequential Nature of Subsidiary Imprisonment
Costs of proceedings
damages, Fine, and
Costs of the A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty.
proceedings. It is a penalty imposed upon the accused and
served by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to
Q: The murderers of Mr. Ylarde were pay on account of insolvency. The accused cannot
convicted for his murder. His widow testified be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment
that Mr. Ylarde "has a net income of P16,000 a unless the judgment expressly so provides.
year as farmer, sari-sari store owner, driver
and operator of two tricycles and caretaker of Imposition of Subsidiary Penalty
Hacienda Bancod." Aside from the testimony,
no other receipt was provided. Should award 1. When there is a principal penalty of
for loss of earning capacity be given to the imprisonment or any other principal penalty
widow? and it carries with it a fine; or
2. When penalty is only a fine.
A: NO. It is settled that the indemnity for loss of
earning capacity is in the form of actual damages; Rules as to Subsidiary Imprisonment
as such, it must be proved by competent proof.
PENALTY DURATION OF
By way of exception, damages for loss of earning IMPOSED SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
capacity may be awarded in two instances: (1) Not to exceed 1/3 of the
the victim was self-employed and receiving less term of the sentence,
than the minimum wage under the current laws and in no case to
Prision
and no documentary evidence available in the continue for more than 1
correccional or
decedent's line of business; and, (2) the deceased year.
arresto; and fine
was employed as a daily wage worker and
receiving less than the minimum wage. Since the Fraction or part of a day
case does not fall under any of the exceptions, the is not counted.
award cannot be given without documentary Grave or Less Grave
proof. (People v. Villar G.R. No. 202708, 13 Apr. Felonies: Not to exceed 6
2015) months
Fine only
Light Felony: Not to
exceed 15 days

Criminal Law
Higher than Q: Mr. Q was found guilty beyond reasonable

No subsidiary
prision doubt of the crime of Serious Physical
imprisonment
correccional Injuries, and accordingly, was sentenced to
Subsidiary penalty shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
Penalty imposed
consist in the same indeterminate period of six (6) months of
not to be executed
deprivations as those of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years,
by confinement,
the principal penalty, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision
but of fixed
under the same rules correccional, as maximum. He was also
duration
abovementioned. ordered to pay the victim actual damages in
In case the Notwithstanding the the amount of P50,000, with subsidiary
financial fact that the convict imprisonment in case of insolvency. Was the
circumstances of suffered subsidiary imposition of subsidiary imprisonment
the convict should personal liability, he proper? Explain. (2019 BAR)
improve shall pay the fine
A: NO, subsidiary imprisonment does not apply
NOTE: There is no subsidiary penalty for to civil liability but only for non-payment of fine.
nonpayment of damages to the offended party. Here, there is no penalty of fine imposed by the
trial court.
Instances when Subsidiary Penalty is NOT
Imposed Applicability of Subsidiary Imprisonment to
Violations of Special Laws
1. If the penalty imposed by the court is higher
than prision correccional (i.e., prision mayor, Persons convicted of violation of special laws are
reclusion temporal, or reclusion perpetua); liable to subsidiary imprisonment in case of
(2013 BAR) insolvency in the payment of indemnity, except
where the indemnity consists in unpaid internal
2. No subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of: revenue tax. (People v. Domalaon, C.A., 56 O.G.
a. Reparation of the damage caused; 5072, citing People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 41036, 10
b. Indemnification of the consequential Oct. 1934)
damages; and
c. Cost of the proceedings. 5. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF SENTENCE
ART. 78-88, RPC
3. When there is no fixed duration; and
Execution of Penalty
4. Non-payment of income tax.
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a
Q: X was charged and convicted of the crime of final judgment. (Art. 78(1), RPC)
perjury. The penalty imposed by the court
upon X was prision mayor and fine. The Penalties are executed only in the form
dispositive portion of the judgment stated, “In prescribed by law and any other circumstances
case of X’s insolvency, he shall suffer and incidents shall be expressly authorized
subsidiary penalty.” Is the court correct? thereby. (Art. 78(2), RPC)
A: NO. The penalty imposed upon X was prision Finality of Judgment

mayor which is a penalty higher than prision
correccional. Thus, even if X is insolvent to pay the A judgment becomes final fifteen (15) days after
fine, he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary promulgation of the judgment when the accused
penalty. does not appeal therefrom.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
NOTE: However, if the defendant has expressly which has been granted; (Baclayon v. Mutia,
waived in writing his right to appeal, the G.R. No. L-59298, 30 Apr. 1984)
judgment becomes final immediately. (Sec. 7, Rule
120, Rules of Court) 3. Where the offender needs to be confined in a
rehabilitation center because of drug
Place of Service of the Penalties dependency although convicted of the crime
charged;
a. Reclusion Perpetua, Reclusion Temporal,
Prision Mayor, Prision Correccional, and 4. Where the offender is a youthful offender
Arresto Mayor – In the places and penal under Art. 192 of P.D. 603;
establishments provided by the
Administrative Code. (Art. 86, RPC) 5. Where the crime was committed when the
offender is under eighteen (18) years of age
b. Arresto Menor – and he is found guilty thereof in accordance
1. In the municipal jail; or with R.A. No. 9344, but the trial court
2. In the house of the offender, but under subjects him to appropriate disposition
the surveillance of an officer of the law measures as prescribed by the Supreme
whenever the court provides in the Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with
decision due to the health of the the Law;
offender and other reasons which may
seem satisfactory to it. (Art. 88, RPC) 6. Under R.A. No. 9165:
NOTE: The reason is not satisfactory just a. First time minor offender – an accused is
because the offender is a respectable over 15 at the time of the commission of
member of the community. the offense but not more than 18 years of
age at the time when judgment should
Service of Sentence of Defendant in his House have been promulgated after having
been found guilty of said offense if he has
Defendant may serve his sentence in his house not been previously convicted of
when: violating any provision of R.A. 9165;
1. The penalty is arresto menor; b. He has not been previously committed to
2. It is conditioned with surveillance by an a Center or to the care of a DOH-
officer of the law; and accredited physician;
3. Either it is due to:
a. The health of the offender; or c. The Board favorably recommends that
b. Other reasons satisfactory to the court. his sentence be suspended.
(Art. 88, RPC)
7. When the sentence is death, its execution
Instances or Situations in Criminal Cases may be suspended or postponed by the
wherein the Accused, Either as an Adult or as Supreme Court, through the issuance of
a Minor, can Apply for and/or be Granted a T.R.O. upon the ground of supervening
Suspended Sentence (2006 BAR) events. (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R.
No. 132601, 19 Jan. 1999)
1. Where the accused became insane before
sentence could be promulgated under Art.
79;
2. Where the offender, upon conviction by the

trial court, filed an application for probation

Criminal Law
a. THREE-FOLD RULE Illustration of the Application of the Three-

ART. 70, RPC Fold Rule
Systems of Penalties Relative to Two or More Q: X was found guilty beyond reasonable
Penalties Imposed on One and the Same doubt of 3 counts of homicide and 1 count of
Accused frustrated homicide, wherein the RTC
imposed upon him the penalty of 15 years of
1. Material Accumulation System – no reclusion temporal for each count of homicide,
limitation whatsoever. All the penalties for and 10 years of prision mayor for 1 count of
all violations were imposed even if they frustrated homicide. How shall X serve these
reached beyond the natural span of human multiple sentences?
life.
A: The most severe penalty is 15 years. Three
2. Juridical Accumulation System – limited to times the most severe penalty is 45 years. Since
not more than the three-fold length of time after applying the three-fold rule X’s sentence
corresponding to the most severe penalty would be beyond the limit of 40 years, X would
and in no case exceed 40 years. (2013 BAR) only be serving 40 years.
3. Absorption System – the lesser penalties are Rule if the Culprit has to Serve Two (2) or
absorbed by the graver penalties. It is More Penalties (Art. 70, RPC)
observed in the imposition of the penalty in
complex crimes, continuing crimes, and If the culprit has to serve two (2) or more
specific crimes like robbery with homicide, penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
etc. the nature of the penalties will so permit.
Otherwise, the penalties shall be served
Three-Fold Rule successively on the order of their severity as
follows:
It means that the maximum duration of a
convict’s sentence shall NOT be more than three 1. Death
times the length of time corresponding to the 2. Reclusion perpetua
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him 3. Reclusion temporal
but in no case shall exceed 40 years. 4. Prision mayor
5. Prision correccional
NOTE: It is the Director of Prisons that shall 6. Arresto Mayor
compute and apply the Three-Fold Rule, NOT the 7. Arresto Menor
judge. 8. Destierro
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification
Application of the Three-Fold Rule 10. Temporary absolute disqualification
11. Suspension from public office, the right to
The rule applies if a convict has to serve at least vote and be voted for, the right to follow
four sentences, continuously. profession or calling
12. Public censure
NOTE: All the penalties, even if by different
courts at different times, cannot exceed three- b. PROBATION LAW
fold of the most severe penalty. P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707
Probation
It is a disposition under which a defendant, after

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
conviction and sentence, is released subject to Availing the Benefits of Probation

conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer. The Trial Court may, after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant upon application by
NOTE: Probation only affects the criminal aspect said defendant within the period for perfecting an
of the case and has no bearing on his civil liability. appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence
and place the defendant on probation for such
Probation Officer period and upon such terms and conditions as it
may deem best; Provided, that no application for
One who investigates for the court a referral for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
probation or supervises a probationer or both. defendant has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction. (2014 BAR)
Purposes of the Law
Q: In what instance may an accused who
1. Promote the correction and rehabilitation of appeals a judgment of conviction still apply
an offender by providing him with for probation? Explain. (2019 BAR)
individualized treatment;
A: Under Sec. 4 of PD 968, as amended by RA
2. Provide an opportunity for the reformation 10707, no application for probation shall be
of a penitent offender which might be less entertained or granted if the defendant has
probable if he were to serve a prison perfected the appeal from the judgment of
sentence; conviction. However, when a judgment of
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty
3. Prevent the commission of offenses; is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is
modified through the imposition of a
Grant of Probation; Manner and Conditions probationable penalty, the defendant shall be
allowed to apply for probation based on the
Probation is a mere privilege and its grant rest modified decision before such decision becomes
solely upon the discretion of the court. It is final.
exercised primarily for the benefit of the
organized society and only incidentally for the NOTE: The application for probation based on
benefit of the accused. The grant of probation is the modified decision shall be filed in the trial
not automatic or ministerial. (Bernardo v. court where the judgment of conviction imposing
Balagot, G.R. No. 86561, 10 Nov. 1992) a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in
the trial court where such case has since been re-
Effect of Filing for Application for Probation raffled. In a case involving several defendants
where some have taken further appeal, the other
A judgment of conviction becomes final when the defendants may apply for probation by
accused files a petition for probation. However, submitting a written application and attaching
the judgment is not executory until the petition thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of
for probation is resolved. The filing of the petition conviction. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10707)
for probation is a waiver by the accused of his
right to appeal the judgment of conviction. Q: Arnel Colinares was found guilty of
frustrated homicide by the RTC. It was
NOTE: An order placing defendant on probation affirmed by the CA on appeal. On petition for
is not a sentence but a suspension of the review, SC ruled that he was only guilty of
imposition of sentence. It is an interlocutory attempted homicide, which penalty is
judgment in nature. “probationable”. Is Colinares now entitled to
apply for probation upon remand of the case

Criminal Law
to the lower court, even after he has perfected b. Meet his family responsibilities;
his appeal to a previous conviction c. Devote himself to a specific employment
(frustrated homicide) which was not and not to change said employment
“probationable”? without the prior written approval of the
probation officer;
A: YES. What is clear is that had the RTC done d. Undergo medical, psychological or
what was right and imposed on Arnel the correct psychiatric examination and treatment
penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months and enter and remain in specified
maximum, he would have had the right to apply institution, when required for that
for probation. Arnel did not appeal from a purpose;
judgment that would have allowed him to apply e. Pursue a prescribed secular study or
for probation. He did not have a choice between vocational training;
appeal and probation. While it is true that f. Attend or reside in a facility established
probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that for instruction, recreation or residence
Arnel has the right to such privilege; he certainly of persons on probation;
does not have. What he has is the right to apply g. Refrain from visiting houses of ill-
for that privilege. If the Court allows him to apply repute;
for probation because of the lowered penalty, it is h. Abstain from drinking intoxicated
still up to the trial judge to decide whether or not beverages to excess;
to grant him the privilege of probation, taking i. Permit the probation officer or an
into account the full circumstances of his case. authorized social worker to visit his
(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, 13 Dec. 2011) home and place of work;
j. Reside at premises approved by it and
Availing the Benefits of Probation Law if the not to change his residence without its
Sentence Imposed is a Mere Fine prior written approval;
k. Satisfy any other condition related to the
Probation may be granted whether the sentence rehabilitation of the defendant and not
imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. unduly restrictive of his liberty or
incompatible with his freedom of
Effect on Accessory Penalties once Probation conscience; or
is Granted l. Plant trees.
Accessory penalties are deemed suspended. Sanctions Imposed if the Probationer

Commits any Serious Violation of the
Conditions of Probation Conditions of Probation
1. Present himself to the probation officer 1. The court may issue a warrant for the arrest
designated to undertake his supervision at
such place as may be specified in the order of a probationer.
within 72 hours from receipt of said order;
2. If violation is established, the court may:
2. Report to the probation officer at least once a a. Revoke his probation; or
month at such time and place as specified by b. Continue his probation and modify the
said officer; conditions thereof. This order is not
appealable.
3. The court may also require the probationer
to: 3. If probation is revoked, the probationer shall
serve the sentence originally imposed.
a. Cooperate with a program of
supervision;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criteria on Determining whether an Offender thousand pesos (P1,000);

May be Placed on Probation
4. Have been once on probation under the
In determining whether an offender may be provision of this Decree; and
placed on probation, the court shall consider all
information relative to the character, 5. Already serving sentence at the time the
antecedents, environment, mental and physical substantive provisions of this Decree became
condition of the offender, and available applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof.
institutional and community resources.
NOTE: In multiple prison terms, those imposed
When Probation shall be Denied against the accused found guilty of several
offenses should not be added up, and their sum
If the court finds that: total should not be determinative of his
disqualification from probation since the law
1. The offender is in need of correctional uses the word “maximum” not “total” term of
treatment that can be provided most imprisonment. (Francisco v. CA, et.al, G.R. No.
effectively by his commitment to an 108747, 06 Apr. 1995)
institution;
Q: Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking
2. There is an undue risk that during the period while his younger brother Jeff was found
of probation the offender will commit guilty of possession of equipment,
another crime; or instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Sec.
3. Probation will depreciate the seriousness of 12 of R.A. No. 9165. Matt filed a petition for
the offense committed. (Sec. 8, P.D. 968) probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during
the pendency of which he also filed a petition
Remedy if the Application for Probation is for probation.
Denied
The brothers’ counsel argued that they being
An order granting or denying probation shall not first time offenders, their petitions for
be appealable. Hence, the remedy is a Motion for probation should be granted. How would you
Reconsideration and if denied, a petition for resolve the brothers’ petitions for probation?
certiorari. Explain. (2010 BAR)
Disqualified Offenders (2004 BAR) A: The brothers’ petition for probation should
both be denied. Matt’s petition for probation shall
The benefits of the Probation Law shall not be be denied because he was convicted for drug-
extended to those: trafficking. Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9165
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002)
imprisonment of more than six (6) years; expressly provides, “Any person convicted for
(1990, 1995, 2002 BAR) drug trafficking or pushing under this Act,
regardless of the penalty imposed by the court,
2. Convicted of any crime against national cannot avail of the privilege granted by the
security; Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended.”
3. Have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by On the other hand, Jeff appealed his conviction
imprisonment of more than six (6) months and is therefore, precluded from applying for
and one (1) day and/or fine of more than one probation, pursuant to Sec. 4 of the Probation

Criminal Law
Law. Termination of Probation (2005 BAR)
NOTE: A first-time minor offender is qualified to The court may order the final discharge of the
avail of the benefits of probation even if the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the
penalty imposed is more than six (6) years. terms and conditions of probation.
However, the crime must be illegal possession of
dangerous drugs only. (Sec. 70, R.A. No. 9165) NOTE: The mere expiration of the period for
probation does not ipso facto terminate the
Period of Probation (2005 BAR) probation. Probation is not co-terminus with its
period. There must be an order from the Court of
PERIOD OF final discharge terminating the probation. If the
PENALTY
PROBATION accused violates the condition of the probation
Imprisonment of before the issuance of said order, the probation
Probation shall not
not more than may be revoked by the Court. (Manuel Bala v.
exceed 2 years
1 year Martinez, G.R. No. 67301, 29 Jan. 1990)
Imprisonment of
Shall not exceed 6 years
more than 1 year Effects of Termination of Probation
Fine only and
made to suffer Twice the total number 1. Case is deemed terminated.
subsidiary of days of subsidiary 2. Restoration of all civil rights lost or
imprisonment in imprisonment suspended.
case of insolvency 3. Totally extinguishes his criminal liability as
to the offense for which probation was
Court may Issue a Warrant of Arrest against a granted. (Sec. 16, P.D. 968)
Probationer
Pardon vs. Probation
The court may issue the warrant for violations of
any condition of the probation. PARDON PROBATION
As to Who Exercises
Effect After the Arrest of the Probationer Includes any crime
and is exercised Exercised individually
He shall be immediately brought before the court individually by the by the trial court.
for hearing, which may be informal and summary, President.
of the violation charged. If the violation is As to Effect
established, the court may revoke or continue his It promotes the
Merely looks forward
probation and modify the conditions thereof. correction and
and relieves the
rehabilitation of an
offender from the
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer offender by providing
consequences of an
to serve the sentence originally imposed. The him with
offense of which he
order revoking the grant of probation or individualized
has been convicted; it
modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall treatment; provides
does not work for the
not be appealable. an opportunity for the
restoration of the
reformation of a
rights to hold public
NOTE: The defendant may be admitted to bail penitent offender
office, or the right of
pending the hearing and, in such case, the which might be less
suffrage, unless such
provisions regarding release on bail of persons probable if he were to
rights are expressly
charged with a crime shall be applicable. serve a prison
restored by means of
sentence; and prevent
pardon.
the commission of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
offenses. NOTE: The court shall not order the detention of

a child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his/her
As to When Exercised
case except in youth detention homes established
Exercised when the Must be exercised
by local governments. (Sec. 35, R.A. No. 9344)
person is already within the period for
convicted. perfecting an appeal.
Other Alternative to Imprisonment may be
As to Effect on Recidivism
Availed by a CICL under R.A. No. 9344
Does not alter the fact Does not alter the fact
that the accused is a that the accused is a The court may, after it shall have convicted and
recidivist as it recidivist as it sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and
produces only the provides only for an upon application at any time, place the child on
extinction of the opportunity of probation in lieu of service of sentence. (Sec. 42,
personal effects of the reformation to the R.A. No. 9344)
penalty. penitent offender.
As to Extinction of Civil Liability Q: What is now the age of doli incapax in the
Does not extinguish Does not extinguish Philippines? (2017 BAR)
the civil liability of the the civil liability of the
offender. offender. A: The age of doli incapax in the Philippines is
now 15 years of age or under. If the accused is 15
c. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT years of age or below the accused of such age is
R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 exempt from criminal liability since lack of
in relation to P.D. 603 discernment is conclusively presumed. (Sec. 6,
R.A. No. 9344)
Juvenile Justice and Welfare System
Liberal Construction of the Rules
It refers to a system dealing with children at risk
and children in conflict with the law, which In case of doubt, the interpretation of any of the
provides child-appropriate proceedings, provisions of this Act, including its implementing
including programs and services for prevention, rules and regulations (IRRs), shall be construed
diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration, and liberally in favor of the CICL. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9344)
aftercare to ensure their normal growth and
development. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9344) Neglected Child
“Child in Conflict with the Law” (CICL) A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up
to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits
It refers to a child, who is alleged as, accused of, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, and
or adjudged as, having committed an offense serious illegal detention where the victim is killed
under Philippine laws. (Sec. 4(e), R.A. No. 9344) or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape,
destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the
driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses
Where a Child is Detained, the Court may under R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Order the Following Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than
twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be
1. The release of the minor on recognizance to deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as
his/her parents and other suitable persons; amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a
2. The release of the CICL on bail; or special facility within the youth care faculty or
3. The transfer of the minor to a youth ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile
detention home/youth rehabilitation center. Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). (Sec. 20-
A, R.A. No. 10630)

Criminal Law
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to be conducted. (Sec. 20-D, R.A. No. 10630)
to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an
offense for the second time or oftener: NOTE: “Parents” shall mean any of the following:
Provided, That the child was previously subjected 1. Biological parents of the child; or
to a community-based intervention program, 2. Adoptive parents of the child; or
shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D. 603, 3. Individuals who have custody of the child.
as amended, and shall undergo an intensive (Sec. 20-D, R.A. No. 10630)
intervention program supervised by the local
social welfare and development officer: Provided, The parents shall be liable for damages unless
further, that, if the best interest of the child they prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that
requires that he/she be placed in a youth care they were exercising reasonable supervision over
facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or the child at the time the child committed the
guardians shall execute a written authorization offense and exerted reasonable effort and utmost
for the voluntary commitment of the child: diligence to prevent or discourage the child from
committing another offense. (Sec. 20-D, R.A. No.
Provided, finally, that if the child has no parents or 10630)
guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the
written authorization for voluntary commitment, Diversion Program
the proper petition for involuntary commitment
shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the The program that the CICL is required to undergo
LSWDO pursuant to P.D. 603, as amended. (Sec. after he/she is found responsible for an offense
20-B, R.A. No. 10630) without resorting to formal court proceedings
(Sec. 4(j), R.A. No. 9344). It is subject to the
Exploitation of Children for Commission of following conditions:
Crimes
1. Where the imposable penalty for the crime
Any person who, in the commission of a crime, committed is not more than six (6) years of
makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the imprisonment, the law enforcement officer
use of children, including any person who abuses or Punong Barangay with the assistance of
his/her authority over the child or who, with the local social welfare and development
abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the officer or other members of the LCPC shall
vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce, conduct mediation, family conferencing, and
threaten, or instigate the commission of the conciliation;
crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by
law for the crime committed in its maximum 2. In victimless crimes where the imposable
period. (Sec. 20-C, R.A. No. 10630) penalty is not more than six (6) years of
imprisonment, the local social welfare and
Joint Parental Responsibility development officer shall meet with the child
and his/her parents or guardians for the
The court may require the parents of a CICL to development of the appropriate diversion
undergo counseling or any other intervention and rehabilitation program; and
that, in the opinion of the court, would advance
the welfare and best interest of the child based on 3. Where the imposable penalty for the crime
the recommendation of the multi-disciplinary committed exceeds six (6) years of
team of the IJISC, the LSWDO or the DSWD. A imprisonment, diversion measures may be
court exercising jurisdiction over a CICL may resorted to only by the court.
require the attendance of one or both parents of
the child at the place where the proceedings are

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Intervention or to extend the suspended sentence for a

maximum period of up to the time the child
A series of activities which are designed to reaches twenty-one (21) years of age, or to order
address issues that caused the child to commit an service of sentence. (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, 24 Nov.
offense. It may take the form of an individualized 2009)
treatment program which may include
counseling, skills training, education, and other No Suspension of Sentence when the Accused
activities that will enhance his/her psychological, was a Minor during the Commission of the
emotional, and psycho-social well-being. (Sec. Crime and is Already Beyond the Age of 21
4(l), R.A. No. 9344) years old at the Time of Pronouncement of His
Guilt
NOTE: An intervention program covering at least
a 3-year period shall be instituted in LGUs from While Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that
the barangay to the provincial level. suspension of sentence can still be applied even if
the CICL is already 18 years of age or more at the
Automatic Suspension of Sentence (2013 Bar) time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Sec.
40 of the same law limits the said suspension of
Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the sentence until the child reaches the maximum age
time of the commission of the offense is found of 21. Hence, the accused, who is now beyond the
guilty of the offense charged, the court shall age of 21 years can no longer avail of the
determine and ascertain any civil liability which provisions of Secs. 38 and 40 of R.A. No. 9344 as
may have resulted from the offense committed. to his suspension of sentence, because such is
However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of already moot and academic.
conviction, the court shall place the CICL under
suspended sentence, without need of application: Nevertheless, the accused may be made to serve
Provided, however, that suspension of sentence his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already penal institution, in an agricultural camp and
eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of other training facilities that may be established,
the pronouncement of his/her guilt. (Sec. 38, R.A. maintained, supervised, and controlled by the
No. 9344) BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD as
provided by Sec. 51. (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No.
Application of Suspension of Sentence 186227, 20 July 2011 reiterating People v. Sarcia)
The benefits of the suspended sentence shall not How Age is Determined
apply to a CICL who has once enjoyed suspension
of sentence but shall nonetheless apply to one 1. Birth certificate;
who is convicted of an offense punishable by 2. Baptismal certificate; and
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment 3. Any other pertinent documents.
pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 9346
prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty NOTE: In the absence of these documents, age
and in lieu thereof, reclusion perpetua, and after may be based on information from the child
application of the privileged mitigating himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
circumstance of minority. (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, 24 physical appearance of the child, and other
Nov. 2009) relevant evidence.
NOTE: If the CICL reaches eighteen (18) years of In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall
age while under suspended sentence, the court be resolved in his/her favor.
shall determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9344, NOTE: The child in conflict with the law shall

Criminal Law
enjoy the presumption of minority. 3. Employment of degrading, inhuman, and

cruel forms of punishment such as shaving
Exempting Provisions under this Act the heads, pouring irritating, corrosive, or
harmful substances over the body of the child
1. Status offenses – Any conduct not considered in conflict with the law, or forcing him/her to
an offense or not penalized if committed by walk around the community wearing signs
an adult shall not be considered an offense which embarrass, humiliate, and degrade
and shall not be punished if committed by a his/her personality and dignity; and
child. (Sec. 57, R.A. No. 9344)
4. In the conduct of the proceedings beginning
Example: Curfews for minors from the initial contact with the child, the
competent authorities must:
2. Offenses not applicable to children – Persons
below 18 years of age shall be exempt from a. Refrain from branding or labeling
prosecution for the crime of: children as young criminals, juvenile
delinquents, prostitutes, or attaching to
a. Vagrancy and prostitution under Art. 202 them in any manner any other
of RPC; derogatory names; and
NOTE: Under R.A. No. 10158, vagrancy b. Make no discriminatory remarks

has been decriminalized but prostitution particularly with respect to the child's
is still a crime. It was excluded from class or ethnic origin. (Sec. 60, R.A. No.
decriminalization under R.A. No. 10158. 9344)
b. Sniffing of rugby under P.D. 1619; d. R.A. NO. 10592 (amendments to Arts. 29,
94, 97, 98, and 99 of the RPC)
c. Mendicancy. (P.D. 1536; Sec. 58, R.A. No.
9344) PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
DEDUCTED FROM THE TERM
3. Exemption from the application of death OF IMPRISONMENT
penalty (Sec. 59, R.A. No. 9344) ART. 29, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10592
NOTE: R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition Preventive Imprisonment

of the death penalty in the Philippines.
Refers to the detention of accused while the case
Punishable Acts against him is ongoing trial either because:
The following and any other similar acts shall be 1. The crime he committed is a non-bailable
considered prejudicial and detrimental to the offense and evidence of guilt is strong; or
psychological, emotional, social, spiritual, moral,
and physical health and well-being of the child in 2. The crime committed is a bailable offense but
conflict with the law and therefore prohibited: he does not have the funds.
1. Employment of threats of whatever kind and Purpose: To prevent the flight of the accused.
nature;
2. Employment of abusive, coercive, and

punitive measures such as cursing, beating,
stripping, and solitary confinement;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Rules in Deducting the Period of Preventive Computation of preventive imprisonment for

Imprisonment purposes of immediate release under this
paragraph shall be the actual period of detention
R.A. No. 10592 provides that offenders or accused with good conduct time allowance: Provided,
who have undergone preventive imprisonment however, that if the accused is absent without
shall be credited in the service of their sentence justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court
consisting of deprivation of liberty in accordance may motu proprio order the rearrest of the
with the following rules: accused: Provided, finally, that recidivists,
habitual delinquents, escapees and persons
1. If the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily charged with heinous crimes are excluded from
in writing, after being informed of the effects the coverage of this Act.
thereof with the assistance of counsel, to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed In case the maximum penalty to which the
upon convicted prisoners, the credit shall be accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
full time during which they have undergone released after thirty (30) days of preventive
preventive imprisonment. imprisonment.
2. If the detention prisoner does not agree to NOTE: A child in conflict with the law shall be
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed credited in the service of his/her sentence with
upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in the full time spent in the actual commitment and
writing with the assistance of a counsel and detention. (Sec. 41, R.A. No. 9344)
shall be credited in the service of his sentence
with four-fifths (4/5) of the time during GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCES
which he has undergone preventive ART. 97, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10592
imprisonment.
Nature of Good Conduct Allowances
3. There shall be no credit:
a. When they are recidivists, or have been Allowances for good conduct are deductions from
convicted previously twice or more the term of sentence for good behavior. The good
times of any crime; and conduct of any offender qualified for credit for
b. When upon being summoned for the preventive imprisonment pursuant to Art. 29 of
execution of their sentence, they have the Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any
failed to surrender voluntarily. penal institution, rehabilitation or detention
center or any other local jail shall entitle him to
Other Rules deductions from the period of his sentence. (Art.
97, RPC, as amended by R.A No. 10592)
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted Person Granting Time Allowance
from thirty (30) years.
Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of
imprisonment for a period equal to the possible Jail Management and Penology, and/or the
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city
to which he may be sentenced and his case is not jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such
yet terminated, he shall be released immediately allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
without prejudice to the continuation of the trial (Art. 99, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10592)
thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same
is under review.

Criminal Law
Deduction from Period of Imprisonment due 2. A deduction of two-fifths (2/5) of the

to Good Conduct Allowances period of his sentence shall be granted in
case said prisoner chose to stay in the place
PERIOD OF DEDUCTION FROM of his confinement notwithstanding the
IMPRISONMENT PERIOD OF SENTENCE existence of a calamity or catastrophe
First 2 years of 20 days for each month enumerated in Art. 158 of this Code. (Art. 98,
imprisonment of good behavior RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10592)
23 days for each month
3rd to 5th year
of good behavior e. COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
25 days for each month R.A. No. 11362; A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC
6th to 10th year
of good behavior
11th year and 30 days for each month Community Service Act
successive years of good behavior
15 days, in addition to On 08 August 2019, R.A. No. 11362, also known
At any time the foregoing, for each as the "Community Service Act", was signed into
during the period month of study, law by President Rodrigo Duterte. This law
of imprisonment teaching, or mentoring promotes restorative justice and jail
service time rendered decongestion by authorizing the court in its
discretion to require community service in lieu of
NOTE: An appeal by the accused shall not deprive service in jail for offenses punishable by arresto
him of entitlement to the above allowances for menor and arresto mayor.
good conduct. (Art. 97, RPC as amended by R.A. No.
10592) In relation to the RPC
SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE According to Art. 27 the RPC, the duration of the
ART. 98, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10592 penalty of arresto mayor shall be from 1 month
and 1 day to 6 months; whereas the duration of
Special Time Allowance for Loyalty of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from 1 day
Prisoner to 30 days.
1. A deduction of one-fifth (1/5) of the period Under the Community Service Act, the defendant
of sentence is granted to a prisoner who, may render community service, upon the
having evaded his preventive imprisonment discretion of the court, in lieu of imprisonment in
or the service of his sentence, under the the service of penalty for arresto menor or arresto
following circumstances in Art. 158 of the mayor.
RPC:
Such community service will be rendered in the
a. On the occasion of disorder, resulting place where the crime was committed, under
from a conflagration, earthquake, such terms as the court shall determine, taking
explosion, or similar catastrophe; or into consideration the gravity of offense and the
b. During a mutiny in which he has not circumstances of the case.
participated –
Similar to those persons under probation, a
gives himself up to the authorities within 48 defendant who shall be imposed with a penalty of
hours following the issuance of the community service shall be under the
proclamation by the President announcing supervision of a probation officer. The court will
the passing away of the calamity or prepare an order imposing the community
catastrophe. service, specifying the number of hours to be
worked and the period within which to complete

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
the service. The order is then referred to the application for community service or
assigned probation officer who shall have probation.
responsibility of the defendant.
2. In the event accused opts to apply for
Community Service community service, the application must be
filed within the period to perfect an appeal.
Community service shall consist of any actual Likewise, said application shall be resolved
physical activity which inculcates civic within five (5) calendar days from the filing
consciousness, and is intended towards the thereof. For this purpose, the court should
improvement of a public work or promotion of a set a hearing to render or promulgate the
public service. (Art. 88(a), R.A. No. 3815) ruling on the said application within the said
period.
GUIDELINES IN THE IMPOSITION OF
COMMUNITY SERVICE AS A PENALTY 3. If the accused was required to post bail,
IN LIEU OF IMPRISONMENT pending resolution of the application for
OCA Circular No.168-2020 on community service he/she may also move
A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC that he/she be allowed on temporary liberty
under the same bond he/she posted or be
Effectivity Date of the Guidelines: 02 Nov. granted recognizance as provided for under
2020, after publication in two (2) newspapers of Sec. 15, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on
general circulation. Criminal Procedure.
Guidelines in Allowing Rendition of 4. Upon receipt of the application for

Community Service community service, the court shall
immediately notify the following officers:
All judges concerned shall observe these
guidelines in allowing rendition of community a. the barangay chairperson or his/her
service in lieu of imprisonment in the service of authorized representative of the
penalty for arresto menor or arresto mayor: barangay where the crime was
committed;
1. After promulgation of judgment or order b. a representative from the provincial or
where the imposable penalty for the crime or city's Probation Office; and
offense committed by the accused is arresto c. the local government unit's Social
menor or arresto mayor, it shall be the court's Welfare Development Officer (SWDO).
duty to inform the accused of and announce
in open court his/her options within fifteen The court may resort to electronic service of
(15) calendar days from date of the notices to the above officers.
promulgation, to wit:
5. The notice shall direct the barangay
a. File an appeal; chairperson or his/her authorized
b. Apply for probation as provided by law; representative to submit a proposed
or community service program for accused on
c. Apply that the penalty be served by or before the scheduled hearing on the
rendering community service in the application. The SWDO shall also be directed
place where the crime was committed. to recommend a rehabilitative counseling
program and schedule for the accused that
It shall further be explained to the accused shall be incorporated in the barangay's
that if he/she chooses to appeal the proposal. The following programs of the
conviction, such resort thereto bars any Parole and Probation Office in relation to

Criminal Law
community service may also be considered: denying the application shall not be
appealable.
a. Mentoring and Intergenerational
Service; Failure of the accused to appear at the said
b. Economic Development; hearing, except for justified reasons, shall be
c. Citizenship and Civic participation- a ground to deny the application and a
experiential activities which involve warrant of arrest shall be issued against the
solving community problems; and accused.
d. Involvement in Crime Prevention
projects. 9. In the event the court needs time to resolve
the application, the court shall set the order
6. In assessing the recommendations of the for promulgation within twenty-four (24)
barangay chairperson or his/her authorized hours from the hearing thereof and require
representative and SWDO, the court shall the presence of accused and his/her counsel,
take into account that the type of program for including the representatives from the
community service shall: concerned barangay, city or municipal
Probation Office and SWDO.
a. consist of actual physical activity which
inculcates civic consciousness; 10. The community service order shall provide
b. intended towards the improvement of a for the following:
public work; or,
c. promotion of public service. a. The details of the community service
program;
7. In exercising the discretion to allow service
of penalty through community service, the b. The specific number of hours to be
following factors may be taken into accomplished and period within which
consideration by the court: to complete the service;
a. The gravity of the offense; c. The referral of accused to the probation

b. The circumstances of the case; office having jurisdiction over the place
c. The welfare of the society; and where the crime was committed for
d. The reasonable probability that the supervision;
accused shall not violate the law while
rendering the service. d. A statement requiring the concerned
probation officer to provide a final
In no case shall the benefit of the Community report on the accused's compliance with
Service Law be given to the accused more the program within five (5) calendar
than once. Also, the period for the community days from expiration of the period and
service to be rendered should not be more recommendation for discharge if
than the maximum sentence imposed by law, applicable;
but not less than one-third (1/3) thereof.
e. A statement requiring the SWDO to
If the accused has undergone preventive submit a report within five (5) calendar
imprisonment, the period shall be deducted days after completion of rehabilitative
from the term of community service. counseling; and
8. The court shall resolve the application for f. The imposition of additional conditions
community service immediately after the as may be warranted by the
hearing thereon. An order granting or circumstances of the case.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
The community service order shall take 6. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

effect upon its issuance in open court, at as amended by R.A. No. 10592
which time, the court shall inform the
accused of the consequences thereof and
Extinguishment of Criminal Liability
explain that failure to comply with the terms
or commission of another offense, he/she
Criminal liability may be extinguished either,
shall be re-arrested to serve the full term of
partially or totally.
the penalty.
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF
11. After the period of community service and
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
upon consideration of the report and
ART. 89, RPC
recommendation of the probation officer and
SWDO, the court may order the final
discharge of accused upon finding that Total Extinguishment of Criminal Liability
he/she has fulfilled the terms and conditions (1990, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2009 BAR) (SAD-
of his community service and thereupon, the MAPP)
case is deemed terminated. The accused,
probation officer and SWDO shall each be 1. By Service of sentence;
furnished with a copy of such order.
2. By Amnesty, which completely extinguishes
12. If the accused is sentenced with a penalty the penalty and all its effects. Extinction of
higher than arresto menor or arresto mayor, criminal liability does not necessarily mean
and on appeal the penalty was lowered to that civil liability is also extinguished.
arresto menor or arresto mayor, which (Petralba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81337,
became final and executory, the accused may, 16 Aug. 1991)
upon written application with the court of
origin, seek community service in lieu of 3. By the Death of the convict, as to the personal
imprisonment, which may be acted upon penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
subject to the provisions of these guidelines. liability therefor is extinguished only when
the death of the offender occurs before final
With respect hereto, in no case shall judgment; (2013 BAR)
community service be allowed if the
defendant is a habitual delinquent. 4. By Marriage of the offended woman in cases
of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
13. In the event the court denies the application lasciviousness, as provided in Art. 344 of the
for community service, and the period to RPC; (Art. 89, RPC)
appeal has not yet lapsed, the accused may
still choose to appeal the said judgment or 5. By Absolute pardon;
apply for probation.
6. By Prescription of the crime; and
14. An accused who has applied and was granted
probation in a previous case is not 7. By Prescription of the penalty.
disqualified to apply for community service
in a subsequent case. Q: A prisoner who had been convicted, but
whose appeal was pending, died due to
complications caused by COVID-19. Should
the prisoner’s pending appeal be dismissed as
a consequence? Explain briefly. (2020-21
BAR)

Criminal Law
A: YES, the appeal shall be dismissed due to the Light Penalties 2 months
death of the prisoner. Criminal liability is totally
extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the NOTES:
personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, a. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound
liability therefor is extinguished only when the one, the highest penalty shall be made the
death of the offender occurs before final basis of the application of the first three
judgment. (Art. 89, RPC) foregoing rules. (Art. 90, RPC as amended by
R.A. No. 4661)
In this case, both the criminal and civil liability
are extinguished since the death of the prisoner b. Destierro is classified as a correctional
occurred before final judgment or pending penalty under Art. 25, and according to Art.
appeal. Civil liability arising from other sources of 90, ten (10) years should be the prescription
obligation other than delict may, however, period. (Dalao v. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-5969,
proceed against the estate of the deceased 29 April 1953)
prisoner.
c. The subsidiary penalty for non-payment of
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES the fine should not be considered in
determining the period of prescription of
such crimes. (People v. Basalo, G.R, No. L-
Nature of Prescription of Crimes
9892, 15 April 1957)
By prescription, the State or the People loses the
Rule where the Last Day of the Prescriptive
right to prosecute the crime or to demand the
Period Falls on a Sunday or a Legal Holiday
service of the penalty imposed; but this does not
mean that the court loses jurisdiction either over
In Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, the Court said that
the matter of litigation or over the parties.
the information may no longer be filed the next
(Santos v. Superintendent, G.R. No. L-34334, 28
day as the crime has already prescribed. (G.R. No.
Nov. 1930)
L-28841, 24 June 1983)
Period of Prescription of Crimes (1994, 1997,
Basis for Prescription when Fine is an
2004, 2010 BAR)
Alternative Penalty Higher than the Other
Penalty which is by Imprisonment
PRESCRIPTIVE
PENALTY
PERIOD
Prescription herein is based on fine. (People v.
Death, RP, RT 20 years
Basalo, supra)
Prision Mayor 15 years
Correctional Penalties,
10 years NOTE: The ruling in Basalo applies even if the
except Arresto Mayor
penalty is arresto mayor and fine.
Arresto Mayor 5 years
PRESCRIPTIVE Prescriptive Period of Offenses Punishable
CRIME
PERIOD under Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances
Libel 1 year
Oral Defamation and Act No. 3763, amending Act No. 3326, provides:
6 months
Slander by Deed
Light Offenses 2 months PRESCRIPTIVE
FINES PRESCRIPTIVE PENALTY
PERIOD
(Art. 26, RPC) PERIOD Fine or imprisonment of
Afflictive Penalties 15 years After 1 year
not more than 1 month
Correctional Penalties 10 years Imprisonment of more After 4 years

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
than 1 month but less 1. Crime punishable by the RPC – interrupted

than 2 years upon the filing of the case before the fiscal’s
Imprisonment of 2 years office.
or more but less After 8 years
than 6 years 2. Offense punishable by special law –
Imprisonment of interrupted upon the filing of the case before
After 12 years
6 years or more the fiscal’s office even for purposes of
PRESCRIPTIVE preliminary investigation.
CRIME
PERIOD
Violation of municipal 3. Violation of municipal ordinance –
After 2 months interrupted upon the filing of the case before
ordinances
Violation of orders, the appropriate court.
decisions and
regulations, of or Determining Prescription of Offenses (Art. 91.
conditions of certificate 60 days RPC)
of convenience by the
Public Service The period of prescription commences to run
Commission from the day the crime is committed:
Offenses under the
National Internal After 5 years 1. The period of prescription commences to run
Revenue Code (NIRC) from the day on which the crime is discovered
by the offended party, the authorities or their
NOTE: Act No. 3326 is not applicable where the agents.
special law provides for its own prescriptive
period. (People v. Ramos, G.R. No. L-25265, 09 May 2. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint
1978) or information.
Running of the Prescriptive Periods for 3. It commences to run again when such
Violations Penalized by Special Laws and proceedings terminate without the accused
Ordinances being convicted or acquitted or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the imputable to him.
commission of the violation of the law, and if the
same be not known at the time, from the 4. The term of prescription shall not run when
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial the offender is absent from the Philippines.
proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
(Sec. 2, Act No. 3326) NOTE: The term "proceedings" should now be
understood to be either executive or judicial in
Prescription does not divest court of jurisdiction; character: executive when it involves the
it is a ground for acquittal of the accused. Thus, investigation phase; and, judicial when it refers to
the court must exercise jurisdiction, and not the trial and judgment stage. With this
inhibit itself. (Santos v. Superintendent, G.R. No. clarification, any kind of investigative proceeding
34334, 28 Nov. 1930) instituted against the guilty person, which may
ultimately lead to his prosecution should be
Interruption of the Running of the sufficient to toll prescription. (Panaguiton, Jr. v.
Prescriptive Period DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, 25 Nov. 2008)
The running of the prescriptive period shall be

interrupted:

Criminal Law
Situations which do NOT follow Art. 91 death of Ara despite the lapse of twenty and a half
(Computation of Prescription of Offenses) (20 and ½) years. Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the
period of prescription commences to run from
1. Continuing crimes – prescriptive period will the day on which the crime is discovered by the
start to run only at the termination of the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In
intended result. the case at bar, the commission of the crime was
known only to Albert, who was not the offended
2. In crimes against false testimony – party nor an authority or an agent of an authority.
prescriptive period is reckoned from the day It was discovered by the NBI authorities only
a final judgment is rendered and not at the when Albert revealed to them the commission of
time when the false testimony was made. the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of
twenty (20) years for homicide commenced to
3. Election offense – run only from the time Albert revealed the same
a. If discovery of the offense is incidental to the NBI authorities.
to judicial proceedings, prescription
begins when such proceeding Q: A killed his wife and buried her in the
terminates; or backyard. He immediately went into hiding in
b. From the date of commission of the the mountains. Three years later, the bones of
offense. A’s wife were discovered by X, the gardener.
Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he
NOTE: In computing the period of prescription, hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet
the first day is excluded and the last day is about it.
included. (Art. 13, NCC)
After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the
Q: One fateful night in January 1990, while 5- bones and reported the matter to the police.
year-old Albert was urinating at the back of After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but
their house, he heard a strange noise coming returned 3 years later to take care of his ailing
from the kitchen of their neighbor and sibling. Six (6) years thereafter, he was
playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw charged with parricide, but he raised the
Mina, Ara’s stepmother, very angry and defense of prescription.
strangling the 5-year-old Ara to death. Albert
saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it a. Under the RPC, when does the period of
inside the trunk of the car and drive away. The prescription of a crime commence to run?
dead body of Ara was never found. b. When is it interrupted?
c. Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (2010
Mina spread the news in the neighborhood BAR)
that Ara went to live with her grandparents in
Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not A:
tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, a. Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half prescription commences to run upon
(20 & ½) years after the incident, and right discovery of the crime by the offended party,
after his graduation in Criminology, Albert the authorities, or their agent.
reported the crime to NBI authorities. The
crime of homicide prescribes in twenty (20) b. It is interrupted upon filing of the complaint
years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for or information in court.
the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 and
1/2 years? (2000 BAR) c. NO, parricide prescribes in twenty (20)
years. The period of prescription started only
A: YES. The State can still prosecute Mina for the when Z reported the matter to the police,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
which is equivalent to ten (10) years of Elements of Prescription of Penalties

hiding from the time of reporting to Z. The
period of three years shall not be counted 1. That the penalty is imposed by final
since he is absent from the Philippines. The sentence;
filing of the charge six (6) years thereafter is 2. That the convict evaded the service of the
well within the prescriptive period. sentence by escaping during the term of his
sentence;
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
3. That the convict who escaped from prison
has not given himself up, or been captured, or
Period of Prescription of Penalties (Art. 92,
gone to a foreign country with which we have
RPC) (1993, 1994, 1997, 2004, 2010 BAR)
no extradition treaty, or committed another
crime; and
PRESCRIPTIVE
PENALTY
PERIOD
4. That the penalty has prescribed because of
Death and Reclusion
20 years the lapse of time from the date of the evasion
Perpetua
of the service of the sentence by the convict.
Other Afflictive Penalties
(Reyes, 2008)
(Reclusion Temporal to 15 years
Prision Mayor)
Q: Adelaida Tanega failed to appear on the day
Correctional Penalties of the execution of her sentence. On the same
10 years
(Prision Correccional) day, respondent judge issued a warrant for
Arresto Mayor 5 years her arrest. She was never arrested. More than
Light Penalties 1 year a year later, Tanega through counsel moved to
quash the warrant of arrest, on the ground
Rules in Prescription of Penalties that the penalty had prescribed. Tanega
claimed that she was convicted for a light
1. The period of prescription of penalties offense and since light offenses prescribe in
commences to run from the date when the one year, her penalty had already prescribed.
culprit evaded the service of his sentence. Is the motion meritorious?
(2015 BAR)
A: NO. The penalty has not prescribed as she did
2. It is interrupted if the convict— not evade her service of sentence. For purpose of
a. Gives himself up; prescription of penalties, Art. 93 of the RPC,
b. Be captured; which provides that the prescription of penalties
c. Goes to a foreign country with which we “shall commence to run from the date when the
have no extradition treaty (2015 BAR); culprit should evade the service of his sentence,”
or must be understood in the light of Art. 157, as the
d. Commits another crime before the concept of evasion of sentence is readily provided
expiration of the period of prescription for in this Article. (Tanega v. Masakayan, G.R. No.
(Art. 93, RPC) L-27191, 28 Feb. 1967)
Q: When does the period of prescription of

penalties commence to run again?
A: When the convict escapes again, after having

been captured and returned to prison. (Reyes,
2008)

Criminal Law
Prescription of Crimes vs. Prescription of or guardian. Provided, the pardon in such cases
Penalties must be express.
NOTE: Pardon by the wife in favor of the husband

PRESCRIPTION OF PRESCRIPTION OF
found guilty of raping her extinguishes the
CRIMES PENALTIES
penalty.
Loss or forfeiture of the
Loss or forfeiture of
State to enforce Rule on Extinguishment of Criminal Liability
the State to prosecute.
judgment. by the Marriage of the Offended Woman to her
Starts counting upon Offender in Seduction, Abduction, Rape and
Starts counting upon
discovery of the
the escape or evasion of
commission of the Acts of Lasciviousness
service of sentence
crime
Absence from the The extinguishment of criminal liability by the
Mere absence from Philippines interrupts marriage of the offended woman to her offender
the Philippines the period only when in seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
interrupts the he goes to a foreign lasciviousness is not an absolute rule. The
running of the country without marriage must be contracted in good faith. Hence,
prescription extradition treaty with a marriage contracted only to avoid criminal
us liability is devoid of legal effects. (People v.
Commission of Santiago, G.R. No. 27972, 31 Oct. 1927)
Commission of another
another crime before
crime before expiration
the expiration of the Compromise does NOT Extinguish Criminal
of the period interrupts
period does not Liability
the prescription
interrupt prescription
A crime is a public offense which must be
PARDON prosecuted and punished by the Government on
its own motion even though complete reparation
should have been made of the damages suffered
Pardon by the Offended Party
by the offended party. (People v. Benitez, 59 O.G.
1407)
GR: Pardon by the offended party does not result
in the extinguishment of criminal action.
NOTE: There may be a compromise upon the civil
liability arising from an offense; but such
A crime committed is an offense against the State.
compromise shall not extinguish the public action
In criminal cases, the intervention of the
for the imposition of the legal penalty. (Art. 2034,
aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for
New Civil Code)
prosecution.
Pardon by the Chief Executive
XPN: Pardon by an offended party in the crimes
of adultery and concubinage will be a bar to
It is an act of grace proceeding from the power
criminal prosecution, provided, they pardoned
entrusted with the execution of the laws which
both offenders. Provided further, it must be made
exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed
before the institution of criminal prosecution.
from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime
Pardon here may be implied. (Art. 344, RPC)
he has committed.
In the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts

A pardon, whether absolute or conditional, is in
of lasciviousness, there shall be no criminal
the nature of a deed, for the validity of which is an
prosecution if the offender has been pardoned by
indispensable requisite. Once accepted by the
the offended party or her parents, grandparents

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
grantee, the pardon already delivered may not be the execution of the subject to strict
revoked by the granting authority. (Reyes, 2008) law which exempts conditions that the
the offender from the offender must
Effects of Pardon by the President penalty prescribed by comply.
law for the crime
1. GR: A pardon shall not restore the right to committed.
hold public office or the right of suffrage. Totally extinguishes Partially extinguishes
liability. civil liability.
XPN: When either or both rights are No force until it is
expressly restored by the terms of the accepted. Thus,
pardon. failure to comply
2. It shall not exempt the culprit from the would result to
payment of the civil indemnity. The pardon evasion of service of
cannot make an exception to this rule. sentence. (Art. 159,
Complete even RPC)
Limitations upon the Exercise of the without acceptance.
Pardoning Power The Chief Executive
can also order the
1. The power can be exercised only after immediate
conviction; and incarceration of the
2. Such power does not extend to cases of offender under the
impeachment. Administrative Code.
Extinguishment of the Effect of the Accessory Pardon by the Chief Executive vs. Pardon by
Penalties Attached to it by Pardon of the the Offended Party (1994 BAR)
Principal Penalty
PARDON BY THE PARDON BY THE
GR: Pardon of the principal penalty does not CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFENDED PARTY
extinguish the effect of the accessory penalties
It extinguishes the It does not extinguish
attached to it. When the principal penalty is
criminal liability of criminal liability of the
remitted by pardon, only the effect of that
the offender. offender.
principal penalty is extinguished. The rights are
not restored unless expressly restored by the It cannot exempt the Offended party can
terms of the pardon. offender from the waive the civil liability
payment of the civil which the offender
XPN: When an absolute pardon is granted after indemnity. must pay.
the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes Pardon should be given
all that is left of the consequences of conviction. It is granted only after before the institution
(Cristobal v. Labrador, G.R. No. L-47941, 07 Dec. conviction and may be of criminal prosecution
1940) extended to any of the and must be extended
offenders. to both offenders. (Art.
Absolute Pardon vs. Conditional Pardon 344, RPC)
CONDITIONAL
ABSOLUTE PARDON
PARDON
ART. 89, RPC
ART. 94, RPC
An act of grace An act of grace
received from the granted by the Chief
power entrusted with Executive but is

Criminal Law
AMNESTY crime occurred because of Homicide. Is A’s

contention correct?
Amnesty
A: NO. Pardon by the Chief Executive must
specify the crime and does not include those not
It is an act of sovereign power granting oblivion
specified in the pardon.
or a general pardon for a past offense, and is
rarely, if ever exercised in favor of a single
Causes of Extinction of Criminal Liability vs.
individual, and is usually exerted on behalf of
the Causes of Justification or Exemption
persons, who are subject to trial, but have not yet
(Reyes, 2008)
been convicted. (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 602)
CAUSES OF
Pardon vs. Amnesty (2006, 2015 BAR) CAUSES OF
EXTINCTION OF
JUSTIFICATION OR
PARDON AMNESTY CRIMINAL
EXEMPTION
The convict is excused LIABILITY
from serving the The causes of
sentence but the The criminal justification or
effects of conviction complexion of the act The causes of the exemption arise from
remain unless constituting the crime extinction arise after the circumstances
expressly remitted by is erased, as though the commission of existing either before
the pardon; hence, for such act was innocent the offense. the commission of the
pardon to be valid, when committed; crime or at the moment
there must be a hence the effects of the of its commission.
sentence already final conviction are
and executory at the obliterated. PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF
time the same is CRIMINAL LIABILITY
granted. ART. 94, RPC
The grant is in favor of Amnesty is granted in
individual convicted favor of a class of Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability
offenders, not to a convicted offenders,
class of convicted not to individual 1. By conditional pardon;
offenders. convicted offenders. 2. By commutation of the sentence; and
The crimes subject of The crimes involved 3. For good conduct allowances which the
the grant may be are generally political culprit may earn while he is undergoing
common crimes or offenses not common preventive imprisonment or serving his
political crimes. crimes. sentence. (Art. 94, RPC as amended by R.A. No.
The grant is a private 10592)
act of the Chief It is a public act that
Executive which does requires concurrence Q: AAA, a minor of 17 years old was killed by
not require the of the Philippine her lover at a cemetery. Her lover was on trial
concurrence of any Senate. for murder. During the trial, an affidavit of
other public officer. desistance was executed by the victim's
parents, BBB and CCC. The affidavits stated
Q: A, while serving sentence for homicide that they were desisting from continuing with
escaped but was re-arrested, and was the case against accused-appellant upon
sentenced for evasion of service of sentence. knowing the whole story about the death of
Later on, he was granted absolute pardon for their daughter and the filing of the case
homicide. He now claims that the pardon against appellant was due to a
includes the evasion of service since the latter misunderstanding of what truly happened.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
With this, the RTC did not award damages to Conditional Pardon vs. Parole
the heirs of AAA. Was the trial court correct?
CONDITIONAL
PAROLE
A: NO. It must be stressed that executing an PARDON
affidavit of desistance is not one of the modes of It may be given after
extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 the prisoner has
of the RPC. BBB and CCC are not allowed to It may be given at any
served the minimum
compromise or to waive the criminal aspect of a time after final
penalty by the Board
case, which affects public interest. (People v. judgment by the Chief
of Pardons and Parole
Masilang, G.R. No. 246466, 26 Jan. 2021) Executive.
under the provisions
of the ISLAW.
1. CONDITIONAL PARDON For violation of the
parole, the convict
Nature of Conditional Pardon cannot be prosecuted
under Art. 159. He can
When delivered and accepted, it is considered a be rearrested and
contract between the sovereign power of the reincarcerated to
For violation of the
executive and the convict that the former will serve the unserved
conditional pardon,
release the latter upon compliance with the portion of his original
the convict may be
conditions. penalty.
rearrested or
reincarcerated by the
Obligation Incurred by a Person Granted with NOTE: The mere
Chief Executive or may
Conditional Pardon commission, not
be prosecuted under
conviction by the
Art. 159 of the RPC.
He shall incur the obligation of complying strictly court, of any crime is
with the conditions imposed therein; otherwise, sufficient to warrant
his noncompliance with any of the conditions the parolee’s arrest
specified shall result in the revocation of the and reincarceration.
pardon and the provisions of Art. 159 on violation (Guevarra, in Reyes,
of conditional pardon shall be applied to him. 2008)
(Art. 95, RPC)
2. COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
Parole
Nature of Commutation of Sentence
Parole consists in the suspension of the sentence
of a convict after serving the minimum term of
It is a change of the decision of the court made by
the indeterminate penalty, without granting a
the Chief Executive by reducing the degree of the
pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the
penalty inflicted upon the convict, or by
sentence shall be suspended (Reyes, 2008). Parole
decreasing the length of the imprisonment or the
system cannot exist without the indeterminate
amount of the fine.
sentence law.
Effect of Commutation of Sentence
The commutation of the original sentence for

another of a different length and nature shall
have the legal effect of substituting the latter in
the place of the former. (Art. 96, RPC)

Criminal Law
Cases where Commutation is Provided for by following cases:

the Code
1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt
1. When the convict sentenced to death is over
70 years of age (Art. 83, RPC); and NOTE: There is no need for a separate civil
2. When eight (8) justices of the Supreme Court action. The reason is the accused has been
fail to reach a decision for the affirmance of accorded due process. To require a separate
the death penalty. (Reyes, 2008) civil action would mean needless clogging of
court dockets and unnecessary duplication of
3. GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES litigation with all its attendant loss of time,
effort, and money on the part of all
concerned. (Padilla v. CA, G.R. No. L-39999, 31
NOTE: See discussion on Good Conduct Allowances
May 1984)
under Execution and Service of Sentence – page
141.
2. Acquittal from a cause of non-imputability
7. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES XPN: The exemption from criminal liability
in favor of an imbecile or an insane person,
Persons Civilly Liable for Felonies and a person under fifteen (15) years of age,
or one who over fifteen (15) but under
GR: Every person criminally liable for a felony is eighteen (18) years of age, who has acted
also civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC) without discernment, and those acting under
XPNs: compulsion of an irresistible force or under
1. If there is no damage caused by the the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
commission of the crime, the offender is not equal or greater injury does not include
civilly liable. exemption from civil liability. (Art. 101, RPC)
2. There is no private person injured by the
crime. 3. Acquittal in the criminal action for
negligence does not preclude the offended
Basis of Civil Liability party from filing a civil action to recover
damages, based on the new theory that the
A crime has dual character: (1) as an offense act is a quasi-delict.
against the state because of the disturbance of
social order; and (2) as an offense against the 4. When there is only civil responsibility
private person injured by the crime. In the
ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil 5. In cases of independent civil actions
liability is really the obligation of everyone to
repair or to make whole the damage caused to Civil Liability of Persons Exempt from
another by reason of his act or omission, whether Criminal Liability
done intentionally or negligently and whether or
not punishable by law. (Occena v. Icamina, G.R. No. GR: Exemption from criminal liability does not
82146, 22 Jan. 1990) include exemption from civil liability.
Q: Since a person criminally liable is also XPNs:

civilly liable, does his acquittal in the criminal 1. No civil liability in Art. 12(4) of the RPC
case mean extinction of his civil liability? (injury caused by mere accident);
2. No civil liability in Art. 12(7) of the RPC
A: NO. Civil liability may exist, although the (failure to perform an act required by law
accused is not held criminally liable, in the when prevented by some lawful or insuperable

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
cause). or establishment; and
Persons Civilly Liable for the Acts of an Insane 3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
or Minor
Elements under Art. 102(2), RPC
If the persons having legal authority or control
over the insane or minor are at fault or negligent, 1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper
then they are the persons civilly liable for the acts or the person representing him of the deposit
of the latter. of their goods within the inn or house;
NOTE: If there is no fault or negligence on their 2. The guests followed the directions of the
part; or even if they are at fault or negligent but innkeeper or his representative with respect
insolvent; or should there be no person having to the care of and vigilance over such goods;
such authority or control, then the insane, and
imbecile, or such minor shall respond with their
own property not exempt from execution. 3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein
were taken by robbery with force upon
Persons Civilly Liable for Acts Committed by things or theft committed within the inn or
Persons Acting under Irresistible Force or house.
Uncontrollable Fear
GR: No liability shall attach in case of robbery
The person using violence or causing the fear is with violence against or intimidation of persons.
primarily liable. If there be no such persons, those XPN: When it is committed by the innkeeper’s
doing the act shall be liable secondarily. employees, there is civil liability.
Civil Liability in Justifying Circumstances SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY

OF OTHER PERSONS
GR: There is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances. Liability of Employer, Teacher, or Person or
Corporation
XPN: In Art. 11(4) of RPC (State of Necessity),
there is civil liability, but the person civilly liable 1. The employer, teacher, or person or
is the one who benefited by the act which caused corporation is engaged in any kind of
damage to another. industry;
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF 2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,

INNKEEPERS, TAVERNKEEPERS, AND apprentices, or employees commits a felony
PROPRIETORS OF ESTABLISHMENTS while in the discharge of their duties; and
ART. 102, RPC
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
Elements under Art. 102(1), RPC satisfied his civil liability. (Art. 103, RPC)
1. That the innkeeper, tavernkeeper, or NOTES:

proprietor of the establishment or his a. The subsidiary civil liability arises only after
employee committed a violation of municipal conviction of the employee in the criminal
ordinance or some general or special police action. (Baza Marketing Corp. v. Bolinao Sec.
regulation; & Inv. Services, Inc., G.R. No. L-32383, 30 Sept.
1982)
2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern,

Criminal Law
b. The subsidiary liability may be enforced Does not include

Includes restitution
only upon a motion for the subsidiary writ restitution
of execution against the employer and upon Does not include fine Includes fine, and the
proof that employee is insolvent. (Basilio v. and costs of the costs of the
CA, G.R. No. 113433, 17 Mar. 2000) proceedings proceedings
c. A hospital is not engaged in industry; hence, 1. RESTITUTION

not subsidiary liable for acts of nurses.
(Clemente v. Foreign Mission Sisters, CA 38 Restitution of the thing itself must be made
O.G. 1594) whenever possible, with the allowance for any
deterioration or diminution of value as
Q: X, the chauffer or driver of the car owned determined by the court. (Art. 105(1), RPC)
by Y, bumped the car driven by Z. X was found
guilty but was insolvent. Is Y subsidiary NOTE: If restitution cannot be made by the
liable? offender (Art. 105, RPC), or by his heirs (Art. 108,
RPC), the law allows the offended party
A: NO, Y is a private person who has no business reparation (Art. 106, RPC). In either case,
or industry and uses his automobile for private indemnity for consequential damages may be
persons. (Steinmetz v. Valdez, G.R. No. 47655, 28 required. (Art. 107, RPC)
Apr. 1941)
Q: Can restitution be made even if the thing is
Q: Can the persons mentioned in Art. 103 already found in the possession of a third
invoke the defense of diligence of a good person who has acquired it by lawful means?
father of a family?
A: GR: YES. The thing itself shall be restored, even
A: NO. It will be seen that neither in Art. 103 nor though it be found in the possession of a third
any other article of the RPC, is it provided that the person who has acquired it by lawful means,
employment of the diligence of a good father of a saving to the latter his action against the proper
family in the selection of his employees will person who may be liable to him. (Art. 105(2),
exempt the parties secondarily liable for RPC)
damages. (Arambulo v. Manila Electric Company,
G.R. No. L-33229, 23 Oct. 1930) XPN: Art. 105 is not applicable in cases in which
the thing has been acquired by the third person
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES in the manner and under the requirements
which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. (Art.
What is Included in Civil Liability 105(3), RPC)
1. Restitution 1. An innocent purchaser for value for property

2. Reparation of damage caused covered by a Torrens Title, cannot be required
3. Indemnification for consequential damages to return the same to its owner unlawfully
deprived of it;
Civil Liabilities vs. Pecuniary Liabilities
2. When the sale is authorized, the property
PECUNIARY cannot be recovered.
CIVIL LIABILITIES
LIABILITIES
Art. 104, RPC
Art. 104, RPC Q: If the property involved is a fungible thing,
Both include (a) reparation of the damage can the defendant return to the creditor a
caused; and (b) indemnification for thing of the same amount, kind, species and
consequential damages quality?

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
A: NO, the convict cannot, by way of restitution, Q: Does the payment of an insurance company
give to the offended party a similar thing of the relieve the accused of his obligation to pay
same amount, kind or species and quality. damages?
The civil liability is not governed by the Civil Code A: NO, the payment by the insurance company
but by Arts. 100-111 of the RPC The sentence was not made on behalf of the accused, but was
should be for the return of the very thing taken made pursuant to its contract with the owner of
(restitution), or, if it cannot be done, for the the car. But the insurance company is subrogated
payment of the value (reparation). The purpose to the right of the offended party as regards the
of the law is to place the offended party as much damages.
as possible in the same condition as he was before
the offense was committed against him. (People v. 3. INDEMNIFICATION
Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, 27 Nov. 2008)
Indemnification of consequential damages shall
NOTE: Under the Civil Code, the person who has include:
not lost any personal property or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof cannot obtain its 1. Those caused the injured party;
return without reimbursing the price paid 2. Those suffered by his family or by a third
therefor, only when the possessor: (a) acquired it person by reason of the crime. (Art. 107,
in good faith; and (b) at a public sale. RPC)
Q: A was convicted of estafa for having Q: Who has the obligation to make
pawned the jewels which had been given to restoration, reparation for damages, or
him by B to be sold on commission. Can B file indemnification for consequential damages?
a petition to require the owner of the
pawnshop to restore said jewels? A: The obligation to make restoration or
reparation for damages and indemnification for
A: YES, the owner of the pawnshop may be consequential damages devolves upon the heirs
obliged to make restitution of the jewels, because of the person liable. (Art. 108(1), RPC)
although he acted in good faith, he did not acquire
them at a public sale. (Varela v. Finnick, G.R. No. L- NOTE: The heirs of the person liable have no
3890, 02 Jan. 1908) obligation if restoration is not possible and the
deceased has left no property.
2. REPARATION
Q: Who may demand for restitution?
Determination of Reparation
A: The action to demand restoration, reparation
The court shall determine the amount of damage, and indemnification likewise descends to the
taking into consideration: heirs of the person injured. (Art. 108(2), RPC)
1. The price of thing, whenever possible; and Apportionment of Civil Liability

2. Its special sentimental value to the injured.
(Art. 106, RPC) If there are two or more persons civilly liable for
a felony, the courts shall determine the amount
NOTE: Reparation will be ordered by the court if for which each must respond. (Art. 109, RPC)
restitution is not possible. It is limited to those
caused by and flowing from the commission of
the crime.

Criminal Law
SEVERAL AND SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF 4. Confusion or merger of the rights of creditor

PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND and debtor;
ACCESSORIES OF FELONY 5. Compensation; and
6. Novation.
The principals, accomplices and accessories, each
within their respective class, shall be severally Other Causes: Annulment, rescission, fulfillment
liable (in solidum) among themselves for their of a resolutory condition, and prescription. (Art.
quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the other 1231, NCC)
persons liable. (Art. 110(1), RPC)
NOTE: Civil liability is extinguished by
Q: How is the subsidiary civil liability subsequent agreement between the accused and
enforced? the offended party. Express condonation by the
offended party has the effect of waiving civil
A: The subsidiary liability shall be enforced: liability with regard to the interest of the injured
party.
1. First, against the property of the principals;
2. Next, against that of the accomplices; and Survival of Civil Liability
3. Lastly, against that of the accessories. (Art.
110(2), RPC) The offender shall continue to be obliged to
satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime
Q: A stole a diamond ring worth P1000 and committed by him, notwithstanding the fact he
gave it to B, who not knowing the illegal origin has served his sentence consisting of deprivation
of the sale, accepts it. B later sells the ring for of liberty or other rights, or has not been required
P500 to Y, a foreigner who left the country. In to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon,
case A is insolvent, can B, a person who commutation of sentence or any other reason.
participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a (Art. 113, RPC)
felony, be subsidiarily liable?
NOTE: While amnesty wipes out all traces and
A: YES, any person who has participated vestiges of the crime, it does not extinguish civil
gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be liability of the offender. A pardon shall in no case
bound to make restitution in an amount exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
equivalent to the extent of such participation (Art. indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
111, RPC). Thus, B shall be subsidiarily liable in
the sum not exceeding P500 which is the Q: Florencio was an appellant of a case for the
gratuitous share in the commission of the crime. crime of murder. Pending his appeal, he died
while in confinement and notice of his death
EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL was belatedly conveyed to the court. Does his
OF CIVIL LIABILITY death extinguish his criminal and civil
liabilities?
Extinguishment of Civil Liability
A: YES. Florencio’s death prior to the court’s final
Civil liability shall be extinguished in the same judgment extinguished his criminal and civil
manner as other obligations in accordance with liability ex delicto pursuant to Art. 89(1) of the
the provisions of the Civil Law: Revised Penal Code. (People v. Agacer, G.R. No.
177751, 07 Jan. 2013)
1. Payment or performance;
2. Loss of the thing due; Death of the accused pending appeal of his
3. Condonation or remission of debt; conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
According to Justice Regalado, “the death of the

accused prior to final judgment terminates his
criminal liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on the
offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in
senso strictiore.” Corollarily, the claim for civil
liability survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be predicated on a
source of obligation other than delict. Art. 1157
of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources
of obligation. (People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007,
02 Sept. 1994)
Q: On July 23, 2014, Renato, Gariguez, Jr., and

Larido were held guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of
Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide. They
collectively moved for reconsideration. The
Court denied such motion with finality in its
Resolution dated Sept. 24, 2014.
However, before the finality of its resolution,

the Court received a letter from the Bureau of
Corrections dated Sept. 16, 2014 informing
them of the death of one of the accused-
appellants in this case, Renato, on June 10,
2014. Is Renato Dionaldo y Ebron criminally
liable of special complex crime of Kidnapping
for Ransom with Homicide?
A: NO, Dionaldo’s liability is extinguished by his

death. As provided under Art. 89 of the RPC,
criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender
occurs before final judgment. Consequently,
Renato's death on June 10, 2014 renders the
Court's July 23, 2014 Resolution irrelevant and
ineffectual as to him, and is therefore set aside.
Accordingly, the criminal case against Renato is
dismissed. (People v. Dionaldo, GR No. 207949, 09
Sept. 2015)

Crimes under the RPC – Book 2
Court which has jurisdiction over piracy

II. CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE committed in the high seas
Revised Penal Code – Book 2
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is
a crime not against any particular state but
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the
A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
offender may be found or into which he may be
AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
carried.
ARTS. 114-123, RPC, TITLE I
The jurisdiction of piracy, unlike all other crimes,
has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may,
Crimes against National Security it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the
crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-
1. Treason (Art. 114, RPC); mile limit of a foreign state, “for those limits,
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes."
(Art. 115, RPC); (People v. Lo-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. 17958, 27 Feb.
3. Misprision of Treason (Art. 116, RPC); and 1922)
4. Espionage (Art. 117, RPC).
GR: All crimes against national security can only
Crimes against the Law of Nations be committed in times of war.
1. Inciting to war and giving motives for XPNs:

reprisal (Art. 118, RPC); 1. Espionage (Art. 117, RPC);
2. Violation of Neutrality (Art. 119, RPC); 2. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisal
3. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. (Art. 118, RPC);
120, RPC); 3. Violation of Neutrality (Art. 119, RPC); and
4. Flight to enemy country (Art. 121, RPC); 4. Mutiny and piracy (Art. 122, RPC). (Boado,
5. Piracy and mutiny (Art. 122, RPC); and 2008)
6. Qualified Piracy and Mutiny (Art. 123, RPC).
CHAPTER 1: CRIMES AGAINST
NOTE: Crimes against National Security and the NATIONAL SECURITY
Law of Nations are exceptions to the principle
of territoriality under Art. 2(5) of the RPC which TREASON
provides that one can be held criminally liable ART. 114, RPC
even if those crimes were committed outside the
Philippine jurisdiction. Treason
However, the prosecution for the said crimes can Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government,
proceed only if the offender is: committed by a person who owes allegiance to it.
a. Already within Philippine territory; or Allegiance

b. Brought to the Philippines pursuant to an
extradition treaty after the commission of It is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which
said crimes. the individuals owe to the government under
which they live or to their sovereign, in return for
the protection they receive.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Kinds of Allegiance: 1st Mode: “Levying war”
1. Permanent – a citizen’s obligation of fidelity This requires the concurrence of two things:
and obedience to his government or 1. That there be an actual assembling of men;
sovereign; or and
2. Temporary – allegiance which a foreigner 2. For the purpose of executing a treasonable

owes to the government or sovereign of the design by force.
territory wherein he resides, so long as he
remains there, in return for the protection he NOTE: The levying of war must be with intent to
receives, and which consists in the obedience overthrow the government and not merely to
to the laws of the government or sovereign. resist a particular statute or to repel a particular
officer.
Elements of Treason (FA-W-L-A)
2nd Mode: Adherence to Enemies
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen; or an
Alien residing in the Philippines (R.A. No. There is adherence to enemies when a citizen,
7659); intellectually or emotionally, favors the enemies
and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal
2. That there is a War in which the Philippines to his country’s policy or interest.
is involved; and
Adherence alone without aid and comfort does
3. That the offender either: not constitute treason, but such adherence may
a. Levies war against the Government; or be inferred from the acts committed by a person.
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving them
aid or comfort. Aid and Comfort
NOTE: Treason cannot be committed in times of It means overt acts which strengthen or tend to
peace because there are no traitors until war has strengthen the enemy of the government in the
started. conduct of war against the government or an act
which weakens or tends to weaken the power of
Commission of Treason Outside the the government to resist or to attack the enemies
Philippines of the government.
1. If the offender is a Filipino citizen, he can Specified Acts of Aid and Comfort Constituting
commit this crime even if he is outside the Treason
Philippines; or
2. Treason by an alien must be committed in the 1. Serving as an informer and active member of
Philippines (E.O. 44) except in case of the enemy’s military police; or
conspiracy. 2. Serving in the enemy’s army as agent or spy.
Modes of Committing Treason (LA) Extent of Aid and Comfort
1. Levying war against the government; or The overt act of giving aid or comfort to the
2. Adhering to the enemies, giving them aid and enemy must be intentional. As a general rule, to
comfort. be treasonous, the extent of the aid and comfort
given to the enemies must be to render assistance
NOTE: Formal declaration of the existence of a to them as enemies and not merely as individuals
state of war is NOT necessary. and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the
enemies’ hostile designs.

To make a simple distinction: To lend or give may be gathered from the testimony of one
money to an enemy as a friend or out of charity to witness, or from the nature of the act itself, or
the beneficiary so that he may buy personal from circumstances surrounding the act.
necessities is to assist him as an individual and is
not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to On the other hand, an overt act must be
lend or give him money to enable him to buy arms established by the deposition of two witnesses.
or ammunition to use in waging war against the Each witness must testify to the whole of the
giver’s country enhance his strength and by the overt act; or if it is separable, there must be two
same count injures the interest of the witnesses to each part of the overt act. (People v.
government of the giver, which then constitutes Adriano, G.R. No. L-477, 30 June 1947)
treason. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L-856, 18 Apr.
1949) Confession
Treason cannot be committed through Confession of guilt in an open court before the
negligence. The overt acts of aid and comfort judge, while actually hearing the case.
must be intentional as distinguished from merely Extrajudicial confession or confession made
negligent or undesigned act. (Cramer v. U.S., 325 before the investigators is not sufficient to
U.S. 1, 1945) convict a person of treason.
How Treason may be Proved Q: X furnished women to the enemy. Does the
act constitute treason?
1. Testimony of two witnesses, at least, to the
same overt act (Two-Witness Rule); or A: NO. Commandeering of women to satisfy the
2. Confession of the accused in open court. lust of the enemies or to enliven the
entertainment held in their honor was NOT
Two-Witness Rule treason even though the women and the
entertainments helped to make life more
A rule which requires the testimony of at least pleasant for the enemies. (People v. Perez, G.R. No.
two witnesses to prove the overt act of giving aid L-856, 18 Apr. 1949)
or comfort. The two-witness rule is severely
restrictive and requires that each witness must Accepting a Public Office under the Enemy
testify to the whole overt act; or if it is separable, does Not Constitute the Felony of Treason
there must be two witnesses to each part of the
overt act. (People v. Escleto, G.R. No. L-1006, 28 Mere acceptance of a public office and the
June 1949) discharge of the duties connected therewith do
not constitute per se the crime of treason, unless
Illustration: Witness A testified that he saw the such office was accepted as an aid and for the
defendant going to the house of X in search of the comfort of the enemy and the person who
latter’s revolver. Witness B testified that when X accepted the office adheres to the enemy.
went to the garrison, the defendant required him
(X) to produce his revolver. It was held that the Treason as a Continuing Offense
search for the revolver in the house of X is one
overt act and the requirement to produce the It can be committed by a single act or by a series
revolver in the garrison is another. Thus, there of acts. It can be committed in one single or
must be two witnesses for each act. (People v. different time. In treason, there is only one
Abad, G.R. No. L-430, 30 July 1947) criminal intent.
Adherence need not be proved by the oaths of A person who commits treason is not criminally
two witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge responsible for as many crimes of treason as the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
overt acts he has intentionally committed to give Kim Cham v.

aid to the enemy. Valdez, G.R. No. L-5,
NOTE: The offender can still be prosecuted even 17 Sept. 1945)
after the war.
Q: A was charged with the crime of treason. In
Common Crimes Committed in the his defense, he asserts that he can no longer
Furtherance of the Crime of Treason that be prosecuted for treason since he already
Cannot be Considered Crimes Separate from lost his Filipino citizenship under paragraphs
Treason 3, 4, and 6 of C.A. No. 63, which provides that
“…a Filipino may lose his citizenship by
The common crimes committed in furtherance of accepting commission in the military, naval,
treason are the overt acts of aid and comfort in or air service of a foreign country…” when he
favor of the enemy and are therefore inseparable joined the Japanese armed forces. Is his
from treason itself. They become an element of defense tenable?
treason.
A: NO. A cannot divest himself of his Philippine
However, if the prosecution should elect to citizenship by the simple expedient of accepting a
prosecute the culprit specifically for these crimes, commission in the military, naval, or air service of
instead of relying on them as an element of such country. If such contention would be
treason, punishment for these common crimes is sustained, the very crime would be the shield that
not precluded. (People v. Prieto, G.R. No. L-399, 29 would protect him from punishment. (People v.
Jan. 1948) Manayao, G.R. No. L-322, 28 July 1947)
Aggravating Circumstances in the Crime of Why Suspended Allegiance or Change of

Treason Sovereignty is NOT a Defense in Treason
ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE/ 1. A citizen owes an absolute and permanent

(I-C-A-G) INHERENT (E-A-T) allegiance to his government;
1. Ignominy;
2. Cruelty; 1. Evident 2. The sovereignty of the Government is not
3. Amount and premeditation; transferred to the enemy by mere
degree of aid; and 2. Abuse of superior occupation;
4. Gravity or strength; and
seriousness of the 3. Treachery. 3. The subsistence of the sovereignty of the
acts of treason. legitimate Government in a territory
occupied by the military forces of the enemy
Defenses against Treason during the war is one of the rules of
International Law; and
DEFENSES NOT A DEFENSE
(Du-La) (Su-Lo) 4. What is suspended is merely the exercise of
the rights of sovereignty. (Laurel v. Misa, G.R.
1. Duress or 1. Suspended
No. L-409, 30 Jan. 1947)
uncontrollable allegiance and
fear (People v. change in
Bagwis, G.R. No. L- sovereignty; and
262, 29 Mar. 2. Loss of
1947); and citizenship by the
2. Lawful obedience mere joining in
to a de facto the army of the
government (Go enemy.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO Riboli could complete their fundraising

COMMIT TREASON activities for the brothers, the AFP was able to
ART. 115, RPC reclaim the island and defeat the Ratute-led
uprising.
Conspiracy to Commit Treason
Ricalde and Riboli were charged with
It is committed when, in times of war, two or more conspiracy to commit treason. During the
persons come to an agreement to levy war against hearing of the two cases, the government only
the government or to adhere to the enemies and presented as witness, General Riturban, who
to give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit testified on the activities of the Ratute
it. (Reyes, 2017) brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli.
Elements of Conspiracy to Commit Treason Can Ricalde and Riboli be convicted of the
crime of conspiracy to commit treason? (2018
(W-A-L-A-D)
BAR)
1. The Philippines is at War; A: Ricalde and Riboli cannot be convicted of the

2. Two (2) or more persons come to an crime of conspiracy to commit treason, because
Agreement to: there was no war existing when they committed
a. Levy war against the government, or the acts. Jurisprudence considers treason as a
b. Adhere to enemies and to give them aid crime committed in times only of an international
or comfort; and armed conflict. The same is true with the felony
3. They Decide to commit it. of conspiracy to commit treason. Moreover, the
crimes were committed outside the jurisdiction
Q: The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, of Philippine Court.
both Filipino citizens, led a group of armed
men in seizing a southern island in the Proposal to Commit Treason
Philippines, and declaring war against the
duly constituted government of the country. It is committed when in time of war a person who
The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), has decided to levy war against the Government
led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban, or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid
responded and a full-scale war ensued or comfort, proposes its execution to some other
between the AFP and the armed men led by person or persons. (Reyes, 2017)
the brothers. The armed conflict raged for
months. Elements of Proposal to Commit Treason
(War-D-LA-P)
When the brothers-led armed men were
running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a 1. The Philippines is at War;
Filipino, and a good friend and supporter of 2. A person who has Decided to Levy war
the Ratute brothers, was tasked to leave for against the government, or to Adhere to the
abroad in order to solicit arms and funding enemies and give them aid and comfort; and
for the cash-strapped brothers. 3. Proposes its execution to some other person
or persons.
He was able to travel to Rwanda, and there he
met with Riboli, a citizen and resident of The mere conspiracy and proposal to commit
Rwanda, who agreed to help the brothers by treason are punishable as felonies under Art. 115
raising funds internationally, and to send of the RPC. This is due to the fact that in treason,
them to the Ratute brothers in order to aid the very existence of the State is endangered.
them in their armed struggle against the
Philippine government. Before Ricalde and NOTE: The two-witness rule does not apply to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason Penalty (2010 BAR)

because conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason is separate and distinct offense from that Art. 116 does not provide for a penalty, but the
of treason. (U.S. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 2189, 03 Nov. offender is punished as an accessory to the crime
1906) of treason. Therefore, the penalty is two degrees
lower than that provided for treason.
Crime Committed if Actual Acts of Treason are
Committed After the Conspiracy or After the NOTE: The offender in Art. 116 is considered a
Proposal is Accepted principal in the crime of misprision of treason,
not as an accessory to the crime of treason. The
The crime of treason is already consummated term accessory refers only to the penalty to be
since the perpetrator had already executed what imposed, not to the person who acted subsequent
was agreed upon or what was proposed to be to the commission of the offense.
done. The conspiracy or proposal is then
considered merely as means in the commission Q: X, a Filipino citizen, has knowledge of
thereof. treason committed by someone and does not
report its commission to the proper
MISPRISION OF TREASON authorities. Can he be held liable for
ART. 116, RPC Misprision of Treason?
Elements of Misprision of Treason (2010 A: NO. Art. 116 does not apply when the crime of
BAR) (C-K-C) treason is already committed. This is because Art.
116 speaks of “knowledge of any conspiracy
1. That the offender is a Citizen of the against” the Government of the Philippines, not
Philippines, and not a foreigner; knowledge of treason actually committed by
another.
2. That he has Knowledge of any conspiracy to
commit treason against the Government; and ESPIONAGE
ART. 117, RPC
3. That he Conceals or does not disclose or
make known the same as soon as possible to Espionage
the Governor or Fiscal of the province or
Mayor or Fiscal of the city in which he Espionage is the offense of gathering,
resides. transmitting, or losing information respecting the
national defense with intent or reason to believe
This crime is an exception to the rule that mere that the information is to be used to the injury of
silence does not make a person criminally liable. the Republic of the Philippines or to the
It is a crime of omission. advantage of any foreign nation.
NOTE: Art. 116 does not apply when the crime of NOTE: Espionage can be committed in times of
treason is already committed by someone and the war and peace.
accused does not report its commission to the
proper authority. Two (2) Ways of Committing Espionage under
Art. 117 of the RPC
Misprision of Treason Cannot be Committed
by a Resident Alien 1. By entering, without authority therefor, a
warship, fort, or naval or military
The offender must be owing allegiance to the establishment or reservation to obtain any
Government “without being a foreigner.” information, plans, photographs, or other

data of a confidential nature relative to the information by reason of the public office he
defense of the Philippines. holds.
Elements: NOTE: When the offender is a public officer or

a. That the offender enters in any place employee, the penalty next higher in degree shall
mentioned therein; be imposed.
NOTE: The offender is any person, Other Acts of Espionage that are Punishable
whether a citizen or a foreigner, a under C.A. No. 616 (An Act to Punish Espionage
private individual or a public officer. and Other Offenses against National Security)
b. That he has no authority therefor; and 1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be

obtained information affecting national
c. That his purpose is to obtain defense;
information, plans, photographs, or 2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting
other data of confidential nature national defense;
relative to the defense of the 3. Disloyal acts or words in time of peace;
Philippines. 4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war;
5. Conspiracy to violate preceding acts;
NOTE: The offender must have the 6. Harboring or concealing violators of law; and
intention to obtain information relative 7. Photographing from aircraft of vital military
to the defense of the Philippines, but it information.
is not necessary to have actually
obtained such information. Espionage vs. Treason
2. By disclosing to the representative of a ESPIONAGE TREASON

foreign nation the contents of the articles, As to the Citizenship of the Offender
data or information referred to in the With the amendment,
preceding paragraph, which he had in his It is a crime not under Art. 114, treason
possession by reason of the public office he conditioned by may be committed by a
holds. citizenship of the Filipino citizen or an
offender. alien residing in the
Elements: Philippines.
a. That the offender is a public officer; As to the Time it may be Committed
b. That he has in his possession the It may be committed
articles, data, or information referred to It is committed only in
either in times of war
in Art. 117(1), by reason of the public times of war.
or in time of peace.
office he holds; and As to the Manner of Committing the Crime
c. That he discloses their contents to a There are only two
representative of a foreign nation. It may be committed in modes of committing
different ways. treason as provided
Offenders under Art. 117 under Art. 114.
1. Par. 1 – the offender is any person, whether

a citizen or foreign individual or a public
officer.
2. Par. 2 – the offender is a public officer, who

has in his possession, articles, data, or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING Q: From 1658 to 2012, the inhabitants of

MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS Sabah Malaysia were paying rents to the
ART. 118, RPC Sultanate of Sulu. On 2013, Sultan J of the
Sultanate of Sulu decided to send its royal
Elements of Inciting to War or Giving Motives forces in order to claim ownership over Sabah
for Reprisals (U-ProGE) on the basis of a document ceding ownership
of Sabah from Brunei in favor of Sulu.
1. That the offender performs Unlawful or
unauthorized acts; and Since Sabah is already part of the territory of
2. That such acts Provoke or Give occasion for Malaysia and claiming that the act of Sultan J
a war involving or liable to involve the violates Art. 118 of the RPC, the Philippine
Philippines or Expose Filipino citizens to government sued Sultan J. Will the suit
reprisals on their persons or property. prosper?
NOTE: If both elements concur, the crime is A: NO. Art. 118 is applicable only when the
committed regardless of his intentions. offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts.
Sultan J was merely asserting his right to own the
Time of Commission territory of Sabah when he sent its royal forces.
The cession made by Brunei in favor of the
The crime of inciting to war or giving motives for Sultanate of Sulu is a lawful and authorized basis
reprisals is committed in times of peace. upon which the claim of Sultan J may be made.
NOTE: If the offender is a private individual, the VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

penalty is prision mayor. If the offender is a public ART. 119, RPC
officer or employee, the penalty is reclusion
temporal. Neutrality
Reprisal A condition of a nation wherein, in times of war,

takes no part in the dispute but continues
It is any kind of forcible or coercive measure peaceful dealings with the belligerents.
whereby one State seeks to exercise a deterrent
effect or to obtain redress or satisfaction, directly Elements of Violation of Neutrality (W-R-V)
or indirectly, for consequences of the illegal acts
of another State which has refused to make 1. That there is a War in which the Philippines
amends for such illegal conduct. is not involved;
2. That there is a Regulation issued by a
Reprisal is resorted to for the purpose of settling competent authority for the purpose of
a dispute or redressing a grievance without going enforcing neutrality; and
to war. 3. That the offender Violates such regulation.
Extent of Reprisals Authority to Issue a Regulation for the

Enforcement of Neutrality
Reprisals are not limited to military action. It
could be economic reprisals or denial of entry The regulation must be issued by a competent
into their country. (e.g., X burns a Singaporean authority like the President of the Philippines or
flag. If Singapore bans the entry of Filipinos, that the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
is reprisal.) Philippines, during a war between different
countries in which the Philippines is not taking
sides.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY FLIGHT TO ENEMY COUNTRY

ART. 120, RPC ART. 121, RPC
Correspondence Elements of Flight to Enemy Country

(W-O-A-P)
Communication by means of letters; or it may
refer to the letters which pass between those who 1. That there is a War in which the Philippines
have friendly or business relation. is involved;
2. That the offender must be Owing allegiance
Elements of Correspondence with Hostile to the Government;
Country (Wa-Co-Pro-C-No) 3. That the offender Attempts to flee or go to
enemy country; and
1. There is a War in which the Philippines is 4. That going to an enemy country is Prohibited
involved; by competent authority.
2. That the offender makes Correspondence
with an enemy country or territory occupied NOTE: It should be noted that the mere attempt
by enemy troops; and to flee or go to enemy country when prohibited
by competent authority consummates the felony.
3. That the correspondence is either:
a. Prohibited by the government; Persons Liable
b. Carried on in Ciphers or conventional
signs; or Alien residents, not only Filipino citizens, can be
c. Containing Notice or information held liable under this article. That law does not
which might be useful to the enemy. say “not being a foreigner.” Hence, allegiance
herein may be permanent or temporary.
NOTE: Even if the correspondence contains
innocent matters, but the correspondence has PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY IN THE
been prohibited by the Government, it is still HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
punishable. However, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of ART. 122, RPC
Art. 120, prohibition by the Government is not
essential. Piracy
Ciphers
It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high
seas, without lawful authority and done with
A secret message or code.
animo furandi (intent to steal) and in the spirit
and intention of universal hostility.
Circumstances Qualifying the Offense under
Art. 120
Modes of Committing Piracy
Two things must concur to qualify the offense: 1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high
1. That the notice or information might be
seas; or
useful to the enemy; and
2. That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
2. By seizing the vessel while on the high seas
or the whole or part of its cargo, its
NOTE: If the offender intended to aid the enemy equipment or personal belongings of its
by giving such notice or information, the crime
complement or passengers, by non-
amounts to treason; hence, the penalty is the
passengers or non-members of the crew.
same as that for treason.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Elements of Piracy (2006 BAR) (Ve-No-AS) have jurisdiction over the offense?
1. That a Vessel is on the high seas or in the A: YES, for piracy falls under Title I Book 2 of the
Philippine waters; RPC. As such, it is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law under Art. 2 of the
2. That the offenders are Not members of its RPC.
complement or passengers of the vessel; and
The same principle applies even if the offenders
3. That the offenders either: were charged, not with a violation of qualified
a. Attack or seize that vessel, or piracy under the RPC but under a special law, P.D.
b. Seize the whole or part of the cargo of 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters.
said vessel, its equipment or personal (People v. Catantan, G.R. No. 118075, 05 Sept.
belongings of its complement or 1997)
passengers.
Piracy under the RPC vs. Piracy under P.D. 532
High Seas
NOTE: P.D. 532 or the Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Any waters on the sea coast which are without Highway Robbery Law of 1974 is NOT included in
the boundaries of the low-water mark, although the 2022 Bar Syllabus in Criminal Law.
such waters may be within the jurisdictional
limits of a foreign government. The Convention PIRACY UNDER PIRACY UNDER
on the Law of the Sea defines “high seas” as parts THE RPC P.D. 532
of the seas that are not included in the exclusive As to Where it can be Committed
economic zone, in the territorial seas, or in the Can be committed Can be committed
internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic while the vessel is on only when the vessel
waters of an archipelagic State. It does not mean high seas or in is in Philippine
that the crime is committed beyond the three- Philippine waters waters
mile limit of any State. As to Who may be the Offender
Can only be committed Can be committed by
Court which has Jurisdiction over Piracy
by persons who are not any person, including
Committed in the High Seas
members of the the vessel’s
vessel’s complement, complement, or the
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is
or the passengers of passengers of the
a crime not against any particular state but
the vessel (strangers) vessel
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the
NOTE: There is, thus, no piracy when members of
offender may be found or into which he may be
the vessel’s complement or its passengers attack
carried.
or seize the vessel or its cargo on high seas. The
offense would then be theft or robbery cognizable
The jurisdiction of piracy, unlike all other crimes,
by Philippine courts, if the crime is committed on
has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may,
a Philippine ship, pursuant to Art. 2(1) of the RPC.
it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the
crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-
Mutiny
mile limit of a foreign state, “for those limits,
though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes."
It is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer,
(People v. Lo-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. 17958, 27 Feb.
or the raising of commotions and disturbances on
1922)
board a ship against the authority of its
commander.
Q: If piracy was committed outside the
Philippine waters, will the Philippine courts

Piracy vs. Mutiny cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor can

they be complexed with piracy.
PIRACY MUTINY
When piracy is accompanied by murder,
Offenders are Offenders are
homicide, physical injuries, or rape, it is
strangers to the vessel. members of the
Hence, offenders are complement or the considered a special complex crime, and is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
neither passengers nor passengers of the
crew members vessel regardless of the number of victims.
Done with animo
Against the authority
furandi (intent to steal)
of the commander of
and with the intention
the ship.
of universal hostility.
Intent to gain is
immaterial. The
Intent to gain is an
offenders only intend
element of piracy
to ignore the ship’s
officers.
Attack from the Attack from the
outside inside
QUALIFIED PIRACY
ART. 123, RPC
Circumstances Qualifying the Crimes of Piracy

and Mutiny (2006 BAR) (S-A-M-RaMuHoP)
1. Whenever they have Seized a vessel by

boarding or firing upon the same;
NOTE: For this to be a qualifying

circumstance, the offenders must have
SEIZED the vessel.
NOTE: This qualifying circumstance does

NOT apply to mutiny since the offenders are
already on board the ship.
2. Whenever the pirates have Abandoned their

victims without means of saving themselves;
or (2008 BAR)
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by

Murder, Homicide, Physical injuries, or Rape.
No Complex Crime of Piracy with Murder
There is only one crime committed – qualified

piracy. Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries
are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Constitutional Bases of the Crimes under this

B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL Title
LAWS OF THE STATE
ARTS. 124-133, RPC, TITLE II RPC 1987 CONSTITUTION
Art. 124 (Arbitrary
Detention);
Rationale Sec. 1 of Art. III (Bill of
Art. 125 (Delay in Rights) “No person
They are called crimes against “the fundamental the Delivery of shall be deprived of xxx
laws of the State” because they violate certain Detained Persons); liberty xxx without due
provisions of the Bill of Rights under the 1987 process of law xxx.”
Philippine Constitution. Art. 126 (Delaying
Release)
Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the Sec. 6, Art. III; “The
State liberty of abode and of
Art. 127 changing the same
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124, RPC); (Expulsion) within the limits
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to prescribed by law shall
the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125, not be impaired.”
RPC); Art. 128 (Violation
3. Delaying release (Art. 126, RPC); of Domicile);
4. Expulsion (Art. 127, RPC);
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128, RPC); Art. 129 (Search Sec. 2, Art. III; “The
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and Warrants right of the people to be
abuse in the service of those legally obtained Maliciously secure in their persons,
(Art. 129, RPC); Obtained and Abuse houses, papers and
7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. in the Service of effects against
130, RPC); those Legally unreasonable searches
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of Obtained); and seizure xxx shall be
peaceful meetings (Art. 131, RPC); inviolable.”
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132, Art. 130 (Searching
RPC); and Domicile Without
10. Offending the religious feelings. (Art. 133, Witnesses)
RPC) Sec. 4 Art. III; “No law
shall be passed
Offenders under this Title abridging the freedom
Art. 131 of speech, of
GR: Offenders under this title are public officers (Prohibition, expression, or of the
or employees. Interruption and press, or the right of the
Dissolution of people peaceably to
XPNs: Peaceful Meetings) assemble and petition
1. Under Art. 133 (Offending the Religious the Government for
Feelings), the offender may be any person; redress of grievances
xxx.”
2. When a private person conspires with a Art. 132 Sec. 5, Art. III; “No law
public officer or acts as accomplice or (Interruption of shall be made
accessory in the commission of the crime. Religious Worship); respecting an
establishment of
Art. 133 religion, or prohibiting

(Offending the the free exercise correccional in its

Religious Feelings) thereof. The free minimum
exercise and enjoyment Prision correccional in its
4 to 15 days
of religious profession medium and maximum
and worship without 16 days to
Prision mayor
discrimination or 6 months
preference shall forever More than
Reclusion Temporal
be allowed. 6 months
Classes of Arbitrary Detention (2006 BAR) Arbitrary Detention even if the Victims were
Not Kept in an Enclosure
1. Detaining a person without legal ground (Art.
124, RPC); There is arbitrary detention even if the victims
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to were not kept in an enclosure. The prevailing
the proper authorities (Art. 125, RPC); and jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal
3. Delaying release. (Art. 126, RPC) detention is that the curtailment of the victim’s
liberty need not involve any physical restraint
NOTE: The imposable penalties for violation of upon the victim’s person. If the acts and
Arts. 125 and 126 are those provided for under actuations of the accused can produce such fear
Art. 124. in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the
latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to
Sec. 1: Arbitrary Detention and Expulsion limit his own actions and movements in
accordance with the wishes of the accused, then
the victim is, for all intent and purposes, detained
ARBITRARY DETENTION
against his will. (Astorga v. People, G.R. No.
ART. 124, RPC
154130, 01 Oct. 2003)
Elements of Arbitrary Detention (1992 BAR)

Q: Who is the offender under Art. 124?
(P-D-W)
A: A public officer or employee. However, it is
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee
necessary that the public officer must be vested
vested with the authority and jurisdiction to
with the authority to detain or order the
effect arrest and detain a person;
detention of persons accused of a crime such as
2. He Detains a person; and
policemen and other agents of law, judges or
3. Detention is Without legal grounds. (U.S. v.
mayors, barangay captain and a municipal
Braganza, G.R. No. 3971, 03 Feb. 1908)
councilor. (Reyes, 2017)
Detention
Effect if the Public Officer has No Authority to
Detain a Person
The actual confinement of a person in an
enclosure, or in any manner detaining and
If the offender does not have the authority to
depriving him of his liberty.
detain a person or to make such arrest, the crime
committed by him is illegal detention. A public
Periods of Detention and Punishment
officer who is acting outside the scope of his
official duties is no better than a private citizen.
PERIOD OF
PUNISHMENT
DETENTION
NOTE: In arbitrary detention, the offender is a
Arresto mayor in its public officer whose functions have something to
3 days or less
maximum to prision
do with the protection of life and/or property and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
maintenance of peace and order. Thus, if the in good faith and cannot be held liable for
person, who arrests another without legal arbitrary detention. (U.S. v. Batalliones, G.R. No.
ground, is without authority to do so, like a clerk 7284, 23 Aug. 1912)
in the Office of the Central Bank Governor,
arbitrary detention is not the proper charge but NOTE: R.A. No. 7438 mandates the duties of
illegal detention. arresting officer under pain of penalty
(imprisonment of eight [8] years to ten [10] years
NOTE: A barangay chairman can be guilty of or fine of Php 6, 000 or both) in case of failure to
arbitrary detention. In order to maintain peace comply.
and order, he must have the authority to cause
the arrest and detention of a person. (Boado, Arbitrary Detention Can be Committed thru
2008) Imprudence
Legal Grounds for the Detention of Persons Illustration: A police officer re-arrests a woman
(2006 BAR) who had been released by means of verbal order
of the judge. The police officer acted without
GR: malice, but did not verify the order of release
1. Commission of a crime; before proceeding to make the re-arrest. He is
a. Arrest with a warrant liable for arbitrary detention through simple
b. Warrantless arrest imprudence. (People v. Misa, 36 O.G. 3496)
NOTE: Instances of a valid warrantless Arbitrary Detention vs. Illegal Detention

arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Revised
Rules of Court: ARBITRARY ILLEGAL
DETENTION DETENTION
a. Suspect is caught in flagrante delicto; As to the Principal’s Capacity
b. Suspect is caught immediately after the The principal The principal
commission of the offense when the offender must be a offender is a private
officer has probable cause to believe public officer. person.
based on personal knowledge of facts As to his Duty to Detain a Person
and circumstances that the person to be The offender, even if
arrested committed it; and The offender who is a
he is a public officer,
c. Escaping prisoners. public officer has a
does not include as
duty which carries
his function the
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring with it the authority
power to arrest and
compulsory confinement of the patient in a to detain a person.
detain a person.
hospital;
Arbitrary Detention vs. Unlawful Arrest
XPN: When the peace officers acted in good faith
even if the grounds mentioned above are not
ARBITRARY
obtained, there is no arbitrary detention. UNLAWFUL ARREST
DETENTION
Illustration: Two BIR secret agents, strangers in As to the Capacity of the Offender
the municipality who were spying on the The offender is a
neighborhood of the marketplace and acting public officer
generally in a manner calculated to arouse the The offender may be
possessed with
suspicion of any one not advised as to their duty, any person.
authority to make
were arrested by policemen of the town. The arrests.
Supreme Court held that the police officers acted

As to the Purpose of Detainment b. 18 hours for crimes/offenses punishable

To accuse the by correctional penalties or their
offended party of a equivalent;
crime he did not c. 36 hours for crimes/offenses punishable
commit, to deliver the by afflictive penalties or their equivalent.
To deny him of his
person to the proper
liberty
authority, and to file Q: Is Art. 125 applicable to violation of Special
the necessary charges Penal Laws?
in a way of trying to
incriminate him A: YES. The phrase “or their equivalent” means
that it is applicable even in violation of special
Q: X, a police officer, falsely imputes a crime laws.
against A to be able to arrest him but he
appears to be not determined to file a charge Delivery (1990 BAR)
against him. What crime, if any, did X commit?
The filing of correct information or complaint
A: The crime is arbitrary detention through with the proper judicial authorities. It does not
mean physical delivery or turnover of arrested
unlawful arrest. (Boado, 2008)
person to the court.
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED

Proper Judicial Authorities
PERSONS TO THE PROPER
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
It refers to the courts of justice or judges of said
ART. 125, RPC
courts vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a person
Situation contemplated by Art. 125, RPC charged with having committed a public offense.
Art. 125 contemplates a situation where arrest Circumstances Considered in Determining

was made without a warrant but there exists a Liability of Officer Detaining a Person Beyond
legal ground for the arrest. It does not apply when the Legal Period
the arrest is on the strength of a warrant of arrest,
because in the latter case, there is no period 1. The means of communication;
required for the delivery of a detained person to 2. The hour of arrest; and
the proper judicial authorities except that it must 3. Other circumstances such as the time of
be made within a reasonable time. The person surrender and material possibility of the
arrested can be detained indefinitely until his fiscal to make the investigation and file in
case is decided by the court or until he posts bail time the necessary information.
for his temporary release.
Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons
Elements of Delay in the Delivery of Detained (Art. 125) vs. Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124)
Persons (1990 BAR) (P-D-F-12-18-36)
DELAY IN THE
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee; ARBITRARY
DELIVERY OF
2. He has Detained a person for some legal DETENTION
DETAINED PERSONS
ground; and
The detention is legal The detention is
3. He Fails to deliver such person to the proper
at the outset but illegal at the very
judicial authorities within:
becomes arbitrary inception because of
when the detention the absence of lawful
a. 12 hours for crimes/offenses punishable
exceeds any of the cause for such arrest.
by light penalties or their equivalent;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
periods of time Person Arrested Without a Warrant who Opts

specified in Art. 125 to Avail his Right to Preliminary Investigation
without the person
detained having been Under the Revised Rules of Court, he should
charged before the waive in writing his rights under Art. 125 of the
proper judicial RPC. The waiver must be under oath and with the
authority. assistance of counsel.
Warrantless Arrest is Lawfully Effected When Rights of the Person Detained
1. In Flagrante Delicto – When, in his presence, 1. He shall be informed of the cause of his
the person to be arrested has committed, is detention; and
actually committing, or is attempting to 2. He shall be allowed, upon his request to
commit an offense. communicate and confer at any time with his
attorney or counsel.
2. Hot Pursuit – When an offense has in fact
been committed, and he has probable cause NOTE: The illegality of detention is not cured by
to believe based on personal knowledge of the filing of the information in court.
facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it. Length of Waiver
Probable cause refers to such facts and 1. Light offense – 5 days

circumstances which could lead a 2. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days
reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to
believe than an offense has been committed If the Person Arrested Does Not Want to
by the person sought to be arrested. Waive his Rights under Art. 125
Personal knowledge of facts means it must be The arresting officer will have to comply with Art.
based upon probable cause, which means an 125 and file the case immediately in court
actual belief or reasonable grounds of without preliminary investigation.
suspicion.
DELAYING RELEASE
3. Escaping Prisoner - When the person to be ART. 126, RPC
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place where he is Punishable Acts under Art. 126, RPC
serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has 1. Delaying the performance of judicial or
escaped while being transferred from one executive order for the release of a prisoner;
confinement to another. 2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of
such order to said prisoner; and
Duty of the Officer if the Judge is Not Available
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any
petition for the liberation of such person.
If a judge is not available, the arresting officer is
duty-bound to release a detained person, if the
Elements of Delaying Release (POD-SePP)
maximum hours for detention had already
expired. Failure to cause the release may result in
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
an offense under Art. 125 of the RPC. (Albor v.
Auguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, 26 June 2003)
2. There is a judicial or executive Order for the
release of the prisoner or detention prisoner,

or that there is a proceeding upon a petition b. Compels a person to change residence;

for the liberation of such person; and and
3. Offender is Not authorized to do so by law.
NOTE: The prisoners could be prisoners by
final judgment or detention prisoners. Essence of the Crime of Expulsion
3. Offender without good reason Delays: It is coercion, but it is specifically termed

a. Service of notice of such order to the expulsion when committed by a public officer.
prisoner; or
b. Performance of such judicial or Grave Coercion
executive order for the release of the
prisoner; or A private person who committed any of the
c. Proceedings upon a petition for the punishable acts under Art. 127 is responsible for
release of such person. the crime of grave coercion.
NOTE: Wardens and jailers are the public officers Expulsion

most likely to violate this article.
The crime of expulsion is committed if aliens are
EXPULSION deported without an order from the President or
ART. 127, RPC the Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation after due proceedings.
Punishable Acts under Art. 127, RPC
NOTE: Pursuant to Sec. 69 of the Revised
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; and Administrative Code, only the President of the
2. Compelling a person to change his residence. Philippines is vested with authority to deport
aliens.
This Article does NOT apply in cases of ejectment,
expropriation, or when the penalty imposed is The crime of expulsion is also committed when a
destierro. Filipino who, after voluntarily leaving the
country, is illegally refused re-entry by a public
Illustration: In Villavicencio v. Lukban, the mayor officer because he is considered a victim of being
of the City of Manila wanted to make the city free forced to change his address.
from prostitution. He ordered certain prostitutes
to be transferred to Davao, without observing Sec. 2: Violation of Domicile
due processes since they have not been charged
with any crime at all. It was held that the crime VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
committed was expulsion. ART. 128, RPC
Only the court by final judgment can order a

Punishable Acts under Art. 128, RPC (2002,
person to change his residence. This is illustrated
2009 BAR)
in ejectment proceedings, expropriation
proceedings, and in the penalty of destierro.
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the
(Reyes, 2012)
owner thereof;
Elements of Expulsion (P-ExCo-N)

2. Searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of such
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee; owner; and
2. He either:
a. Expels any person from the Philippines
3. Refusing to leave the premises after having

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and Applicability of Provisions under Art. 128 if
after having been required to leave the same. the Occupant of the Premises is NOT the
Owner
NOTE: What is punished is the refusal to leave,
the entry having been made surreptitiously. It would be sufficient if the inhabitant is in the
dwelling, although he is not the property owner.
“Against the will of the owner”
Art. 128, when NOT applicable
It presupposes opposition or prohibition by the
owner, whether express or implied, and not If a public officer, not armed with a search
merely the absence of consent. warrant or a warrant of arrest, searches a person
outside his dwelling, the crime committed is
NOTE: When one voluntarily admits to a search grave coercion, if violence and intimidation are
or consents to have it made upon his person or used (Art. 286); or unjust vexation, if there is no
premises, he is precluded from later complaining violence or intimidation. (Art. 287)
thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable
searches may, like every right, be waived and Qualifying Circumstances under Art. 128
such waiver may be either expressly or impliedly.
1. If committed at nighttime; and
Elements of Violation of Domicile (PuNo- 2. If any papers or effects not constituting
EnSeRef) evidence of a crime are not returned
immediately after the search is made by the
1. Offender is Public officer or employee; offender.
2. He is Not authorized by judicial order to SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY

enter the dwelling and/or to make a search OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE
for papers and for other effects; and OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
ART. 129, RPC
3. He either:
a. Enters any dwelling against the will of Punishable Acts under Art. 129, RPC
the owner thereof;
b. Searches papers or other effects found 1. Procuring a search warrant without just
therein without the previous consent cause;
of such owner; and
c. Refuses to leave the premises after Elements:
having surreptitiously entered said a. That the offender is a public officer or
dwelling and after having been employee;
required to leave the same. b. That he procures a search warrant; and
c. That there is no just cause.
Trespass to Dwelling
2. Exceeding his authority or by using
The crime committed is trespass to dwelling unnecessary severity in executing a search
when the punishable acts under Art. 128 are warrant legally procured.
committed by a private person.
Elements:
a. That the offender is a public officer or
employee;
b. That he has legally procured a search
warrant; and

c. That he exceeds his authority or uses connection with the offense are in place sought to
unnecessary severity in executing the be searched.
same.
Test for Lack of Just Cause
Search Warrant
Whether the affidavit filed in support of the
An order in writing, issued in the name of the application for a search warrant has been drawn
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and in such a manner that perjury could be charged
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to thereon and the affiant could be held liable for
search for personal property described therein damages caused. (Alvarez v. Court, et al., G.R. No.
and bring it before the court. 45358, 29 Jan. 1937)
Personal Property to be Seized Consequence of Evidence Obtained using a

Search Warrant that was Issued Without Just
1. Subject of the offense; Cause
2. Stolen or embezzled and the other proceeds
or fruits of the offense; or When papers and effects are obtained during
3. Used or intended to be used as the means of unreasonable searches and seizures, or under a
committing an offense. (Sec. 3, Rule 126, search warrant issued without probable cause, or
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; Reyes, in violation of the privacy of communications and
2017) correspondence, the papers or effects obtained
are not admissible for any purpose in any
Requisite for the Issuance of Search Warrant proceeding. (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific Effect if the Search Warrant is Secured
offense to be determined personally by the judge through a False Affidavit
after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may The crimes committed are separate crimes of
produce, and particularly describing the place to perjury and violation of Art. 128. The liability of
be searched and the things to be seized which the offender under Art. 129 shall be in addition to
may be anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 4, Rule his liability for the commission of any other
126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) offense.
NOTE: A search warrant shall be valid for ten SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES
(10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be ART. 130
void.
Elements of Searching Domicile Without
Search Warrant Illegally Obtained Witnesses (P-A-S-O)
Search warrant is considered illegally obtained 1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;

when it was procured without a probable cause. 2. He is Armed with search warrant legally
procured;
Probable Cause 3. He Searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person; and
It is defined as such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and NOTE: The papers or other belongings must
prudent man to believe that an offense has been be in the dwelling of the owner at the time
committed and that the object sought in the search is made.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
4. Owner or any member of his family, or two A: NO, because the public officers are required to
witnesses residing in the same locality are follow the search warrant by its letter. They have
not present. no discretion on the matter. Their remedy is to
ask the judge to change the address indicated in
NOTE: Art. 130 does not apply to searches of the search warrant.
vehicles or other means of transportation,
because the searches are not made in the Sec. 3: Prohibition, Interruption, and
dwelling. Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
This article does not apply to searches of vehicles

PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND
and other means of transportation. (Reyes, 2008)
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
ART. 131, RPC
The Witnesses During the Search should be in
the following Order:
Punishable Acts under Art. 131, RPC
1. Homeowner;
2. Members of the family of sufficient age and 1. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal
discretion; and ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
3. Responsible members of the community. by dissolving the same;
Unlike in Art.128 where the public officer is not 2. Hindering any person from joining any lawful
armed with a warrant, in crimes under Art. 129 association or from attending any of its
and 130, the search is made by virtue of a valid meetings; and
warrant, but the warrant notwithstanding, the
liability for the crime is still incurred through the 3. Prohibiting or hindering any person from
following situations: addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for
1. The search warrant was irregularly obtained; correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
2. The officer exceeded his authority under the
warrant; Elements of Prohibition, Interruption, and
3. The public officer employs unnecessary or Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
excessive severity in the implementation of
the search warrant; or In all three cases, the following elements must
4. The owner of dwelling or any member of the concur:
family was absent, or two witnesses residing
within the same locality were not present 1. Offender is a public officer; and
during the search. 2. He performs any of the acts mentioned
above.
Q: Suppose, X, a suspected pusher lives in a
condominium unit. Agents of the PDEA Necessity that the Offender be a Stranger to
obtained a search warrant but the name of the the Meeting that has been Interrupted and
person in the search warrant did not tally Dissolved
with the address indicated therein.
To be held liable under Art. 131, it is necessary
Eventually, X was found but at a different that the offender be a stranger to the meeting that
address. X resisted but the agents insisted on has been interrupted and dissolved. If the
the search. Drugs were found and seized and offender is a participant of the meeting, he is
X was prosecuted and convicted by the trial liable for unjust vexation.
court. Is the search valid?

Only a Public Officer or Employee can Commit Sec. 4: Crimes against Religious Worship
this Crime
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

If the offender is a private individual, the crime is
ART. 132, RPC
disturbance of public order defined in Art. 153.
Requiring a Permit Before any Meeting or Elements of Interruption of Religious

Assembly Cannot be Construed as Preventing Worship (PuRe-PD)
Peaceful Assemblies
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
The permit requirement shall be in exercise only 2. Religious ceremonies, or manifestations of
of the government’s regulatory powers and not any religious ceremonies are about to take
really to prevent peaceful assemblies. This place or are going on; and
requirement is legal as long as it is not being 3. Offender Prevents or Disturbs the same.
exercised as a prohibitory power.
NOTE: If the offender is a private individual, he
NOTE: But if such application for permit is may be liable under Art. 133.
arbitrarily denied or conditions that defeat the
exercise of the right to peaceably assemble is Religious worship includes people in the act of
dictated by the officer, this article applies. performing religious rites for religious ceremony
or manifestation of religion. If the prohibition or
Prohibition, Interruption, or Dissolution of disturbance is committed only in a meeting or
Peaceful Meetings vs. Tumults and other rally of a sect, it would be punishable under Art.
Disturbances 131.
PROHIBITION, Qualifying Circumstances of the Crime

TUMULTS AND
INTERRUPTION, OR
OTHER If the crime is committed with violence or threats.
DISSOLUTION OF
DISTURBANCES
PEACEFUL MEETINGS
(ART. 153) Rationale for Punishing the Interruption of
(ART. 131)
Religious Worship
The public officer is not
a participant. As far as The public officer is
Persons who meet for the purpose of religious
the gathering is a participant of the
worship, by any method which is not indecent
concerned, the public assembly
and unlawful, have a right to do so without being
officer is a third party
molested or disturbed. (U.S. v. Balcorta, G.R. No.
The offender could
8722, 10 Sept. 1913)
be a private person,
The offender must be a
whether a
public officer OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
participant of the
assembly or not ART. 133, RPC
Elements of Offending the Religious Feelings

(A-P-Du-N)
1. The offender is Any person;
2. The acts complained of were performed:

a. In a Place devoted to religious worship;
or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
b. During the celebration of any religious An act is said to be notoriously offensive to the
ceremony religious feelings of the faithful when a person
ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a
3. Acts must be Notoriously offensive to the religious dogma; works or scoffs at anything
feelings of the faithful. devoted to religious ceremonies; plays with or
damages or destroys any object of veneration by
NOTE: It is not necessary that there is religious the faithful.
worship.
The mere act of causing the passage through the
NOTE: Art. 133 is the only crime against the churchyard belonging to the Church, of the
fundamental law of the State that may be funeral of one who in life belonged to the Church
committed not only by public officer but also by a of Christ, neither offends nor ridicules the
private person. religious feelings of those who belong to the
Roman Catholic Church. (People v. Baes, supra)
Religious Ceremonies
Q: While a “pabasa” was going on at a
Those religious acts performed outside of a municipality in the Province of Tarlac, Reyes
church, such as processions and special prayers and his company arrived at the place, carrying
for burying dead persons. (Reyes, 2012) bolos and crowbars, and started to construct
a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel.
Act considered Notoriously Offensive
The chairman of the committee in charge of
An act is considered notoriously offensive when the “pabasa” persuaded them to refrain from
the act is directed against religious practice or said acts. A verbal altercation then ensued.
dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, such The people attending the “pabasa” left the
as mocking, scoffing at, or attempting to damage place hurriedly in confusion and the “pabasa”
an object of religious veneration. (People v. Baes, was discontinued until after investigation.
G.R. No. 46000, 25 May 1939) Reyes and his company, in their defense claim
that the land where the chapel is built belongs
NOTE: There must be a deliberate intent to hurt to the Clemente family, of which they are
the feelings of the faithful. Mere arrogance or partisans. Are the accused guilty of the crime
rudeness is not enough. under Art. 133?
Q: Baes, while holding the funeral of A: NO. The SC held that Art. 133 of the RPC
Macabigtas, in accordance with the rites of a punishes acts “notoriously offensive to the
religious sect known as “Church of Christ,” feelings of the faithful.” The construction of a
caused the funeral to pass through the fence even though irritating and vexatious under
churchyard belonging to the Roman Catholic the circumstances to those present, is not such an
Church. The parish priest filed a complaint act as can be designated as “notoriously offensive
against Baes for the violation of Art. 133. Is to the faithful.”
Baes liable?
In this case, the accused were acquitted of a
A: NO. The SC held that the act imputed to the violation of Art. 133 of the RPC but they were
accused does not constitute the offense found guilty of a violation of Art. 287 of the RPC
complained of. At most, they might be chargeable for the circumstances showed that their acts
with having threatened the parish priest or with were done in such a way as to vex and annoy the
having passed through private property without parties who had gathered to celebrate the
the consent of the owner. “pabasa.” (People v. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-40577,
23 Aug. 1934)

Q: In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced must be directed against religious practice,
the many extrajudicial killings committed by dogma, or ritual for the purpose of ridicule as
the men in uniform. Policeman Stone, then mocking or scoffing at or attempting to
attending the mass, was peeved by the damage an object of religious veneration.
denunciations of Fr. Chris. He immediately (People v. Baes, G.R. No. 46000, May 25, 1939)
approached the priest during the homily, Policeman Stone threatened the priest
openly displayed his firearm tucked in his because the priest’s statements during his
waist, and menacingly uttered at the priest: homily and not to mock or ridicule the
Father, may kalalagyan kayo kung hindi kayo ceremony; consequently, Policeman Stone
tumigil. His brazenness terrified the priest, may not be charged with the crime of
who cut short his homily then and there. The offending religious feelings.
celebration of the mass was disrupted, and
the congregation left the church in disgust
over the actuations of Policeman Stone, a co-
parishioner.
Policeman Stone was subsequently charged.

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now
about to resolve the case, and is mulling on
what to charge Policeman Stone with. May
Policeman Stone be properly charged with
either or both of the following crimes, or, if
not, with what proper crime?
a. Interruption of religious worship as

defined and punished under Art. 132 of
the Revised Penal Code; and/or
b. Offending the religious feelings as defined

and punished under Art. 133 of the
Revised Penal Code. (2017 BAR)
A:
a. YES. Policeman Stone may be charged with
interruption of religious worship. Under the
RPC, a public officer or employee who shall
prevent or disturb the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion shall be liable
for interruption of religious worship. Hence,
Policeman Stone, a public officer, approached
the priest, displayed his firearm, and
threatened the priest, which caused the
disruption of the mass and the leaving of the
congregation. Policeman Stone, therefore,
may be charged of interruption of religious
worship.
b. NO. Policeman Stone may not be charged

with the crime of offending religious feelings.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the acts

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
overthrowing the Government. It is generally

C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER carried out by civilians.
ARTS. 134-160, RPC, TITLE III
If there is no public uprising, the crime is direct
assault.
Political Crimes
NOTE: Actual clash of arms with the forces of the
Government is not necessary to convict the
Those that are directly aimed against the political
accused who is in conspiracy with others actually
order, as well as such common crimes as may be
taking arms against the Government.
committed to achieve a political purpose. The
decisive factor is the intent or motive.
Rebellion vs. Insurrection
CHAPTER 1: REBELLION, COUP D’ETAT,

REBELLION INSURRECTION
SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
It merely seeks to effect
Object of the
some change of minor
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION movement is to
importance, or to
ART. 134, RPC completely
prevent the exercise of
overthrow and
governmental
Nature of the Crime of Rebellion supersede the
authority with respect
existing
to particular matters or
Rebellion is a crime of the masses. It requires a government.
subjects.
multitude of people. It is a vast movement of men
and a complex network of intrigues and plots.
Rebellion Cannot be Complexed with
Common Crimes
Elements of Rebellion (PT-PuReDe)
Being within the purview of “engaging in war”
1. That there be:
and “committing serious violence,” said resort to
a. Public uprising; and
arms, with the resulting impairment or
b. Taking of arms against the Government.
destruction of life and property, constitutes not
two or more offense, but only one crime that of
2. Purpose of uprising or movement is either to:
rebellion plain and simple. (People v. Hernandez
a. Remove from the allegiance to said
et al., G.R. No. L-6025-26, 18 July 1956)
Government or its laws:
i. The territory of the Philippines or
NOTE: Killing, robbing, etc. for private purposes
any part thereof; or
or profit without any political motivation, would
ii. Any body of land, naval or other
be separately punished and would not be
armed forces;
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. (People v.
Geronimo et al., G.R. No. L-8936, 23 Oct. 1956)
b. Deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
wholly or partially, any of their powers
Q: Is the ruling in Hernandez applicable even
or prerogatives
if the common crime committed is punishable
by a special law?
Essence of the Crime of Rebellion
A: YES. All crimes, whether punishable under a
The essence of rebellion is public uprising and the
special or general law, which are mere
taking of arms for the purpose of overthrowing
components or ingredients, or committed in
the Government by force although it is not
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the
necessary that the rebels succeed in
crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and

charged as separate crimes themselves. (Ponce sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New
Enrile v. Amin, G.R. No. 93335, 13 Sept. 1990) People's Army with the objective of overthrowing
the duly constituted government. It is therefore
Q: As a result of the killing of SPO3 Jesus not hard to comprehend that the killing of
Lucilo, Elias Lovedioro was charged with and Manatad was committed as a means to or in
subsequently found guilty of the crime of furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA.
murder. On appeal, Lovedioro claims that he
should have been charged with the crime of Consequently, appellant is liable for the crime of
rebellion, not murder as, being a member of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a
the NPA, he killed Lucilo as a means to or in person in authority, as the former crime absorbs
furtherance of subversive ends. the crime of direct assault when done in
furtherance thereof. (People v. Dasig, et. al., G.R.
The Solicitor General, opposing appellant’s No. 100231, 28 Apr. 1993)
claim, avers that it is only when the defense
had conclusively proven that the motive or Q: On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while
intent for the killing of the policeman was for Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his
"political and subversive ends" will the car traveling along the National Highway of
judgment of rebellion be proper. Between the Laguna. Joselito and Vicente shot him on the
appellant and the Solicitor General, who is head resulting in his instant death. At that
correct? time, Joselito and Vicente were members of
the liquidation squad of the New People’s
A: The Solicitor General is correct. It is not Army and they killed the governor upon
enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly orders of their senior officer Commander
proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential Tiago.
components of the crime. With either of these
elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally According to Joselito and Vicente, they were
does not exist. If no political motive is established ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his
and proved, the accused should be convicted of corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor,
the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases what crime will you charge Joselito and
of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere Vicente? (1998 BAR)
membership in an organization dedicated to the
furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of A: If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito
itself, suffice. (People v. Lovedioro, G.R. No. and Vicente with the crime of rebellion,
112235, 29 Nov. 1995) considering that they were members of the
liquidation squad of the New People's Army and
Q: For the killing of Redempto Manatad, a the killing was upon orders of their commander;
policeman and who was then in the hence, politically-motivated. (People v. Avila, G.R.
performance of his official duties, accused No. 84612, 11 Mar. 1992)
Rodrigo Dasig, a self-confessed member of the
sparrow unit, the liquidation squad of the Rebellion vs. Treason
NPA, was found guilty of murder with direct
assault. On appeal, he claims that he should be REBELLION TREASON
convicted at most of simple rebellion and not The uprising is The levying of war is
murder with direct assault. Is the appeal against the done to aid the
meritorious? government. enemy.
The purpose is to The purpose is to
A: YES. Since the killing of Manatad is a mere substitute the deliver the
component of rebellion or was done in existing government government to the
furtherance thereof. It is of judicial notice that the with another. enemy.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in Application of the Theory of Absorption of
cases of rebellion. There must be an actual Crimes
participation. Hence, mere silence or omission of
the public officer is not punishable in rebellion. Firstly, the doctrine of 'absorption of crimes' is
peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to
Theory of Absorption in Rebellion (“Political crimes punished by the same statute. Secondly,
Offense Doctrine”) the doctrine applies only if the trial court has
jurisdiction over both offenses. (Gonzales v. Abaya,
If common crimes like homicide, murder, G.R. No. 164007, 10 Aug. 2006)
physical injuries, and arson have been committed
in furtherance of or in connection with rebellion, Rebellion vs. Terrorism (2019 BAR)
then it is considered as absorbed in the crime of
rebellion. But before these common crimes can Rebellion is a crime punishable under the RPC. On
be absorbed, it is necessary that there is evidence the other hand, under the Human Security Act of
to show that these common crimes have 2007, specifically on terrorism, the crime of
promoted or espoused the ideals of rebels. rebellion is included in the list of predicate
Absent any of these, it cannot be absorbed in the crimes. In essence, rebellion becomes an element
crime of rebellion. of the crime of terrorism.
Political Offense Doctrine Asserted as Defense However, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (R.A.
No. 11479), which took effect on 18 July 2020,
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by repealed the Human Security Act. Nevertheless,
being absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus, all judicial decisions and orders issued, as well as
when a killing is committed in furtherance of pending actions relative to the implementation of
rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder. Human Security Act of 2007 prior to its repeal
Rather, the killing assumes the political shall remain valid and effective. (Sec. 57, R.A. No.
complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient 11479)
and must be prosecuted and punished as
rebellion alone. NOTE: The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is NOT
included in the 2022 Bar Syllabus in Criminal Law.
However, this is not to say that public
prosecutors are obliged to consistently charge COUP D’ETAT
respondents with simple rebellion instead of ART. 134-A, RPC
common crimes. No one disputes the well–
entrenched principle in criminal procedure that Elements of Coup D’etat (Mi-S-Pur-D)
the institution of criminal charges, including
whom and what to charge, is addressed to the 1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to
sound discretion of the public prosecutor. the Military or police or holding any public
office or employment;
But when the political offense doctrine is
asserted as a defense in the trial court, it becomes 2. There be a Swift attack accompanied by
crucial for the court to determine whether the act violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
of killing was done in furtherance of a political stealth;
end, and for the political motive of the act to be
conclusively demonstrated. (Ocampo v. Abando, 3. The Purpose of the attack is to seize or
G.R. No. 176830, 11 Feb. 2014) diminish State power; and
4. The attack is Directed against duly

constituted authorities of the Republic of the

Philippines, or any military camp or continued possession and exercise of

installation, communication networks, governmental powers, and their purpose is to
public utilities or other facilities needed for seize power by taking over such installations.
the exercise and continued possession of
power. (2013 BAR) Coup d’etat vs. Rebellion (1991, 1998, 2002,
2004 BAR)
Q: How is the crime of coup d’etat committed?
(1991, 2012 BAR) COUP D’ETAT REBELLION
As to Essence of the Crime
A: When a person holding public employment Swift attack against
undertakes a swift attack, accompanied by the government, its
strategy or stealth, directed against public military camp or
utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise installations, Public uprising and
and continued possession of power for the communication taking up arms
purpose of diminishing state power. network and public against the
facilities and utilities government
Essence of the Crime of Coup D’etat essential to the
continued exercise of
The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the
governmental powers
facilities of the Philippine government, military
As to Purpose
camps and installations, communication
Merely to paralyze the To overthrow the
networks, public utilities and facilities essential
existing government. existing government.
to the continued possession of governmental
As to its Commission
powers.
May be carried out Requires a public
Objective of Coup D’etat singly or uprising, or
simultaneously multitude of people
The objective of coup d’etat is to destabilize or As to Persons Liable
paralyze the government through the seizure of Principal offenders
facilities and utilities essential to the continued must be members of
Offenders need not
possession and exercise of governmental powers. the military, national
be uniformed
police or public
personnel of the
Principal Offenders of Coup D’etat officer, with or
military or the police.
without civilian
Members of the AFP or of the PNP organization or support.
a public officer with or without civilian support.
PENALTY FOR REBELLION OR
Q: If a group of persons belonging to the INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT
armed forces makes a swift attack, ART. 135, RPC
accompanied by violence, intimidation and
threat against a vital military installation for Persons Liable for Rebellion, Insurrection or
the purpose of seizing power and taking over Coup D’etat
such installation, what crime or crimes are
they guilty of? (2002 BAR) 1. Leader
a. Any person who promotes, maintains,
A: The perpetrators, being persons belonging to or heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the crime of
coup d’etat, under Art. 134-A of the RPC, as b. Any person who leads, directs, or
amended, because their attack was against vital commands others to undertake coup
military installations which are essential to the d’etat.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
2. Participants Conspiracy to Commit Coup D’etat

a. Any person who participates or
executes the commands of others in There is conspiracy to commit coup d’etat when
rebellion, or insurrection; two or more persons belonging to the military or
police or holding any public office or employment
b. Any person in the government service come to an agreement to seize or diminish State
who participates, or executes directions power through a swift attack accompanied by
or commands of others in undertaking a violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth
coup d’etat; or against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp
c. Any person not in the government or installation, communication networks, public
service who participates, supports, utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise
finances, abets, or aids in undertaking a and continued possession of power and decide to
coup d’etat. commit it.
Pursuant to Secs. 28 and 29 of R.A. No. 10591, the Proposal to Commit Coup D’etat
unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and
ammunition, and use of loose firearm, in When the person belonging to the military or
furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection police or holding any public office or employment
with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or has decided to seize or diminish State power
attempted coup d’état, shall be absorbed as through a swift attack accompanied by violence,
element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against
or attempted coup d’état. duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
Q: If the attack is quelled but the leader is communication networks, public utilities or
unknown, who shall be deemed the leader other facilities needed for the exercise and
thereof? (2002 BAR) continued possession of power proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
A: The leader being unknown, any person who in
fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion
receipts and other documents issued in their
name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the When two or more persons come to an
rebels shall be deemed the leader of such agreement to rise publicly and take arms against
rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. the government for any of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it.
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
COUP D’ETAT, REBELLION, Proposal to Commit Rebellion
OR INSURRECTION
ART. 136, RPC When the person who has decided to rise publicly
and take arms against the government for any of
Crimes Punished under Art. 136, RPC the purposes of rebellion proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.
1. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat;
2. Proposal to commit coup d’etat; Q: On account of the testimony of the
3. Conspiracy to commit rebellion or prosecution’s witness, the accused, together
insurrection; and with some more or less forty persons who
4. Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. were said to be conspiring to overthrow the
Government, was heard to have said, "What a
life this is, so full of misery, constantly

increasing. When will our wretchedness end? criminal liability? (1994 BAR)
When will the authorities remedy it? What
shall we do?" Is there a conspiracy? A: NO, Father Abraham did not commit a crime.
His failure to report such conspiracy is due to an
A: NONE. The prosecution failed to establish the insuperable cause, one of the exempting
existence of conspiracy to rebel by showing that circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC. Under
there is (1) an agreement and (2) decision to our law, a priest cannot be compelled to disclose
commit rebellion. Mere words of discontent, any information received by him by reason of
although they reveal dissatisfaction on account of confession made to him under his professional
the evils, real or fictitious, to which they refer, are capacity.
not alone sufficient to prove the existence of a
conspiracy to rebel, much less with the aid of NOTE: In the case of U.S. v. Vergara, the Supreme
force, against the constituted Government. (U.S. v. Court held that persons who may be held
Figueras, et. al., G.R. No. 1282, 10 Sept. 1903) criminally liable under this Article are those who
actually conspired with each other, not those who
Q: Accused is the founder and leader of the learned and failed to report the same to the
Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO). The authorities.
theory of the prosecution is that the accused
has conspired with the Communist Party of DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
the Philippines by giving monetary aid, OR EMPLOYEES
among others, to help the Huks. ART. 137, RPC
Further, he gave speeches advocating the Punishable Acts of Disloyalty (F-C-A)

principles of Communism and urging his
audience to join the uprising of laboring 1. Failing to resist a rebellion by all the means
classes against America and the Quirino in their power;
administration. Is the accused guilty of 2. Continuing to discharge the duties of their
conspiracy to commit rebellion? offices under the control of the rebels; and
3. Accepting appointment to office under them.
A: NO. There was no evidence showing that those
who heard his speeches agreed to rise up in arms The crime presupposes the existence of rebellion,
to overthrow the government. Accused was but the offender under this article must NOT be
merely a propagandist and indoctrinator of in conspiracy with the rebels; otherwise, he will
Communism. He was not a Communist conspiring be guilty of rebellion and not merely disloyalty,
to commit the actual rebellion by the mere fact of because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
his leadership of the CLO. (People v. Hernandez, all.
G.R. No. L-6025, 30 May 1964)
Q: Can the public officer plead Art. 11 or 12 of
Q: VC, JG, and GG conspired to overthrow the the RPC?
Philippine Government. VG was recognized as
the titular head of the conspiracy. Several A: YES, i.e., insuperable cause. Disloyalty is an
meetings were held and the plan was offense by omission.
finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience,
confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG
and GG have conspired to overthrow the
government. Father Abraham did not report
this information to the proper authorities.
Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so,
what crime was committed? What is his

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION inducement in the crime of rebellion, provided

ART. 138, RPC that the requisites of Art. 17(2) of the RPC are
present.
Elements of Inciting to Rebellion or
Insurrection (D-I-M) SEDITION
ART. 139, RPC
1. Offender Does not take arms or is not in open
hostility against the Government; Elements of Sedition (REP-PAIDE)
2. He Incites others to rise publicly and take 1. Offenders Rise (1) publicly and (2)
arms against the Government for any of the tumultuously;
purposes of the rebellion; and
2. They Employ force, intimidation, or other
3. The inciting is done by Means of speeches, means outside of legal methods; and
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners
or other representations tending to the same 3. The offenders employ any of those means to
end. attain any of the following objects or
Purposes:
NOTE: The act of inciting must have been
intentionally calculated to induce others to a. Prevent the Promulgation or execution
commit rebellion. of any law or the holding of any popular
election;
Inciting to Rebellion vs. Proposal to Commit
Rebellion b. Prevent the National Government, or any
provincial or municipal government, or
PROPOSAL TO any public officer thereof from freely
INCITING TO
COMMIT Exercising its or his functions, or prevent
REBELLION
REBELLION the execution of any administrative
It is not required that order;
The person who
the offender has
proposes has decided
decided to commit c. Inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
to commit rebellion
rebellion the person or property of any public
The person who officer or employee;
The act of inciting is proposes the
done publicly execution of the crime d. Commit for any political or social end
uses secret means any Act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class; and
NOTE: In both proposal and inciting to commit
rebellion, the crime of rebellion should not be e. Despoil, for any political or social end,
actually committed by the persons to whom it is any person, municipality or province, or
proposed or who are incited. the National Government of all its
property or any part thereof.
Q: If the offender did commit the crime of
rebellion after proposal to commit the same NOTE: Participants must at least be four (4) in
or inciting others, what crime is committed? numbers.
A: If they commit the crime of rebellion because Nature of Sedition

of the proposal or the inciting, the proponent or
the one inciting becomes a principal by It is a violation of the public peace or at least such

a course of measures as evidently engenders it, A: NO. There was no sedition because there was
yet it does not aim at direct and open violence no public and tumultuous uprising. While it is
against the laws, or the subversion of the true that the council acceded to the demands of
Constitution. It is an offense not directed the assembly through fear and under the
primarily against individuals but to the general influence of the threatening attitude of the crowd,
public peace; it is the raising of commotions or it is rather expected that more or less disorder
disturbances in the State, a revolt against will mark the public assembly of the people to
legitimate authority. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L- protest against grievances. The prosecution
21049, 22 Dec. 1923) should not be permitted to seize upon every
instance of disorderly conduct by individual
Main Objective members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize
the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising
The ultimate object of sedition is a violation of the against the authorities.
public peace or at least such a course of measures
as evidently engenders it. Utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing
the line between disorderly and seditious
Sedition does NOT Contemplate Rising Up in conduct and between an essentially peaceable
Arms Against Government assembly and a tumultuous uprising. (U.S. v.
Apurado, et. al., G.R. No. 1210, 07 Feb. 1907)
The purpose of the offenders in rising publicly is
merely to create commotion and disturbance by Q: Appellant, with about twenty armed men
way of protest to express their dissent and and Huk Commander Torio, raided and
disobedience to the government or to the attacked the house of Punzalan, his political
authorities concerned. adversary and incumbent Mayor of Tiaong,
Quezon, with automatic weapons, hand
NOTE: The objective of sedition is not always grenades, and bottles filled with gasoline.
against the government, its property, or officer. It
could be against a private person or social class. The raid resulted not only in the destruction
of Punzalan’s house and that of others but also
“Tumultuous” in the death and injuries to several civilians.
The CFI found the appellant guilty of the
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed complex crime of rebellion with multiple
to be tumultuous if caused by more than three murder, among others. Was the lower court
persons who are armed or provided with means correct?
of violence. (Art. 153, RPC)
A: NO. The accused is guilty of sedition, multiple
Q: Upon the opening of the session of the murder, and physical injuries, among others. The
municipal council of San Carlos, Occidental purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in
Negros, a large number of the town residents rising publicly and taking up arms was not
assembled near the municipal building to exactly against the Government and for the
demand the dismissal from office of the purpose of doing the things defined in Art. 134 of
municipal treasurer, the secretary and chief the RPC on rebellion. The raiders did not even
of police. The persons who took part therein attack the Presidencia, the seat of local
were wholly unarmed while a few carried Government. Rather, the object was to attain by
canes. The crowd was orderly and well means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to
behaved. The council acceded to their wishes. wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the
They were charged with sedition. Will the person or property of a public official, namely,
case prosper? Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. Under Art.
139 of the same Code this was sufficient to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
constitute sedition. (People v. Umali, et. al., G.R. Crime Committed if there is No Public
No. L-5803, 29 Nov. 1954) Uprising
Sedition vs. Rebellion If the purpose of the offenders is to attain the

objects of sedition by force or violence, but there
SEDITION REBELLION is no public uprising, the crime committed is
As to its Commission direct assault.
It is sufficient that There must be taking
public uprising be up of arms against the PENALTY FOR SEDITION
tumultuous. government. ART. 140, RPC
As to Purpose
May be political or Persons Liable for Sedition with the
social, that is, merely Corresponding Penalties
Always political, that
to go against the
is, to overthrow the
established 1. Leader – prision mayor in its minimum
government.
government not to period, fine not exceeding Php10,000.
overthrow it.
As to Absorption of other Crimes 2. Other persons participating in the
Crimes associated Offenses committed sedition – prision correccional in its
with sedition can be pursuant to rebellion maximum period, fine not exceeding
prosecuted. are absorbed. Php5,000.
NOTE: What distinguishes sedition from CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION

rebellion is not the extent of the territory covered ART. 141, RPC
by the uprising but rather the object at which the
uprising aims. Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
Sedition vs. Treason When two (2) or more persons come to an

agreement to rise publicly and tumultuously to
SEDITION TREASON attain any of the objects specified under Art. 139,
Treason is a violation and they decide to commit it.
Sedition is the
by a subject of his
raising of
allegiance to his NOTE: There is no crime of proposal to commit
commotions or
sovereign or the sedition; only conspiracy is punished and not
disturbances in the
supreme authority of proposal to commit sedition.
State.
the State.
INCITING TO SEDITION
Sedition vs. Crime of Tumults and Other ART. 142, RPC
Disturbance of Public Order
Acts of Inciting to Sedition (2007 BAR)
TUMULTS AND (S-U-W)
OTHER
SEDITION
DISTURBANCE OF 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
PUBLIC ORDER of the acts which constitute sedition by
Sedition involves means of Speeches, proclamations, writings,
disturbance of public There is no public emblems, etc.;
order resulting from uprising.
tumultuous uprising. 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
tend to disturb the public peace; and

3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous Q: The accused was heard to have shouted a
libels against the Government or any of the number of times: "The Filipinos, like myself,
duly constituted authorities thereof, which must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head
tend to disturb the public peace. for having recommended a bad thing for the
Filipinos, for he has killed our
In inciting to sedition, the offender must not take independence." What crime did the accused
part in any public or tumultuous uprising. commit?
Elements of Inciting to Sedition: (D-I-M) A: The accused uttered seditious words, a

violation of Art. 142 of the RPC. While criticism,
1. Offender Does not take direct part in the no matter how severe, must be permitted, one
crime of sedition; that has for its intent and effect is seditious must
not be tolerated. A statement is seditious when it
2. He Incites others to the accomplishment of is tending to stir up the people against the lawful
any acts which constitute sedition; and authorities, one that will disturb the peace of the
community and the safety or order of the
3. The inciting is done by Means of speeches, Government, instigate others to cabal or meet
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, together for unlawful purposes, or suggests and
banners, or other representations tending to incites rebellious conspiracies. All its various
the same end. tendencies can be ascribed to the statement of the
accused. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L-21049, 22 Dec.
Uttering Seditious Words/Speeches and
1923)
Writing, Publishing, or Circulating Scurrilous
Libels
Q: After having his picture taken as one
lifeless Alberto Reveniera, hanging by the end
They are punishable when they: (D-I-S-L)
of a rope tied to a limb of a tree, accused Oscar
Espuelas sent a suicide note to several
1. Tend to Disturb or obstruct any lawful officer
newspapers and weeklies, which contain: “If
in executing the functions of his office;
someone asks to you why I committed suicide,
tell them I did it because I was not pleased
2. Tend to Instigate others to cabal and meet
with the administration of Roxas; the
together for unlawful purposes;
government is infested with many Hitlers and
Mussolinis; teach our children to burn
3. Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or
pictures of Roxas.” What crime did the
riots; and
accused commit?
4. Lead or tend to stir up the whole people

A: The letter is a scurrilous libel against the
against the lawful authorities or to disturb
Government. Writings which tend to overthrow
the peace of the community, the safety and or undermine the security of the government or
order of the Government.
to weaken the confidence of the people in the
government are against the public peace and are
NOTE: “Scurrilous” means low, vulgar, mean, or criminal not only because they tend to incite a
foul.
breach of the peace but because they are
conducive to the destruction of the very
NOTE: In order to be seditious, it is not necessary
government itself. Such are regarded as seditious
that the words used should in fact result in a
libels. (Espuelas v. People, G.R. No. L-2990, 17 Dec.
rising of the people against the constituted 1951)
authorities. The law is not aimed merely at actual
disturbance, as its purpose is also to punish
utterances which may endanger public order.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Rules Relative to Seditious Words CHAPTER 2: CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR

REPRESENTATION
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule – words
must be of such nature that by uttering them
Sec. 1: Crimes against Legislative Bodies
there is a danger of public uprising and that
and Similar Bodies
such danger should be both clear and
imminent
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE
2. Dangerous Tendency Rule – if words used MEETING OF THE NATIONAL
tend to create a danger of public uprising, ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES
then those words could properly be subject ART. 143, RPC
of penal clause
Elements of Art. 143, RPC (M-P)
It is the dangerous tendency rule that is generally
adopted in the Philippines with respect to 1. That there be a projected or actual Meeting of
sedition cases. It is enough that the words used the National Assembly (Congress of the
may tend to create danger of public uprising. Philippines) or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional committees
Instances of Inciting to Sedition or divisions thereof, or any of the provincial
board or city or municipal council or board;
1. Meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred and
against the government; or
2. Offender, who may be any person, Prevents
2. Lambasting government officials to discredit such meeting by force or fraud.
the government.
The crime is against popular representation
If the objective of the abovementioned acts is to because it is directed against officers whose
overthrow the government, the crime would be public function is to enact laws. When these
inciting to rebellion. legislative bodies are prevented from performing
their duties, the system is disturbed.
Reasons why Seditious Utterances are
Prohibited NOTE: The chief of police and mayor who
prevented the meeting of the municipal council
The legislature has the authority to forbid the are liable under Art. 143, when the defect of the
advocacy of a doctrine designed and intended to meeting is not manifest and requires an
overthrow the Government without waiting until investigation before its existence can be
there is a present and immediate danger of the determined.
success of the plan advocated. If the State was
compelled to wait until the apprehended danger DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
became certain, then its right to protect itself ART. 144, RPC
would come into being simultaneously with the
overthrow of the Government, when there would Elements of Disturbance of Proceedings
be neither prosecuting officers nor courts for the (M-D-B)
enforcement of the law. (Gitlow v. New York, 268
U.S. 652) 1. That there be a Meeting of the National
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or
any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or

divisions thereof, or of any provincial board a. Attending the meetings of the Assembly
or city or municipal council or board; and or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional
2. Offender does any of the following acts: commissions or committees or divisions
a. Disturbs any of such meetings; or thereof; or
b. Behaves, while in the presence of any b. From Expressing his opinions; or
such bodies, in such a manner as to c. Casting his vote.
interrupt its proceedings or to impair
the respect due it. NOTE: The offender in this case may be any
person.
NOTE: The implied power to punish for contempt
of the National Assembly is coercive in nature. 2. By Arresting or Searching any member
The power to punish crime is punitive in thereof while the National Assembly is in
character. Thus, the same act could be made the regular or special session, except in case such
basis for contempt proceedings and for criminal member has committed a crime punishable
prosecution. under the Code by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
The disturbance can be in the form of utterances,
speeches, or any form of expressing dissent NOTE: The offender in this case is a public
which is done in such a manner as to interrupt its officer or employee.
proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
It is not necessary that the member is actually
Q: Suppose the meeting disturbed is one prevented from exercising any of his functions. It
attended by municipal officials called by the is sufficient that Congress is in session and the
mayor, is the offender liable under Art. 144? offender, in using force and intimidation, threats,
or frauds, has the purpose to prevent a member
A: NO. Art. 144 presupposes that the meeting of the National Assembly from exercising any of
disturbed is that of a legislative body or of such prerogatives. (Reyes, 2012)
provincial, city, or municipal council or board.
Here, the offender may be liable of unjust NOTE: Parliamentary immunity does not protect
vexation under Art. 287. (People v. Calera, et al., members of the National Assembly from
C.A. 45 O.G. 2576) responsibility before the legislative body itself.
The same act may be made the basis for contempt “Session”
since it is coercive in nature while the crime
under this article is punitive. Refers to the entire period of time from its initial
convening until its final adjournment.
Sec. 2: Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
Q: What is the criminal liability, if any, of a
police officer who, while Congress was in
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
session, arrested a member thereof for
ART. 145, RPC
committing a crime punishable by a penalty
higher than prision mayor? (2012 BAR)
Acts Punishable (F-A-S)
A: The police officer incurs no criminal liability
1. By using Force, intimidation, threats, or fraud
because the member of Congress has committed
to prevent any member of the National
a crime punishable by a penalty higher than
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from:
prision mayor as such is the exception to the rule.
(A-C-E)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
exempt the person present from criminal

CHAPTER 3: ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES liability.
AND ASSOCIATIONS
If the presence of a person in the meeting is
merely out of curiosity, he is not liable because he
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
does not have an intent to commit the felony of
ART. 146, RPC
illegal assembly.
Forms of Illegal Assemblies and their Criminal Liability of the Person Inciting
Elements
The person inciting is liable for the crime of
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for inciting to rebellion or sedition.
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code. Gravamen of Illegal Assembly
Elements: (M-A-P) The gravamen of illegal assembly is mere

a. There is a Meeting, a gathering or group assembly of or gathering of people for illegal
of persons, whether in a fixed placed or purpose punishable by the RPC. Without a
moving; gathering, there is no illegal assembly.
b. The meeting is attended by Armed
persons; and Persons Liable for Illegal Assembly
c. The Purpose of the meeting is to
commit any of the crimes punishable 1. Organizers or leaders of the meeting; and
under the Code. 2. Persons merely present at the meeting.
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether Responsibility of Persons merely Present at
armed or not, is incited to the commission of the Meeting
the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or direct assault. 1. If they are not armed, the penalty is arresto
mayor.
Elements: (M-I) 2. If they are armed, the penalty is prision
a. There is a Meeting, a gathering or group correccional.
of persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving; and If the Gathering is for the Commission of a
b. The audience, whether armed or not, is Crime Punishable under Special Laws
Incited to the commission of the crime
of treason, rebellion or insurrection, If the illegal purpose for the gathering is for the
sedition, or direct assault. commission of a crime punishable under special
laws, illegal assembly is not committed. The
If the person present carries an unlicensed
crime committed would be illegal association.
firearm, the presumption, insofar as he is
concerned, is that the purpose of the meeting is to
commit acts punishable under this Code, and that ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
he is the leader or organizer of the meeting. ART. 147, RPC
Importance of Common Intent Illegal Associations
Persons merely present at the meeting should 1. Associations totally or partially organized for
have a common intent to commit the felony of the purpose of committing any of the crimes
illegal assembly. The absence of such intent may punishable under the Code; or

2. Associations totally or partially organized for CHAPTER 4: ASSAULT UPON, AND

some purpose contrary to public morals. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
Public Morals
DIRECT ASSAULTS
Refer to matters which affect the interest of
ART. 148, RPC
society and public inconvenience and are not
limited to good customs. It refers to acts that are
in accordance with natural and positive laws. Ways of Committing the Crime of Direct
Assault
Persons Liable for the crime of Illegal
Associations 1. Without public uprising, by employing force
or intimidation for the attainment of any of
1. Founders, directors and president of the the purposes enumerated in defining the
association; and crimes of rebellion and sedition;
2. Mere members of the association.
Elements:
Illegal Assembly vs. Illegal Association a. Offender employs force or intimidation;
b. The aim of the offender is to attain any
of the purposes of the crime of rebellion
ILLEGAL
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY or any of the objects of the crime of
ASSOCIATION
sedition; and
As to Basis of Liability
c. There is no public uprising.
The formation of or
organization of an
The gathering for an 2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
association to engage
illegal purpose which employing force or by seriously intimidating
in an unlawful
constitutes a crime or by seriously resisting any person in
purpose which is not
under the RPC. authority or any of his agents, while engaged
limited to a violation
in the performance of official duties, or on the
of the RPC.
occasion of such performance. (2009, 2013,
As to Necessity of Actual Meeting
2015 BAR)
Necessary that there Not necessary that
is an actual meeting there be an actual
Elements (1993, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002
or assembly. meeting.
BAR)
As to Acts Punished
1. Offender
Act of forming or
Meeting and the a. Makes an attack,
organizing and
attendance at such b. Employs force,
membership in the
meeting are the acts c. Makes a serious intimidation, or
association are the
punished. d. Makes a serious resistance;
acts punished.
2. Person assaulted is a person in
authority or his agent;
3. That, at the time of the assault, the

person in authority or his agent
a. Is engaged in the performance of
official duties, or
b. That he is assaulted on occasion of
such performance;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
4. The offender knows that the one he is If the attack was done while the person in
assaulting is a person in authority or his authority or his agent is engaged in the actual
agent in the exercise of his duties; and performance of official functions, the crime is
always direct assault, whatever be the reason.
5. There is no public uprising.
Not in Actual Performance of Official Duties
NOTE: The act of the accused in preventing by
force the holding of a popular election in certain The following are considered as not in actual
precincts, without public uprising, is direct performance of official duties:
assault.
1. When the person in authority or the agent of
Q: As the town president failed to pay their a person in authority exceeds his powers or
salaries, the defendant, accompanied by four acts without authority;
armed men, went to the house of the former 2. Unnecessary use of force or violence; and
and compelled him by force to leave and go to 3. Descended to matters which are private in
the Presidencia. He kept him there confined nature.
until the relatives of the town president had
raised enough money to pay what was due “Qualified direct assault”
them as salaries. What crime did the accused
commit? Direct assault is qualified when:
A: The facts constitute the crime of direct assault. 1. Assault is committed with a weapon;
There is no public uprising when the accused, 2. The offender is a public officer or employee;
accompanied by armed men, compelled by force or
the town president to go with them to proceed to 3. Offender lays hands upon a person in
the municipal building and detained him there. authority.
By reason of detaining the town president, he
inflicted upon a public officer an act of hate or No Liability under Art. 148 for Direct Assault
revenge. This is one of the objects of sedition,
which is essentially what the accused intended to 1. If the public officer or officer in authority is a
attain. (U.S. v. Dirain, G.R. No. 1948, 05 May 1905) mere bystander;
2. If the accused did not know that the victim
“On occasion of the performance of official was a person in authority; or
duties” 3. If the person assaulted was no longer a public
officer at the time of the attack even if the
It means that the assault was made because or by reason for the attack was due to past
reason of the past performance of official duties performance of duties.
even if at the very time of the assault no official
duty was being discharged. (Justo v. CA, G.R. No. L- Q: When the policemen effected the arrest of
8611, 28 June 1956) the accused, he approached them and hit one
of them in the breast with his hand or fist, at
In this form, there is a need to determine the which instant the policeman seized him by the
reason why a person in authority or his agent was wrist and resistance ceased. Is the accused
attacked. If the attack was made by reason of the guilty of direct assault?
past performance of official duties of the person
in authority or his agent, the accused is liable for A: NO. When the offended party is an agent of a
direct assault. If the attack was made by reason of person in authority, any force or aggression is not
revenge, then the accused shall not be liable sufficient constitute to an assault. To come within
under this article, but for physical injuries. the purview of Art. 148, the force used against the

agent of a person in authority must be of serious Agents of persons in authority are persons who
character than that employed in this case. Logic by direct provision of law or by election or by
tells us that resistance is impossible without appointment by competent authority, are
force. (U.S. v. Tabiana, G.R. No. L-11847, 01 Feb. charged with maintenance of public order, the
1918) protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay
Q: When the news that his carabao, which leader and any person who comes to the aid of
earlier destroyed a planted area belonging to persons in authority.
another, was seized and taken to the police
station reached the accused, he confronted In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of
and protested to the municipal president, the RPC, teachers, professors, and persons
who was then inspecting the quarantine of the charged with the supervision of public or duly
animals. recognized private schools, colleges and
universities, and lawyers in the actual
The president, upon hearing his protest, performance of their professional duties or on
promised to intervene in the matter and to the occasion of such performance, shall be
see whether the carabao could be withdrawn. deemed persons in authority.
Upon hearing this, the accused insulted the
president and gave him a slap on the face. Q: Lydia and Gemma, were public school
What crime did the accused commit? teachers. Lydia's son was a student of Gemma.
Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from
A: The accused committed direct assault upon a her son that Gemma called him a "sissy" while
person in authority. When the offended party is a in class. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek
person in authority, it is not necessary to and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall
ascertain what force the law requires in order to and hit a wall divider.
constitute an assault since the law itself defines
concretely this force in providing that it consists As a result of Lydia's violent assault, Gemma
in mere laying of hands upon the person. suffered a contusion in her "maxillary area",
as shown by a medical certificate issued by a
The degree of force employed by the offender doctor, and continued to experience
against the person in authority is immaterial as abdominal pains. To what crime, if any, is
the law simply mentions the laying of hands Lydia liable?
sufficient. (U.S. v. Gumban, G.R. No. L-13658, 09
Nov. 1918) A: Lydia is liable for direct assault upon a person
in authority. On the day of the commission of the
NOTE: If the intent of the accused is to embarrass assault, Gemma was engaged in the performance
the person in authority, the offense is Direct of her official duties, that is, she was busy with
Assault with Slander by Deed. paperwork while supervising and looking after
the needs of pupils who are taking their recess in
Q: Who are deemed to be persons in authority the classroom to which she was assigned. Lydia
and agents of persons in authority? (1995, was already angry when she entered the
2000, 2002 BAR) classroom and accused Gemma of calling her son
a "sissy". Gemma being a public school teacher,
A: Persons in authority are those directly vested belongs to the class of persons in authority
with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the Revised
member of some court or government Penal Code, as amended. (Gelig v. People, G.R. No.
corporation, board, or commission. Barrio 173150, 28 July 2010)
captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed
persons in authority.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Crime of Direct Assault Can be Complexed performance of his duties.

With the Material Consequence of the
Unlawful Act In the case of People v. Hecto, the Supreme Court
ruled that "as the barangay captain, it was his
As a rule, where the spirit of the contempt or duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within
lawlessness is present, it is always complexed the barangay. If in the enforcement thereof, he
with the material consequences of the unlawful incurs, the enmity of his people who thereafter
act. If the unlawful act was murder or homicide treacherously slew him, the crime committed is
committed under circumstance of lawlessness or murder with assault upon a person in authority.”
contempt of authority, the crime would be direct (People v. Dollantes, G.R. No. 70639, 30 June 1987)
assault with murder or homicide, as the case may
be. INDIRECT ASSAULTS
ART. 149, RPC
However, when the material consequence is a
light felony, such as slight physical injuries, the Elements of Indirect Assault (A-A-U)
said offense is not complexed with direct assault
because the said injuries are considered as an 1. An Agent of a person in authority is the
incident or a necessary consequence of the force victim of any of the forms of direct assault
or violence inherent in all kinds of assault. defined in Art. 148;
Q: Because of the approaching town fiesta in 2. A person comes to the Aid of such authority;
San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in and
Barangay Carinias. A, the Barangay Captain, 3. That the offender makes Use of force or
was invited to deliver a speech to start the intimidation upon such person coming to the
dance. While A was delivering his speech, B, aid of the authority or his agent.
one of the guests, went to the middle of the
dance floor making obscene dance Victim in Indirect Assault
movements, brandishing a knife, and
challenging everyone present to a fight. The victim in the crime of indirect assault is not
the person in authority or his agent but the
A approached B and admonished him to keep person who comes to the aid of the agent of a
quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace person in authority.
of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the
advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back NOTE: Art. 149 says “on occasion of the
twice when A turned his back to proceed to commission of any of the crimes defined in the
the microphone to continue his speech. A fell next preceding article” (Art. 148, RPC).
to the ground and died. At the time of the
incident A was not armed. What crime was Hence, indirect assault can be committed only
committed? (2000 BAR) when direct assault is also committed.
A: The complex crime of direct assault with Commission of Indirect Assault

murder was committed. Since A was stabbed at
the back when he was not in a position to defend As Art. 149 now stands, the crime of indirect
himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the assault can only be committed if a private person
stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such comes to the aid of the agent of a person in
stabbing was murder. The Barangay Captain was authority, on the occasion of direct assault
in the act of trying to pacify B who was making against the latter.
trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to
death. He was therefore killed while in the NOTE: When any person comes to the aid of a

person in authority, he is constituted as an agent 3. Refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to

of the person in authority. (Art. 152(2), as produce any books, papers, documents, or
amended by B.P. 873) records in his possession, when required by
them to do so in the exercise of their
If such person was the one attacked, by functions;
employing violence against him of serious nature
or character, the crime would be direct assault. 4. Restraining another from attending as a
witness in such legislative or constitutional
CRIMES body; or
VICTIM #1 VICTIM #2
COMMITTED
A person in 5. Inducing disobedience to a summons or
authority is A person refusal to be sworn by any such body or
a victim of who comes Direct Assault official.
one of the to the aid of is committed
forms of a person in against both Any of the acts enumerated may also constitute
direct authority contempt of Congress and could be punished as
assault such independent of the criminal prosecution.
Direct Assault –
insofar as the NOTE: This article does not apply when the
Agent of a agent of a papers or documents may be used in evidence
person in A person person in against the owner thereof because it would be
authority is who comes authority is equivalent to compelling him to be witness
a victim of to the aid of concerned against himself. (Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, G.R. No.
one of the the agent of 16009, 21 Sept. 1920)
forms of a person in Indirect Assault
direct authority – insofar as the The law only penalizes refusal without legal
assault person who excuse.
came to the aid
of the agent Persons Liable under Art. 150
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED 1. Any person who commits any of the above
BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OR acts; or
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
ART. 150, RPC 2. Any person who:
a. Restrains another from attending as a
witness;
Acts Punished
b. Induces him to disobey a summons; and
c. Induces him to refuse to be sworn to
1. Refusing, without legal excuse, to obey
such body.
summons of the National Assembly, its
special or standing committees and
subcommittees, the Constitutional RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
commissions and its committees, PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS AGENTS
subcommittees or divisions, or by any ART. 151, RPC
commission or committee chairman or
member authorized to summon witnesses; Two (2) Acts under Art. 151, RPC
2. Refusing to be sworn or placed under 1. Resistance and Serious Disobedience;

affirmation while being before such 2. Simple Disobedience
legislative or constitutional body or official;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Elements of Resistance and Serious file proper complaints.

Disobedience (1990, 2001 BAR) (E-R-I)
However, the intoxicated Mallari, one of the
1. A person in authority or his agent is Engaged women, shouted at them, "Wala kayo
in the performance of official duty or gives a pakialam sa akin, hindi ako sasama sa inyo."
lawful order to the offender; She then grabbed PO2 Navarro by the collar,
slapped his cheek, and kicked his legs several
2. The offender Resists or seriously disobeys times. The incident was entered in the blotter
such person in authority or his agent; and and Mallari was detained for direct assault.
PO2 Navarro was treated at the James Gordon
3. That the act of the offender is not Included in Memorial Hospital for the minor injuries he
the provisions of Arts. 148, 149, and 150. got from Mallari. Dr. Ortiz issued him a
medical certificate stating that he had
The word seriously is not used to describe sustained swelling on the zygomatic area, or
resistance, because if the offender seriously the cheekbone. Is Mallari liable for direct
resisted a person in authority or his agent, the assault upon an agent of a person in
crime is direct assault. (Reyes, 2012) authority?
If NO Force is Employed A: NO. Mallari is liable for resistance and

disobedience to an agent of a person in authority
If no force is employed by the offender in resisting under Art. 151 of the RPC, not for direct assault.
or disobeying a person in authority, the crime As clarified in People v. Breis, if the use of physical
committed is resistance or serious disobedience force against agents of persons in authority is not
under the first paragraph of Art. 151. serious, the offense is not direct assault, but
resistance or disobedience. For this crime to be
Elements of Simple Disobedience (E-D-N) proven, the two (2) key elements must be shown:
" (1) That a person in authority or his agent is
1. An agent of a person in authority is Engaged engaged in the performance of official duty or
in the performance of official duty or gives a gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2) That
lawful order to the offender; the offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person or his agent."
2. The offender Disobeys such agent of a person
in authority; and In this case, it was established that petitioner
grabbed the shirt of PO2 Navarro, then slapped
3. Such disobedience is Not of a serious nature. and kicked him several times. Based on the
circumstances, petitioner's resistance and use of
NOTE: When the attack or employment of force is force are not so serious to be deemed as direct
not deliberate, the crime is only resistance or assault. While she exerted force, it is not
disobedience dangerous, grave, or severe enough to warrant
the penalties attached to the crime. (Mallari v.
Q: At around 6:45 AM., the Olongapo Police People, G.R. No. 224679, 12 Feb. 2020)
Station 3 received a report of an altercation
on the ground floor of GenX Billiard Hall on Q: After an unfavorable decision against the
Gordon Avenue. At this, PO2 Navarro and defendant in an action filed against him by
SPO3 Merza, who were both in uniform, went one Sabino Vayson in an action for recovery of
to the scene. There, they found two (2) groups land, the deputy sheriff Cosmo Nonoy, by
of women fighting and pulling each other’s virtue of a writ, demanded from the defendant
hair out. After stopping the fight, the officers the delivery the possession of the said land to
asked the women to go to the police station to Vayson which the former refuse to do so. By

reason thereof, the provincial fiscal filed the bandits, he was entirely justified in calling his
Information against the defendant for gross neighbors and making an attempt to expel them
disobedience to authorities. from his premises. (U.S. v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-
10678, 17 Aug. 1915)
Defendant filed a demurrer on the ground
that the facts do not constitute a crime, which Q: Sydeco, the cook, and waitress in his
the court sustained. Is the court correct in restaurant were on the way home when they
doing so? were signaled to stop by police officers who
asked him to open the vehicle’s door and
A: YES, as the defendant did not disobey any alight for a body and vehicle search.
order of the justice of peace. The disobedience
contemplated in Art. 151 consists in the failure or When Sydeco instead opened the vehicle
refusal of the offender to obey a direct order from window and insisted on a plain view search,
the authority or his agent. one of the policemen, obviously irked by this
remark told him that he was drunk, pointing
Here, the order issued is a writ of execution, one to three empty beer bottles in the trunk of the
that is addressed properly to a competent sheriff vehicle. The officers then pulled Sydeco out of
and not to the defendant. Absolutely no order the vehicle and brought him to the Ospital ng
whatsoever is made to the latter; the writ or Maynila where they succeeded in securing a
order in question in no wise refers to him. Hence, medical certificate under the signature of one
he could not commit the crime he was charged. Dr. Harvey Balucating depicting Sydeco as
(U.S. v. Ramayrat, G.R. No. L-6874, 08 Mar. 1912) positive of alcoholic breath, although no
alcohol breath examination was conducted.
Q: Defendant appealed from the decision of
the lower court finding him guilty of assault Sydeco was detained and released only in the
upon agents of authority when he resisted the afternoon of the following day when he was
arrest effected by them. The record shows allowed to undergo actual medical
that the policeman entered the house of the examination where the resulting medical
defendant without permission and attempted certificate indicated that he has sustained
to arrest the defendant without explaining to physical injuries but negative for alcohol
him the cause or nature of his presence there. breath. Is Sydeco criminally liable under Art.
151 of the RPC?
Resisting the arrest, he called to his neighbors
for help, “there are some bandits here and A: NO. Sydeco’s twin gestures cannot plausibly be
they are abusing me." Based on the foregoing, considered as resisting a lawful order. There can
is the defendant guilty of the crime of assault be no quibble that the police officer and his
upon agents of authority? apprehending team are persons in authority or
agents of a person in authority manning a legal
A: NO. As the defendant’s resistance is checkpoint.
attributable to his belief that the policemen were
actually bandits. In order to come within the But surely petitioner’s act of exercising one’s
purview of the law, the offender must have right against unreasonable searches to be
knowledge that the person he is assaulting is an conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in
agent of or a person in authority. context, be equated to disobedience let alone
resisting a lawful order in contemplation of Art.
What the law contemplates is the punishment of 151 of the RPC. (Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692,
persons for resistance of the authorities who 12 Nov. 2014)
knew to be one. If the defendant believed that
those who had entered his house were, in fact,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Resistance or Serious Disobedience vs. Direct PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF

Assault PERSON IN AUTHORITY
ART. 152, RPC
RESISTANCE/
SERIOUS DIRECT ASSAULT Person in Authority
DISOBEDIENCE ART. 148, RPC
ART.151, RPC Those directly vested with jurisdiction, whether
As to Offended Party as an individual or as a member of some court or
Person in authority or government corporation, board, or commission.
Person in authority or his agent must be (2000 BAR)
his agent must be in engaged in the
the actual performance of Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also
performance of his official duties or that deemed persons in authority. (1995 BAR)
duties. he is assaulted by
reason thereof. The following are persons in authority:
As to its Commission 1. Mayors;
Committed by any of 2. Division superintendent of schools;
the following: 3. Public and private school teachers;
4. Provincial Fiscal;
Committed only by 1. Attacking; 5. Judges;
resisting or seriously 2. Employing force; 6. Lawyers in actual performance of duties;
disobeying a person 3. Seriously 7. Sangguniang Bayan member;
in authority or his intimidating; or 8. Barangay Chairman; and
agent. 4. Seriously resisting 9. Members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa.
a person in
authority or his NOTE: Items 7, 8, and 9 of the enumeration were
agent. added by the LGC which expressly provides that
As to Force Used said persons “shall be deemed as person(s) in
The use of force is not The attack or authority in their jurisdictions.” (Sec. 388, LGC)
so serious, as there is employment of force
no manifest intention which gives rise to the Agent of a Person in Authority
to defy the law and crime of direct assault
the officers enforcing must be serious and Any person who by direct provision of law or by
it. deliberate. election or by appointment by competent
authority is charged with the:
NOTE: If the person who was resisted is a person
in authority and the offender used force in such 1. Maintenance of public order; and
resistance, the crime committed is direct assault. 2. Protection and security of life and property.
The use of any kind or degree of force will give
rise to direct assault. However, if the offender did NOTE: Agents of persons in authority includes:
not use any force in resisting a person in
authority, the crime committed is resistance or 1. Barangay Kagawad;
serious disobedience. 2. Barangay Tanod;
3. Barangay Councilman; and
4. Any person who comes to the aid of persons
in authority.

CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC DISORDERS Q: When is the disturbance of public order

deemed to be tumultuous? (2012 BAR)
TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES

A: The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous
OF PUBLIC DISORDER
if caused by more than three persons who are
ART. 153, RPC
armed or provided with means of violence.
Acts Punishable Outcry
1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public Means to shout subversive or provocative words
place, office, or establishment; tending to stir up the people to obtain by means
of force or violence any of the objects of rebellion
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, or sedition. The outcry must be spontaneous;
functions or gatherings, or peaceful otherwise, it would be the same as inciting to
meetings, if the act is not included in Arts. rebellion or sedition. (Reyes, 2012)
131 and 132;
Making Any Outcry Tending to Incite Sedition
NOTE: The crime is qualified if disturbance or Rebellion vs. Inciting to Rebellion or
or interruption is of a tumultuous character. Sedition
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion MAKING ANY

or sedition in any meeting, association or
OUTCRY TENDING INCITING TO
public place;
TO INCITE SEDITION OR
SEDITION OR REBELLION
4. Displaying placards or emblems which
REBELLION
provoke a disturbance of public disorder in
The meeting at the
such place;
outset was legal and The meeting from the
became a public beginning was
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who
disorder only because unlawful.
has been legally executed.
of such outcry.
The words uttered
NOTE: This contemplates an ostentatious The outbursts which
are deliberately
display of a burial as if the person legally by nature may tend to
calculated with
executed is a hero. incite rebellion or
malice, aforethought
sedition are
to incite others to
Essence of Tumultuous and Other spontaneous.
rebellion or sedition.
Disturbances
Q: Ladislao Bacolod fired a submachine gun

The essence of this crime is creating public
during the town fiesta which wounded one
disorder. This crime is brought about by creating
Consorcia Pasinio. The Information was filed
serious disturbances in public places, public
charging him of the crime of serious physical
buildings, and even in private places where
injuries thru reckless imprudence with the
public functions or performances are being held.
CFI of Cebu to which the defendant pleaded
guilty.
NOTE: If the act of disturbing or interrupting a
meeting or religious ceremony is not committed
On the same date, he was arraigned in another
by public officers, or if committed by public
case for having caused a public disturbance
officers who are NOT participants therein, Art.
upon the same facts which constitute the
153 should be applied.
same basis of the indictment for serious

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
physical injuries. Counsel for defendant 4. Printing, publishing or distributing books,

moved to quash the second Information pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do
invoking double jeopardy, which the trial not bear the real printer’s name, or which are
court granted. Did the trial court err? classified as anonymous.
A: YES. There can be separate crimes of physical NOTE: R.A. No. 248 prohibits the reprinting,
injuries thru reckless imprudence and reproduction, republication of government
tumultuous disturbance caused by the single act publications and official documents without
of firing a submachine gun. The protection previous authority.
against double jeopardy is only for the same
offense. Damage to the State NOT necessary
While both Informations have one common It is not necessary that the publication of the false
element, e.g., defendant having fired a news actually caused public disorder or caused
submachine gun, the two Informations do not damage to the interest or credit of the State, mere
pertain to the same offense: one charged him possibility to cause danger or damage is
with physical injuries inflicted thru reckless sufficient.
imprudence punished under Art. 263 of the RPC,
and the second accuses him of having NOTE: The offender must know that the news is
deliberately fired the machine gun to cause a false, otherwise he will not be held liable.
disturbance in the festivity or gathering, thereby
producing panic among the people present ALARMS AND SCANDALS
therein, referring to Art. 153. Conviction for the ART. 155, RPC
first does not bar trial for the second. (People v.
Bacolod, G.R. No. L-2578, 31 July 1951) Punishable Acts (D-I-D-I)
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION 1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker,

AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES or other explosive within any town or public
ART. 154, RPC place, calculated to cause alarm or danger;
Punishable Acts NOTE: The discharge may be in one’s home

since the law does not distinguish as to
1. Publishing or causing to be published, by where in town. The discharge of firearms and
means of printing, lithography or any other rockets during town fiestas and festivals are
means of publication, as news any false news not covered by the law when the same is not
which may endanger the public order, or intended to cause alarm or danger.
cause damage to the interest or credit of the
State; 2. Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to offensive to another or prejudicial to public
the constituted authorities or by praising, tranquility;
justifying or extolling any act punished by
law, by the same means or by words, NOTE: The term “charivari” includes a
utterances or speeches; medley of discordant voices, a mockery of
serenade of discordant noises made on
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be kettles, tins, horns, etc., designed to annoy
published any official resolution or and insult; (Reyes, 2008)
document without proper authority, or
before they have been published officially; or

3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering Charivari

about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements; and It includes a medley of discordant voices, a mock
serenade of discordant noises made on kettles,
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public tins, horns, etc. designed to annoy and insult.
places while Intoxicated or otherwise,
provided Art. 153 is not applicable. NOTE: The reason for punishing instigating or
taking active part on charivari is to prevent more
NOTE: If the disturbance is of a serious nature, serious disorders.
the case will fall under Art. 153. (Reyes, 2012)
Q: Defendant was indicted before the CFI of
Essence Iloilo for discharging a firearm at one Sixto
Demaisip. He then moved to dismiss the
The essence of the crime is disturbance of public Information as he claims the filing of
tranquility and public peace. Information for discharging of firearm has
placed him in peril of double jeopardy as he
Crimes that May Possibly Arise if a Firearm is had previously been charged with the offense
Discharged of alarm and scandal in a complaint filed in
the municipal court of Batad, Iloilo, upon the
1. Alarms and scandals, if the offender same facts which constitute the basis of the
discharges a firearm in a public place but the indictment for discharge of firearm. Is the
firearm is not pointed to a particular person defendant correct?
when discharged;
A: NO. For double jeopardy to attach there must
2. Illegal discharge of firearm if the firearm was be “identity of offenses”. It is evident that the
directed to a particular person who was not offense of discharge of firearm is not the crime of
hit if intent to kill is not proved; alarm and scandal. Neither may it be asserted
3. Attempted homicide or murder if the person that every crime of discharge of firearm produces
was hit and there is intent to kill; the offense of alarm and scandal. Although the
indictment for alarm and scandal filed under Art.
4. Physical injuries if the person was hit and 155 (1) of the RPC and the information for
injured but there was no intent to kill; or discharge of firearm instituted under Art. 258 of
the same Code are closely related in fact, they are
5. Grave coercion if the threat was directed, definitely diverse in law.
immediate and serious and the person is
compelled or prevented to do something Firstly, the two indictments do not describe the
against his will. same felony - alarm and scandal is an offense
against public order while discharge of firearm is
Possible Offenses Committed by Creating a crime against persons. Secondly, the
Noise and Annoyance indispensable element of the former crime is the
discharge of a firearm calculated to cause alarm
1. Alarms and scandals if the disturbance or danger to the public, while the gravamen of the
affects the public in general (e.g., by playing latter is the discharge of a firearm against or at a
noisily during the wee hours in the morning certain person, without intent to kill. (People v.
in the neighborhood); (2013 BAR) or Doriquez, G.R. Nos. L-24444-45, 29 July 1968)
2. Unjust vexation if the noise is directed to a

particular person or a family.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL another prisoner.

ART. 156, RPC
NOTE: If the offender is a person who has custody
Elements of Delivering Prisoners from Jail over the person of the prisoner, the crimes that
(J-R) may be committed are:
1. There is a person confined in a Jail or penal 1. Conniving with or consenting to evasion

establishment; and (Art. 223, RPC) – if the public officer consents
2. That the offender Removes therefrom such to evasion.
person, or helps the escape of such person.
(2014, 2015 BAR) 2. Evasion through negligence (Art. 224, RPC)
– if the evasion of prisoner shall have taken
NOTE: Art. 156 applies even if the prisoner is in a place through negligence of the officer.
hospital or an asylum as it is considered an
Means Employed by the Offender
extension of the penal institution. (Reyes, 2008)
The offender may use violence, intimidation, or

Commission of the Crime (2004, 2009 BAR)
bribery, in which case the penalty shall be higher.
He may also use other means to remove the
Delivering prisoners from jail may be committed
prisoner from jail or help in the escape of such
in two ways:
prisoner.
1. By removing a person confined in any jail
Qualifying Circumstance of Bribery
or penal establishment – to take away a
person from the place of his confinement,
It refers to the offender’s act of employing bribery
with or without the active cooperation of the
as a means of removing or delivering the prisoner
person released.
from jail, and not the offender’s act of receiving or
agreeing to receive a bribe as a consideration for
2. By helping such a person to escape – to
committing the offense.
furnish that person with the material means
such as a file, ladder, rope, etc. which greatly
Mitigating Circumstance
facilitate his escape. (Alberto v. Dela Cruz, G.R.
No. L-31839, 30 June 1980)
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place
outside of said establishments by taking the
Person Confined Need Not be a Prisoner by
guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be
Final Judgment
imposed in their minimum period. (Art. 156(2),
RPC)
It is not necessary that the person confined be a
prisoner by final judgment. He may also be a mere
Q: A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a
detention prisoner.
hospital for emergency medical treatment.
His followers, all of whom were armed, went
Persons Liable
to the hospital to take him away or help him
escape. The prison guards, seeing that they
1. Usually, an outsider to the jail.
were outnumbered, and that resistance
would endanger the lives of other patients,
2. It may also be:
deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken by
a. An employee of the penal establishment
his followers. What crime, if any, was
who does not have the custody of the
committed by A's followers? Why? (2002
prisoner; or
BAR)
b. A prisoner who helps the escape of

A: They are liable for delivering prisoner from jail CHAPTER 6: EVASION OF SERVICE
under Art. 156 of the RPC. The crime is not only OF SENTENCE
committed by removing the prisoner from an
establishment that the prisoner is confined in but
EVASION BY ESCAPING DURING
also by helping said person to escape “by other
TERM OF SENTENCE
means,” such as by allowing the prisoner to be
ART. 157, RPC
taken by those unauthorized to do so, such as in
the case at bar.
Elements of Evasion of Service of Sentence
Liability of the Prisoner or Detainee who (Co-S-E)
Escaped
1. Offender is a Convict by final judgment;
1. If a detention prisoner, he does NOT incur 2. He is Serving his sentence which consists in
liability from escaping; or deprivation of liberty; and
3. He Evades the service of his sentence by
2. If a convict by final judgment, he will be liable escaping during the term of his sentence.
for evasion of service of his sentence. (2009 BAR)
Delivering the Prisoners in Jail vs. Infidelity in “Final judgment”

the Custody of Prisoners
The term “final judgment” employed in the RPC
means judgment beyond recall. As long as a
DELIVERING INFIDELITY IN THE
judgment has not become executory, it cannot be
PRISIONERS CUSTODY OF
truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty
FROM JAIL PRISONERS
of the felony charged against him. (People v.
The offender is not the The offender is the Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 02 Sept. 1994)
custodian of the custodian at the time
prisoner at the time of of the escape/ Under Sec. 7 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, a
the escape/removal. removal. judgment in a criminal case becomes final after
the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or
In both, the offender may be a public officer or a when the sentence has been partially or totally
private citizen. The person involved may be a satisfied or served, or the defendant has
convict or a mere detention prisoner. expressly waived in writing his right to appeal.
(Reyes, 2008)
NOTE: If the offender is a public officer who had
the prisoner in his custody or charge, he is liable Liability if the One who Escaped is Only a
for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. (Art. Detention Prisoner
223, RPC)
He does not incur liability from escaping.
Applicability of P.D. No. 1829 (Obstruction of However, if such prisoner knows of the plot to
Justice) remove him from jail and cooperates therein by
escaping, he himself becomes liable for delivering
P.D. 1829 is absorbed in the crime of delivery of prisoners from jail as a principal by indispensable
prisoners from jail or infidelity in the custody of cooperation.
prisoners.
Q: On appeal, defendant-appellant questions
the judgment rendered by the CFI of Manila
finding him guilty of evasion of service of
sentence under Art. 157. Defendant maintains
that Art. 157 applies only in cases of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
imprisonment and not when the sentence "escaping during the term of his imprisonment by
imposed upon was destierro, as in his case. Is reason of final judgment." Indeed, evasion of
the defendant correct? sentence is but another expression of the term
"jail breaking.” (Tanega v. Masakayan, G.R. No. L-
A: NO. Art. 157 must be understood to include not 27191 28 Feb. 1967)
only deprivation of liberty by imprisonment but
also by sentence of destierro. Qualifying Circumstances (U-B-U-C)
In the case of People v. Samonte, the Supreme If such evasion takes place by:
Court held that "a person under sentence of
destierro is suffering deprivation of his liberty.” 1. Means of Unlawful entry (must be read as
And a person sentenced to suffer such penalty “scaling/ climbing walls”);
evades his service of sentence when he enters the 2. Breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs
prohibited area specified in the judgment of or floors;
conviction. (People v. Abilong, G.R. No. L-1960, 26 3. Using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit,
Nov. 1948) violence or intimidation; or
4. Conniving with other convicts or employees
“Escape” for purposes of applying Art. 157 of the penal institution.
"Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Art. Q: Manny killed his wife under exceptional
157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of circumstances and was sentenced by the RTC
prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly, of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of
one who has not been committed and never destierro during which he was not to enter the
brought to prison cannot be said to have escaped city. While serving sentence, Manny went to
therefrom. (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was
139033, 18 Dec. 2002) arrested in Manila.
Q: Adelaida Tanega failed to appear on the day a. Did Manny commit any crime?
of the execution of her sentence. On the same b. Where should Manny be prosecuted?
day, the judge issued a warrant for her arrest. (1998 BAR)
She was never arrested. More than a year
later, Tanega through counsel moved to quash A:
the warrant of arrest, on the ground that the a. YES. Manny committed the crime of evasion
penalty had prescribed. Tanega claimed that of service of sentence when he went to
she was convicted for a light offense and since Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from
light offenses prescribe in one year, her entering under his sentence of destierro. A
penalty had already prescribed. Is the motion sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is
meritorious? evaded when the convict enters any of the
place/places he is prohibited from entering
A: NO. The penalty has not prescribed as she did under the sentence or come within the
not evade her service of sentence. Under Art. 93 prohibited radius. Although destierro does
of the RPC, the prescription of penalties “shall not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a
commence to run from the date when the culprit deprivation of liberty. (People v. Abilong, G.R.
should evade the service of his sentence.” To No. L-1960, 26 Nov. 1948)
come within the application of Art. 157, the
culprit must evade one’s service of sentence by b. Manny may be prosecuted in Manila or
escaping during the term of his sentence. This Dagupan City. In the case of Parulan v.
must be so for by the express terms of the statute, Director of Prisons (G.R. No. L-28519, 17 Feb.
a convict evades "service of his sentence" by 1968), the Court held that the crime of

evasion of sentence under Art. 157 of the RPC has not taken part in the mutiny. If one partakes
is a continuing crime. Hence, the accused may in mutiny, he will be liable for the offenses which
be prosecuted by the court of either province he committed during the mutiny whether or not
where any of the essential ingredients of the he returns. (People v. Padilla, G. R. No. 121917, 12
crime took place. Mar. 1997)
EVASION ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS NOTE: The penalty of commission of this felony
ART. 158, RPC is an increase by one-fifth (1/5) of the time
remaining to be served under the original
Elements of Evasion on the Occasion of sentence, in no case to exceed 6 months.
Disorders (C-D-E-F)
The special allowance for loyalty (e.g., deduction
1. Offender is a Convict by final judgment who of sentence) authorized by Art. 98 and 158(2)
is confined in a penal institution; refers to those convicts, who having evaded the
service of their sentences by leaving the penal
2. There is Disorder, which results from: institution, give themselves up within forty-eight
a. Conflagration (48) hours following the issuance of the
b. Earthquake proclamation by the President announcing the
c. Explosion passing away of the calamity or catastrophe. They
d. Other similar catastrophe, or will be entitled to a deduction of one-fifth (1/5) of
e. Mutiny in which he has not their respective sentences.
participated;
A deduction of two-fifths (2/5) of the period of his
3. Offender Evades the service of his sentence sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
by leaving the penal institution where he is chose to stay in the place of his confinement
confined on the occasion of such disorder or notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
during the mutiny; and catastrophe enumerated under Art. 158. (Art. 98
as amended by R.A. No. 10592).
4. Offender Fails to give himself up to the
authorities within forty-eight (48) hours EVASION BY VIOLATION OF
following the issuance of a proclamation by CONDITIONAL PARDON
the Chief Executive announcing the passing ART. 159, RPC
away of such calamity.
Elements of Evasion by Violation of
Basis of Liability Conditional Pardon (Co-Gra-Vi)
Liability is based on the failure to return within 1. Offender was a Convict;

48 hours after the passing of the calamity, 2. That he was Granted a conditional pardon by
conflagration or mutiny had been announced and the Chief Executive; and
not the act of leaving from the penal 3. He Violated any of the conditions of such
establishment. pardon.
“Mutiny” as Referred under this Article A convict granted conditional pardon who is
recommitted must be convicted by final judgment
The mutiny referred here involves subordinate of a court of the subsequent crime or crimes with
personnel rising against the supervisor within which he was charged before the criminal penalty
the penal establishment. It is one of the causes for such subsequent offense(s) can be imposed
which may authorize a convict serving sentence upon him. Since Art. 159 of the RPC defines a
in the penitentiary to leave the jail provided he distinct, substantive felony, the parolee or convict

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
who is regarded as having violated the provisions Q: While serving his sentence for the crime of
thereof must be charged, prosecuted, and abduction after being found guilty thereof by
convicted by final judgment before he can be the CFI of Cavite, defendant-appellant was
made to suffer the penalty prescribed in Art. 159. pardoned on Feb. 1923. Subsequently, he was
(Torres v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872, 23 July 1987) tried for the crime of attempted robbery in
band with physical injuries and also charged
Granting of Pardon Before a Judgment with a violation of the condition of his pardon
becomes Final with the CFI of Rizal.
As mandated by Sec. 19, Art. VII of the 1987 On appeal, defendant claims that it is the CFI
Constitution, no pardon may be extended before of Cavite that has jurisdiction over the case. Is
a judgment of conviction becomes final. A the defendant correct?
judgment of conviction becomes final: (a) when
no appeal is seasonably perfected, (b) when the A: NO. It is the court wherein the crime
accused commences to serve the sentence, (c) committed, subsequent to the pardon, which has
when the right to appeal is expressly waived in jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant
writing, except where the death penalty was has violated the conditions of the pardon.
imposed by the trial court, and (d) when the
accused applies for probation, thereby waiving The proceeding under Art. 159 of the RPC is not a
his right to appeal. Where the judgment of continuation or a part of the proceeding of the
conviction is still pending appeal and has not yet crime previous to the grant of pardon. It is a new
therefore attained finality, executive clemency proceeding, complete in itself, and independent
may not yet be granted by the President. (People of the latter. It refers to other subsequent facts
v. Salle, Jr. G.R. No. 103567, 04 Dec. 1995) which the law punishes as a distinct crime the
penalty for which is not necessarily that remitted
Basis of the Power of the President to Grant by the pardon. (People v. Martin, G.R. No. L-46432,
Pardon 17 May 1939)
The pardoning power of the President is NOTE: The condition imposed upon the prisoner
provided for in Art. VII as follows: “Except in that he should not commit another crime extends
cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided to offenses punished by special laws like illegal
in this Constitution, the President may grant voting under the Election Law. (Reyes, 2008)
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final Q: After serving two (2) years, five (5) months
judgment.” (Sec. 19, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) and twenty-two (22) days of the total duration
of his sentence of prision mayor, a conditional
As provided further in Sec. 64(i) of the Revised pardon was granted to the appellant
Administrative Code, the President has the power remitting three (3) years, seven (7) months,
“to grant to convicted persons reprieves or and eight (8) days. Subsequently, appellant
pardons, either plenary or partial, conditional, or was found guilty of the crime of estafa. By
unconditional; to suspend sentences without reason thereof, he was prosecuted under Art.
pardon, remit fines, and order the discharge of 159 to which he pled guilty. The court then
any convicted person upon parole, subject to such ordered his recommitment for the term
conditions as he may impose; and to authorize remitted by the pardon. The accused
the arrest and reincarceration of any such person appealed from this judgment. Is the appeal
who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply with the meritorious?
condition, or conditions of his pardon, parole, or
suspension of sentence.” A: YES. By express provision of Art. 159 of the
RPC, the prescribed penalty is prision

correccional in its minimum period. The second G.R. No. 173473, 17 Dec. 2008)
part of said Article, which provides that the
convict shall suffer the unexpired portion of his Elements (1991 BAR)
original sentence should the penalty or term
remitted be higher than six (6) years, is clearly 1. That the offender was already convicted by
inapplicable in this case as the term remitted by final judgment of one offense; and
the pardon is three (3) years, seven (7) months, 2. That he committed a new felony before
and eight (8) days. (People v. Sanares, G.R. No. L- beginning to serve such sentence or while
43499, 11 Jan. 1936) serving the same.
Conditional Pardon vs. Evasion of Service of Q: Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the
Sentence National Penitentiary, serving the maximum
penalty for robbery which they committed
VIOLATION OF EVASION OF some years before and for which they have
CONDITIONAL SERVICE OF been sentenced by final judgment. One day,
PARDON SENTENCE Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie.
It is not a public offense Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie
for it does not cause It is a public offense anything, and after a shouting episode,
harm or injury to the separate and Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie
right of another person independent from fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him
nor does it disturb any other act. to go to the toilet to relieve himself.
public order.
As Rannie was opening the door to the toilet
and with his back turned against Robbie,
CHAPTER 7: COMMISSION OF ANOTHER
Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed
CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY
weapon that he had concealed in his waist.
IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest “kubol” where
he fell. Robbie ran after him· and, while
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie
SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15
ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie
ART. 160, RPC immediately surrendered to the Chief
Warden.
Quasi-recidivism When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie,
Robbie raised provocation and voluntary
It is a special aggravating circumstance where a surrender as mitigating circumstances. The
person, after having been convicted by final prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that
judgment, shall commit a new felony before there was treachery in the commission of the
beginning to serve such sentence, or while crime.
serving the same. He shall be punished by
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by a. Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-
law for the new felony. (Reyes, 2017) recidivist?
NOTE: This circumstance has been interpreted b. Can the mitigating circumstances raised
by the Court as a special aggravating by Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty for
circumstance where the penalty actually imposed the crime committed? (2018 BAR)
is taken from the prescribed penalty in its
maximum period without regard to any generic A:
mitigating circumstances. (People v. Temporada, a. Robbie is considered a quasi-recidivist
pursuant to Art. 160 of the RPC. At the time

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
he stabbed Rannie which resulted in the Peralta, et. al., G.R. No. L-15959, 11 Oct. 1961). It is
latter’s death, he had been convicted by final only the subsequent crime committed which is
judgment and had been serving sentence at required to be a felony under the RPC.
the National Penitentiary.
Q: Defendant-appellant, while serving
In quasi-recidivism, the first and second sentence for the crime of homicide, killed one
offenses need not be embraced in the same Sabas Aseo, for which the CFI of Manila found
title of the RPC. A recidivist, on the other him guilty with the crime of murder, meting
hand, requires that the crimes committed him the penalty of death.
must be embraced in the same title of the
RPC. On appeal to the Supreme Court, appellant
contends that the CFI erred in applying Art.
Because the killing of Rannie and the 160 of the RPC as it is applicable only when
robbery, in which Robbie was previously the new crime which is committed by a person
convicted by final judgment, were not under already serving sentence is different from the
the same title, Robbie cannot be considered crime for which he is serving sentence. Is the
a recidivist. defendant correct?
b. NO. If proven, the presence of the mitigating A: NO. The new offense need not be different or
circumstances of lack of sufficient be of different character from that of the former
provocation and voluntary surrender would offense. There is not the slightest intimation in
be of no consequence as quasi-recidivism, a the text of Art. 160 that said article applies only in
special aggravating circumstance, cannot be cases where the new offense is different in
offset by any ordinary mitigating character from the former offense for which the
circumstance. (People v. Macariola, GR No. L- defendant is serving the penalty. Hence, even if he
40757, 24 Jan. 1983) is serving sentence for homicide and was later
found to be guilty of murder, Art. 160 applies.
Q: The CFI of Rizal found the defendants guilty (People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 39085, 27 Sept. 1933)
of the crime of murder and imposed upon
them the penalty of death by reason of the The Second Crime must be a Felony
existence of special aggravating circumstance
of quasi-recidivism. The second crime must be a felony, punishable
under RPC. But the first crime for which the
On automatic review by the Supreme Court, offender is serving sentence may either be
the counsel of the defendants contends that punishable under RPC or special law.
the allegation of quasi-recidivism in the
Information is ambiguous, as it fails to state Quasi-Recidivism vs. Reiteracion (Reyes,
whether the offenses for which the 2017)
defendants were serving sentence at the time
of the commission of the crime charged were QUASI-RECIVIDISM REITERACION
penalized by the RPC, or by a special law. Is
the argument of the counsel correct? As to Kind of Circumstance
A: NO. It makes no difference, for purposes of the A special aggravating

effect quasi-recidivism, under Art. 160 of the circumstance; it
An aggravating
Revised Penal Code, whether the crime for which cannot be offset by
circumstance
an accused is serving sentence at the time of the ordinary mitigating
commission of the offense charged, falls under circumstances.
said Code or under a special law (People v.

As to Time of Commission
Before beginning to
After serving out his
serve his sentence, or
sentences for the
while serving the
prior offenses
same

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
3. Illegal Use of Uniforms and Insignia (Art. 179,

D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST RPC);
ARTS. 161-187, RPC, TITLE IV 4. False Testimony Against a Defendant (Art.
180, RPC);
5. False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant
(Art. 181, RPC);
Acts of Counterfeiting
6. False Testimony in Civil Cases (Art. 182, RPC);
7. False Testimony in Other Cases and Perjury
1. Forging the seal of the Government,
in Solemn Affirmation (Art. 183, RPC);
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
8. Offering False Testimony in Evidence (Art.
(Art. 161, RPC);
184, RPC);
2. Using forged signature, seal or stamp (Art.
9. Machinations in Public Auctions (Art. 185,
162, RPC);
RPC);
3. Making and importing and uttering false
10. Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of
coins (Art. 163, RPC);
Trade (Art. 186, RPC); and
4. Mutilation of coins (Art. 164, RPC); and
11. Importation and Disposition of Falsely
5. Forging treasury or bank notes or other
Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of
documents payable to bearer. (Art. 166, RPC)
Gold, Silver, or other Precious Metals or their
Alloys. (Art. 187, RPC)
Acts of Forgery
1. Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury CHAPTER 1: FORGERIES

or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of
Credit (Art. 168, RPC); and Crimes called Forgeries
2. How Forgery is Committed. (Art. 169, RPC)
They are:
Acts of Falsification 1. Forging the seal of the Government,
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
1. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. (Art. 161, RPC);
170, RPC); 2. Making and importing and uttering false
2. Falsification by public officer, employee, or coins (Art. 163, RPC);
notary, or ecclesiastical minister (Art. 171, 3. Mutilation of coins (Art. 164, RPC);
RPC); 4. Forging treasury or bank notes or other
3. Falsification by private individuals (Art. 172, documents payable to bearer (Art. 166,
RPC); RPC);
4. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph, and 5. Counterfeiting instruments not payable to
telephone messages (Art. 173, RPC); bearer (Art. 167, RPC);
5. Falsification of medical certificates, 6. Falsification of legislative documents (Art.
certificates of merit or service (Art. 174, RPC); 170, RPC);
6. Using False Certificates (Art. 175, RPC); and 7. Falsification by public officer, employee or
7. Manufacturing and Possession of notary or ecclesiastical minister (Art. 171,
Instruments or Implements for Falsification. RPC);
(Art. 176, RPC) 8. Falsification by private individuals (Art. 172,
RPC);
Other Falsities 9. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph
and telephone messages (Art. 173, RPC); and
1. Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions 10. Falsification of medical certificates,
(Art. 177, RPC); certificates of merit or service. (Art. 174,
2. Using Fictitious and Concealing True Name RPC) (Reyes, 2017)
(Art. 178, RPC);

Sec. 1: Forging the Seal of the Government of Executive. Otherwise, he will be penalized under
the Philippine Islands, the Signature or Art. 161.
Stamp of the Chief Executive
The participation of the offender is in effect that
of an accessory, and although the general rule is
COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
that he should be punished by a penalty two
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
degrees lower, under this article he is punished
FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP
by a penalty one degree lower.
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
ART. 161, RPC
Sec. 2: Counterfeiting Coins
Punishable Acts (S-S-S)

MAKING AND IMPORTING
1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of AND UTTERING FALSE COINS
the Philippines; ART. 163, RPC
2. Forging the Signature of the President; and
3. Forging the Stamp of the President. Elements of Making and Importing and
Uttering False Coins (F-M-C)
NOTE: If the signature of the president is forged,
the crime committed is covered by this provision 1. That there be False or counterfeited coins;
and not falsification of public document. The 2. That the offender either Made, imported or
name of the crime is forging the signature of the uttered such coins; and
Chief Executive. 3. That in case of uttering such false or
counterfeited coins, he Connived with the
Forgery counterfeiters or importers.
Falsely making or materially altering, with intent Coin

to defraud, any writing which, if genuine, might
apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation A piece of metal stamped with certain marks and
of a legal liability. (Black’s Law Dictionary) made current at a certain value.
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR Acts of Falsification or Falsity

COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
ART. 162, RPC 1. Counterfeiting – refers to money or
currency;
Elements of Using Forged Signature or 2. Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and
Counterfeit Seal or Stamp (F-K-U) obligations and securities; and
3. Falsification – can only be committed in
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was respect of documents.
counterfeited or the signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive was Forged by another Counterfeiting
person;
2. That the offender Knew of the counterfeiting The imitation of a legal or genuine coin such as to
or forgery; and deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be
3. That he Used counterfeit seal or forged genuine. A coin is false or counterfeited if it is
signature or stamp. forged or if it is not authorized by the
Government as legal tender, regardless of its
NOTE: The offender should not be the one who intrinsic value.
forged the great seal or signature of the Chief

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
“Utter” coin, but for estafa under Art. 318. (Reyes, 2008)
To pass counterfeited coins, deliver or give away. MUTILATION OF COINS

ART. 164, RPC
“Import”
Punishable Acts
To bring into the Philippines ports any false or
counterfeited coins. The importation is complete 1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with
before entry at the Customs House. the further requirement that there be intent
to damage or to defraud another; and
Criterion Used in Determining whether a Coin
is a Counterfeit or Not 2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins,
with the further requirement that there must
The criterion is that the imitation must be such as be connivance with the mutilator or importer
to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be in case of uttering.
genuine. Consequently, if the imitation is so
imperfect that no one was deceived, the felony Mutilation
cannot be consummated.
To take off part of the metal either by filling it or
There must be an imitation of peculiar design of a substituting it for another metal of inferior
genuine coin. (U.S. v. Basco, G.R. No. L-2747, 11 quality.
Apr. 1906)
Requisites
NOTE: Former coins which have been withdrawn
from circulation can be counterfeited. This article 1. Coin mutilated is of legal tender in the
mentions “coin” without any qualifying words Philippines; and
such as “current.” 2. Offender gains from the precious metal dust
abstracted from the coin.
Kinds of Coins the Counterfeiting of which is
Punished Requirement as to the Type of Coin that can be
Mutilated
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas; This is the only article that requires that the
mutilated coin be legal tender.
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines
or of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas; Counterfeiting of Coins vs. Mutilating coins
NOTE: Minor coins of the Philippines are the COUNTERFEITING

MUTILATING COINS
coins below 10-centavo denomination. COINS
As to Acts Punished
3. Coins of the currency of a foreign country. Act of scratching the
Act of imitating
metal content
Q: A person gave a copper cent the As to Coin Involved
appearance of a silver piece, it being silver Must be of legal Must be of legal
plated, and attempted to pay with it a package tender or old coin tender
of cigarettes which he bought at a store. What
crime, if any, was committed? Mutilation of Paper Bills under P.D. 247
A: Such person is not liable for counterfeiting of There can be no mutilation of paper bills under

Art. 164 but in P.D. 247 which punishes the act of in the drawer. May the Chinaman be convicted
destruction of money issued by Central Bank of of illegal possession of false coin?
the Philippines, mutilation is not limited to coins.
A: NO, because Art. 165 requires three things as
Acts Punishable under P.D. 247 regards possession of false coins, namely: (1)
possession; (2) intent to utter; and (3) knowledge
1. Willful defacement; that the coin is false. The fact that the Chinaman
2. Mutilation; received it in payment of his goods and place it in
3. Tearing; his drawer shows that he did not know that such
4. Burning; and coin was false. (People v. Go Po, G.R. No. 42697, 01
5. Destruction of Central Bank Notes and coin. Aug. 1985)
NOTE: One who mutilates a coin does not do so NOTE: As long as the offender has knowledge
for the sake of mutilating, but to take advantage that the coin is false or mutilated, there is no need
of the metal abstracted, he appropriates a part of for him to connive with the counterfeiter or
the metal of the coin. Hence, the coin diminishes mutilator.
in intrinsic value. One who utters said mutilated
coin receives its legal value, much more than its
Sec. 3: Forging Treasury or Bank Notes,
intrinsic value.
Obligations and Securities; Importing and
Uttering False or Forged Notes,
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN, Obligations and Securities
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
ART. 165, RPC
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
Punishable Acts
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR
FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or
ART. 166, RPC
mutilated by another person, with intent to
utter the same, knowing that it is false or
Acts Punished
mutilated.
NOTE: Possession of or uttering false coin 1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank

notes or other documents payable to bearer;
does not require that the counterfeiting coin
2. Importation of such false or forged
is legal tender. The possessor should not be
the counterfeiter, mutilator, or importer of obligations or notes; and
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or
the coins.
notes in connivance with the forgers or
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, importers.
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
When Payable to Bearer
NOTE: The offense punished under this
article is the mere holding of the false or 1. When it is expressed to be so payable;
mutilated coin with intent to utter. 2. When it is payable to a person named
therein or bearer; or
3. When it is payable to the order of a fictitious
Q: A Chinese merchant was paid by a
purchaser of goods in the former’s store with or non-existing person, and such fact was
a false 50-centavo coin. He placed it in his known to the person making it so payable;
drawer. During a search by some 4. When the name of the payee does not
constabulary officers, the false coin was found purport to be the name of any person;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
5. When the only or last indorsement is an Forgery vs. Falsification

indorsement in blank. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 2031)
FORGERY FALSIFICATION
NOTE: It can be negotiated by mere delivery. Committed by giving
to a treasury or bank
Importation of False or Forged Obligations or note or any
Notes Committed by
instrument payable to
erasing, substituting,
the bearer or to order
Bringing false or forged obligation or notes into counterfeiting, or
the appearance of true
the Philippines, which presupposes that the altering by any
and genuine
obligation or notes are forged or falsified in a means, the figures,
document.
foreign country. letters, words, or
signs contained
To make false
Uttering False or Forged Obligations or Notes therein.
instrument intended
to be passed for the
Offering obligations or notes knowing them to be genuine one.
false or forged, whether such offer is accepted or
not, with a representation, by words or actions, COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING AND
that they are genuine and with an intent to UTTERING INSTRUMENTS
defraud. NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
ART. 167, RPC
Notes and Other Obligations and Securities
that May be Forged or Falsified
Elements under Art. 167, RPC (I-FIU-C)
1. Treasury or bank notes;

1. That there be an Instrument payable to order
2. Certificates; and
or other document of credit not payable to
3. Other obligations and securities, payable to
bearer;
bearer.
2. That the offender either Forged, Imported or
Uttered such instrument; and
Kinds of Treasury or Bank Notes or Other
3. That in case of uttering, he Connived with the
Documents that May be Forged
forger or importer.
1. Obligation or security issued by the

NOTE: The counterfeiting under Art. 167 must
Government of the Philippines;
involve an instrument payable to order or other
2. Circulating note issued by any banking
document of credit not payable to bearer.
institution duly authorized by law to issue
the same;
When Payable to Order
3. Document issued by a foreign government;
and
When the instrument is drawn payable to the
4. Circulating note or bill issued by a foreign
order of a specified person or to him or his order.
bank duly authorized to issue the same.
Where the instrument is payable to order, the
payee must be named or otherwise indicated
NOTE: The falsification of PNB checks is not
therein with reasonable certainty. (Sec. 8, Act No.
forgery under Art. 166, but falsification of
2031)
commercial document under Art. 172 in
connection with Art. 171.
NOTE: It is negotiated by indorsement and
delivery.

Acts of Forgery punished under Art. 167 Q: Is mere possession of false bank notes
enough to consummate the crime under Art.
1. Forging instruments payable to order or 168 of RPC which is the illegal possession and
documents of credit not payable to bearer; use of false treasury or bank notes and other
2. Importing such false instruments; and instruments of credit?
3. Uttering such false instruments in
connivance with the forger or the importer. A: NO. As held in People v. Digoro, possession of
false treasury or bank notes alone, without
NOTE: Connivance is not required in uttering if anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it to
the utterer is the forger. constitute an offense under Art. 168 of the RPC,
the possession must be with intent to use said
Inclusion of Instruments or Other Documents false treasury or bank notes. (Clemente v. People,
of Credit Issued by a Foreign Government G.R. No. 194367, 15 June 2011)
This article covers instruments or other NOTE: But a person in possession of falsified
documents of credit issued by a foreign document and who makes use of the same is
government or bank because the act punished presumed to be the material author of
includes that of importing, without specifying the falsification.
country or government issuing them.
FORGERY
Reason for Punishing Forgery ART. 169, RPC
Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain Acts Punishable

the integrity of the currency and thus insure the
credit standing of the government and prevent Forgery is committed by (1999, 2008 BAR):
the imposition on the public and the government
of worthless notes or obligations. 1. Giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE mentioned therein, the appearance of a true
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER and genuine document; or
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
ART. 168, RPC 2. Erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters,
Elements under Art. 168, RPC (1999 BAR) words, or sign contained therein.
(T-K-UP)
Essence of Forgery
1. That any Treasury or bank note or
certificate or other obligation and security The essence of forgery is giving a document the
payable to bearer, or any instrument appearance of a true and genuine document.
payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is forged or NOTE: With the definition given in this article,
falsified by another person; the crime of counterfeiting or forging treasury or
bank notes or other documents payable to bearer
2. That the offender Knows that any of the said or to order includes: (1) acts of counterfeiting or
instruments is forged or falsified; and forging said documents, and (2) acts of
falsification.
3. That he either Used or Possessed with
intent to use any of such forged or falsified Q: A received a treasury warrant, a check
instruments. issued by the Government. It was originally

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
made payable to B, or his order. A wrote B’s c. Residence certificate

name on the back of said treasury warrant as d. Driver’s license
if B had indorsed it, and then presented it for
payment. It was paid to A. Was there forgery? 2. Official Document – any instrument issued
by the government or its agents or officers
A: YES, because when A wrote B’s name on the having authority to do so and the offices,
back of the treasury warrant which was originally which in accordance with their creation, they
made payable to B or his order, he converted, by are authorized to issue.
such supposed indorsement, the treasury
warrant to one payable to bearer. It had the effect Examples: Register of Attorneys officially
of erasing the phrase “or his order” upon the face kept by the Clerk of the Supreme Court in
of the warrant. There was material alteration on which it is inscribed the name of each
a genuine document. (U.S. v. Solito, G.R. No. 12546, attorney admitted to the practice of law.
25 Aug. 1917)
NOTE: Public document is broader than the
When Counterfeiting is NOT Forgery term official document. Before a document
may be considered official, it must first be
The subject of forgery should be treasury or bank public document. To become an official
notes. If the subject of forgery were a document document, there must be a law which
other than these, the crime would be falsification. requires a public officer to issue or to render
(Boado, 2008) such document.
NOTE: Not any alteration of a letter, number, 3. Private Document – every deed or
figure or design would amount to forgery. At instrument by a private person without the
most, it would only be frustrated forgery. intervention of the notary public or of any
other person legally authorized, by which
Sec. 4: Falsification of Legislative, Public, document some disposition or agreement is
Commercial, and Private Documents and proved, evidenced or set forth.
Wireless Telegraph, and Telephone Messages
4. Commercial Document – any instrument
executed in accordance with the Code of
Document
Commerce of any mercantile law containing
disposition of commercial rights or
Any written instrument by which a right is
obligations.
established, or an obligation is extinguished, or
every deed or instrument executed by a person
Examples: Bills of exchange, Letters of
by which some disposition or agreement is
Credit, Checks, Quedans, Drafts, Bills of
proved, evidenced, or set forth.
lading
Kinds of Documents
Classes of Falsification
1. Public document – any instrument notarized
1. Falsification of legislative documents;
by a notary public or competent public
2. Falsification of a document by a public
official with the solemnities required by law.
officer, employee or notary public;
Examples: 3. Falsification of public or official, or
commercial documents by a private
a. Civil service examination papers
individual;
b. Official receipt required by the
government to be issued upon receipt 4. Falsification of private document by any
person; and
of money for public purposes

5. Falsification of wireless, telegraph and minister;

telephone messages.
2. That he Takes advantage of his official
A document is falsified by fabricating an position;
inexistent document or by changing the contents
of an existing one through any of the eight (8) Q: Must there be a genuine document in
ways enumerated under Art. 171. falsification?
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE A: It depends. In paragraphs 6, 7, in its second

DOCUMENTS part, and 8 of Art. 171, the law requires that there
ART. 170, RPC be a genuine document where the intercalation
or alteration is made changing its meaning.
Elements of Falsification of Legislative
Documents (B-A-N-C) In the other paragraphs of Art. 171, falsification
may be committed by simulating or fabricating a
1. That there be a Bill, resolution or ordinance document. (Reyes, 2017)
enacted or approved or pending approval by
either House of Legislature or any provincial Q: The accused simulated a warrant of arrest
board or municipal council; against his common-law wife by making it
2. That the offender Alters the same; appear that the same was signed and issued
3. That he has No proper authority therefor; by the authority when in truth and in fact it
and was not. The accused sent it to the municipal
4. That the alteration has Changed the meaning president of Corregidor, and by virtue
of the document. thereof, the woman was arrested. Is the
accused guilty of falsification of a public
NOTE: The act of falsification in legislative document?
document is limited to altering it which changes
its meaning. A: YES. The simulation of a public or official
document, done in such a manner as to easily lead
Persons Liable under Art. 170 to error as to its authenticity, constitutes the
crime of falsification. It is not essential that the
The offender is any person who has no proper falsification shall have been made in a real public
authority to make the alteration. He may be a or official document. (U.S. v. Corral, G.R. No. 5325,
private individual or a public officer. 03 Mar. 1910)
NOTE: Art. 170 does not require that the offender 3. That he falsified a document by committing
be a private individual. All that the provision any of the following Acts (2008 BAR):
requires is that the offender has no proper
authority to make the alteration. a. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature, or rubric. (Art.
171, par. 1)
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
Elements:
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
i. That there be an intent to imitate,
ART. 171, RPC
or an attempt to imitate; and
ii. That the two signatures or
Elements of Art. 171 (PuNoE-T-A-E)
handwritings, the genuine and the
forged, bear some resemblance to
1. That the offender is a Public officer,
each other.
employee, Notary public, or an Ecclesiastical

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
NOTE: The Spanish text of Art. 171 is Here, all the elements of the crime are present.
“fingiendo” or feigning (for imitation). In Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which
feigning, there is no original signature, states that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y
handwriting or rubric, but a forgery of a when in fact, he did not participate in its
signature, handwriting or rubric that solemnization.
does not exist.
Q: Atty. Constantino notarized the Joint
b. Causing it to appear that persons have Acknowledgement of the last will and
participated in any act or proceeding testament of Severino. Dr. Asuncion was not
when they did not in fact so participate. present during the execution, but his name
(Art. 171, par. 2) was not crossed out from the document. He
only signed the document after it was
Elements: notarized. With this, Atty. Constantino was
i. That the offender caused it to charged of the crime of falsifying a public
appear in a document that a person document under Art. 171(2) of the RPC
or persons participated in an act or for making it appear that Dr. Asuncion
a proceeding; and appeared before him and witnessed the
ii. That such person or persons did execution of the Last Will and Testament. Is
not in fact so participate in the act Atty. Constantino guilty beyond reasonable
or proceeding. doubt of the crime of falsifying a public
document?
Q: X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested
him to solemnize their marriage. On the day of A: NO. In falsification of public documents under
the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's Art. 171(2) of the RPC, the prosecution must
office but he was not there. Mayor Z's chief of prove that these elements exist: (1) that the
staff, Mr. U, however, represented that he offender is a public officer, employee, notary
himself can solemnize their marriage and just public, or an ecclesiastical minister; (2) that he
have Mayor Z sign the marriage certificate takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he
when the latter comes back. Consequently, falsifies a document by causing it to appear that
upon X and Y's assent, Mr. U solemnized the persons have participated in any act or
marriage, despite his lack of authority proceeding; and (4) that such person or persons
therefor. did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
Assuming that Mayor Z signed the marriage Here, the first element has already been proven
certificate which stated that he solemnized since petitioner is a notary public. The second
the marriage of X and Y, what crime may element is presumed when the alleged falsity
Mayor Z be charged with under the RPC? committed by the notary public pertains to the
Explain. (2019 BAR) notarization. However, the third and fourth
elements are lacking. Even if Atty. Costantino
A: Mayor Z may be charged with Falsification falsely certified that Dr. Asuncion was an
under Art. 171, par. 2 of the RPC. Its elements are: instrumental witness to the execution of the will,
one crucial detail remains: Dr. Asuncion signed
1. That the offender is a public officer; the Joint Acknowledgement after it was
2. That the takes advantage of his official notarized.
position; and
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to Since Dr. Asuncion did not sign the Joint
appear that persons have participated in any Acknowledgement before it was notarized, he
act of proceeding when they did not in fact so cannot be considered as having attested and
participate. subscribed to its due execution at the time of its

notarization. It was not petitioner who made it NOTE: The perversion of truth in the
appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in the narration of facts must be made with the
execution of the Joint Acknowledgement, but Dr. wrongful intent of injuring a third
Asuncion himself. Petitioner, therefore, must be person. (Reyes, 2017)
acquitted. (Atty. Constantino v. People, G.R. No.
225696, 08 Apr. 2019) iv. The untruthful narration must be
such as to affect the integrity of the
NOTE: When committed by a private individual, document or to change the effects
he should be liable under Art. 172. which it would otherwise produce.
c. Attributing to persons who have Q: Clemente, a security guard of the Bureau of

participated in an act or proceeding Customs, has declared in his SALNs, for the
statements other than those in fact made years 2002 to 2014, only three (3) out of the
by them. (Art. 171, par. 3) seven (7) properties registered in his name.
Furthermore, a criminal information for
Elements: robbery was filed against him which was
i. That a person or persons eventually provisionally dismissed. However,
participated in an act or a he made an untruthful statement when
proceeding; answered in his 2014 Personal Data Sheet
ii. That such person or persons made (PDS) "NO" to the question, "Have you ever
statements in that act or been formally charged." A complaint against
proceeding; and him was filed for violation of Sec. 7 of R.A. No.
iii. That the offender, in making a 3019, Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6713, Art. 171 for
document, attributed to such Falsification by a Public Officer and False
person or persons statements Testimony, and Art. 183 for Perjury under the
other than those in fact made by RPC before the OMB.
such person or persons.
Did Clemente commit Falsification of Public
d. Making untruthful statements in a Documents by making untruthful statements
narration of facts. (Art. 171, par. 4) in a narration of facts under Art. 171?
Elements: A: NO. The third element of the crime, i.e., that the
i. That the offender makes in a statements made are absolutely false, was
document untruthful statements in wanting. Under the crime of Falsification of
a narration of facts; Public Documents, the following elements must
ii. That he has legal obligation to be established: (1) the offender is a public officer,
disclose the truth of the facts employee, or notary public; (2) he takes
narrated by him; advantage of his official position; and (3) he
falsifies a document by committing any of the acts
NOTE: “Legal obligation” means that enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC.
there is a law requiring the disclosure of
truth of the facts narrated. The person To warrant conviction for Falsification of Public
making the narration of facts must be Documents by making untruthful statements in a
aware of the falsity of facts narrated by narration of facts under Art. 171, par. 4 of the
him. (Reyes, 2017) RPC, the prosecution must establish beyond
reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) the
iii. The facts narrated by the offender offender makes in a public document untruthful
are absolutely false; and statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
narrated by him; and (3) the facts narrated by NOTE: The acts of falsification
him are absolutely false. mentioned in this paragraph cannot be
committed by a private individual or by
In this case, the element of taking advantage of a notary public or a public officer who
one's position is patently lacking. There is no does not take advantage of his official
showing that private respondent had the duty to position.
make or prepare, or otherwise, to intervene in the
preparation of the SALNs or he had the official h. Intercalating any instrument or note
custody of the same. (Department of Finance - relative to the issuance thereof in a
Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Office of the protocol, registry or official book. (Art.
Ombudsman and Clemente Germar, G.R. No. 171, par. 8)
238660, 03 Feb. 2021)
4. In case the offender is an Ecclesiastical
e. Altering true dates. (Art. 171, par. 5) minister, the act of falsification is committed
with respect to any record or document of
There is falsification under this such character that its falsification may affect
paragraph only when the date the civil status of persons.
mentioned in the document is essential.
The alteration of the date in a document Persons Liable under Art. 171
must affect either the veracity of the
document of the effects thereof. 1. Public officer, employees, or notary public
who takes advantage of official position;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in 2. Ecclesiastical minister if the act of
a genuine document which changes its falsification may affect the civil status of
meaning. (Art. 171, par. 6) persons; or
3. Private individual, if in conspiracy with
Elements: public officer.
i. That there be an alteration (change)
or intercalation (insertion) on a Q: X was charged with falsification because in
document; her certificate of candidacy for the position of
ii. That it was made on a genuine councilor, she had ‘willfully and unlawfully’
document; made the false statement that she was eligible
iii. That the alteration or intercalation to said office although she knew fully well that
had changed the meaning of the she was under 23 years old. Was the charge
document; and proper?
iv. That the change made the
document speak something false. A: NO. When the accused certified she was
eligible for the position, she practically wrote a
NOTE: The alteration which makes a conclusion of law. Hence, she may not be declared
document speak the truth does not guilty of falsification because Art. 171 punishes
constitute falsification. untruthful statements in narration of facts.
(People v. Yanza, G.R. No. L-12089, 29 Apr. 1960)
g. Issuing in authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
exists, or including in such copy a
statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original. (Art. 171,
par. 7)

Making Untruthful Statements vs. Perjury damage to the government, did he commit a
crime?
MAKING
UNTRUTHFUL PERJURY A: YES. In falsification of a public document, it is
STATEMENTS immaterial whether or not the contents set forth
The document must be therein were false. What is important is the fact
The document must
subscribed and sworn that the signature of another was counterfeited.
not be subscribed and
to. In a crime of falsification of a public document,
sworn.
the principal thing punished is the violation of
NOTE: What is public faith and the destruction of the truth as
Ex: Cedula; driver’s
violated is the therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, intent to gain
license
solemnity of the oath. or injure is immaterial. Even more so, the gain or
damage is not necessary. (Caubang v. People, G.R.
Q: Augustina filed a criminal complaint No. L-62634, 26 June 1992)
against Bernante for falsification of public
document because the latter allegedly Q: Can falsification be committed by
falsified leave forms. It was alleged that omission?
Bernante made it appear in his leave
application that he was on forced leave and on A: YES. Illustration: An assistant bookkeeper
vacation leave on certain dates. In truth, who, having bought several articles for which he
Bernante was serving a 20-day prison term signed several chits, intentionally did not record
because of his conviction of the crime of slight in his personal account most of the said chits and
physical injuries. Is Bernante liable for the destroyed them so that he could avoid paying the
crime of falsification of documents? amount thereof is guilty of falsification by
omission. (People v. Dizon, G.R. No. L-22560, 29
A: NO. Bernante may not be convicted of the Jan. 1925)
crime of falsification of public document by
making false statements in a narration of facts Q: Can a person be convicted of the felony of
absent any legal obligation to disclose where he falsification of public document through
would spend his vacation leave and forced leave. reckless imprudence notwithstanding that
(Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman [Visayas], the charge against him in the Information was
G.R. No. 146731, 13 Jan. 2004) for the intentional felony of falsification of
public document under Art. 171(4) of the
Q: In falsification of public documents, is it RPC?
necessary that there be the idea of gain or
intent to injure a third person? A: YES. Sevilla’s claim that his constitutional right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the
A: NO. In falsification of public or official accusation against him was violated when the
documents, it is not necessary that there be Sandiganbayan convicted him of reckless
present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a imprudence resulting to falsification of public
third person because in the falsification of a documents, when the Information only charged
public document, what is punished is the the intentional felony of falsification of public
violation of the public faith and the destruction of documents, is untenable. To stress, reckless
the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. (Galeos imprudence resulting to falsification of public
v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, 09 Feb. 2011) documents is an offense that is necessarily
included in the willful act of falsification of public
Q: A counterfeited the signature of B but what documents, the latter being the greater offense.
he entered in the Statement of Assets and As such, he can be convicted of reckless
Liabilities of B are all true. Since there was no imprudence resulting to falsification of public

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
documents notwithstanding that the Information original document when no such

only charged the willful act of falsification of original exists, or including in such a
public documents. (Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. copy a statement contrary to, or
194390, 13 Aug. 2014) different from that of the genuine
original;
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS b. Falsification was committed in any
ART. 172, RPC private document; and
Punishable Acts c. Falsification caused damage to a third

party or at least the falsification was
1. Falsification of a public, official, or committed with intent to cause such
commercial document by a private damage.
individual.
Mere falsification of private document is not
Elements (1991, 1992, 1993, 2000, 2009 enough. Two things are required:
BAR):
a. Offender is a private individual or 1. He must have counterfeited the false
public officer or employee who did not document; and
take advantage of his official position; 2. He must have performed an independent
act which operates to the prejudice of a
b. He committed any act of falsification third person.
enumerated in Art. 171; and
NOTE: “With the intent to cause damage” means
c. The falsification is committed in a that the offender performs some other
public, official, or commercial independent act in order to make use of it – an act
document. which, while it does not result in prejudice to a
third party, has been done nevertheless with the
NOTE: Under this paragraph, damage or intention of causing such prejudice.
intent to cause damage is not necessary.
What is punished in falsification of public Although one of the offenders did not personally
document is the undermining of the profit from the falsification of the private
public faith and the destruction of truth document, he is liable, as all that the law requires
as solemnly proclaimed therein. In this is an intent to prejudice another person. (Reyes,
particular crime, the controlling 2017)
consideration lies in the public character
of a document; and the existence of any Venue of Action
prejudice caused to third persons or, at
least, the intent to cause such damage Q: The appellant was charged with having
becomes immaterial. sent to the Bureau of Labor at Manila the
letter alleged to have been falsified by him in
2. Falsification of private document by any Makati, Rizal. Where should the action be
person filed?
Elements: A: Makati, Rizal. The intent to cause damage must

a. Offender committed any of the acts of have co-existed with the act of falsification itself.
falsification except Art. 171 (7), that is, If that is so, then the offense, if at all committed,
issuing in an authenticated form a was consummated in Makati, Rizal, and the courts
document purporting to be a copy of an of which should assume jurisdiction to try the

same. (People v. Morales, C.A. 58 O.G. 5667) Document Need Not be an Authentic Official
3. Use of falsified document. Paper
Elements: The document need not be an authentic official

a. In introducing in a judicial proceeding – paper since its simulation is the essence of
i. Offender knew that the document falsification. So, the signatures appearing thereon
was falsified by another person; need not necessarily be forged.
ii. The falsified document is in Arts.
171 or 172 (1 or 2); Q: When is damage required under this
iii. He introduced said document in Article?
evidence in a judicial proceeding.
A:
NOTE: Damage is not necessary in the 1. When a private document is falsified;
crime of introducing in judicial 2. When a falsified document is used in any
proceeding a false document. proceeding other than judicial.
b. In use in any other transaction – Q: Is there a complex crime of estafa through

i. Offender knew that a document falsification of a private document?
was falsified by another person;
ii. The false document is embraced in A: NONE. The fraudulent gain obtained through
Arts. 171 or 172 (1 or 2); deceit in estafa, in the commission of which a
iii. He used such document (not in private document was falsified is nothing more or
judicial proceedings); and less than the very damage caused by the
iv. The use caused damaged to another falsification of such document.
or at least used with intent to cause
damage The proper crime to be charged is estafa, if estafa
can be committed without falsification, such as
NOTE: The user of the falsified document is when a private document is falsified to conceal
deemed the author of the falsification if: (1) the the misappropriation of money in possession of
use was so closely connected in time with the the offender, or when estafa was already
falsification, and (2) the user had the capacity of consummated.
falsifying the document. (1997, 1999 BAR)
If estafa cannot be committed without
The person who used the falsified document is falsification, then the crime is falsification such as
not the one who falsified the document. If the one when the private document is falsified to obtain
who used the falsified document is the same the money which was later misappropriated.
person who falsified it, the crime is only
falsification and the use of the same is not a Q: Orient Commercial Banking Corporation
separate crime. (OCBC), a commercial bank was ordered
closed by the BSP. PDIC was designated as the
Good Faith is a Defense if a Private Individual receiver of OCBC. Based on their
Falsified a Public Document investigation, it appears that fictitious loans
in favor of two entities – Timmy’s, Inc. and
There is no falsification of a public document if Asia Textile Mills, Inc. were approved. After
the acts of the accused are consistent with good which, two manager’s checks representing
faith. Misstatements or erroneous assertion in a the supposed proceeds of these loans were
public document will not give rise to falsification issued but made payable to two different
as long as he acted in good faith and no one was entities without any documents issued by the
prejudiced by the alteration or error. supposed borrowers assigning the supposed

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
loan proceeds to the two payees. Thereafter, As to Commission of a Complex Crime

these two manager’s checks were encashed, Can be complexed
and then deposited in the OCBC Savings with other crimes if There is no complex
Account of Jose Go. the act of falsification crime of estafa
was the necessary through falsification
PDIC, as receiver, sent demand letters to the means in the of a private
bank’s debtor-borrowers on record, including commission of such document. Hence,
Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. crimes, like estafa, when one makes use
However, it was discovered that the theft, or malversation. of a private
signatures of the corporate officers were document, which he
forgeries, and the purported loans were e.g., Malversation falsified, to defraud
obtained through falsified loan documents. through falsification another, there results
What crime did Go, et al. commit? of a public document; only one crime: that
Estafa through of falsification of a
A: Go, et. al., are liable for the crime of Estafa thru falsification of a private document.
Falsification of Commercial Documents. In a public document.
prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary
where there is evidence of misappropriation or No Falsification of Private Document through
conversion. The accused may be convicted of the Negligence or Reckless imprudence
felony under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC if the
prosecution proved misappropriation or In falsification of private document, there must
conversion by the accused of the money or be, at least, an intent to cause damage there must
property subject of the information. be malice. On the other hand, in falsification
through imprudence, it does not necessitate such
Moreover, the falsification of a public, official, or intent or malice.
commercial document may be a means of
committing estafa because before the falsified No such Crime as Attempted/Frustrated
document is actually utilized to defraud another, Falsification
the crime of falsification has already been
consummated, damage or intent to cause damage Falsification is consummated the moment the
not being an element of the crime of falsification genuine document is altered on the moment the
of public, official or commercial document. false document is executed. However, there may
Therefore, the falsification of the public, official be a frustrated crime of falsification if the
or commercial document is only a necessary falsification is imperfect. (Reyes, 2008)
means to commit the estafa. (People v. Jose Go, et.
al, G.R. No. 191015, 06 Aug. 2014) FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS TELEGRAPH
AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES, AND USE OF
Falsification of Public Document vs. Private SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
Document ART. 173, RPC
FALSIFICATION OF
FALSIFICATION OF Punishable Acts
PRIVATE
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
As to Nature of the Crime telephone message;
Aside from 2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone
falsification, message; and
Mere falsification is
prejudice to a third
enough.
person or intent to Elements of 1 and 2:
cause it, is essential. a. That the offender is an officer or

employee of the Government or an Sec. 5: Falsification of Medical Certificates,

officer or employee of a private Certificates of Merit or Service and the Like
corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or
FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
telephone message; and
FALSE CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE
ART. 174, RPC
b. That the offender commits any of the
following acts:
i. Uttering fictitious wireless, cable, Punishable Acts under Art. 174, RPC
telegraph or telephone message; or
ii. Falsifying wireless, cable, 1. Issuance of false certificate by a physician or
telegraph, or telephone message. surgeon in connection with the practice of his
profession;
3. Using such falsified message.
NOTE: The crime is False Medical Certificate
Elements: by a physician. (Reyes, 2017)
a. Offender knew that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message was 2. Issuance of a false certificate or merit or
falsified by an officer or employee of a service, good conduct or similar
private corporation, engaged in the circumstances by a public officer; and
service of sending or receiving wireless,
cable or telephone message; NOTE: Intent to gain is immaterial. But if the
b. He used such falsified dispatch; and public officer issued the false certificate in
c. The use resulted in the prejudice of a consideration of a promise, gift or reward, he
third party or at least there was intent will also be liable for bribery.
to cause such prejudice.
The crime is False Certificate of Merit or
Q: Can a private individual commit the crime Service by a public officer. (Reyes, 2017)
of falsification of telegraphic dispatches?
3. Falsification by a private person of any
A: It depends. A private individual cannot certificate falling within 1 and 2.
commit the crime of falsification of telegraphic
dispatches by direct participation, unless he is an NOTE: The crime is False Medical Certificate
employee of a corporation engaged in the by a private individual or False Certificate of
business of sending or receiving wireless Merit or Service by a private individual.
telegraph or telephone messages. (Reyes, 2017)
But a private individual can be held criminally Certificate

liable as principal by inducement in the
Any writing by which testimony is given that a
falsification of telegraph dispatches or telephone
fact has or has not taken place.
messages. If he knowingly uses falsified
telegraph, wireless, or telephone messages to the
NOTE: The phrase “or similar circumstances” in
prejudice of a third person, or with intent to cause
Art. 174 does not seem to cover property,
such prejudice, it is not necessary that he be
because the circumstance contemplated must be
connected with such corporation.
similar to “merit,” “service,” or “good conduct.”
But certificate of residence for voting purposes is

certificate of “similar circumstances.” (Reyes,
2017)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Persons Liable under Art. 174 Sec. 6: Manufacturing, Importing and

Possession of Instruments or Implements
1. Physician or surgeon who issues a false intended for the Commission of Falsification
medical certificate in the practice of his
profession;
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
2. Public officer who issues a false certificate of
FALSIFICATION
merit, service or good conduct, moral
ART. 176, RPC
character, etc.; or
3. Private individual who makes or falsifies a Punishable Acts

certificate falling in the classes mentioned in
nos. 1 and 2. 1. Making or introducing into the Philippines
any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements for
USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
counterfeiting or falsification; and
ART. 175, RPC
2. Possessing with intent to use the instrument

Elements of Using False Certificates (I-K-U)
or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in or introduced into the
1. A physician or surgeon had Issued a false
Philippines by another person.
medical certificate, or public officer issued a
false certificate of merit or service, good NOTE: It is not necessary that the implements
conduct, or similar circumstance, or a private
confiscated form a complete set for
person had falsified any of said certificates;
counterfeiting, it being enough that they may be
2. Offender Knew that the certificate was false;
employed by themselves or together with other
and implements to commit the crime of
3. He Used the same. counterfeiting or falsification.
NOTE: When any of the false certificates CHAPTER 2: OTHER FALSITIES

mentioned in Art. 174 is used in the judicial
proceeding, Art. 172 does not apply, because the
use of false document in judicial proceeding Sec. 1: Usurpation of Authority, Rank, Title,
under Art. 172 is limited to those false documents and Improper Use of Names,
embraced in Arts. 171 and 172. Such use of the Uniforms and Insignia
false certificates falls under Art. 175.
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
ART. 177, RPC
Offenses Contemplated in Art. 177
1. Usurpation of Authority – by knowingly and

falsely representing oneself to be an officer,
agent, or representative of any department
or agency of the Philippine Government or
any foreign government.
NOTE: The mere act of knowingly and falsely

representing oneself to be an officer, etc. is

sufficient. It is not necessary that he Q: A councilor refused to vacate the office of

performs an act pertaining to a public officer. the mayor despite an official opinion that it is
the vice mayor who should discharge the
2. Usurpation of Official Functions – by duties of the mayor during the latter’s
performing any act pertaining to any person temporary absence. He was charged with
in authority or public officer of the Philippine usurpation of authority and official functions
Government or of a foreign government or but he contended that such crime may only be
any agency thereof, under pretense of official committed by private individuals. Is he
position, and without being lawfully entitled correct?
to do so. (2015 BAR)
A: NO. Violation of Art. 177 is not restricted to
NOTE: It is essential that the offender should private individuals. Public officials may also
have performed an act pertaining to a person commit this crime. (People v. Hilvano, G.R. No. L-
in authority or public officer, in addition to 8583, 31 July 1956)
other requirements. (Reyes, 2008)
Non-applicability of the Provision to an
USURPATION OF Occupant under Color of Title
USURPATION OF
OFFICIAL
AUTHORITY
FUNCTIONS This provision does NOT apply to an occupant
The offender should under color of title. This would only apply to a
Mere representation
have performed an usurper or one who introduces himself into an
is sufficient
act office that is vacant, or who, without color of title,
ousts the incumbent and assumes to act as an
Q: X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested officer by exercising some functions of the office.
him to solemnize their marriage. On the day of (People v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 100992-CR, 17 Dec.
the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's 1974)
office but he was not there. Mayor Z's chief of
staff, Mr. U, however, represented that he The function or authority usurped must pertain
himself can solemnize their marriage and just to:
have Mayor Z sign the marriage certificate 1. The government;
when the latter comes back. Consequently, 2. Any person in authority; and
upon X and Y's assent, Mr. U solemnized the 3. Any public officer
marriage, despite his lack of authority
therefor. Usurpation of the authority or functions of a
diplomatic, consular or other accredited officers
What crime may Mr. U be charged with under of a foreign government is punishable under R.A.
the RPC? Explain. (2018 BAR) No. 75, in addition to the penalties provided by
the Code. (Regalado, 2007)
A: Mr. U can be charged with the crime of
Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions. NOTE: The law demands positive, express and
Under Art. 177 of the RPC, Usurpation of explicit representation on the part of the offender
Authority may be committed by performing any before he can be convicted of usurpation of
act pertaining to any person in authority or public authority. (Reyes, 2017)
officer of the Philippine Government or of a
foreign government or any agency thereof, under Q: The National Disaster Risk Reduction and
the pretense of official position, and without Management Council requested the release of
being lawfully entitled to do so. Here, despite his P961,550,000 to the Negros Oriental province
lack of authority, Mr. U knowingly solemnized a to finance the rehabilitation of various
marriage pertaining to Mayor Z. infrastructures damaged by Typhoon

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Sendong and a 6.9-magnitude earthquake. b. He uses the fictitious name publicly;

The Office of the President approved the and
request. The Department, through its c. Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to
Regional Office No. VII, issued a Special evade the execution of a judgment or to
Allotment Release Order which covered the cause damage (to public interest).
approved amount.
NOTE: If the purpose is to cause damage to
In a letter-advice, Undersecretary Relampagos private interest, the crime will be estafa
informed Negros Oriental Governor Degamo under Art. 315(2)(a).
that the Department is withdrawing the
Special Allotment Release Order because its 2. Concealing true name.
release did not comply with the guidelines on
large-scale fund releases for infrastructure Elements:
projects. Is Relampagos guilty of Usurpation of a. Offender conceals his true name and
Authority or Official Functions? other personal circumstances; and
b. Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
A: NO. Relampagos did not commit the crime of (Reyes, 2008)
usurpation of authority or official functions. The
crime of usurpation of official functions punishes
any person who, under pretense of official “Fictitious Name”
position, performs any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the Any other name which a person publicly applies
Philippine Government or any foreign to himself without authority of law. (Id., citing U.S.
government, or any agency thereof, without v. To Lee Piu)
being lawfully entitled to do so. In this case, there
was no attempt to represent the President in the NOTE: The prisoner who is replaced must
letter. It appears that Relampagos was acting on necessarily use the name of another, thus he is
behalf of Secretary Abad, upon the instructions of also guilty of using a fictitious name to evade the
the President. execution of the judgment against him.
Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, The one who takes his place and used a fictitious
department secretaries may act for and on behalf name to conceal the crime is guilty of delivering a
of the President on matters where the President prisoner from jail.
is required to exercise authority in their
respective departments. (Degamo v. Office of the Fictitious Name vs. Concealing True Name
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212416, 05 Dec. 2018)
USE OF FICTITIOUS CONCEALING TRUE
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND NAME NAME
CONCEALING TRUE NAME As to Element of Publicity
ART. 178, RPC Element of publicity Element of publicity
must be present. is not necessary.
Acts Punishable under Art. 178 As to Purpose
Either:
1. Using fictitious name; a. to conceal a
crime, or
Merely to conceal
Elements: b. to evade the
identity
a. Offender uses a name other than his execution of a
real name; judgment, or
c. to cause damage.

ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA competent authority, shall deny the truth or say
ART. 179, RPC something contrary to it. (Reyes, 2008)
Elements of Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia Forms of False Testimony

(U-P-P)
Testimony given in:
1. Offender makes Use of insignia, uniform or 1. Criminal Cases;
dress; 2. Civil Cases; and
2. The insignia, uniform or dress Pertains to an 3. Other Cases
office not held by the offender, or to a class of
persons of which he is not a member; and False Testimony Cannot be Committed thru
3. Said insignia, uniform, or dress is used Negligence
Publicly and improperly.
False testimony requires criminal intent, and it
Wearing the Uniform of an Imaginary Office, cannot be committed thru negligence. It could not
NOT punishable be frustrated or attempted.
The second element requires that the insignia, Reason for Punishing False Testimony
uniform, or dress pertains to an office or class of
persons. Falsehood is always reprehensible; but it is
particularly odious when committed in a judicial
Exact Imitation of a Uniform or Dress is proceeding, as it constitutes an imposition upon
Unnecessary the court and seriously exposes it to a
miscarriage of justice.
A colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of people, not those thoroughly FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
familiar with every detail or accessory thereof. ART. 180, RPC
(People v. Romero, C.A. 58, O.G. 4402)
Elements of False Testimony against a
Use of Ecclesiastical Habit of a Religious Order Defendant (Crim-F-AC-K)
The unauthorized use of ecclesiastical habit of a 1. There is a Criminal proceeding;

religious order is punishable under this article.
2. Offender testifies Falsely under oath against
“Improper” Use of Uniform or Insignia the defendant therein;
The use thereof by the offender is public and 3. Offender who gives false testimony Knows
malicious. (Regalado, 2007) It means that the that it is false; and
offender has no right to use the uniform or
insignia. 4. Defendant against whom the false testimony
is given is either Acquitted or Convicted in a
Sec. 2: False Testimony final judgment.
How False Testimony is Committed False Testimony Even if the Testimony is NOT
Considered by the Court
False testimony is committed by a person who,
being under oath and required to testify as to the What is being considered here is the tendency of
the testimony to establish or aggravate the guilt
truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a
of the accused and not the result that the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
testimony may produce. Q: Can a defendant who falsely testified in his

own behalf in a criminal case be guilty of false
NOTE: The witness who gave false testimony is testimony favorable to the defendant?
liable even if his testimony was not considered by
the court. A: YES. The right of an accused to testify in his
own behalf is secured to him to enable him to
Imposition of Penalty under Art. 180 spread upon the record the truth as to any matter
within his knowledge which will tend to establish
It depends upon the sentence of the defendant his knowledge. Defendant is liable if he testifies in
against whom the false testimony was given. his favor by falsely imputing the crime to another
Defendant must be sentenced to at least a person. (U.S. v. Soliman, G.R. No. L-11555, 06 Jan.
correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been 1917)
acquitted. Thus, if arresto mayor is imposed, Art.
180 is not applicable. NOTE: The ruling in Soliman would only apply if
the defendant voluntarily goes upon the witness
FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE stand and falsely imputes to some other person
TO THE DEFENDANT the commission of a grave offense. If he merely
ART. 181, RPC denies the commission of the crime or his
participation therein, he should not be
Elements of False Testimony Favorable to the prosecuted for false testimony. (Reyes, 2008)
Defendant
The classification in determining whether the
1. A person gives false testimony; testimony is in favor or against the accused is
2. In favor of the defendant; and significant in order to determine when the
3. In a criminal case. prescriptive period begins to run:
Q: Is conviction or acquittal of the defendant 1. In Favor – right after the witness testified
in the principal case necessary? falsely, the prescriptive period commences to
run because the basis of the penalty on the
A: NO. The conviction or acquittal of a defendant false witness is the felony charged to the
in the principal case is not necessary. (Reyes, accused regardless of whether the accused
2017) was acquitted or convicted or the trial has
terminated.
NOTE: This is an important distinction between
False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant v. 2. Against – the prescriptive period will not
False Testimony Against a Defendant. begin to run if the case has not been decided
with finality because the basis of the penalty
Gravamen on the false witness is the sentence on the
accused who testified against it. When the
Intent to favor the accused. False testimony in accused is acquitted, there is also a
favor of a defendant need not directly influence corresponding penalty on the false witness
the decision of acquittal and it need not benefit for his false testimony. (Boado, 2008)
the defendant. The intent to favor the defendant
is sufficient. (People v. Reyes, C.A., 48 O.G. 1837)
Rectification After Realizing the Mistake
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing

the mistake is NOT a false testimony.

FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND

ART. 182, RPC PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
ART. 183, RPC
Elements of False Testimony in Civil Cases
(C-Re-F-Ma-K) Perjury
1. Testimony must be given in a Civil case; The willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood
2. It must be Related to the issues presented in under oath or affirmation administered by
said case; authority of law on a material matter.
3. It must be False;
4. It must be given by the defendant Knowing NOTE: Perjury committed in prosecutions under
the same to be false; and special laws, special proceedings, or under Art.
5. It must be Malicious, and given with an intent 180 where the penalty is only arresto mayor and
to affect the issues presented in said case. below, can be proceeded against under this
article. (Regalado, 2007)
NOTE: The criminal action of false testimony in
civil cases must be suspended when there is a Commission of Perjury
pending determination of the falsity or
truthfulness of the subject testimonies in the civil Perjury is committed thru:
case. (Ark Travel Express v. Judge Abrogar, G.R. No. 1. Falsely testifying under oath; or
137010, 29 Aug. 2003) 2. Making a false affidavit.
NOTE: Falsely testifying under oath should not be

Penalty Depends on the Amount of the in a judicial proceeding. (Reyes, 2017)
Controversy
Elements of Perjury (2005 BAR)
The penalties vary – if the amount of the
controversy is over P5,000; if not exceeding 1. Accused made a statement under oath or
P5,000; or if it cannot be estimated. (Reyes, 2017) executed an affidavit upon a material matter
(2008 BAR);
Non-applicability of this Article to Special 2. Statement or affidavit was made before a
Proceedings competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath;
False testimony given to a special proceeding is
NOT punishable under this article. Art. 182 3. In that statement or affidavit, the accused
applies only to ordinary or special civil actions made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
and supplementary or ancillary proceedings falsehood (1996 BAR); and
therein. Perjury committed in special
proceedings, i.e., probate proceeding, are covered 4. Sworn statement or affidavit containing the
by Art. 183. (Regalado, 2007 citing U.S. v. falsity is required by law. (1991 BAR)
Gutierrez and People v. Hernandez)
The statement need not actually be required. It is
sufficient that it was authorized by law to be
made. (People v. Angangco, G.R. No. L-47693, 12
Oct. 1943)
NOTE: The venue in perjury, if committed by

falsely testifying under oath, is the place where he
testified. If committed by making false affidavit,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
the venue is the place where the affidavit was Perjury vs. False Testimony
notarized. (Union Bank et al., v. People, G.R. No.
192565, 28 Feb. 2012) PERJURY FALSE TESTIMONY
As to Definition
Oath Any willful and
corrupt assertion of
Any form of attestation by which a person falsehood on material Given in the course of
signifies that he is bound in conscience to matter under oath a judicial proceeding.
perform an act faithfully and truthfully. and not given in
judicial proceedings.
Affidavit As to Time Committed
There is perjury even
A sworn statement in writing; a declaration in during the Contemplates actual
writing, made upon oath before an authorized preliminary trial.
magistrate or officer. investigation.
Competent Person Subornation of Perjury
A person who has a right to inquire into the It is committed by a person who knowingly and
questions presented to him upon matters under willfully procures another to swear falsely and
his jurisdiction. the witness suborned does testify under the
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
“Material matter”
Subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized
The main fact which is the subject of the inquiry, in the RPC, but the person who induces another
or any circumstance which tends to prove that to commit a perjury may be punished under Art.
fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to 183, in relation to Art. 17, as a principal by
corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative inducement to the crime of perjury while the one
to the subject of inquiry, or which legitimately induced is liable as a principal by direct
affects the credit of any witness who testifies. participation.
(U.S. v. Estraña, G.R. No. 5751, 06 Sept. 1910)
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
Test to Determine the Materiality of the
ART. 184, RPC
Matter
Elements of Offering False Testimony in

The test is whether if the evidence admitted could
Evidence (O-K-J)
properly influence the result of the trial.
1. Offender Offered in evidence a false witness

Defense in Perjury
or false testimony;
2. He Knew that the witness or testimony was
Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
false; and
Mere assertion of falsehood is not enough to
3. Offer was made in a Judicial or official
amount to perjury. The assertion must be
proceeding.
deliberate and willful.
NOTE: Art. 184 does NOT apply when the

offender induced a witness to testify falsely. It
applies when the offender knowingly presented a
false witness, and the latter testified falsely. The
one offering the testimony is liable under Art. 184

while the witness who testified is liable under reduction of the price of the thing
Arts. 180-183, depending on the proceedings on auctioned.
which the testimony was offered and for whose
favor the false testimony was made. NOTE: Mere attempt to cause prospective
bidders to stay away from the auction by
CHAPTER 3: FRAUDS means of threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice with the intent that the thing
auctioned, should command a lesser price, is
Sec. 1: Machinations, Monopolies,
sufficient to constitute an offense. The threat
and Combinations
need not be effective nor the offer or gift
accepted.
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
ART. 185, RPC MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Punishable Acts ART. 186, RPC
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a NOTE: Art. 186 has been repealed by the
consideration for refraining from taking part Philippine Competition Act or R.A. No. 10667.
in any public auction; and
Violations of Art. 186 of the RPC committed
Elements: before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10667 may
a. There is a public auction; continue to be prosecuted, unless the same has
b. Offender solicits any gift or compromise been barred by prescription, and subject to the
from any of the bidders; procedure under Sec. 31 of R.A. No, 10667. (Sec.
c. Such gift or promise is the 55(A), R.A. No. 10667; Reyes, 2017)
consideration for his refraining from
taking part in that public auction; and Anti-Competitive Agreements under the
d. Offender has the intent to cause the Philippine Competition Act
reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned. 1. The following agreements, between or
among competitors, are per se prohibited:
NOTE: It is not required that the person
making the proposal actually refrains from a. Restricting competition as to price, or
taking part in any auction. components thereof, or other terms of
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away trade; and
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice. b. Fixing price at an auction or in any form
of bidding including cover bidding, bid
NOTE: The threat need not be effective nor suppression, bid rotation and market
the offer or gift accepted for the crime to allocation and other, analogous
arise. practices of bid manipulation;
Elements: 2. The following agreements, between or

a. There is a public auction; among competitors which have the object or
b. Offender attempts to cause the bidders effect of substantially preventing, restricting
to stay away from that public auction; or lessening competition: shall be prohibited:
c. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice; and a. Setting, limiting, or controlling
d. Offender has the intent to cause the production, markets, technical

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
development, or investment; and Sec. 2: Frauds in Commerce and Industry
b. Dividing or sharing the market,

IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
whether by volume of sales or
FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR
purchases, territory, type of goods or
MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OR
services, buyers or sellers, or any other
OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS
means;
ART. 187, RPC
3. Agreements other than those specified in
nos. 1 and 2 of this section which have the Articles of the Merchandise
object or effect of substantially preventing,
restricting or lessening competition shall 1. Gold
also be prohibited; Provided, those which 2. Silver
contribute to improving the production, or 3. Other precious metals
distribution of goods and services, or to 4. Their alloys
promoting technical, or economic progress,
while allowing consumers a fair share of the Elements of Art. 187, RPC (Im-Fa-K)
resulting benefits, may not necessarily be
deemed a violation of this Act. 1. Offender Imports, sells, or disposes of any of
those articles or merchandise;
NOTE: An entity that controls, is controlled by, or
is under common control with another entity or 2. Stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
entities, have common economic interests, and merchandise Fail to indicate the actual
are not otherwise able to decide or act fineness or quality of said metals or alloys;
independently of each other, shall not be and
considered competitors for purposes of this
section. (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 10667) 3. Offender Knows that the stamps, brands or
marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
Penalties under R.A. No. 10667 the quality of the metals or alloys.
An entity that enters into any anti-competitive Alteration of Quality

agreement as covered by Chapter III, Secs. 14(a)
and 14(b) under this Act shall, for each and every The manufacturer who alters the quality or
violation, be penalized by imprisonment from fineness of anything pertaining to his art or
two (2) to seven (7) years, and a fine of not less business is liable for estafa under Art. 315, (2) (b),
than fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) but not of the Code.
more than two hundred fifty million pesos NOTE: Selling the misbranded articles is not
(P250,000,000.00). The penalty of imprisonment necessary.
shall be imposed upon the responsible officers,
and directors of the entity. NOTE: Arts. 188 and 189 of the RPC were
repealed by The Intellectual Property Code (R.A.
When the entities involved are juridical persons, No. 8293, as amended).
the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed on
its officers, directors, or employees holding NOTE: R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No.
managerial positions, who are knowingly and 10640, repealed Title V of the RPC (Crimes
willfully responsible for such violation (Sec. 30, Relative to Opium and Other Drugs, Arts. 190-194).
R.A. No. 10667).
(See discussion on R.A. No. 9165, as amended,
under Special Penal Laws – page 464)

highly scandalous conduct should not expressly

E. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS fall within any other article of the RPC.
ARTS. 200-202, RPC, TITLE VI
NOTE: If the acts of the offender are punished
under another article of the RPC, Art. 200 is not
applicable.
CHAPTER 1: GAMBLING AND BETTING
Commission of the Crime in a Private Place
NOTE: Arts. 195-196 have been repealed and
modified by P.D. Nos. 449, 483, and 1602, as An act offensive to decency, performed in a
amended by Letters of Instructions No. 816. Arts. private place, constitutes grave scandal.
197-199 has been repealed and modified by P.D. However, the act must be open to public view for
483 and P.D. 449. it to be actionable.
CHAPTER 2: OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY NOTE: If committed in a public place, the

AND GOOD CUSTOMS performance of the act offensive to decency is
already a crime even though there is no third
party looking at it. Public view is not required.
GRAVE SCANDAL
The public character of the place is sufficient.
ART. 200, RPC
Q: X, an 11-year-old girl, had sexual

Grave Scandal
intercourse with her 18-year-old boyfriend Y.
They performed the act in a secluded vacant
It consists of acts which are offensive to decency
lot. Unknown to them, there was a roving
and good customs which, having been committed
policeman at that time. Hence, they were
publicly, have given rise to public scandal to
arrested. What crime did they commit?
persons who have accidentally witnessed the
same.
A: The sexual intercourse with the girl constitutes
statutory rape. Though the act was carried out in
Elements (Pe-Hi-No-P)
a public place, criminal liability for grave scandal
cannot be incurred because the conduct of Y is
1. Offender Performs an act or acts;
punishable under another article of the RPC.
2. Such act or acts be Highly scandalous as
offending against decency or good customs;
Essence of Grave Scandal
3. Highly scandalous conduct is Not expressly
falling within any other article of this Code;
The essence of grave scandal is publicity and that
and
the acts committed are not only contrary to
4. Act or acts complained of be committed in a
morals and good customs but must likewise be of
Public place or within the public knowledge
such character as to cause public scandal to those
or view. (1996 BAR)
witnessing it. (2013 BAR)
NOTE: There should be consent to do the

Grave Scandal vs. Alarms and Scandal
scandalous act. If the scandalous act was done
without consent, the crime committed may be
ALARMS AND
acts of lasciviousness or violation of R.A. No. 7610 GRAVE SCANDAL
SCANDAL
if a child is involved.
The acts of the The acts of the
Grave Scandal is a Crime of Last Resort
offender are highly offender do not
scandalous in such a necessarily
Under the third element of Grave Scandal, the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
manner that it scandalize the public, e. Contrary to law, public order, morals,
offends decency and but his acts produce good customs, established policies,
good customs. alarm or danger to lawful orders, decrees and edicts; or
the public.
As to its Purpose 4. Those who shall Sell, give away, or exhibit
The scandal involved films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or
refers to moral literatures which are offensive to morals.
scandal offensive to
decency or good NOTE: The object of the law is to protect the
customs, although it The purpose is to morals of the public. (1993 BAR)
does not disturb disturb public peace.
public peace. But such Mere possession of obscene materials, without
conduct or act must intention to sell, exhibit, or give them away, is not
be open to the public punishable under Art. 201, considering the
view. purpose of the law is to prohibit the
dissemination of obscene materials to the public.
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE (Reyes, 2017)
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS,
AND INDECENT SHOWS Obscenity
ART. 201, RPC, as amended by P.D. 969
Obscenity is something which is offensive to
chastity, decency or delicacy. That which shocks
Persons Liable (P-O-S-E)
the ordinary and common sense of men as an
indecency.
1. Those who shall Publicly expound or
proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
Publicity is an Essential Element of this
morals;
Offense
2. Authors of Obscene literature, published
This offense, in any of the forms mentioned, is
with their knowledge in any form, the editors
committed only when there is publicity. It is an
publishing such literature; and the
essential element.
owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
Test of Obscenity (A-De-L)
3. Those who, in theaters, fairs,
1. Whether to the Average person, applying
cinematography, or any other place, Exhibit
contemporary standards would find the
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or
work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
shows, it being understood that the obscene
prurient interest;
literature or indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film,
2. Whether the work Depicts or describes, in a
which are proscribed by virtue hereof, shall
patently offensive way, sexual conduct
include those which: (Glo-S-O-D-Co)
specifically defined by the applicable state
law; and
a. Glorify criminals or condone crimes;
b. Serve no other purpose but to Satisfy the
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, Lacks
market for violence, lust or
serious literary, artistic, political, or
pornography;
scientific value. (Miller v. California, 413 US
c. Offend any race, or religion;
15, 21 June 1973)
d. Tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited Drugs; or

Liability of the Author of Obscene Literature Prostitutes
The author becomes liable if it is published with They are women who, for money or profit,
his knowledge. In every case, the editor habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or
publishing it is also liable. lascivious conduct.
Viewing of Pornographic Materials in Private Sexual intercourse is not a necessary element to

constitute prostitution. The act of habitually
If the viewing of pornographic materials is done indulging in lascivious conducts because of
privately, there is no violation of Art. 201. What is money or gain would already amount to
protected is the morality of the public in general. prostitution.
The law is not concerned with the moral of one
person. Term “Prostitution” is NOT Applicable to a
Man
Q: The criminal case for violation of Art. 201
of RPC was dismissed because there was no The term is applicable only to a woman who, for
concrete and strong evidence pointing them money or profit, habitually engages in sexual
as the direct source of pornographic intercourse or lascivious conduct. A man who
materials. Can petitioner now recover the engages in the same conduct is not a prostitute
confiscated hard disk containing the but a vagrant.
pornographic materials?
His acts may also be punished under
A: NO. Petitioner had no legitimate expectation of city/municipal ordinances.
protection of their supposed property rights. P.D.
969, which amended Art. 201 of the RPC also No Crime of Prostitution by Conspiracy
states that “where the criminal case against any
violation of this decree results in an acquittal, the One who conspires with a woman in the
obscene or immoral literature, films, prints, prostitution business like pimps, taxi drivers or
engravings, sculpture, paintings or other solicitors of clients are guilty of the crime under
materials and articles involved in the violation Art. 341 of the RPC for white slavery.
shall nevertheless be forfeited in favor of the
government to be destroyed.” In this case, the Art. 202 NOT Applicable to Minors
destruction of the hard disks and the software
used in the violation of the subject law, addresses Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be
the purpose of minimizing, if not eradicating exempt from prosecution for the crime of
pornography. (Nograles v. People, G.R. No. 191080, prostitution under Art. 202 of the RPC, such
21 Nov. 2011) prosecution being inconsistent with the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;
VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES Provided, that said persons shall undergo
ART. 202, as amended by R.A. No. 10158 “An appropriate counselling and treatment program.
Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy” (Sec. 58, R.A. No. 9344)
NOTE: R.A. No. 10158, dated March 27, 2012,

decriminalized vagrancy. All pending cases on
vagrancy shall be dismissed and all persons
serving sentence for vagrancy shall be
immediately released upon effectivity of R.A. No.
10158. (Reyes, 2017)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
the law invested her with some portion of the

F. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS sovereign functions of the government, so that
ARTS. 203-245, RPC, TITLE VII the purpose of the government is achieved.
In this case, the government aimed to enhance

the book publishing industry as it has a
CHAPTER 1: PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS significant role in the national development.
Hence, the fact that she was appointed from the
WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS public sector and not from the other branches or
ART. 203, RPC agencies of the government does not take her
position outside the meaning of a public office.
Q: Who is a public officer? (1999, 2017 BAR) (Javier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 147026-27, 11
Sept. 2009)
A: A public officer is any person who, by direct
provision of the law, popular election or CHAPTER 2: MALFEASANCE AND
appointment by competent authority, shall take MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall Three (3) Forms of Breach of Oath or Duty
perform in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or 1. Misfeasance
subordinate official, of any rank or class. 2. Malfeasance
3. Nonfeasance
NOTE: The term “public officers” embraces every
public servant from the highest to the lowest
MISFEASANCE MALFEASANCE NONFEASANCE
rank. All public servants from the President down
to the garbage collector, if employed and paid by Improper
Performance Omission of
the government, come within this term. performance
of some act some act
of some act
which ought which ought
“Public Officer” defined under R.A. No. 3019 which might
not to be to be
(EA-PeTe-CU-E) be lawfully
done performed
done
1. Elective and Appointive officials and
employees; Crimes of Misfeasance (U-N-I-D)
2. Permanent or Temporary;
3. Whether in the Classified or Unclassified; or 1. Knowingly rendering Unjust judgment (Art.
4. Exemption service receiving compensation, 204, RPC);
even nominal, from the government. 2. Rendering judgment through Negligence
(Art. 205, RPC);
Q: Javier was charged with malversation of 3. Rendering unjust Interlocutory order (Art.
public funds. She was the private sector 206, RPC) (2013 BAR); and
representative in the National Book 4. Malicious Delay in the administration of
Development Board (NBDB), which was justice. (Art. 207, RPC)
created by R.A. No. 8047, otherwise known as
the “Book Publishing Industry Development Crimes of Malfeasance
Act.” Is Javier, a private sector representative
to the board, a public officer? 1. Direct bribery (Art. 210, RPC); and
2. Indirect bribery. (Art. 211, RPC)
A: YES. Notwithstanding that Javier came from
the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB,

Crime of Nonfeasance 3. Bribery.
Dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses It must be shown by positive evidence that the
(Art. 208, RPC). judgment was rendered by the judge with
conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
Sec. 1: Dereliction of Duty
This crime cannot be committed by the
members/justices of the appellate courts. In
KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT
collegiate courts like the CA and SC, not only one
ART. 204, RPC
magistrate renders or issues the judgment or
interlocutory order. Conclusions and resolutions
Elements of Knowingly Rendering Unjust thereof are handed down only after deliberations
Judgment (J-R-U-K) among the members, so that it cannot be said that
there is malice or inexcusable negligence or
1. Offender is a Judge; ignorance in the rendering of a judgment or order
2. He Renders a judgment in a case submitted that is supposedly unjust.
to him for decision;
3. Judgment is Unjust; and
JUDGMENT RENDERED
4. The judge Knows that his judgment is unjust.
THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
ART. 205, RPC
It is a fundamental rule that a judicial officer,
when required to exercise his judgment or
discretion, is not criminally liable for any error he Elements (J-R-U-NI)
commits provided that he acts in good faith and
1. Offender is a Judge;
with no malice. (Mendoza v. Villaluz, A.M. No. L-
2. He Renders a judgment in a case submitted
1797-CCC, 27 Aug. 1981)
to him for decision;
Judgment 3. Judgment is manifestly Unjust; and
4. It is due to his inexcusable Negligence or
Ignorance.
It is the final consideration and determination of
a court of competent jurisdiction upon the
Manifestly Unjust Judgment
matters submitted to it, in an action or
proceeding. It must be: (W-PreS-FaLaw)
A judgment which cannot be explained with
reasonable interpretation or is a clear,
1. Written in the official language;
incontrovertible, and notorious violation of a
2. Personally and directly Prepared by the
judge and Signed by him; and legal precept. It must be patently contrary to law
if rendered due to ignorance or inexcusable
3. Shall contain clearly and distinctly a
negligence.
statement of the Facts and the Law upon
which it is based.
NOTE: Before a civil or criminal action against a
judge for violations of Arts. 204 and 205 can be
Unjust Judgment
entertained, there must be a “final and
authoritative judicial declaration” that the
One which is contrary to law or is not supported
by the evidence or both. decision or order in question is indeed unjust.
The pronouncement may result from either:
Sources of an Unjust Judgment
a. An action for certiorari or prohibition in a
higher court impugning the validity of a
1. Error;
judgment; or
2. Ill-will or revenge; or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
b. An administrative proceeding in the Supreme MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE

Court against the judge precisely for ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
promulgating an unjust judgment or order. ART. 207, RPC
(De Vera v. Pelayo, G.R. No. 137354, 06 July
2000) Elements (Ju-Pro-De-M)
Abuse of Discretion or Mere Error of
1. Offender is a Judge;
Judgment
2. There is a Proceeding in his court;
3. He Delays the administration of justice; and
Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment is
4. The delay is Malicious, that is, the delay is
not punishable. A judge can only be held liable for
caused by the judge with deliberate intent to
gross ignorance of the law if it can be shown that
inflict damage on either party in the case.
he committed an error so gross and patent as to
produce an inference of bad faith. In addition to
NOTE: If the delay is not malicious, but
this, the acts complained of must not only be
committed through gross negligence, the crime
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but
committed is that under R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e).
should also be motivated by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty, and corruption. (Monticalbo v. Judge
Maraya, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197, 13 Apr. 2011) PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
ART. 208, RPC
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ART. 206, RPC
Punishable Acts (1991, 1992, 2010 BAR)
Interlocutory Order
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of law.
An order which is issued by the court between the
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of
commencement and the end of a suit or action,
offenses.
and which decides some point of matter, but
which, however, is not a final decision of the
Elements (1991, 1992, 2010 BAR)
matter in issue. (Reyes, 2017)
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the

Elements of Unjust Interlocutory Order
law who has a duty to cause the prosecution
(J-K-M)
of, or to prosecute, offenses;
1. Offender is a Judge; and
2. There is dereliction of the duties of his office,
2. He performs any of the following acts:
that is, knowing the commission of the crime,
a. Knowingly renders an unjust
he does not cause the prosecution of the
interlocutory order or decree; or
criminal, or knowing that a crime is about to
b. Renders a Manifestly unjust
be committed, he tolerates its commission;
interlocutory order or decree through
and
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
NOTE: Dereliction of duty caused by poor

Test in Determining whether an Order or
judgment or honest mistake is not
Judgment is Interlocutory or Final
punishable.
If it leaves something to be done in the trial court
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate
with respect to the merits of the case, it is
intent to favor the violator of the law.
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final.

Offenders under this Article BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR

SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF SECRET
1. Public officer – officers of the prosecution ART. 209, RPC
department, whose duty is to institute
criminal proceedings for felonies upon being Punishable Acts
informed of their perpetration.
1. Causing damage to his client, either:
2. Officer of the law – those who are duty- a. By any malicious breach of professional
bound to cause the prosecution and duty;
punishment of the offenders by reason of the b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
position held by them.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client
Liability of a Public Officer who, having the learned by him in his professional capacity.
Duty of Prosecuting the Offender, Harbored,
Concealed, or Assisted in the Escape of the NOTE: Damage is not necessary. The mere
Felon fact that a secret has been revealed is already
punishable.
He is a principal in the crime defined and
penalized in Art. 208. Such public officer is not 3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party
merely an accessory. in the same case, without the consent of his
first client, after having undertaken the
Q: If a police officer tolerates the commission defense of said first client, or after having
of a crime or otherwise refrains from received confidential information from said
apprehending the offender, is he liable for client.
dereliction of duty?
NOTE: If the client consents to it, there is no
A: NO. Such police officer does not have the duty crime. The consent need not be in writing.
to prosecute or to move the prosecution of the
offender. It is the Chief of police which has the Illustration: The Code of Professional
duty to do so. He can however be prosecuted as Responsibility mandates lawyers to serve
follows: their clients with competence and
diligence. Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 state:
1. An accessory to the crime committed by the
principal in accordance with Art. 19(3); or Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
2. He may become a fence if the crime in connection therewith shall render him
committed is robbery or theft, in which case liable;
he violates the Anti-Fencing Law; or
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
3. He may be held liable for violating the Anti- informed of the status of his case and shall
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.
NOTE: Officers, agents or employees of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue are not covered by A lawyer breached these duties when he
this article as well. failed to reconstitute or turn over the records
of the case to his client. His negligence
manifests lack of competence and diligence
required of every lawyer. His failure to
comply with the request of his client was a

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty and a Procurador Judicial

breach of the trust reposed upon him by his
client. His sentiment against his client is not A person who had some practical knowledge of
a valid reason for him to renege on his law and procedure, but not a lawyer, and was
obligation as a lawyer. The moment he permitted to represent a party in a case before an
agreed to handle the case, he was bound to inferior court.
give it his utmost attention, skill and
competence. Public interest requires that he NOTE: There is no solicitor or procurador judicial
exert his best efforts and all his learning and under the Rules of Court.
ability in defense of his client’s cause. Those
who perform that duty with diligence and Sec. 2: Bribery
candor not only safeguard the interests of the
client, but also serve the ends of justice. They
DIRECT BRIBERY
do honor to the bar and help maintain the
ART. 210, RPC
community’s respect for the legal profession.
(Gone v. Atty. Ga, A.C. No. 7771, 06 Apr. 2011)
Commission of Bribery
Rule with Regard to Communications Made
with Prospective Clients Bribery is committed when a public officer
receives a gift, present, offer or promise, by
Under the rules on evidence, communications reason or in connection with the performance of
made with prospective clients to a lawyer with a his official duties. Bribery requires the
view to engaging his professional services are concurrence of the will of the corruptor and the
already privileged even though client-lawyer public officer, otherwise the crime is not
relationship did not eventually materialize consummated. (Boado, 2008)
because the client cannot afford the fee being
asked by the lawyer. Bribery exists when:
Rule as to Privileged Communications 1. The gift is offered voluntarily by a private

person; or
A distinction must be made between confidential 2. The gift is solicited by a public officer.
communications relating to past crimes already
committed, and future crimes intended to be NOTE: Bribery refers to the act of the receiver.
committed by the client. Statements and The act of the giver is corruption of public official
communications regarding the commission of a under Art. 212 of the RPC.
crime already committed, made by a party who
committed it, to an attorney, consulted as such, Punishable Acts (1990, 1993, 2001, 2005,
are privileged communications. 2009 BAR) (P-G-A)
Contrarily, communications between attorney 1. Agreeing to Perform or performing an act

and client having to do with the client’s pertaining to the duties of the office which
contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or constitutes a crime – If the act or omission
furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak amounts to a crime, it is not necessary that
of privileges ordinarily existing in reference to the corruptor should deliver the
communications between attorney and client. consideration for the doing of the act. Mere
The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents promise is sufficient. The moment there is a
the privilege from attaching. (People v. meeting of the minds, even without the
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41, 16 July 1997) delivery of the consideration, even without
the public officer performing the act
amounting to a crime, bribery is already

committed on the part of the public officer. accomplished, the crime is consummated.
Corruption is already committed on the part
of the supposed giver. Q: X was convicted for the crime of direct
bribery. As defense he reasoned that the
2. Accepting a Gift in consideration of the amount he received was for a drinking
execution of an act which does not session with his friends, thus disproving the
constitute a crime – If the act or omission third element of the crime which is that such
does not amount to a crime, the gift, present or promise has been given in
consideration must be delivered by the consideration of his commission of some
corruptor before a public officer can be crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or
prosecuted for bribery. Mere agreement is to refrain from doing something which is his
not enough to constitute the crime because official duty to do. Is the argument of X
the act to be done in the first place is tenable?
legitimate, or in the performance of the
official duties of the public official. A: YES. The crime of direct bribery as defined in
Art. 210 of the RPC consists of the following
NOTE: The act executed must be unjust. elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer;
(Reyes, 2017) (2) that he received directly or through another
some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that
3. Abstaining from the performance of such gift, present or promise has been given in
official duties. consideration of his commission of some crime,
or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain
Elements of Bribery (1990, 1993, 2001, 2005, from doing something which is his official duty to
2009 BAR) (P-A-O-C) do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the
exercise of his functions as a public officer.
1. Offender is a Public officer within the scope
of Art. 203; In the case at bar, the third element, was not duly
proven. The third element of the crime requires
2. Offender Accepts an offer or promise or that the gift be given in consideration of the
receives a gift or present by himself or accused's commission of some crime, or any act
through another; not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing
something which it is his official duty to do.
3. Such Offer or promise be accepted, or gift or (Carlos Catubao v. Sandiganbayan and the People,
present received by the public officer: G.R. No. 227371, 02 Oct. 2019, J. Caguioa)
a. With a view of committing some crime; The Offer of Gift or Promise must be Accepted
or by the Public Officer
b. In consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime, In case there is only an offer of gift or promise to
but the act must be unjust; or give something, the offer or the promise must be
c. To refrain from doing something, which accepted by the officer. Further, the gift or
is his official duty to do; and present must have value or be capable of
pecuniary estimation. (Reyes, 2017)
4. That the act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes be Connected Q: When does an act relate to the official
with the performance of his official duties. duties of the public officer?
NOTE: There is no frustrated stage, for the reason A: Official duties include any action which is
that if the corruption of the official is authorized. The acts referred to in the law, which

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
the offender agrees to perform or execute, must Temporary Performance of Public Function
be related to or linked with the performance of Sufficient to Constitute a Person a Public
his official duties. (Tad-y v. People, G.R. No. Officer
148862, 11 Aug. 2005)
For the purpose of punishing bribery, the
But if the act agreed to be performed is so foreign temporary performance of public functions is
to the duties of the office as to lack even the color sufficient to constitute a person as a public
of authority, there is no bribery. officer.
Q: Direct bribery is a crime involving moral Q: Supposed a law enforcer extorts money
turpitude. From which of the elements of from a person, employing intimidation and
direct bribery can moral turpitude be threatening to arrest the latter if he will not
inferred? (2011 BAR) come across with money, what crime is
committed?
A: Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third
element: The offender takes a gift with a view of A: If the victim actually committed a crime and
committing a crime in exchange. the policeman demanded money so he will not be
arrested, the crime is bribery. But if no crime has
The fact that the offender agrees to accept a been committed and the policeman is falsely
promise or gift, and deliberately commits an charging him of having committed one,
unjust act or refrains from performing an official threatening to arrest him if he will not come
duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a across with some consideration, the crime is
malicious intent on the part of the offender to robbery. (Sandoval, 2010)
renege on the duties which he owes his
fellowmen and society in general. Also, the fact Direct bribery vs. Prevaricacion
that the offender takes advantage of his office and
position is a betrayal of the trust reposed on him DIRECT BRIBERY PREVARICACION
by the public. It is a conduct clearly contrary to The officer refrained
the accepted rules of right and duty, justice, from doing No gift was promised
honesty and good morals. (Magno v. COMELEC, something which was or received in
G.R. No. 147904, 04 Oct. 2002) his official duty to do consideration for
so in consideration of refraining to
Q: Suppose the public official accepted the a gift promised or prosecute offenses.
consideration and turned it over to his received.
superior as evidence of corruption, what is
the crime committed? INDIRECT BRIBERY
ART. 211, RPC
A: The offense is attempted corruption only and
not frustrated. The official did not agree to be
Indirect Bribery
corrupted.
It is the crime of any public officer who shall
NOTE: Under Art. 212 of the RPC, any person who
accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
shall have made the offers or promises or given
the gifts is liable for corruption of public officers.
If the public officer does not accept the gift, this
crime is not committed but the offeror is guilty of
Corruption of Public Officials under Art. 212 of
the RPC.

Elements of Indirect Bribery (BAR 1997, QUALIFIED BRIBERY

2005, 2009, 2010) (P-A-O) ART. 211-A, RPC
1. Offender is a Public officer; (BAR 2006) Elements of Qualified Bribery (L-R-C)

2. He Accepts gifts; and
3. Said gifts are offered to him by reason of his 1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with
Office. Law enforcement;
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect 2. He Refrains from arresting or prosecuting an

bribery because it is committed by accepting gifts offender who has committed a crime
offered to the public officer by reason of his office. punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
If he does not accept the gift, he does not commit death; and
the crime. If he accepts the gifts, it is
consummated. (Reyes, 2017) 3. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting the
offender in Consideration of any promise, gift
NOTE: The gift is given in anticipation of future or present. (2006 BAR)
favor from the public officer. P.D. 46 (Making it
punishable for public officials and employees to If it is the public officer who asks or demands
receive and for private persons to give, gifts on any such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of
occasion, including Christmas) is committed in the death. (Art. 211-A, RPC)
same way. (2006 BAR)
NOTE: The crime involved in qualified bribery is
Clear Intention on the Part of the Public a heinous crime. The public officer need not
Officer to Take the Gift Offered receive a gift or present because a mere offer or
promise is sufficient.
There must be a clear intention on the part of the
public officer to take the gift offered and he NOTE: Art. 211-A is an insertion brought about
should consider the property as his own from by R.A. No. 7659 (Heinous Crime Law).
that moment. Mere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance,
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to
ART. 212, RPC
convict the officer.
Elements of Corruption of Public Officials

Direct Bribery vs. Indirect Bribery
(1993, 2001, 2009 BAR)
DIRECT BRIBERY INDIRECT BRIBERY
1. Offender makes offers, or promise, or gives
Public officer receives gift
gifts or presents to a public officer; and
There is agreement There is no
between the public agreement between
2. The offers or promises are made, or the gifts
officer and the the public officer and
or presents are given to a public officer under
corruptor. the corruptor.
circumstances that will make the public
The public officer is officer liable for direct bribery or indirect
not necessarily called bribery.
The public officer is
upon to perform any
called upon to
official act. It is Crime Committed when a Public Officer
perform or refrain
enough that he Refuses to be Corrupted
from performing an
accepts the gifts
official act.
offered to him by The crime committed is attempted corruption of
reason of his office. public official only.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Q: One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of property funds (Fraud against Public
ABC Corp., happened to bump into the Labor Treasury);
Arbiter assigned to the illegal dismissal case
filed by certain employees against his 2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
company. During their encounter, Mr. X payment of sums different from or larger
promised the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in than those authorized by law, in the
exchange for a favorable ruling. The Labor collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
Arbiter immediately rejected the offer and imposts (Illegal Exaction);
walked away. What crime did Mr. X commit
under the RPC, if any? Explain. (2019 BAR) NOTE: By mere demanding an amount
different, whether bigger or smaller, than
A: Mr. X committed the crime of Attempted what should be paid, even if the debtor
Corruption of a Public Official. He offered to give refuses, illegal exaction is committed.
the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a
favorable ruling on a pending illegal dismissal 3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt as
case. By making such offer, Mr. X already provided by law, for any sum of money
commenced the performance of material acts of collected by him officially, in the collection of
execution in corrupting the Labor Arbiter. He was taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts (Illegal
not able to perform all the material acts of Exaction); and
execution only because the Labor Arbiter refused
to accept the offer. (Pozar v. CA, G.R. No. L62439, 4. Collecting or receiving directly or indirectly,
23 Oct. 1984) by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
Crime Committed when a Public Official provided by law, in the collection of taxes,
Actually Accepted a Consideration and licenses, fees and other imposts (Illegal
Allowed Himself to be Corrupted Exaction).
The corruptor becomes liable for consummated Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury
corruption of public official. The public officer (P-T-A-D)
also becomes equally liable for consummated
bribery. 1. Offender is a Public officer;
CHAPTER 3: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL 2. He should have Taken advantage of his office,
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS that is, he intervened in the transaction in his
official capacity;
FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY

3. He entered into an Agreement with any
AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
interested party or speculator or made use of
ART. 213, RPC
any other scheme with regard to:
Punishable Acts a. Furnishing supplies; or

b. The making of contracts; or
1. Entering into an agreement with any c. The adjustment or settlement of
interested party or speculator, or making use accounts relating to public property or
of any other scheme, to defraud the funds; and
Government, in dealing with any person or
with regard to furnishing supplies, the 4. Accused had the intent to Defraud the
making of contracts, or the adjustment or Government.
settlement of accounts relating to public

NOTE: It is consummated by merely entering into a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the

an agreement with any interested party or payment of sums different from or larger
speculator. It is not necessary that the than those authorized by law;
Government is actually defrauded by reason of
the transaction as long as the public officer who b. Voluntarily failing to Issue a receipt as
acted in his official capacity had the intent to provided by law, for any sum of money
defraud the Government. collected by him officially; or
Essence of the Crime of Fraud against Public c. Collecting or receiving, directly or

Treasury indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a nature
The essence of this crime is making the different from that provided by law.
government pay for something not received or
making it pay more than what is due. Essence of the Crime of Illegal Exaction
Three Ways of Committing Illegal Exactions The essence of the crime is not the
misappropriation of any of the amounts but the
1. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the improper making of the collection which would
payment of sums different from or larger prejudice the accounting of collected amounts by
than those authorized by law – Mere the government.
demand will consummate the crime, even if
the taxpayer shall refuse to come across with OTHER FRAUDS
the amount being demanded. ART. 214, RPC
NOTE: It is not necessary that payment Elements of Other Frauds (P-A-D)

demanded be larger than the amount due the
government; it may be less than the amount 1. Offender is a Public officer;
due to the government. 2. He takes Advantage of his official position;
and
2. Voluntarily failing to issue a receipt as 3. He commits any of the frauds or Deceits
provided by law, for any sum of money enumerated in Arts. 315-318.
collected by him officially – The act of
receiving payment due to the government Court of Competent Jurisdiction
without issuing a receipt will give rise to
illegal exaction even though a provisional The RTC has jurisdiction over the offense
receipt has been issued. What the law regardless of the amount or penalty involved,
requires is a receipt in the form prescribed because the principal penalty is disqualification.
by law, which means an official receipt.
PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
3. Collecting or receiving, directly or ART. 215, RPC
indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise,
things or objects of a nature different from
Elements of Prohibited Transaction (Ap-I-T-I)
that provided by law. (Boado, 2012)
1. Offender is an Appointive public officer;
Elements of Illegal Exaction (Co-D-I-Co)
2. He becomes Interested, directly or indirectly,
in any transaction of exchange or
1. The offender is a Collecting officer;
speculation;
2. He committed any of the following acts or
3. Transaction takes place within the territory
omissions:
subject to his jurisdiction; and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
4. He becomes interested in the transaction Government or of the party which he represents.

during his Incumbency. (U.S. v. Udarbe, G.R. No. 9945, 12 Nov. 1914)
Actual fraud is not required for violation of Art. Application of this Article to Appointive
215. The act being punished is the possibility that Officials
fraud may be committed, or that the officer may
place his own interest above that of the Art. 216 includes not only appointive but also
government. elective public officials. In fact, under the second
paragraph of the said article, even private
The transaction must be one of exchange or individuals can be held liable.
speculation, such as buying and selling stocks,
commodities, lands, etc., hoping to take Constitutional Provisions Prohibiting
advantage of an expected rise and fall in price. Interests
(Reyes, 2017)
1. Sec. 14, Art. VI – Members of Congress
NOTE: Purchasing stock or shares in a company cannot personally appear as counsel; cannot
is simply an investment, and is not a violation of be interested financially in any franchise or
the article; but buying regularly securities for special privilege granted by government;
resale is speculation. (Reyes, 2017) cannot intervene in any matter before office
of Government;
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST
BY A PUBLIC OFFICER 2. Sec. 13, Art. VII – The President, Vice-
ART. 216, RPC President, the Members of the Cabinet and
their deputies or assistant shall not, unless
Persons Liable under this Article otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
became interested in any contract or directly or indirectly, practice any other
business in which it was his official duty to profession, participate in any business, or be
intervene; financially interested in any contract with, or
in any franchise, or special privilege granted
NOTE: Intervention must be by virtues of by the Government or any subdivision,
public office held. agency or instrumentality thereof, including
GOCCs or their subsidiaries. They shall
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
who, in like manner, took part in any contract conduct of their office; and
or transaction connected with the estate or
property in the appraisal, distribution or 3. Sec. 2, Art. IX-A – No member of a
adjudication of which they had acted; or Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure, hold any office or employment.
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
property belonging to their wards or the profession or in the active management or
estate. control of any business which in any way may
be affected by the functions of his office, nor
NOTE: The mere violation of the prohibition is shall he be financially interested, directly or
punished although no actual fraud occurs indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
therefrom. The act is punished because of the franchise or privilege granted by the
possibility that fraud may be, or that the officer government, or any of its subdivisions,
may place his own interest above that of the agencies, or instrumentalities, including

GOCCs or their subsidiaries. Common Elements to All Acts of Malversation
CHAPTER 4: MALVERSATION OF 1. Offender is a public officer;

PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY 2. He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
3. Those funds or property were public funds or
Crimes called Malversation of Public Funds or
property for which he was accountable; and
Property (Ma-Re-L-I-D)
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented, or through abandonment
1. Malversation by appropriating,
negligence, permitted another person to take
misappropriating or permitting any other
person to take public funds or property (Art. them.
217);
Q: A and B were charged with Malversation
2. Failure of an accountable public officer to through Falsification of Public Documents.
The main issue is the alleged falsification of
Render accounts (Art. 218);
public documents consisting of Time Books
and Payrolls representing different time
3. Failure of a responsible public officer to
periods. Allegedly, fictitious laborers were
render accounts before Leaving the country
made to appear as laborers in the said
(Art. 219);
documents, which enabled the Petitioners to
collect sums of money and misappropriate
4. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art.
them for their personal use. Prosecution
220); and
anchors its case on the fact that there was an
5. Failure to make Delivery of public funds or absence of a name in the Time Book and
property. (Art. 221) Payroll, despite having a signature, and the
amount indicated therein being released. Will
the case prosper?
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY – PRESUMPTION OF
A: NO. To be found guilty of Malversation, the
MALVERSATION
Prosecution has the burden to prove the
ART. 217, RPC
following essential elements:
Punishable Acts (1994, 1999, 2001, 2005,

a. The offender is a public officer;
2008 BAR) (A-M-P-G)
b. The offender has custody or control of funds
1. Appropriating public funds or property;
or property by reason of the duties of his
2. Taking or Misappropriating the same;
office;
3. Consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, Permitting any other person to
c. The funds or property involved are public
take such public funds or property; and
funds or property for which the offender is
4. Being otherwise Guilty of the
accountable; and
misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property.
d. The offender has appropriated, taken or
misappropriated, or has consented to, or
NOTE: The nature of the duties of the public
through abandonment or negligence,
officer and not the name of the office controls.
permitted the taking by another person of,
(People v. Reyes, SB Case No. 26892, 15 Aug. 2006)
such funds or property.
Notably, Art. 217 of the RPC provides that the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
failure of a public officer to have duly account for it, is the factor which determines
forthcoming any public funds with which he is whether or not malversation is committed by the
chargeable upon demand by any duly authorized accused public officer or employee. (Torres v.
officer gives rise to the presumption that he has People, G.R. No. 175074, 31 Aug. 2011)
put such missing funds to personal use.
Q: When a public officer has no authority to
The Prosecution was unable to satisfactorily receive the money for the Government, and
prove the fourth element. Nowhere was the fact upon receipt of the same, he misappropriated
of demand shown in any of the documentary it, can he be held liable for malversation?
exhibits or testimonies of the witnesses of the
Prosecution. Considering that the Prosecution A: NO. If the public officer has no authority to
never established such material fact, the burden receive the money for the Government, the crime
of evidence was never shifted to the Petitioners committed is estafa, not malversation (U.S. v.
to prove their innocence, there being no prima Solis, G.R. No. 2828, 14 Dec. 1906), since he cannot
facie presumption of misappropriation under the be considered an accountable officer in that
facts obtaining. situation.
Moreover, the mere absence of a name in the Meaning of “Appropriation”

Time Book and Payroll does not automatically
translate to the non-existence of the alleged It does not necessarily mean appropriation to
worker. It is entirely possible that the person one’s personal advantage but rather, every
responsible simply forgot to write down the attempt by one person to dispose of the property
name of the payee-laborer even as he secured of another without right. (Tabuena v.
their signatures. (Zenaida Maamo, et al v. People, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103501-03, 17 Feb. 1997)
G.R. No. 201917, 01 Dec. 2016, J. Caguioa)
Prima Facie Evidence of Malversation
Actual Misappropriation of Funds is NOT
Necessary The failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public fund or property with
It is not necessary that the offender actually which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
misappropriated the funds. It is enough that he authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence
has violated the trust reposed on him in that he has put such missing funds or property to
connection with the property. personal uses. (Candao v. People, G.R. Nos.
186659-710, 19 Oct. 2011)
NOTE: Malversation is predicated on the
relationship of the offender to the property or the An accountable public officer may be convicted of
funds involved. His being remiss in the duty of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
safekeeping public funds violates the trust misappropriation, and the only evidence is that
reposed by reason of the duties of his office. there is shortage in his accounts which he has not
been able to explain satisfactorily. (Quizo v.
Accountable Public Officer Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 77120, 06 Apr. 1987)
An accountable public officer, within the purview Q: Is a written demand required to constitute
of Art. 217 of the RPC, is one who has custody or a prima facie presumption of malversation?
control of public funds or property by reason of
the duties of his office. The nature of the duties of A: NO. The law does NOT require that a written
the public officer or employee, the fact that as demand be formally made to constitute a prima
part of his duties he received public money for facie presumption of malversation. In U.S. v.
which he is bound to account and failed to Kalingo (G.R. No. 11504, 02 Feb. 1917), it was held

that the failure of the accused who had custody of Crime of Malversation CAN be Committed by
public funds to refund the shortage, upon Negligence
demand by the duly authorized offices,
constitutes prima facie evidence of malversation, Q: Mesina, a Local Treasurer Officer I of
notwithstanding the fact that such demand had Caloocan City, collected the City’s collection
been merely made verbally. for June 1998 from Baclit at the Mini City Hall.
Mesina acknowledged the receipt of the said
NOTE: Demand is not indispensable to constitute funds. On the same day, Baclit received
malversation. It merely raises a prima facie several phone calls, including a call from
presumption that the missing funds have been Coleto saying that the Patubig Collection was
put to personal use. (Morong Water District v. not remitted. The other phone call was from
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. No. 116754, Mesina saying that he did not receive the
17 Mar. 2000, citing Nizurtada v. Sandiganbayan) patubig collection.
Rebuttal of the Presumption The following morning, Mayor Malonzo asked

Mesina about the said funds and Mesina
The presumption could be overcome by denied receiving it. During investigation,
satisfactory evidence of loss or robbery Mesina’s vault was opened for cash count,
committed by a person other than the accused. thereafter Mesina admitted that he collected
(U.S. v. Kalingo, G.R. No. 11504, 02 Feb. 1917) the Patubig Collection but kept the money in
his vault. Is Mesina liable for malversation?
Q: A revenue collection agent of BIR admitted
his cash shortage on his collections to get even A: YES. Mesina is liable for malversation.
with the BIR which failed to promote him. A Malversation is committed either intentionally or
special arrangement was made between the by negligence. All that is necessary for a
BIR and the agent wherein the BIR would conviction is sufficient proof that the accused
withhold the salary of the latter and apply the accountable officer had received the public funds
same to the shortage incurred until full or property, and did not have them in his
payment was made. Is the collection agent possession when demand therefor was made
guilty of the crime of malversation of funds? without any satisfactory explanation of his failure
to have them upon demand.
A: YES. An accountable public officer may be
convicted of malversation even if there is no In the case at bar, Mesina feigned ignorance of
direct evidence of misappropriation and the only having received the patubig collection when he
evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts phoned Baclit to tell her that he did not receive
which he has not been able to satisfactorily the collection. (Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489,
explain. 17 June 2015)
In the present case, considering that the shortage Damage to the Government is NOT Necessary
was duly proven, retaliation against the BIR for to Constitute Malversation
not promoting him does not constitute a
satisfactory or reasonable explanation of his It is not necessary that there is damage to the
failure to account for the missing amount. (Cua v. government; it is not an element of the offense.
People, G.R. No. 166847, 16 Nov. 2011) The penalty for malversation is based on the
amount involved, not on the amount of the
damage caused to the Government. (Reyes, 2008)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Deceit in Malversation, NOT Necessary extinguish the accused’s criminal liability or

relieve the accused from the penalty prescribed
Deceit need not be proved in malversation. by law. At best, such acts of reimbursement may
Malversation may be committed either through a only affect the offender’s civil liability, and may
positive act of misappropriation of public funds be credited in his favor as a mitigating
or property, or passively through negligence. To circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender.
sustain a charge of malversation, there (Venezuela v. People, G.R. No. 205693, 14 Feb.
must either be criminal intent or criminal 2018)
negligence, and while the prevailing facts of a
case may not show that deceit attended the Instance when the Public Officer Cannot be
commission of the offense, it will not preclude the Held Liable for Malversation
reception of evidence to prove the existence of
negligence because both are equally punishable When the accountable officer is obliged to go out
under Art. 217 of the RPC. (Torres v. People, G.R. of his office and borrow the sum alleged to be the
No. 175074, 31 Aug. 2011) shortage and later the missing amount is found in
some unaccustomed place in his office, he is not
Q: When a municipal officer who, in good liable for malversation. (U.S. v. Pascual, G.R. No.
faith, paid out public funds to persons in 8860, 04 Dec. 1913)
accordance with the resolution of the
municipal council but the payments were Commission of Malversation by a Private
turned out to be in violation of the law, is Person
there criminal liability?
A private person may also commit malversation
A: NONE. When an accountable public officer, in under the following situations:
good faith, makes a wrong payment through
honest mistake as to the law or to the facts 1. A private person conspiring with an
concerning his duties, he is not liable for accountable public officer in committing
malversation. He is only civilly liable. (U.S. v. malversation (People v. Sendaydiego, G.R. No.
Elviña, G.R. No. L-7280, 13 Feb. 1913) L-33253-54, 20 Jan. 1978);
Required Proof in order to Convict an Accused 2. When he has become an accomplice or

of Malversation accessory to a public officer who commits
malversation;
All that is necessary to prove is that the defendant
received in his possession public funds, that he 3. When the private person is made the
could not account for them and did not have them custodian in whatever capacity of public
in his possession and that he could not give a funds or property, whether belonging to
reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the national or local government, and
same. (De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. L-54288, 15 misappropriates the same; (2017 BAR) or
Dec. 1982)
4. When he is constituted as the depositary or
Payment or Reimbursement, NOT a Defense administrator of funds or property seized or
in Malversation attached by public authority even though
said funds or property belong to a private
Payment or reimbursement is not a defense in individual.
malversation. The payment, indemnification, or
reimbursement of, or compromise on the Q: A private property was attached or levied
amounts or funds malversed or misappropriated by the sheriff; can it be a subject of the crime
after the commission of the crime, does not of malversation?

A: YES. Though the property belonged to a 2. He must be an Accountable officer for public
private person, the levy or attachment of the funds or property;
property impressed it with the character of being
part of the public property it being in custodia 3. He is required by law or regulation to Render
legis. accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial auditor; and
Q: If falsification of documents was resorted
to for the purpose of concealing malversation, 4. He Fails to do so for a period of two (2)
is a complex crime committed? months after such accounts should be
rendered.
A: NO. For complex crimes require that one crime
is used to commit another. If the falsification is NOTE: The article does not require that there be
resorted to for the purpose of hiding the a demand that the public officer should render an
malversation, the falsification and malversation account. It is sufficient that there is a law or
shall be separate offenses. (People v. Sendaydiego, regulation requiring him to render account.
G.R. No. L-33253-54, 20 Jan. 1978) (Reyes, 2008)
Malversation vs. Estafa (1999 BAR) Q: Does the accused need to commit
misappropriation to be liable under this
MALVERSATION ESTAFA Article?
As to Persons Liable
Committed by a A: NO. It is not essential that there be
Committed by an private person or misappropriation. If there is misappropriation,
accountable public even a public officer he would also be liable for malversation under
officer. who acts in a private Art. 217. (Reyes, 2008)
capacity.
As to Property Involved FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER
TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE
Deals with public Deals with private
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
funds or property. property.
ART. 219, RPC
May be committed Elements (P-A-L)
without personal
misappropriation, as Committed by 1. Offender is a Public officer;
when the accountable personal misappro- 2. He must be an Accountable officer for public
officer allows another priation only. funds or property; and
to misappropriate the 3. He must have unlawfully Left (or be on point
same. of leaving) the Philippines without securing
from the Commission on Audit a certificate
FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER showing that his accounts have been finally
TO RENDER ACCOUNTS settled.
ART. 218, RPC
Q: If the act of leaving the country is
Elements of Failure of Accountable Public authorized by law, can the public officer be
Officer to Render Accounts (P-A-R-F) convicted under this Article?
1. Offender is a Public officer, whether in the A: NO. The act of leaving the Philippines must not
service or separated therefrom; be authorized or permitted by law to be liable
under this Article. (Reyes, 2008)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS Technical Malversation is Malum Prohibitum;

OR PROPERTY Criminal Intent is NOT an Element
ART. 220, RPC
The law punishes the act of diverting public
NOTE: Illegal use of public funds or property is property earmarked by law or ordinance for
also known as technical malversation. particular public purpose to another public
purpose. The offense is malum prohibitum,
Elements of Technical Malversation (1996 meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently
BAR) (P-F-A-O) immoral but becomes a criminal offense because
positive law forbids its commission based on
1. Offender is a Public officer; consideration of public policy, order, and
2. There is public Fund or property under his convenience. It is the commission of an act as
administration; defined by the law, and not the character or effect
3. Such public fund or property has been thereof, which determines whether or not the
Appropriated by law or ordinance; and provision has been violated. Hence, malice or
4. He applies the same to a public use Other criminal intent is completely irrelevant. (Ysidoro
than that for which such fund or property has v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 Nov. 2012)
been appropriated by law or ordinance.
Q: X appropriated the salary differentials of
Technical Malversation secondary school teachers of the Sulu State
College contrary to the authorization issued
In technical malversation, the public officer by the DBM. Can X be held liable for technical
applies public funds under his administration not malversation?
for his or another’s personal use, but to a public
use other than that for which the fund was A: NO. The third element is lacking. The
appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical authorization given by DBM is not an ordinance
malversation is, therefore, not included in nor or law contemplated in Art. 220. (Abdulla v.
does it necessarily include the crime of People, G.R. No. 150129, 06 Apr. 2005)
malversation of public funds charged in the
information. Thus, if the acts constituting the Q: Suppose the application made proved to be
crime of technical malversation were not alleged more beneficial to the public than the original
in the information, the person accused cannot be purpose for which the amount or property is
convicted of malversation. (Parungao v. appropriated, is there technical
Sandiganbayan, G.R. 96025, 15 May 1991) malversation?
How Technical Malversation is Committed A: YES. Damage is not an essential element of

technical malversation.
Instead of applying it to the public purpose for
which the fund or property was already Q: Suppose the funds had been appropriated
appropriated by law, the public officer applied it for a particular public purpose, but the same
to another purpose. (2015 BAR) was applied to private purpose, what is the
crime committed?
NOTE: In the absence of a law or ordinance
appropriating the public fund allegedly A: The crime committed is simple malversation
technically malversed, the use thereof for another only.
public purpose will not make the accused guilty
of violation of Art. 220 of the RPC. (Abdulla v.
People, G.R. No. 150129, 06 Apr. 2005)

Technical Malversation vs. Malversation 3. That he Maliciously fails to perform the

obligation.
TECHNICAL
MALVERSATION NOTE: The fine shall be graduated in such case by
MALVERSATION
the value of the thing: Provided, that it shall not be
Offenders are accountable public officers
less than P10,000.
in both crimes.
Offender derives no Generally, the
personal gain or offender derives OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE
benefit. personal benefit. PRECEDING PROVISIONS
Public fund or ART. 222, RPC
property is diverted Conversion is for the
to another public use personal interest of Private Individuals who May be Liable under
other than that the offender or of Arts. 217-221 (P-A-C-AA)
provided for in the another person.
law. 1. Private individual who in any capacity
whatever, have charge of any national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenue or
FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF
property;
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ART. 221, RPC
2. Administrator, depository of funds or
property attached, seized or deposited by
Punishable Acts
public authority even if such property
belongs to a private individual;
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer
who is under obligation to make such
3. Those who acted in Conspiracy in
payment from Government funds in his
malversation; and
possession; and
4. Accomplice and Accessories to malversation.

2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer
who has been ordered by competent
NOTE: The word administrator used does not
authority to deliver any property in his
include judicial administrator appointed to
custody or under his administration.
administer the estate of a deceased person
because he is not in charge of any property
NOTE: The refusal to make delivery must be
attached, impounded or placed in deposit by
malicious. Where an official stenographer
public authority. Conversion of effects in his trust
retained some stenographic notes and failed to
makes him liable for estafa.
turn over the same upon demand as he was still
going to transcribe the same, he was held not to
Q: AA was designated custodian of the
have violated this article. (People v. Jubila, 38 O.G.
distrained property of RR by the BIR. He
1796)
assumed the specific undertakings which
included the promise that he will preserve the
Elements of Failure to Make Delivery of Public
equipment. Subsequently, he reported to the
Funds or Property (F-O-Mal)
BIR that RR surreptitiously took the
distrained property. Did AA become a public
1. That the public officer has government Funds
officer by virtue of his designation as
in his possession;
custodian of distrained property by the BIR?
2. That he is under Obligation to make
payments from such funds or to deliver any
A: NO. To be a public officer, one must:
property in his custody or under his
administration; and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
1. Take part in the performance of public A: NO. There is real and actual evasion of service
functions in the government, or in of sentence when the custodian permits the
performing in said government or in any of prisoner to obtain relaxation of his imprisonment
its branches public duties as an employee, and to escape the punishment of being deprived
agent or subordinate official, or any rank or of his liberty, thus making the penalty ineffectual,
class; and although the convict may not have fled (U.S. v.
Bandino, supra). (1997 BAR)
2. That his authority to take part in the
performance of public functions or to Q. Does releasing a prisoner for failure to
perform public duties must be by: comply within the time provided by Art. 125
exculpate liability under this Article?
a. Direct provision of the law, or
b. Popular election, or A. YES. Where the chief of police released the
c. Appointment by competent authority. detention prisoners because he could not file a
(Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. complaint against them within the time fixed by
116033, 26 Feb. 1997) Art. 125 due to the absence of the justice of the
peace, he is not guilty of infidelity in the custody
CHAPTER 5: INFIDELITY OF of prisoners. (People v. Lancanan, G.R. No. L-6805,
PUBLIC OFFICERS 30 June 1954)
EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE

Sec. 1: Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners
ART. 224, RPC
CONNIVING WITH OR
Elements of Evasion through Negligence
CONSENTING TO EVASION
(P-Co-N)
ART. 223, RPC
1. Offender is a Public officer;
Elements (BAR 1996, 2009) (P-C-E-Co) 2. He is charged with the Conveyance or
custody of a prisoner, either detention
1. Offender is a Public officer; prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and
2. He has in his Custody or charge a prisoner, 3. Such prisoner escapes through his
either detention prisoner or prisoner by final Negligence.
judgment;
3. Such prisoner Escaped from his custody; The fact that the public officer recaptured the
4. That he was in Connivance with the prisoner prisoner who escaped from his custody does not
in the latter’s escape. (U.S. v. Bandino, G.R. No. afford complete exculpation.
L-9964, 11 Feb. 1915)
Gravamen
Classes of Prisoners Involved
It is the positive carelessness that is short of
1. Fugitive sentenced by final judgment to any deliberate non-performance of his duties as
penalty; and guard. (People v. Reyes et al., 36 O.G. 316)
2. Fugitive held only as detention prisoner for
any crime or violation of law or municipal Q: Is an order to the prisoner to keep close to
ordinance. (Reyes, 2017) the police officer while the latter was
answering the telephone call sufficient
Q: Is there a need that the convict has actually precaution?
fled for the public officer to be liable under
this Article? A: NO. The adequate precaution which should

have been taken up by him was to lock up the entrusted and he connived with the prisoner (Art.
prisoner before answering the telephone call. 223, RPC) or through his negligence (Art. 224,
(Remocal v. People, G.R. No. 47521, 08 Apr. 1941) RPC) the prisoner was allowed to escape.
Q: A policeman permitted a prisoner to If the escape was with consideration, bribery is

answer a call of nature in a hidden shed also deemed committed because he was
outside the building. The policeman remained performing a public function, hence is, at that
near the prisoner by the door. The prisoner instance, deemed to be a public officer. (Boado,
escaped through the back of the bath. Is the 2008)
policeman liable under Art 224?
Sec. 2: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
A: NO. Not every little mistake or distraction of a
guard leading to prisoner’s taking advantage of a
REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR
dilapidated building is negligence. He can,
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
however, be held administratively liable.
ART. 226, RPC
Liability of the Escaping Prisoner This crime is also called infidelity in the custody
of documents.
1. If the fugitive is serving his sentence by
reason of final judgment – he is liable for Commission of the Crime of Infidelity in the
evasion of the service of sentence under Art. Custody of Documents
157;
1. Removal – presupposes appropriation of the
2. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner – official documents. It does not require that
he does not incur any criminal liability. the record be brought out of the premises
where it is kept. It is enough that the record
be removed from the place where it should
ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE CUSTODY
be transferred.
OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
ART. 225, RPC
2. Destruction – is equivalent to rendering
useless or the obliteration of said documents;
Elements (Pri-C-E-Co)
the complete destruction thereof is not
necessary.
1. Offender is a Private person;
2. Conveyance or custody of prisoner or person
3. Concealment – means that the documents
under arrest is confided to him;
are not forwarded to their destination and it
3. Prisoner or person under arrest Escapes; and is not necessary that they are secreted away
4. Offender Consents to the escape of the in a place where they could not be found.
prisoner or person under arrest or that the
escape takes place through his negligence. Elements (2005, 2015 BAR) (P-AbDeC-ED)
NOTE: This article is not applicable if a private

1. The offender is a Public officer;
person was the one who made the arrest and he 2. He Abstracts, Destroys, or Conceals
consented to the escape of the person he
documents or papers;
arrested. (Reyes, 2008) 3. Said documents or papers should have been
Entrusted to such public officer by reason of
Infidelity Committed by Private Person
his office; and
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third
Under Art. 225, infidelity can also be committed
party or to the public interest should have
by a private person to whom the prisoner was
been caused.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
NOTE: The document must be complete and one However, if the act is committed by destroying or
by which a right can be established or an concealing documents, proof of illicit purpose is
obligation could be extinguished. not required. The reason is that while in removal,
the accused may have a lawful or commendable
Document motive, in destroying or concealing, the offender
could not have a good motive. (Reyes, 2008)
Any written statement by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished. When Removal is Considered to be for an
Illicit Purpose
NOTE: Books, pamphlets or periodicals sent
through the mail for commercial purposes are not Removal is for an illicit purpose when the
considered as documents for the purpose of this intention of the offender is to:
article. (People v. Agnis, G.R. No. L-19676, 07 Feb.
1923) 1. Tamper with it;
Damage Contemplated under this Article 2. Profit by it; or
3. Commit an act constituting a breach of trust
The damage in this article may consist in mere in the official care thereof.
alarm to the public to the alienation of its
confidence in any branch of the government Consummation of this Crime
service. (Kataniag v. People, G.R. No. L-48398, 28
Nov. 1942) The crime of removal of public document in
breach of official trust is consummated upon its
Persons Liable under this Article removal or secreting away from its usual place in
the office and after the offender had gone out and
Only public officers who have been officially locked the door, it being immaterial whether he
entrusted with the documents or papers may be has or has not actually accomplished the illicit
held liable under Art. 226. purpose for which he removed said document.
(Kataniag v. People, G.R. No. L-48398, 28 Nov.
Q: Suppose, in the case for bribery or 1942)
corruption, the monetary consideration
marked as exhibits were spent by the Q: If the postmaster fails to deliver the mail
custodian, what is the crime committed? and instead retained them, can he be held
liable under this Article?
A: The crime committed is infidelity in the
custody of documents because the money A: YES. The simple act of retaining the mail
adduced as exhibits partake the nature of a without forwarding the letters to their
document and not as money. destination, even though without opening them
or taking the moneys they contained, already
Q: Is there a need for criminal intent to be held constitutes infidelity on the part of the post office
liable under this Article? official. (U.S. V. Peña, G.R. No. L-4451, 29 Dec.
1908)
A: To warrant a finding of guilt for the crime of
infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of
removal, as a mode of committing the offense,
should be coupled with criminal intent or illicit
purpose. (Manzanaris v. People, G.R. No. 19676, 07
Feb. 1923)

OFFICER BREAKING SEAL closed papers, documents or objects; and

ART. 227, RPC 4. He does Not have proper authority.
Elements of Officer Breaking Seal Under Art. 228, the closed documents must be
(Pu-Cha-Se-B) entrusted to the custody of the accused by reason
of his office. (People v. Lineses, C.A. 40 O.G., Supp.
1. Offender is a Public officer; 14, 4773)
2. He is Charged with the custody of papers or
property; Art. 228 does not require that there be damage or
3. These papers or property are Sealed by intent to cause damage. (Reyes, 2008)
proper authority; and
4. He Breaks the seals or permits them to be Sec. 3: Revelation of Secrets
broken.
REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER
It is the breaking of the seals and not the opening ART. 229, RPC
of a closed envelope which is punished. (Reyes,
2008)
Punishable Acts
It is sufficient that the seal is broken, even if the 1. Revealing any secret known to the offending
contents are not tampered with. This article does
public officer by reason of his official
not require that there be damage caused or that
capacity.
there be intent to cause damage. (Reyes, 2008) Elements: (P-K-R-D)
The mere breaking of the seal or the mere
a. Offender is a Public officer;
opening of the document would already bring
b. He Knows of a secret by reason of his
about infidelity even though no damage has been
official capacity;
suffered by anyone or by the public at large.
c. He Reveals such secret without
authority or justifiable reasons; and
Rationale for Penalizing the Act of Breaking
d. Damage, great or small, is caused to the
the Seal
public interest.
The act is being punished because the public

NOTE: If the secret revealed does not affect
officer, in breaking the seal or opening the
public interest, the revelation would constitute
envelope, violates the confidence or trust no crime at all. (Albert as cited in Reyes, 2017)
reposed on him.
Secrets
NOTE: The public officer liable under this article
must be one who breaks seals without authority
The secrets referred to in this article are those
to do so. (Reyes, 2008)
which have an official or public character, the
revelation of which may prejudice public interest.
OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS They refer to secrets relative to the
ART. 228, RPC administration of the government and not to
secrets of private individuals.
Elements of Opening Closed Documents
(P-C-OPe-N) 2. Wrongfully Delivering papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and
1. Offender is a Public officer; which should not be published.
2. Any Closed papers, documents or objects are
entrusted to his custody; Elements: (O-Cha-P-W-D)
3. He Opens or Permits to be opened said a. Offender is a public Officer;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
b. He has Charge of papers; justifiable reason.

c. Those papers should not be Published;
He delivers those papers or copies NOTE: The revelation will not amount to a
thereof to a third person; crime under this article if the secrets are
d. The delivery is Wrongful; and contrary to public interest or to the
e. Damage is caused to public interest. administration of justice. Revelation to any
one person is necessary and sufficient; public
This article punishes minor official betrayals, revelation is not required (Reyes, 2008).
infidelities of little consequences affecting Damage to private individuals is not
usually the administration of justice, executive or necessary. (Reyes, 2012)
official duties or the general interest of the public
order. If the public officer is merely entrusted The Offender must NOT be the Person
with the papers but not with the custody of the Contemplated under Art. 209 of the RPC
papers, he is not liable under this provision.
Furthermore, military secrets or those affecting When the offender is an attorney-at-law and he
national interest are covered by the crime of reveals the secrets of his client learned by him in
espionage and not by the crime of revelation of his professional capacity, he is not liable under
secrets. this article, but under Art. 209.
Revelation of Secrets by an Officer v. Infidelity The reason for this provision is to uphold faith
in the Custody of Document/Papers by and trust in public service. (Reyes, 2017)
Removing the Same
CHAPTER 6: OTHER OFFENSES OR
INFIDELITY IN THE IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
CUSTODY OF
REVELATION OF
DOCUMENTS/
SECRETS BY AN Sec. 1: Disobedience, Refusal of Assistance, and
PAPERS BY
OFFICER Maltreatment of Prisoners
REMOVING THE
SAME
The papers contain OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
secrets and therefore ART. 231, RPC
should not be
The papers do not
published and the Elements of Open Disobedience (J-J-Sco-R)
contain secrets but
public officer having
their removal is for an
charge thereof 1. Offender is a Judicial or executive officer;
illicit purpose.
removes and delivers
them wrongfully to a 2. There is Judgment, decision or order of a
third person. superior authority;
PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS 3. Such judgment, decision or order was made
OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL within the Scope of the jurisdiction of the
ART. 230, RPC superior authority and issued with all the
legal formalities; and
Elements of Art. 230 (P-K-R)
4. Offender without any legal justification
openly Refuses to execute the said judgment,
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. He Knows of the secrets of private individual decision or order, which he is duty bound to
by reason of his office; and obey.
3. He Reveals such secrets without authority or

NOTE: The refusal must be clear, manifest and For this reason, it entitles a subordinate to
decisive or a repeated and obstinate suspend in such cases the order issued, to submit
disobedience in the fulfillment of an order. his reason to his superior in order that the latter
may give them proper wight, if they are entitled
How Open Disobedience is Committed to say. (Reyes, 2017)
Open disobedience is committed when judicial or REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE

executive officer shall openly refuse to execute ART. 233, RPC
the judgment, decision, or order of any superior
authority. (Reyes, 2008) Elements of Refusal of Assistance (P-D-F)
DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR 1. Offender is a Public officer;

OFFICER, WHEN SAID ORDER WAS 2. Competent authority Demands from the
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER offender that he lends his cooperation
ART. 232, RPC towards the administration of justice or
other public service; and
Elements (P-O-S-D-D) 3. Offender Fails to do so maliciously.
1. Offender is a Public officer; Any refusal by a public officer to render

2. An Order is issued by his superior for assistance when demanded by competent public
execution; authority, as long as the assistance requested
from him is within his duty to render and that
NOTE: The order of the superior must be assistance is needed for public service,
legal or issued within his authority, constitutes refusal of assistance.
otherwise, this article does not apply. If the
order of the superior is illegal, the Investigators and medico-legal officers who
subordinate has a legal right to refuse to refuse to appear to testify in court after having
execute such order, for under the law, been subpoenaed may also be held liable under
obedience to an order which is illegal is not this article.
justified and the subordinate who obeys such
order can be held criminally liable under Art. Q: Is damage to the public interest or to third
11(6). parties necessary to consummate the crime?
3. He has for any reason Suspended the A: YES. There must be damage to the public
execution of such order; interest or to a third party. If the damage is
4. His superior Disapproves the suspension of serious, the penalty is higher. (Reyes, 2012)
the execution of the order; and
5. Offender Disobeys his superior despite the REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
disapproval of the suspension. ART. 234, RPC
The disobedience must be open and repeated. Elements (E-R-N)

What is punished by the law is insubordination of
the act or defying the authority which is 1. Offender is Elected by popular election to a
detrimental to public interest. public office;
2. He Refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
The law has taken into account that a superior duties of said office; and
officer may sometimes err, and that orders issued 3. There is No legal motive for such refusal to be
by him may proceed from a mistaken judgment. sworn in or to discharge the duties of said
office.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
NOTE: Discharge of duties becomes a matter of placed to prevent flooding in the prison
duty and not a right. compound is authorized by law and does not
violate this article; but if the public officer would
The refusal must be without legal motive. (Reyes, order the prisoner to do so from morning up to
2017) late evening without any food, then this article is
involved, as he inflicted such authorized
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.
ART. 235, RPC
Qualifying Circumstance
Elements of Maltreatment of Officers
(P-U-Mal) If the maltreatment was done in order to extort
confession, the penalty is qualified to the next
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee; higher degree.
2. He has Under his charge a prisoner or Rule when a Person is Maltreated by a Public
detention prisoner; and Officer who has Actual Charge of Prisoners
3. He Maltreats such prisoner either of the Two crimes are committed, namely –
following manners: maltreatment under Art. 235 and physical
injuries. Maltreatment and physical injuries may
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or not be complexed because the law specified that
handling of a prisoner or detention the penalty for maltreatment shall be in addition
prisoner under his charge either: to his liability for the physical injuries or damage
i. By the imposition of punishments caused.
not authorized by the regulations; or
ii. By inflicting such punishments Maltreatment refers not only to physical
(those authorized) in a cruel or maltreatment but also moral, psychological, and
humiliating manner. other kinds of maltreatment because of the
phrase “physical injuries or damage caused” and
b. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a “cruel or humiliating manner.” (Boado, 2008)
confession or to obtain some
information from the prisoner. (1999 Rule in Cases wherein the Person Maltreated
BAR) is NOT a Convict or a Detention Prisoner
NOTE: The maltreatment should not be due to The crime committed would either be:
personal grudge, otherwise, offender is liable for
physical injuries only. 1. Coercion – If the person not yet confined in
jail is maltreated to extort a confession, or
Who is a Prisoner
2. Physical injuries – If the person maltreated
To be considered a detention prisoner, the has already been arrested but is not yet
person arrested must be placed in jail even for booked in the office of the police and put in
just a short time. jail.
Illustration: Hitting a prisoner by a latigo, even Illustration: If a Barangay Captain maltreats a

if the purpose is to instill discipline, is not person after the latter’s arrest but before
authorized by law and constitutes violation of confinement, the offense is not maltreatment but
this article. On the other hand, requiring physical injuries. The victim must actually be
prisoners to dig a canal where culverts shall be confined either as a convict or a detention

prisoner. (People v. Baring, 37 O.G. 1366) NOTE: The final or conclusive act of a
resignation’s acceptance is the notice of
Sec. 2: Anticipation, Prolongation, and acceptance. (Light Rail Transit Authority v.
Abandonment of the Duties and Salvaña, G.R. No. 192074, 10 June 2014)
Powers of Public Office
3. That his resignation has Not yet been
accepted; and
ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF
4. That he Abandons his office to the detriment
A PUBLIC OFFICE
of the public service.
ART. 236, RPC
Circumstances Qualifying the Offense

Elements (E-Sw-A-N)
The offense is qualified when the real motive of
1. That the offender is Entitled to hold a public resignation is to evade the discharge of duties of
office or employment either by election or preventing, prosecuting or punishing any crime
appointment; Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book
2. The law requires that he should first be Two of the RPC.
Sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
3. He Assumes the performance of the duties Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of
and powers of such office; and Book Two of the RPC refer to the crimes of:
4. He has Not taken his oath of office and/or
given the bond required by law. 1. Treason;
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason;
PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF 3. Misprision of treason;
DUTIES AND POWERS 4. Espionage;
ART. 237, RPC 5. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisal;
6. Violation of neutrality;
Elements (H-Ex-Con) Correspondence with hostile country;
7. Flight to enemy country;
1. That the offender is Holding a public office; 8. Piracy and mutiny;
2. That the period allowed by law for him to 9. Rebellion;
exercise such function and duties has already 10. Coup d’etat;
Expired; and 11. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
3. That the offender Continues to exercise such d’etat;
function and duties. 12. Disloyalty of public officers;
13. Inciting to rebellion;
The officers contemplated by this article are 14. Sedition;
those who have been suspended, separated, 15. Conspiracy to commit sedition; and
declared overaged, or dismissed. 16. Inciting to sedition.
Abandonment of Office vs. Dereliction of Duty

ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
ART. 238, RPC
ABANDONMENT DERELICTION
OF OFFICE OF DUTY
Elements (Hol-Res-N-Ab)
ART. 238 ART. 208
1. That the offender is Holding a public office; Committed only by
2. That he formally Resigns from his office; Committed by any public officers who have
public officer. the duty to institute
prosecution of the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
punishment of USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

violations of law. ART. 241, RPC
Elements: (Ex-AO)
The public officer does

1. That the offender is holding an office under
not abandon his office
The public officer the Executive Branch of the Government; and
but he fails to prosecute
abandons his office 2. That he:
an offense by
to evade the a. Assumes the power exclusively vested in
dereliction of duty or by
discharge of his the Judiciary; or
malicious tolerance of
duty. b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
the commission of
decision given by a judge within his
offenses.
jurisdiction.
Sec. 3: Usurpation of Powers and Penalty

Unlawful Appointments
Arresto mayor in its medium period to
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS in its minimum period.
ART. 239, RPC
Arts. 239-241 punish the usurpation of powers of
Elements (E-J-MAS) the three branches of the Government in order to
uphold the separation and independence of the
1. That the offender is an Executive or Judicial three equal branches.
officer; and
2. That he: DISOBEYING REQUEST OF
a. Makes general rules and regulations DISQUALIFICATION
beyond the scope of his authority; ART. 242, RPC
b. Attempts to repeal a law; or
c. Suspends the execution thereof. Elements (Pu-P-Q-R-C)
USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS 1. That the offender is a Public officer;

ART. 240, RPC 2. That a Proceeding is pending before such
public officer;
Elements (J-A-O) 3. There is a Question brought before the
proper authority regarding his jurisdiction,
1. That the offender is a Judge; and which is yet to be decided;
2. That the offender: 4. He has been lawfully required to Refrain
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested to from continuing the proceeding; and
executive authorities of the Government; 5. He Continues the proceeding.
or
b. Obstructs executive authorities from the NOTE: The offender is still liable even if the
lawful performance of their functions. question of jurisdiction has been resolved in his
favor later on.

ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE Sec. 4: Abuses against Chastity

OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
ART. 243, RPC
ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
ART. 245, RPC
Elements (Ex-Add-Ju)
Elements of Abuses against Chastity (P-SI-W-
1. That the offender is an Executive officer; Pe-Cu-R)
2. That the offender Addresses any order or
suggestion to any judicial authority; and
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any
case or business within the exclusive
2. That he Solicits or makes any Indecent or
Jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
immoral advances to a woman; and
The purpose of this article is to maintain the

3. That the offended party is a Woman who is:
independence of the judiciary.
a. Interested in matters Pending before the
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS public officer for his decision or where
ART. 244, RPC the public officer is required to submit a
report or to consult with a superior
Elements of Unlawful Appointments (Pu-No- officer;
La-K)
b. Under the Custody of the offender, who
1. Offender is a Public officer; is a warden or other public officer
2. He Nominates or appoints a person to a directly charged with the care and
public office; custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest; or
NOTE: “Nominate” is different from
“recommend.” While nomination constitutes c. The wife, daughter, sister or any Relative
a crime, mere recommendation does not. falling within the same degree by affinity
of the person under the custody and
3. Such person Lacks the legal qualification charge of the offender.
thereof; and
4. Offender Knows that his nominee or The mother of a person under the custody of any
appointee lacks the qualifications at the time public officer is not included as a possible
he made the nomination or appointment. offended party but the offender may be
prosecuted under Sec. 28 of R.A. No. 3019. (Anti-
NOTE: There must be a law providing for the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
qualifications of a person to be nominated or
appointed to a public office. (Reyes, 2017) Essence of the Crime Abuses against Chastity
The essence of the crime is the mere making of

immoral or indecent solicitation or advances.
Ways of Committing Abuses against Chastity
Soliciting or making immoral or indecent

advances to:

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
1. A woman interested in matters pending

before the offending officer for decision, or
with respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a superior
officer;
2. A woman under the offender’s custody;
3. The wife, daughter, sister or relative within

the same degree by affinity of any person in
the custody of the offending warden or
officer.
NOTE: The crime can be committed by mere

proposal, and it is not necessary for the woman
solicited to yield to the proposal of the offender.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there
is sexual intercourse.

Criminal Law
This must be alleged and proved. If not alleged, it

G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS can only be considered as an ordinary
ARTS. 246-267-D, RPC, TITLE VIII aggravating circumstance.
Q: While Joanne was eating, she noticed that

her father, Abenir, seemed restless while he
CHAPTER 1: DESTRUCTION OF LIFE was preparing for work. Meanwhile, Jessica,
Abegail, and Delia were watching television,
Sec. 1: Parricide, Murder, Homicide with Delia seated on the floor near the toilet.
Suddenly, Joanne saw Abenir hit Delia on the

PARRICIDE
head with a maso. A second blow hit the
ART. 246, RPC
cement wall. Joanne yelled and tried to pacify
Abenir, asking why he did it. Abenir told her
Elements of Parricide (1994, 1997, 1999,
that she caught Delia with a man in their
2003, 2015 BAR) (K-A-FMCADS)
bathroom.
1. That a person is Killed;

However, Joanne saw no one. Delia was
2. That the deceased is killed by the Accused;
rushed to the hospital but she passed away
and
shortly after. Is Abenir liable for the crime of
3. That the deceased is the:
Parricide?
a. Legitimate/Illegitimate Father;
b. Legitimate/Illegitimate Mother;
A: YES. All the elements of the crime of parricide
c. Legitimate/Illegitimate Child;
were sufficiently proved by the prosecution.
d. Other legitimate Ascendant;
There was no dispute as to the relationship
e. Other legitimate Descendant; or
between the accused-appellant and the victim.
f. Legitimate Spouse.
With respect to the killing by the accused of his
wife, their daughter Joanne clearly testified that
The relationship, except the spouse, must be in
she suddenly saw her father hit the head of her
the direct line and not in the collateral line.
mother with a small mallet. Joanne's
straightforward and candid narration of the
Q: X killed his brother, Y. What crime is
incident is regarded as positive and credible
committed?
evidence, sufficient to convict the accused.
A: Homicide or Murder, as the case may be

Well settled is the rule that it is unnatural for a
because brothers are not part of those
relative, in this case the accused's own child, who
enumerated under Art. 246. Their relation is in
is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse
the collateral line and not as ascendants or
somebody else other than the real culprit. For her
descendants of each other.
to do so is to let the guilty go free. Where there is
nothing to indicate that witnesses were actuated
Essential Element of Parricide
by improper motives on the witness stand, their
positive declarations made under solemn oath
The relationship of the offender with the victim
deserve full faith and credence. (People v. Brusola,
must be:
G.R. No. 210615, 26 July 2017)
1. Legitimate, except in the case of parent and

Proof that Must be Established to Constitute
child;
Parricide of a Spouse
2. In the direct line; and
3. By blood, except in the case of a legitimate
There must be a valid subsisting marriage at the
spouse.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
time of the killing, and such fact should be alleged of one is the act of all does not apply here because
in the Information. of the personal relationship of the offender to the
offended party. It is immaterial that he knew of
Q: Elias killed Susana. He was charged with the relationship of the accused and the deceased.
parricide. During the trial, no marriage
contract was presented. Is the non- Q: Suppose a husband, who wanted to kill his
presentation of the marriage contract fatal to sick wife, hired a killer. The hired killer shot
the prosecution of the accused for parricide? the wife. What are the crimes committed?
A: NO. There is a presumption that persons living A: The husband is liable for parricide as principal
together as husband and wife are married to each by inducement. The hired killer is liable for
other. The mere fact that no record of the murder. The personal relationship of the
marriage exists in the registry of marriage does husband to wife cannot be transferred to a
not invalidate said marriage, as long as in the stranger.
celebration thereof and all the requisites for its
validity are present. (People v. Borromeo, 133 Q: Suppose A, an adopted child of B, killed the
SCRA 106, 31 Oct. 1984) latter's parents. Will A be liable for parricide?
The maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and A: NO. An adopted child is considered as a
the presumption “that a man and woman legitimate child BUT since the relationship is
deporting themselves as husband and wife have exclusive between the adopter and the adopted,
entered into a lawful contract of marriage” killing the parents of the adopter is not
applies pursuant to Sec. 3(aa), Rule 131, Rules of considered as parricide of other legitimate
Court. (Peope v. Aling, G.R. No. L-38833, 12 Mar. ascendants.
1980)
Age of the Child
Q: If a person killed another not knowing that
the latter was his son, will he be guilty of The child killed by his parent must be at least
parricide? (1996 BAR) three (3) days old. If the child is less than three
(3) days old, the crime is infanticide, which is
A: YES. The law does not require knowledge of punishable under Art. 255.
relationship between them.
Parricide vs. Infanticide
Q: If a person wanted to kill another but by
mistake killed his own father will he be guilty PARRICIDE INFANTICIDE
of parricide? What is the penalty imposable? As to Basis
Its basis is the
A: YES. The law does not require knowledge of relationship between The basis is the age
relationship between them, but Art. 49 will apply the offender and the of the child-victim.
with regard the proper penalty to be imposed, victim.
which is the penalty for the lesser offense in its As to Commission
maximum period. Infanticide may be
It can be committed committed by any
Criminal Liability of Stranger Conspiring in only by the relatives person whether
the Commission of the Crime of Parricide enumerated. relative or not of the
victim.
The stranger is liable for homicide or murder, as As to Application of Conspiracy
the case may be, because of the absence of Conspirary cannot be Conspiracy is
relationship. The rule on conspiracy that the act applied because the applicable because

Criminal Law
relationship of the the circumstance of being raised as a defense.

offender and the victim age pertains to the
is an esssential victim; only one Q: Pedro, a policeman, had slight fever and
element. A separate information shall be decided to go home early. However, he was
information must be prepared for all the shocked and enraged when, after opening the
filed for the parricide conspirators. door of his bedroom, he saw his brother,
and the murder or Julius completely naked, having sexual
homicide on the part of intercourse with his wife, Cleopatra. Pedro
the non-relative shot and killed Julius. Cleopatra fled from the
conspirator. bedroom but Pedro ran after her and shot and
killed her. Is Pedro criminally liable for the
Cases of Parricide NOT Punishable by death of Julius and Cleopatra?
Reclusion Perpetua to Death
A: NO. It falls under Art. 247 of the RPC.
1. Parricide through negligence (Art. 365);
2. Parricide by mistake (Art. 249); and Stages contemplated under Art. 247
3. Parricide under exceptional circumstances.
(Art. 247) 1. When the offender surprised the other
spouse with a paramour or mistress in the act
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED of committing sexual intercourse.
UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
ART. 247, RPC Surprise means to come upon suddenly or
unexpectedly.
Requisites of Death or Physical Injuries
Inflicted under Exceptional Circumstances 2. When the offender kills or inflicts serious
physical injury upon the other spouse and
paramour while in the act of intercourse, or
1. A legally married person or a parent
surprises his spouse or daughter, the latter immediately thereafter, that is, after
surprising.
under 18 years of age and living with him, in
the act of committing sexual intercourse;
“Immediately thereafter” means that the
discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing
2. He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts
must all form part of one continuous act. The
upon any or both of them any serious
act done must be a direct result of the
physical injury in the act or immediately
outrage of the cuckolded spouse. (Reyes,
thereafter; and
2012) (1991 BAR)
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the
It is Enough that the Circumstances Show
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that
Reasonably that the Carnal Act is Being
he or she has not consented to the infidelity
of the other spouse. Committed or has Just Been Committed
There is no criminal liability when less serious or For a husband to be justified, it is not necessary
slight physical injuries are inflicted. The presence that he sees the carnal act being committed by his
of the requisites enumerated above is an wife with his own eyes. It is enough that he
absolutory cause. surprises them under such circumstances as to
show reasonably that the carnal act is being
committed or has just been committed. (Reyes,
Art. 247 does not define any crime; thus, it cannot
be alleged in an Information. Murder, homicide or 2017, citing the concurring opinion of Moran in
People v. Gonzales, 69 Phil. 66, citing U.S. v. Alano,
parricide needs to be filed first, with Art. 247

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
32 Phil. 381; U.S. v. Feliciano, 36 Phil. 753) discover, escape, pursuit and killing of C form
one continuous act. (U.S. v. Vargas, G.R. No.
Q: The accused was shocked to discover his 1053, 07 May 1903)
wife and their driver sleeping in the master’s
bedroom. Outraged, the accused got his gun 2. NO. A is not liable for the serious physical
and killed both. Can the accused claim that he injuries he inflicted on his wife because the
killed the two under exceptional act falls under the same exceptional
circumstances? (1991, 2001, 2005, 2007, circumstances in Art. 247 of the RPC.
2011 BAR)
Q: Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of
A: NO. The accused did not catch them while having sexual intercourse with Rocco in the
having sexual intercourse. maid’s room of their own house. Rafa shot
both lovers in the chest, but they survived.
Q: A and B are husband and wife. One night, A, Rafa charged Rachel and Rocco with adultery,
a security guard, felt sick and cold, hence, he while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa with
decided to go home around midnight after frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide.
getting permission from his duty officer.
Approaching the master bedroom, he was In the frustrated parricide and frustrated
surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside. He homicide cases, Rafa raised the defense that,
opened the door very carefully and peeped having caught them in flagrante delicto, he
inside where he saw his wife B having sexual has no criminal liability. Assuming that all
intercourse with their neighbor C. defenses have been proven: Will the actions
for frustrated parricide and frustrated
A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter homicide prosper? (2018 BAR)
managed to wrest himself free and jumped
out of the window. A followed suit and A: NO, the actions for frustrated parricide and
managed to catch C again and after a furious frustrated homicide will not prosper because
struggle, managed also to strangle him to Rafa is entitled to the benefit of Art. 247 of the
death. A then rushed back to their bedroom RPC.
where his wife B was cowering under the bed
covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows Art. 247 of the RPC states that any legally married
and rendered her unconscious. person who having surprised his spouse in the act
of committing sexual intercourse with another
The police arrived after being summoned by person, shall kill any of them or both of them in
their neighbors and arrested A who was the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict
detained, inquested and charged for the death upon them any serious physical injury, shall
of C and serious physical injuries of B. suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict
upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he
1. Is A liable for C’s death? Why? shall be exempt from punishment.
2. Is A liable for B’s injuries? Why? (1991,
2001, 2005, 2007 BAR) The action will prosper to allow the court to
receive evidence. However, Rafa can be held
A: liable only for destierro based on Art. 247 of the
1. NO. A is not liable for C’s death but under the RPC. The act committed by Rafa amounts to at
exceptional circumstances in Art. 247 of the least, serious physical injuries, so the penalty of
RPC, an absolutory cause. Art. 247 governs destierro will be imposed. If the court finds that
since A surprised his wife B in the act of the act amounts to less than serious physical
having sexual intercourse with C, and the injuries, Rafa will not have any criminal liability.
killing of C was immediately thereafter as the

Criminal Law
Parent Need Not be Legitimate 2. That the Accused killed him;

3. That the killing was attended by any of the
The law does not distinguish. It is not necessary Qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.
that the parent be legitimate. 248; and
4. That the killing is Not Parricide or
Non-applicability of this Article if the Infanticide.
Daughter is Married
Murder (1999, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010 BAR)
This article applies only when the daughter is
single because while under 18 years old and Murder is the unlawful killing of any person
single, she is under parental authority. If she is which is not parricide or infanticide, provided
married, her husband alone can claim the that any of the following circumstances is
benefits of Art. 247. present:
Inapplicability of Mitigating and Aggravating 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior

circumstances strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense, or
It shall likewise be noted that inflicting death of means or persons to insure or afford
under exceptional circumstances, not being a impunity. (1995, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2015
punishable act, cannot be qualified by either BAR)
aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying
circumstances. (People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, If committed “by a band”, it is still murder
14 Sept. 1987) because of the circumstance of “with the aid
of armed men.”
Q: When third persons are injured in the
course of the firing at the paramour – Q: One night, Jennifer was found dead. CCTV
footage shows Jennifer and Pemberton
a. Will the offending spouse be free from leaving a club together. An unequivocal
criminal liability? testimony identified Pemberton as the last
b. What crime is committed? person who was seen with Jennifer on the
night she died. The results of a general
A: physical examination conducted on
a. NO. Inflicting death or physical injuries Pemberton show abrasions and light
under exceptional circumstances is not scratches on different parts on his body, and
murder. It does not mean, however, that the Pemberton’s latex print was shown on one of
offender is totally free from any the condoms found at the crime scene.
responsibility. Physical examinations on Jennifer’s cadaver
reveal that she was strangled from behind.
b. The offender can be held liable for serious
physical injuries through simple imprudence Jennifer’s mother filed a complaint for
or negligence. (People v. Abarca, G.R. No. Murder against Pemberton. Pemberton
74433, 14 Sept. 1987) opposed, stating that there is no probable
cause for murder. Is Pemberton correct?
MURDER
ART. 248, RPC A: NO. There is ample evidence submitted to
establish probable cause that Pemberton
Elements of Murder (K-A-Q-NPI) murdered Jennifer. First, the killing of Jennifer
has been indubitably confirmed. Second, the
1. That a person was Killed; pieces of evidence such as the CCTV footage, the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
testimonies, the latex print on the condom, the of an earthquake, eruption of volcano,
results of physical examinations both on destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other
Pemberton and Jennifer lead to no other public calamity.
conclusion that Pemberton was the perpetrator
of the crime. Aside from that, the result of the The offender must take advantage of the
physical examination conducted on Jennifer’s calamity to qualify the crime to murder.
cadaver demonstrates that treachery, a
qualifying circumstance, is present. 5. With evident premeditation.
Pemberton points out the lack of any direct 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
evidence linking him to the crime. It has been the augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
consistent pronouncement of the Supreme Court outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
that in such cases, the prosecution may resort to
circumstantial evidence. If direct evidence is Outraging means any physical act to commit
insisted upon under all circumstances, the guilt of an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act
vicious felons who committed heinous crimes in while scoffing is any verbal act implying a
secret will be hard, if not impossible to prove. showing of irreverence.
(Joseph Scott Pemberton v. De Lima, G.R. No.
217508, 18 Apr. 2016) Outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse
of the victim is the only instance that does not
2. In consideration of a price, reward or fall under Art. 14 of the RPC on aggravating
promise. circumstances in general.
If this aggravating circumstance is present in NOTE: Outraging or scoffing at the victim’s

the commission of the crime, it affects not person or corpse is the only qualifying
only the person who received the money or circumstance under Art. 248 that is not
reward but also the person who gave it. enumerated under Art. 14 of the RPC.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, Dwelling/Nocturnity are NOT Qualifying

explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, Circumstances
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of
an airship, by motor vehicles, or with the use Dwelling and nocturnity are not included in the
of any other means involving great waste and enumeration of qualifying circumstances. But
ruin. (1997, 2005 BAR) nocturnity or nighttime can be a method or form
of treachery. In such case, it is treachery, not
a. If the primordial criminal intent is to nighttime that qualifies the killing to murder.
kill, and fire was only used as a means
to do so, it is murder. Number of Circumstances Necessary to
b. If the primordial intent is to destroy the Qualify Homicide to Murder
property through fire and incidentally
somebody died, it is arson. Only one. If there is a second circumstance, it will
operate as a generic aggravating which will not
Treachery and evident premeditation are affect the penalty because the maximum penalty
inherent in murder by poison and, as such, of death has been abolished by R.A. No. 9346.
cannot be considered as aggravating
circumstance.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities

enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or

Criminal Law
Rules for the Application of the Circumstances treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still
which Qualify the Killing to Murder be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so
unexpected that the deceased had no time to
1. That murder will exist with any of the prepare for his or her defense. (People v. Perez,
circumstances. G.R. No. 134756, 13 Feb. 2001)
2. Where there are more than one qualifying Q: H and W hailed a jeepney where a drunk
circumstance present, only one will qualify Glino sat beside W. Glino’s head fell on W’s
the killing, with the rest to be considered as shoulder. H told Glino to sit properly. The
generic aggravating circumstances. latter arrogantly retorted, “Anong pakialam
mo?” and cursed H. Glino then provokingly
3. That when the other circumstances are asked H, “Anong gusto mo?” H replied, “Wala
absorbed or included in one qualifying akong sinabing masama.” After the heated
circumstance, they cannot be considered as verbal tussle, Glino appeared to have calmed
generic aggravating. down. He told the driver to stop because he
would alight.
4. That any of the qualifying circumstances
enumerated must be alleged in the As the jeepney ground to a halt, Glino drew a
information. 29-inch balisong and stabbed H. H failed to
offer any form of resistance and thereafter,
When Treachery is Present died. Glino contended that he is only liable for
homicide since there was no treachery as the
The offender commits any of the crimes against victim was forewarned of the danger. Is the
persons, employing means, methods or forms in contention of Glino legally tenable?
its execution which tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution, without risk to himself or A: NO. The rule is well-settled in this jurisdiction
herself arising from any defense which the that treachery may still be appreciated even
offended party might make. (People v. Torres, Sr., though the victim was forewarned of the danger
G.R. No. 190317, 22 Aug. 2011) to his person. What is decisive is that the attack
was executed in a manner that the victim was
When Treachery Exists in the Crime of Murder rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.
(People v. Glino, G.R. No. 173793, 04 Dec. 4, 2007)
1. The malefactor employed such means,
method or manner of execution to ensure his A killing done at the spur of the moment is not
or her safety from the defensive or treacherous. (People v. Nitcha, G.R. No. 113517, 19
retaliatory acts of the victim; Jan. 1995)
2. At the time of the attack, the victim was not Q: Tom and Gina were about to leave the
in a position to defend himself; and Christmas party when they saw Rolly push
Gina who mistook her as the girl who left him
3. The accused consciously and deliberately on the dance floor. A heated argument then
adopted the particular means, methods, or ensued. As Tom and Gina were walking on the
forms of attack employed by him. (People v. sidewalk of the Sing-Sing Garden, Rolly
Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, 16 Apr. 2012) suddenly came from behind and shot Tom.
Lito was leaving the party and witnessed Rolly
NOTE: Killing of a child of tender age is murder shot Tom and ran away after. Tom was
qualified by treachery. (Reyes, 2017) brought to the hospital but died on the same
day. Is Rolly liable for murder?
A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
A: NO. The accused should only be convicted of 3. A Sufficient lapse of time between the
the crime of homicide and not murder. The decision and execution, allowing the accused
prosecution failed to establish by clear and to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
convincing evidence that treachery attended the (People v. Grabador, G.R. No. 227504, 13 June
commission of the crime. Treachery is never 2018)
presumed. It is required that the manner of attack
must be shown to have been attended by Q: A killed B by stabbing B in the heart which
treachery as conclusively as the crime itself. It has resulted to B’s death. The witness is the wife
been consistently held by the Court that chance of the victim, who said that a day prior to the
encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed killing, A threatened B. Based on the
at the spur of the moment or that were preceded testimony of the wife, A was prosecuted for
by heated altercations are generally not attended murder due to evident premeditation. Is the
by treachery for lack of opportunity of the charge correct?
accused to deliberately employ a treacherous
mode of attack. A: NO. The crime committed is homicide only. A
mere threat is not sufficient to constitute evident
To qualify an offense, the following conditions premeditation.
must exist: (1) the assailant employed means,
methods or forms in the execution of the criminal HOMICIDE
act which give the person attacked no ART. 249, RPC
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and
(2) said means, methods or forms of execution Homicide
were deliberately or consciously adopted by the
assailant. That for treachery to be appreciated, The unlawful killing of any person, which is
both elements must be present. It is not enough neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide.
that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and
without any warning or provocation. Elements of Homicide (K-W-I-Q)
In the instant case, the Court finds that the second 1. That a person was Killed;
requisite for treachery. The means of execution 2. That the accused killed him Without any
used by the accused cannot be said to be justifying circumstance;
deliberately or consciously adopted since it was 3. The accused had Intention to kill which is
more of a result of a sudden impulse due to his presumed; and
previous heated altercation with the victim than 4. The killing was not attended by any of the
a planned and deliberate action. Similarly, in Qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
another case, the Court held, "there is no that of parricide or infanticide. (Reyes, 2017)
treachery when the assault is preceded by a
heated exchange of words between the accused Evidence to Show Intent to Kill is Important
and the victim; or when the victim is aware of the Only in Attempted or Frustrated Homicide
hostility of the assailant towards the former.
(People v. Edgardo Menil., G.R. No. 233205, 26 June This is because if death resulted, intent to kill is
2019, J. Caguioa) conclusively presumed. It is generally shown by
the kind of weapon used, the parts of the victim's
Requisites of Evident Premeditation (T-A-S) body at which it was aimed, and by the wounds
inflicted. The element of intent to kill is
1. Time when the accused decided to commit incompatible with imprudence or negligence.
the crime;
2. Overt Act manifestly indicating that he clung
to the determination; and

Criminal Law
Proving Intent to Kill acting independently of each other. Who is

liable for the death of C?
Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against
persons may consist, inter alia, of: A: Since either wound could cause the death of C,
both are liable and each one of them is guilty of
1. The means used by the malefactors; homicide. The burden of proof is on each of the
2. The nature, location and number of wounds defendants to show that the wound inflicted by
sustained by the victim; him did not cause the death. The one who
3. The conduct of the malefactors before, at the inflicted a wound that contributed to the death of
time of, or immediately after the killing of the the victim is equally liable. (U.S. v. Abiog, G.R. No.
victim; L-12747, 13 Nov. 1917)
4. The circumstances under which the crime
was committed; This ruling is applicable only when there is no
5. The motive of the accused; (People v. Lanuza, conspiracy between or among the accused. When
G.R. No. 188562, 17 Aug. 2011) and there is conspiracy, it is not necessary to apply
6. Words uttered at the time of inflicting the this ruling because in such case, the act of one is
injuries on the victim may also be considered. the act of all.
(De Guzman v. People, 742 SCRA 501, 26 Nov.
2014) Use of Unlicensed Firearms in Committing
Murder or Homicide
Illustration: If A would shoot B at one of his feet,
at a distance of one eter, there is no intent to kill. In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No.
If B is hit, the crimeis only physical injuries. If B is 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, separate prosecutions
not hit, the offense is Discharge of Firearms under for homicide and illegal possession of firearms
Art. 254. are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession
of firearms is merely taken as an aggravating
Q: X, a pharmacist, compounded and prepared circumstance in the crime of murder. (People v.
the medicine on prescription by a doctor. X Gaborne, G.R. No. 210710, 27 July 2016)
erroneously used a highly poisonous
substance. When taken by the patient, the DID NOT USE THE USED THE
latter nearly died. The accused was charged UNLICENSED UNLICENSED
with frustrated homicide through reckless FIREARM IN THE FIREARM IN THE
imprudence. Is the charge correct? COMMISSION OF COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME THE CRIME
A: NO. It is an error to convict the accused of Separate Illegal possession of
frustrated homicide through reckless prosecutions for firearm is merely
imprudence. He is guilty of physical injuries homicide or murder taken as an
through reckless imprudence. The element of and illegal possession aggravating
intent to kill in frustrated homicide is of firearms. circumstance.
incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
Intent in felonies by means of dolo is replaced Accidental Homicide
with lack of foresight or skill in felonies by culpa.
It is the death of a person brought about by a
Q: A shot C with a pistol. Almost immediately lawful act performed with proper care and skill,
after A had shot C, B also shot C with B’s gun. and without homicidal intent. (Reyes, 2017)
Both wounds inflicted by A and B were mortal.
C was still alive when B shot him. C died as a Q: Supposing Pedro was found on the street
result of the wounds received from A and B, dead with thirty (30) stab wounds at the back.
A witness said that he saw Juan running away

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
carrying a bladed weapon. What crime was member of his family, any member of his cabinet
committed by Juan? or members of the latter's family is punishable by
death. (P.D. 1110-A)
A: Homicide and not murder. Even if the stab
wounds were found on the back of Pedro, it is not DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
conclusive of the presence of the qualifying ART. 251, RPC
circumstance of treachery. Further, the witness
merely saw Juan running. He must have seen the Tumultuous Affray (1997, 2010 BAR)
infliction of the wound.
A commotion in a tumultuous and confused
NOTE: For treachery to be appreciated, it must be manner, to such an extent that it would not be
present and seen by the witness right at the possible to identify who the killer is if death
inception of the attack. (People v. Concillado, G.R. results, or who inflicted the serious physical
No. 181204, 28 Nov. 2011) injuries, but the person or persons who used
violence are known.
Corpus Delicti in Crimes against Persons
Tumultuous affray exists when at least four (4)
Corpus delicti is defined as the body, foundation persons took part therein.
or substance upon which a crime has been
committed. (People v. Quimzon, GR. No. 133541, Elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous
14 Apr. 2004) Affray (4-D-Q-K-A-I)
It may be proven by the credible testimony of a 1. There be several or at least four (4) persons;
sole witness, not necessarily by physical evidence
such as the physical body of the deceased or to 2. That they Did not compose groups organized
the ashes of a burned building but by the fact of for the common purpose of assaulting and
the commission of the crime. (Rimorin v. People, attacking each other reciprocally, otherwise,
G.R. No. 146481, 30 Apr. 2003) they may be held liable as co-
conspirators;
In all crimes against persons in which the death
of the victim is an element of the offense, there 3. That these several persons Quarreled and
must be satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact of assaulted one another in a confused and
death and (2) the identity of the victim. tumultuous manner;
PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE, 4. Someone was Killed in the course of the
MURDER OR HOMICIDE affray;
ART. 250, RPC
NOTE: The person killed in the course of the
Penalties affray need not be one of the participants in
the affray. He could be a mere passerby.
1. For Frustrated Parricide, Murder or
Homicide – penalty two degrees lower. 5. It cannot be Ascertained who actually killed
the deceased; and
2. For Attempted Parricide, Murder or
Homicide – penalty three degrees lower. NOTE: if the one who inflicted the fatal
wound is known, the crime is not tumultuous
NOTE: This provision is permissive, not affray. It is a case of homicide.
mandatory. However, an attempt on, or a
conspiracy against, the life of the Chief Executive, 6. The person or persons who inflicted serious

Criminal Law
physical injuries or who used violence can be pieces of wood. R, who was petrified, could
Identified. only watch helplessly as M was being mauled
and overpowered by his assailants. M fell to
This article does not apply if there is concerted the ground and died before he could be given
fight between two organized groups. any medical assistance. What crime is
committed in the given case?
What Brings About the Crime of Tumultuous
Affray A: The crime committed is Murder and not Death
Caused in Tumultuous Affray. A tumultuous
The crime of tumultuous affray is brought about affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between
by the inability to ascertain the actual several persons who engage in a confused and
perpetrator, not the tumultuous affray itself that tumultuous manner, in the course of which a
brings about the crime. It is necessary that the person is killed or wounded and the author
very person who caused the death cannot be thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in the
ascertained or identified. instant case is between a distinct group of
individuals, one of whom was sufficiently
Crime Committed if the Person who Caused identified as the principal author of the killing, as
the Death is Known but Cannot be Identified against a common, particular victim. (People v.
Unlagada, G.R. No. 141080, 17 Sept. 2002)
If he is known but only his identity is not known,
he will be charged for the crime of homicide or Q: A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity.
murder under a fictitious name, not death in a While eating in a seaside restaurant, they
tumultuous affray. were attacked by X, Y and Z members of a rival
fraternity. A rumble ensued in which the
Persons Liable for Death in a Tumultuous above-named members of the two fraternities
Affray assaulted each other in confused and
tumultuous manner resulting in the death of
1. The person or persons who inflicted the A. As it cannot be ascertained who actually
serious physical injuries are liable; or killed A, the members of the two fraternities
took part in the rumble and were charged for
2. If it is not known who inflicted the serious death caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the
physical injuries on the deceased, all the charge prosper? (2010 BAR)
persons who used violence upon the person
of the victim are liable, but with lesser A: NO. The charge of death caused in a
liability. tumultuous affray will not prosper. In death
caused by tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the
Q: M left his house together with R, to attend a RPC, it is essential that the persons involved did
public dance. Two hours later, they decided to not compose groups organized for the common
have a drink. Not long after, M left to look for purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
a place to relieve himself. According to R, he reciprocally. In this case, there is no tumultuous
was only about three meters from M who was affray since the participants in the rumble belong
relieving himself when a short man walked to organized fraternity.
past him, approached M and stabbed him at
the side. M retaliated by striking his assailant
with a half-filled bottle of beer.
Almost simultaneously, a group of seven men,

ganged up on M and hit him with assorted
weapons, i.e., bamboo poles, stones and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE

TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY ART. 253, RPC
ART. 252, RPC
Punishable Acts
Elements of Physical Injuries Inflicted in a
Tumultuous Affray (T-P-Ca-K) 1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether
the suicide is consummated or not; (2008
1. There is a Tumultuous affray as referred to in BAR) and
the preceding article;
2. A participant or some participants thereof 2. Lending assistance to another to commit
suffer serious Physical injuries or physical suicide to the extent of doing the killing
injuries of a less serious nature only; himself.
3. Person responsible thereof Cannot be
identified; and Art. 253 does not distinguish and does not make
4. All those who appear to have used violence any reference to the relation of the offender with
upon the person of the offended party are the person committing suicide. Hence, the
Known. penalty would be the same even if the offender is
the father, mother or the child of the one
NOTE: This article will not apply when a person committing suicide. (Reyes, 2017)
is killed.
Criminal Liability of a Person who Attempts to
Kind of Injury contemplated in the Crime of Commit Suicide
Physical Injuries in a Tumultuous Affray
A person who attempts to commit suicide does
The physical injury should be serious or less NOT incur any criminal liability because society
serious and resulting from a tumultuous affray. If has always considered a person who attempts to
the physical injury sustained is only slight, this is kill himself as an unfortunate being, a wretched
considered as inherent in a tumultuous affray. person more deserving of pity rather than of
penalty. However, he may be held liable for the
Unlike in Art. 251, the injured party on the crime crime of disturbance of public order if indeed
of physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous serious disturbance of public peace occurred due
affray must be one or some of the participants in to his attempt to commit suicide.
the affray. (Reyes, 2017)
Euthanasia NOT Giving Assistance to Suicide
Persons Liable for this Crime
Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly putting to
Only those who used violence are punished, death a person suffering from some incurable
because if the one who caused the physical disease. Euthanasia is not lending assistance to
injuries is known, he will be liable for the physical suicide. The person killed does not want to die. A
injuries actually committed, and not under this doctor who resorts to euthanasia of his patient
article. may be liable for murder.
PHYSICAL INJURIES DISCHARGE OF FIREARM

DEATH CAUSED IN A
INFLICTED IN A ART. 254, RPC
TUMULTUOUS
TUMULTUOUS
AFFRAY
AFFRAY Elements of Discharge of Firearm (D-N)
Victim need NOT be a Victim is a
participant. participant. 1. Offender Discharges a firearm against
another person; and

Criminal Law
2. Offender has No intention to kill the person. Sec. 2: Infanticide and Abortion
NOTE: There must be no intent to kill. The

INFANTICIDE
purpose of the offender is only to intimidate
ART. 255, RPC
or frighten the offended party. This does not
apply to police officers in the performance of
their duties. Infanticide (2006 BAR)
Imprudence in Illegal Discharge It is the killing of any child less than three (3) days
old or seventy-two (72) hours of age, whether the
The crime of illegal discharge cannot be killer is the parent or grandparent, any relative of
committed through imprudence because it the child, or a stranger.
requires that the discharge must be directed at
another. NOTE: Art. 255 does not provide a penalty for
infanticide. If the killer is the mother, or father, or
NOTE: The crime is discharge of firearm even if a legitimate grandparent, although the crime is
the gun was not pointed at the offended party still infanticide, the penalty, is that of parricide.
when it was fired as long as it was initially aimed
by the accused at or against the offended party. If the offender is not so related to the child,
although the crime is still infanticide, the penalty
Discharge Towards the House of the Victim corresponding to murder shall be imposed.
The discharge towards the house of the victim is Regardless, the penalty for murder and parricide
not a discharge of firearm. Firing a gun at the is the same.
house of the offended party, not knowing in what
part of the house the people were, is only alarms Elements of Infanticide (C-L-K)
and scandals under Art. 155 of the RPC.
1. A Child was killed;
Discharge of Firearm Resulting to the Death of
a Victim NOTE: The child must be born alive and fully
developed, that is, it can sustain an
If the offender discharges the firearm at a person independent life.
to intimidate a person only, however, the bullet
hit the vital organ of the victim that resulted to his 2. Deceased child was Less than three (3) days
death, the crime committed is either homicide or old or less than seventy-two (72) hours of
murder. The moment the victim dies, intent to kill age; and
is presumed.
3. Accused Killed the said child.
NOTE: Unless the facts of the case are such that
the act can be held to constitute frustrated or When Infanticide is NOT Committed
attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any
other crime for which a higher penalty is If the child is born dead, or if the child is already
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code. dead, infanticide is not committed.
There is a complex crime of discharge of firearm Although the child is born alive, if it could not
with physical injuries when the injuries sustained sustain an independent life when it was killed,
by the offended party are serious or less serious. there is no infanticide.
(Reyes, 2017)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Effect if the Crime is Committed for INTENTIONAL ABORTION

Concealing the Dishonor as an Exculpatory ART. 256, RPC
Circumstance
Abortion (1994 BAR)
Concealment of dishonor is not an exculpatory
circumstance in the crime of infanticide. It merely It is the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or
lowers the penalty to: the violent expulsion of the fetus from the
maternal womb that results in the death of the
a. Prision mayor – if committed by the mother fetus. (Guevara as cited in Reyes, 2017)
b. Reclusion temporal – if committed by the
grandparents NOTE: The basis of this article is Sec. 12, Art. II, of
the 1987 Constitution, which states that “The
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of State shall equally protect the life of the mother
the child are entitled to the mitigating and the life of the unborn from conception.”
circumstance of concealing dishonor. The mother
who claims concealing dishonor must be of good Intentional Abortion is Committed in Three
reputation. (3) Ways
Infanticide vs. Parricide, if the Offender is the 1. By using any violence upon the person of the
Blood Relative, e.g., parent of the child pregnant woman;
2. By administering drugs or beverages upon
INFANTICIDE PARRICIDE such pregnant woman without her consent;
As to Age of Victims or
The age of the victim 3. By administering drugs or beverages with
The victim is at least
is less than three days the consent of the pregnant woman.
three days old.
old.
As to Liability in Conspiracy Elements of Intentional Abortion (P-V-D-A)
If done in conspiracy The co-conspirator is
with a stranger, both liable for murder 1. There is a Pregnant woman;
the parent and the co- because of the
conspirator are liable absence of 2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
for infanticide. relationship. administered, or that the accused otherwise
Concealment as Mitigating Circumstances acts upon such pregnant woman;
Concealment of
Concealment of dishonor in killing the 3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or
dishonor in killing the child is not a beverages upon her, or any other act of the
child is mitigating. mitigating accused, the fetus Dies, either in the womb or
circumstance. after having been expelled therefrom; and
NOTE: In both crimes, there is intent to kill the 4. Abortion is intended.

child.
NOTE: In intentional abortion, the offender
Q: Suppose the child is abandoned without should know that the woman is pregnant
any intent to kill and death results as a because the very intention is to cause an
consequence, what crime is committed? abortion.
A: The crime committed is abandonment under

Art. 276 (Abandoning a Minor) of the RPC and not
infanticide.

Criminal Law
Persons Liable for Intentional Abortion A: The crime is complex crime of murder or
physical injuries with abortion.
1. The person who actually caused the abortion
under Art. 256; and Q: If despite the employment of sufficient and
2. The pregnant woman if she consented under adequate means to effect abortion, the fetus
Art. 258. that is expelled from the maternal womb is
viable but unable to sustain life outside the
Abortion is not a crime against the woman but maternal womb, what crime is committed?
against the fetus. The offender must know of the
pregnancy because the particular criminal A: The crime is frustrated abortion because
intention is to cause an abortion. As long as the abortion is consummated only if the fetus dies
fetus dies as a result of the violence used or drugs inside the womb.
administered, the crime of abortion exists, even if
the fetus is over or less is in full term. (Viada as NOTE: But if the expelled fetus could sustain life
cited in Reyes, 2008) outside the mother’s womb, the crime is already
Abortion vs. Infanticide infanticide.
ABORTION INFANTICIDE Q: If the abortive drug used is a prohibited or

As to the Victim regulated drug under the Dangerous Drugs
The victim is already Act, what are the crimes committed?
a person less than 3
The victim is not days old or 72 hours A: The crimes committed are intentional abortion
viable but remains to and is viable or and violation of R.A. No. 9165 or the Dangerous
be a fetus. capable of living Drugs Act.
separately from the
mother’s womb. UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
As to Entitlement to Mitigating ART. 257, RPC
Circumstances
Both the mother and Elements of Unintentional Abortion (P-V-I-D)
maternal
Only the pregnant
grandparents of the 1. There is a Pregnant woman;
woman is entitled to
child are entitled to 2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman
mitigation if the
the mitigating without intending an abortion;
purpose is to conceal
circumstance of 3. Violence is Intentionally exerted; and
dishonor.
concealing the 4. As a result of the violence exerted, the fetus
dishonor. Dies either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom. (2015 BAR)
Even if the child was expelled prematurely and
was deliberately alive at birth, the offense is Illustration: Unintentional abortion requires
abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an physical violence inflicted deliberately and
intrauterine life of 6 months is not viable. (People voluntarily by a third person upon the person of
v. Paycana, 551 SCRA 657, 16 Apr. 2008, citing U.S. the pregnant woman. Hence, if A pointed a gun at
v. Vedra, G.R. No. L-4779, 20 Nov. 1908) a pregnant lady, who became so frightened,
causing her abortion, he is not liable for
Q: Suppose the mother as a consequence of unintentional abortion, as there was no violence
abortion suffers death or physical injuries, exerted. If he intended the abortion however, the
what crime is committed? crime committed is intentional abortion.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
The force or violence must come from another. culpa lies not in the aspect of abortion but on the
Mere intimidation is not enough unless the violence inflicted on the pregnant woman. Thus,
degree of intimidation already approximates there can be a crime of Reckless Imprudence
violence. resulting in Unintentional Abortion.
Q: Is the crime of unintentional abortion ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN

committed if the pregnant woman aborted HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS
because of intimidation? ART. 258, RPC
A: NO. The crime committed is not unintentional Elements (P-A-C-HOP)

abortion because there is no violence. The crime
committed is light threats. 1. There is a Pregnant woman who has suffered
abortion;
NOTE: If violence was employed on the pregnant 2. Abortion is intended; and
woman by a third person, and as a result, the 3. Abortion is Caused by:
woman and the fetus died, there is complex crime a. The pregnant woman Herself;
of homicide with unintentional abortion. b. Any Other person, with her consent; or
c. Any of her Parents, with her consent for
Q: Suppose the pregnant woman employed the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
violence to herself specifically calculated to
bring about abortion, what crime is NOTE: Under (a) and (c) above, the woman is
committed? liable under Art. 258 while the third person
under b is liable under Art. 256.
A: The woman is liable for intentional abortion
under Art. 258. Mitigation of Liability when the Purpose of
Abortion is to Conceal Dishonor
Q: What is the criminal liability, if any, of a
pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide The liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated
by poison, but she did not die and the fetus if the purpose for abortion is to conceal her
in her womb was expelled instead? (1994, dishonor. However, if it is the parents who
2012 BAR) caused the abortion for the purpose of concealing
their daughter’s dishonor, there is no mitigation,
A: The woman who tried to commit suicide incurs unlike in infanticide.
no criminal liability for the result not intended. In
order to incur criminal liability for the result not
ABORTION PRACTICED BY PHYSICIAN OR
intended, one must be committing a felony, and
MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
suicide is not a felony. Unintentional abortion is
ART. 259, RPC
not committed since it is punishable only when
caused by violence and not by poison. There is
Elements of this Crime as to the Physician or
also no intentional abortion since the intention of
Midwife
the woman was to commit suicide and not to
abort the fetus.
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered
abortion;
Q: Can unintentional abortion be committed
2. Abortion is intended;
through negligence?
NOTE: If abortion was not intended or was a

A: YES. Unintentional abortion is a felony
result of a mistake, no crime is committed. If
committed by dolo or deliberate intent. But it can
the woman is not really pregnant, an
be committed by means of culpa. However, the
impossible crime is committed.

Criminal Law
3. The offender must be a physician or midwife two or more seconds of lawful age on each side,
who causes or assists in causing the abortion; who make the selection of arms and fix all the
and other conditions of the fight to settle some
4. Said physician or midwife takes advantage of antecedent quarrels.
his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
Punishable Acts
Therapeutic Abortion
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
It is an abortion caused by a physician to save the 2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical
life of a mother. The physician is not criminally injuries; and
liable. (Estrada, 2011) 3. Making a combat although no physical
injuries have been inflicted.
Elements of this Crime as to the Pharmacists
Duel is Different from an Agreement to Fight
1. Offender is a pharmacist;
2. There is no proper prescription from a A mere fight as a result of an agreement is not
physician; and necessarily a duel because a duel implies an
3. Offender dispenses an abortive. agreement to fight under determined conditions
and with the participation and intervention of
As to the pharmacist, the crime is consummated seconds who fixed the conditions.
by dispensing an abortive without proper
prescription from a physician. It is not necessary Illustration: If the accused and the deceased,
that the abortive is actually used. after a verbal heated argument in the bar, left the
place at the same time and pursuant to their
If the pharmacist knew that the abortive would agreement, went to the plaza to fight each other
be used to cause an abortion and abortion to death with knives which they bought on the
resulted from the use thereof, the pharmacist way, there is no crime of duel because there was
would be an accomplice in the crime of abortion. no seconds who fixed the conditions of the fight
(Reyes, 2017) in a more or less formal manner. If one is killed,
the crime committed is homicide.
Q: Suppose the abortion was performed by a
physician without medical necessity to Persons Liable
warrant such abortion and the woman or her
husband had consented. Is the physician 1. The person who killed or inflicted physical
liable for abortion under Art. 259? injuries upon his adversary, or both
combatants will be liable as principals.
A: YES. The consent of the woman or her husband 2. Seconds will be liable as accomplices.
is not enough to justify abortion.
Seconds
Sec. 3: Duel
Those persons who make the selection of the
arms and fix the other conditions of the fight.
RESPONSIBILITY OF
PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL
Applicability of Self-Defense
ART. 260, RPC
Self-defense cannot be invoked if there was a pre-
Duel concerted agreement to fight, but if the attack
was made by the accused against his opponent
It is a formal or regular combat previously before the appointed place and time, there is an
consented between two parties in the presence of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
unlawful aggression, hence self-defense can be Kinds of Mutilation

claimed.
1. Intentionally mutilating another by
CHALLENGING TO A DUEL depriving him, either totally or partially, of
ART. 261, RPC some essential organ for reproduction.
Punishable Acts Elements:

1. Challenging another to a duel; a. There must be a castration, which is
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge mutilation of organs necessary for
to a duel; and generation, such as the penis or
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for ovarium; and
having refused to accept a challenge to fight
a duel. b. The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately, which is to deprive the
NOTE: The punishable act is to challenge to a offended party of some essential organ
duel, not challenge to a fight, because if it is the for reproduction.
latter, the crime would be light threats under Art.
285(2). 2. Intentionally depriving the victim of the
reproductive organ does not mean
Q: Suppose one challenges another to a duel necessarily the cutting off of the organ or
by shouting "Come down, Olympia, let us any part thereof. It suffices that it is
measure your prowess. We will see whose rendered useless.
intestines will come out. You are a coward if
3. Intentionally making other mutilation, that
you do not come down," is the crime of
is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the
challenging to a duel committed?
body of the offended party, other than the
essential organ for reproduction, to deprive
A: NO. What is committed is the crime of light
him of that part of his body.
threats under Art. 285. (People v. Tacomoy, G.R.
No. L-4798, 16 July 1951)
In the first kind of mutilation, the castration must
be made purposely. Otherwise, it will be
Persons Liable in this Crime
considered as mutilation of the second kind.
The challenger and the instigators.

Intention in Mutilation; No Mutilation
through Negligence
CHAPTER 2: PHYSICAL INJURIES
Mutilation must always be intentional. Thus, it
MUTILATION cannot be committed through criminal
ART. 262, RPC negligence.
Mutilation There must be no intent to kill otherwise; the

offense is attempted or frustrated homicide or
It is the lopping or the clipping off of some parts murder, as the case may be.
of the body which are not susceptible to growth
again. Q: Suppose there is no intent to deprive the
victim of the particular part of the body, what
is the crime committed?
A: The crime is only serious physical injuries.

Criminal Law
NOTE: Cruelty, as understood in Art. 14 (21), is 3. When the injured:

inherent in mutilation, and in fact, that is the only a. Becomes deformed;
felony where said circumstance is an integral part b. Loses any other member of his body;
and is absorbed therein. If the victim dies, the c. Loses the use thereof; or
crime is murder qualified by cruelty, but the d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the
offender may still claim and prove that he had no performance of the work in which he
intention to commit so grave a wrong. was habitually engaged in for more than
90 days, as a consequence of the
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES physical injuries inflicted.
ART. 263, RPC
NOTE: In par. 2 and 3, the offended party
How the Crime of Serious Physical Injuries is must have a vocation or work at the time of
Committed: (1992, 1993, 1995 BAR) injury.
1. Wounding; 4. When the injured person becomes ill or

2. Beating; incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
3. Assaulting; or (but must not be more than 90 days), as a
4. Administering injurious substance. result of the physical injuries inflicted.
Instances Considered as the Crime of Serious When the category of the offense of serious
Physical Injuries physical injuries depends on the period of the
illness or incapacity for labor, there must be
1. When the injured person becomes insane, evidence of the length of that period.
imbecile, impotent, or blind in consequence Otherwise, the offense will be considered as
of the physical injuries inflicted. slight physical injuries.
Impotence includes inability to copulate and Nature of Physical Injuries

sterility.
The crime of physical injuries is a formal crime
Blindness requires loss of vision of both eyes. because it is penalized on the basis of the gravity
Mere weakness in vision is not contemplated. of the injury sustained. What is punished is the
consequence and not the stage of execution.
2. When the injured person: Hence, it is always consummated. It cannot be
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to committed in the attempted and frustrated stage.
hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand,
a foot, an arm or a leg; or Q: If the offender repeatedly uttered “I will kill
b. Loses the use of any such member; or you” but he only keeps on boxing the offended
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in party and injuries resulted, what is the crime
which he was habitually engaged in as a committed?
consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted. A: The crime is only physical injuries not
attempted or frustrated homicide.
Loss of hearing must involve both ears.
Otherwise, it will be considered as serious Determination of Intent to Kill
physical injuries under par. 3. Loss of the
power to hear in the right ear is merely Intent to kill must be manifested by overt acts. It
considered as loss of use of some other part cannot be manifested by oral threats.
of the body.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Requisites of Deformity Qualifying Circumstances of Serious Physical

Injuries
1. Physical ugliness;
2. Permanent and definite abnormality; and 1. If it is committed by any of the persons
3. Conspicuous and visible. referred to in the crime of parricide; or
2. If any of the circumstances qualifying murder
NOTE: Once physical injuries resulted to attended its commission.
deformity, it is classified as serious physical
injuries. Illustration: A father who inflicts serious
physical injuries upon his son will be liable for
Q: X threw acid on the face of Y and, were it not qualified serious physical injuries.
for the timely medical attention, a deformity
would have been produced on the face of Y. NOTE: The qualified penalties are not applicable
After the plastic surgery, Y became more to parents who inflict serious physical injuries
handsome than before the injury. What crime upon their children by excessive chastisement.
was committed? In what stage was it
committed? Physical Injuries vs. Mutilation
A: The crime is serious physical injuries because Mutilation must have been caused purposely and
the problem itself states that the injury would deliberately to lop or clip off some part of the
have produced a deformity. The fact that the body so as to deprive the offended party of such
plastic surgery removed the deformity is part of the body. This intention is absent in other
immaterial because what is considered is not the kinds of physical injuries.
artificial treatment but the natural healing
process. PHYSICAL INJURIES MUTILATION
Q: AA punched BB that resulted to latter to No special intention There is special

suffer fractured tooth which has been to clip off some part intention to clip off
repaired by “modern dental technological of the body so as to some part of the body
procedure.” BB filed a case for serious deprive the offended so as to deprive him of
physical injuries. Will it prosper ? party of such part. such part.
A: NO. In determining whether or not the loss of Physical Injuries vs. Attempted or Frustrated
a tooth could be considered a serious physical Homicide
injury under Art. 263, there must first be a factual
determination during trial that the loss of the ATTEMPTED OR
tooth resulted in a visible deformity. Where PHYSICAL INJURIES FRUSTRATED
deformity is not apparent at trial, whether as a HOMICIDE
result of a lesser injurious act or through medical Attempted
intervention, a lesser penalty should be imposed. homicide may be
The offender inflicts
It is observed that BB’s tooth had "already [been] committed even if
physical injuries.
repaired by means of a modern dental no physical injuries
technological procedure that has not been are inflicted.
revealed in the evidence." In other words, BB's Offender has no The offender has
face had no visible disfigurement that would intention to kill the intent to kill the
warrant AA’s conviction of serious physical offended party. offended party.
injuries under Art. 263 (3) of the RPC. (Elpidio
Ruego v. People and Anthony Calubiran, G.R. No.
226745, 03 May 2021)

Criminal Law
ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS period of actual medical attendance.

SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES
ART. 264, RPC 2. Physical injuries must not be those described
in the preceding articles.
Elements of Art. 264, RPC
If a wound required medical attendance for
1. The offender inflicted serious physical only two (2) days, yet the injured was
injuries upon another; prevented from attending to his ordinary
labor for a period of twenty-nine (29) days,
2. It was done by knowingly administering to the physical injuries are denominated as less
him any injurious substances or beverages or serious. (U.S. v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 1851, 23 Jan.
by taking advantage of his weakness of mind 1905)
or credulity; and
Qualifying Circumstances of Less Serious
To administer an injurious substance or Physical Injuries
beverage means to direct or cause said
substance or beverage to be taken orally by 1. When there is manifest intent to insult or
the injured person, who suffered serious offend the injured person;
physical injuries as a result. 2. When there are circumstances adding
ignominy to the offense;
If the accused did not know of the injurious 3. When the victim is the offender’s parents,
nature of the substances he administered, he ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers;
is not liable under this article. (Reyes, 2017) or
4. When the victim is a person of rank or person
3. He had no intent to kill. in authority, provided the crime is not direct
assault.
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
NOTE: Provided, that in case of persons in
ART. 265, RPC
authority, it does not constitute the crime of
assault upon such persons.
Elements of Less Serious Physical Injuries
(1994, 1998, 2009 BAR)
Serious Physical Injury vs. Less Serious
Physical Injury
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for
ten (10) days or more (but not more than
SERIOUS PHYSICAL LESS SERIOUS
thirty (30) days), or shall require medical
INJURIES PHYSICAL INJURIES
attendance for the same period of time; and
As to Capacity of Injured Party
The offended party is
NOTE: The disjunctive “or” above means that
The injured person incapacitated for
it is either incapacity for work for ten (10)
becomes ill or labor for 10 days or
days or more or the necessity of medical
incapacitated for more but not more
attendance for an equal period which will
labor for more than than 30 days, or
make the crime of less serious physical
30 days but not more needs medical
injuries.
than 90 days. attendance for the
same period.
In the absence of proof as to the period of the
Importance of Medical Assistance
offended party’s incapacity for labor or
Medical attendance is There must be a proof
required medical attendance, the offense
not important in to the period of the
committed is only slight physical injuries.
serious physical required medical
The phrase “shall require” refers to the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
injuries. attendance. 2. When there is no evidence to establish the

gravity or duration of actual injury or to
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND show the causal relationship to death, the
MALTREATMENT offense is slight physical injuries.
ART. 266
Q: Suppose the charge contained in the
information filed was for slight physical
Kinds of Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment (1990, 1994, 2003 BAR) injuries because it was believed that the
wound suffered would require medical
attendance for eight (8) days only, but during
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the
offended party for labor from one (1) to nine preliminary investigation it was found out
that the healing would require more than
(9) days, or required medical attendance
thirty (30) days. Should an amendment of the
during the same period;
charge be allowed?
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the
A: YES. The supervening event can still be the
offended party from engaging in his habitual
work or which did not require medical subject of amendment or of a new charge without
placing the accused in double jeopardy. (People v.
attendance; or
Manolong, G.R. No. L-2288, 30 Mar. 1950)
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without
causing any injury. CHAPTER 3: RAPE
Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-
treatment which is a form of slight physical RAPE
injuries. ARTS. 266-A, 266-B, 266-C
AND 266-D, RPC and R.A. No. 8353
Q: A disagreement ensued between Cindy and
Carina which led to a slapping incident. Cindy Kinds of Rape under R.A. No. 8353
gave twin slaps on Carina’s beautiful face.
What is the crime committed by Cindy? 1. Traditional concept under Art. 335 – carnal
knowledge with a woman against her will.
A: The offended party is always a woman and
a. Slander by deed – if the slapping was done the offender is always a man.
to cast dishonor to the person slapped.
2. Sexual assault – committed with an
b. Slight physical injuries by ill-treatment – instrument or an object or use of the penis
if the slapping was done without the with penetration of the mouth or anal orifice.
intention of casting dishonor, or to The offended party or offender can either be
humiliate or embarrass the offended party a man or a woman, that is, if the woman or a
out of a quarrel or anger. man uses an instrument in the anal orifice of
a male, she or he can be liable for rape.
Presumptions in Art. 266
A violation of the body orifices by the fingers is
1. In the absence of proof as to the period of the within the expanded definition of rape under R.A.
offended party's incapacity for labor or of the No. 8353. Insertion of the finger into the female
required medical attendance, the crime genital is rape through sexual assault. (People v.
committed is presumed as slight physical Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, 30 Mar. 2000)
injuries.
However, there should be evidence of at least the
slightest penetration of the sexual organ and not

Criminal Law
merely a brush or graze of its surface. (People v. shows, Caga raped an unconscious and extremely
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 180501, 24 Dec. 2008) intoxicated woman - a fact that was duly alleged
in the Information and duly established by the
Elements of Rape by Carnal Knowledge (MCA- prosecution's evidence during the trial. (People v.
FDM12) Caga, G.R. No. 206878, 22 Aug. 2016)
1. Offender is a Man; Q: If the slightest penetration of the female

2. Offender had Carnal knowledge of the genitalia consummates rape by carnal
woman; and knowledge, how does the accused commit
3. Such act is Accomplished under any of the attempted rape by carnal knowledge? (2017
following circumstances: BAR)
a. Through Force, threat or intimidation; A: To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal
(1992 BAR) knowledge the acts must be committed with clear
b. When the offended party is Deprived of intention to have sexual intercourse, but the
reason or is otherwise unconscious; penis of the accused must not touch the labia of
c. By means of fraudulent Machination or the pudendum of the victim. Intent to have sexual
grave abuse of authority; or intercourse is present if is shown that the erectile
d. When the offended party is under twelve penis of the accused is in the position to penetrate
(12) years of age or is demented, even or the accused actually commenced to force his
though none of the above circumstances penis into the victim's sexual organ.
mentioned above be present. (1995
BAR) Elements of Rape by Sexual Assault (2005
BAR) (SPI-FDM12)
Q: While still intoxicated and asleep, "AAA"
felt someone kissing her vagina. At first, she 1. Offender commits an act of Sexual assault;
thought it was her boyfriend Randy who did it.
She tried to push him away but failed to stop 2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any
him. Indeed, in no time at all Caga succeeded of the following means:
in mounting her and in penetrating her
private parts with his penis. a. By inserting his Penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
Caga argues that while the Information b. By inserting any Instrument or object
alleged that force, violence, and intimidation into the genital or anal orifice of another
were employed to consummate the alleged person.
rape, the prosecution's evidence failed to
establish the existence thereof. He claims that 3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished
"AAA" did not offer any resistance against his under any of the following circumstances:
sexual advances, "because she thought that it
was her boyfriend (Randy) who was then a. By using Force or intimidation;
making love with her." Is Caga liable for rape? b. When the woman is Deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious;
A: YES. Caga’s contention has no merit because c. By means of fraudulent Machination or
the case falls under the second paragraph of rape: grave abuse of authority; or
"when the offended party is deprived of reason or d. When the woman is under twelve (12)
is otherwise unconscious." It is altogether years of age or demented.
immaterial that the prosecution's evidence failed
to establish the presence of physical force, threat, Rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included
or intimidation because, as the evidence at bar in rape through sexual intercourse unlike acts of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
lasciviousness. (People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 Old Anti-Rape Law vs. R.A. No. 8353
Oct. 2006)
OLD ANTI-RAPE
R.A. No. 8353
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or LAW
influence on the offended party, it is not Crime against
Crime against persons
necessary that the latter put up a determined chastity
resistance. Under the 2nd type,
May be committed sexual assault may be
Q: AAA is a minor who has been issued a by a man against a committed by any
medical certificate for mental retardation. woman only person against any
While she was picking banana blossoms, B, person
carrying a bolo, suddenly pulled down her Complaint must be
pants. AAA asked him to let her go, but B filed by the woman May be prosecuted even
threatened to hack her with his bolo. or her parents, if the woman does not
Thereafter, he inserted his penis inside AAA's grandparents or file a complaint
vagina. B was charged with rape. However, guardian if the
during trial, the prosecution failed to adduce woman was a minor
evidence to prove AAA’s age and mental or incapacitated
retardation. Therefore, he was convicted of
Private crime Public crime
simple rape.
Marriage extinguishes
Marriage of the
B, as a defense, questioned AAA’s credibility the penal action only as
victim with one of
and faults AAA’s behavior after the rape. to the principal (the
the offenders
However, the RTC and CA found AAA’s person who married the
benefits not only the
testimony to be positive and categorical. Is the victim), and cannot be
principal but also
conviction of B proper? extended to co-
the accomplices and
principals in case of
accessories.
A: YES. For a charge of rape under the Art. 266-A multiple rape.
of the RPC to prosper, the prosecution must Marital rape not Marital rape recognized
prove that (1) a man had carnal knowledge with recognized (1995 BAR)
a woman; and (2) he accompanied such act by
force, threat or intimidation. In this case, carnal Q: Geronimo, a teacher, was tried and
knowledge through threat or intimidation was convicted for twelve (12) counts of rape for
established beyond reasonable doubt by the lone the sexual assault, he, on several occasions,
testimony of the victim herself. Furthermore, committed on one of his male students by
Dandito failed to point any significant fact or inserting his penis in the victim’s mouth. On
circumstance which would justify the reversal of appeal, Geronimo contends that the acts
the findings on AAA’s credibility. complained of do not fall within the definition
of rape as defined in the RPC, particularly that
Regarding B’s defense that AAA’s behavior after rape is a crime committed by a man against a
the rape was irregular, it has been established woman. Is Geronimo’s contention correct?
that there is no singular reaction to rape. It has
likewise been settled that delay in reporting an A: NO. Rape may be committed notwithstanding
incident of rape is not an indication of fabrication the fact that persons involved are both males. R.A.
as the victim may have chosen only to keep quiet No. 8353 provides that an act of sexual assault
rather than to expose her to public scrutiny. can be committed by any person who inserts his
(People v. Dandito Lastrollo, G.R. No. 212631, 07 penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any
Nov. 2016, J. Caguioa) instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person. The law, unlike rape
under Art. 266-A, has not made any distinction on

Criminal Law
the sex of either the offender or the victim. only be considered as attempted rape, if not acts
Neither must the courts make such distinction. of lasciviousness. (People v. Campuhan, G.R. No.
(Ordinario v. People, G.R. No. 155415, 20 May 129433, 30 Mar. 2000)
2004)
“Touching” in Rape
Q: A was convicted for the crime of rape.
However, he insists that for the second In People v. Campuhan, it was held that
element of the crime, “that such act was touching when applied to rape cases does not
accomplished through the use of force or simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or
intimidation,” the victim did not resist, and grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the
hence the element of force or intimidation penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina,
was not established. Is the argument of A or the mons pubis. There must be sufficient and
tenable? convincing proof that the penis indeed touched
the labias or slid into the female organ, and not
A: NO. It is important to stress that "the merely stroked the external surface thereof, for
gravamen of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
(1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ
her will or without her consent." or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is
not sufficient to constitute consummated rape.
The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist Absent any showing of the slightest penetration
the sexual advances of the rapist is not of the female organ, i.e., touching of
tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there
not be established in rape when threats and can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only
intimidation are employed and the victim be attempted rape, if not acts of
submits herself to her attackers of because of lasciviousness. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No.
fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole 168932, 19 Oct. 2011)
test to determine whether a woman voluntarily
succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims Effects of the Reclassification of Rape into a
show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong Crime against Person (1991, 1993 BAR)
resistance while others may be too intimidated to
offer any resistance at all. (People v. Allan Nievera, 1. The procedural requirement of consent of
G.R. No. 242830. 28 Aug. 2019, J. Caguioa) the offended party to file the case is no longer
needed because this is now a public crime,
Amount of Force Necessary to Consummate unlike when it was still classified as a crime
the Crime of Rape against chastity; and
Jurisprudence firmly holds that the force or 2. There is now an impossible crime of rape
violence required in rape cases is relative; it does because impossible crimes can only be
not need to be overpowering or irresistible; it is committed against persons or property.
present when it allows the offender to
consummate his purpose. (People v. Funesto, G.R. Effects of Pardon on the Criminal Liability of
No. 182237, 03 Aug. 2011) the Accused Charged with Rape (2002 BAR)
No Crime of Frustrated Rape 1. The offended woman may pardon the

offender through a subsequent valid
The slightest penetration of the penis into the marriage, the effect of which would be the
labia of the female organ consummates the crime extinction of the offender’s liability. In such
of rape. However, mere touching alone of the case, it is the marriage that extinguishes the
genitals and mons pubis or the pudendum can offender’s liability, not because of the pardon

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
which extinguished criminal liability only if evidence showing that he had carnal
granted before the institution of the criminal knowledge of the victim. Is his defense
case in court; or tenable?
2. Similarly, the legal husband may be A: NO. Proof of hymenal laceration is not an
pardoned by forgiveness of the wife provided element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate
that the marriage is not void ab initio. (Art. a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration
266-C) of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina,
even without laceration of the hymen, is enough
Effect of Affidavit of Desistance in the Crime of to constitute rape, and even the briefest of
Rape contact is deemed rape. (People v. Crisostomo, G.R.
No. 183090, 14 Nov. 2011)
Rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is
now classified as a crime against persons. In Q: One of Butiong’s contentions is that having
effect, rape may now be prosecuted de oficio; a sexual intercourse with AAA, a mental
complaint for rape commenced by the offended retardate, did not amount to rape, because it
party is no longer necessary for its could not be considered as carnal knowledge
prosecution. Consequently, rape is no longer of a woman deprived of reason or of a female
considered a private crime which cannot be under twelve (12) years of age as provided
prosecuted, except upon a complaint filed by the under Art. 266-A of the RPC, as amended. Is he
aggrieved party. Hence, pardon by the offended correct?
party of the offender in the crime of rape will not A: NO. Rape is essentially a crime committed
extinguish the offender’s criminal liability. through force or intimidation, that is, against the
Moreover, an Affidavit of Desistance even when will of the female. It is also committed without
construed as a pardon in the erstwhile “private force or intimidation when carnal knowledge of a
crime” of rape is not a ground for the dismissal of female is alleged and shown to be without her
the criminal cases, since the actions have already consent. It should no longer be debatable that
been instituted. To justify the dismissal of the rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph
complaints, the pardon should have been made 1(b), of Art. 266-A, because the provision refers
prior to the institution of the criminal actions. to a rape of a female “deprived of reason,” a
(People v. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, 06 June phrase that refers to mental abnormality,
2011; People v. Borce, G.R. No. 189579, 12 Sept. deficiency or retardation. (People v. Butiong, G.R.
2011) No. 168932, 19 Oct. 2011)
Absence of Spermatozoa does NOT Negate the Instances to Consider the Crime as Qualified
Commission of Rape Rape
The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or 1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a
sexual intercourse, not ejaculation. Carnal homicide is committed. (1998, 2009 BAR)
knowledge is defined as “the act of a man having
sexual bodily connections with a woman.” This 2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and
explains why the slightest penetration of the the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
female genitalia consummates the rape. (People v. parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, 19 Oct. 2011) or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common law spouse of the victim.
Q: Accused was charged and convicted of the
crime of rape of a minor. He claims that his Q: AAA was raped by his father, Pablo, on two
guilt was not proven because there was no (2) separate occasions. During these
hymenal laceration, therefore there was no instances, AAA was not able to defend herself

Criminal Law
due to the strength and moral ascendancy of cannot elevate the crime to qualified rape
her father, and due to the act of Pablo of because they are not related either by blood or
placing a lagting, a bolo used for cutting affinity. The enumeration is exclusive. Hence, the
sugarcanes, near AAA’s head threatening the common law husband of the victim’s
latter that anyone who subsequently be grandmother is not included.
knowledgeable of his acts would be killed.
3. When the victim is under the custody of the
Pablo was charged with two (2) counts of police or military authorities or any law
rape, but the State failed to include the enforcement or penal institution.
phrase, “being the father of the victim.” Is
Pablo guilty of the crime charged, and not of 4. When rape is committed in full view of the
Qualified Rape? husband, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of
A: YES. AAA's testimonies established that she consanguinity.
was sexually abused by her father. She
categorically and positively identified accused- 5. When the victim is engaged in a legitimate
appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. She religious vocation or calling and is personally
adequately recounted the details that took place, known to be such by the offender before or
the dates of the incidents, how her father after the commission of the crime.
committed carnal knowledge against her, and his
threats to wield the lagting if the crimes were 6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old.
revealed to others. Pablo had carnal knowledge of
AAA twice, through force and intimidation. His 7. When the offender knows that he is inflicted
moral ascendancy also intimidated her into with HIV/AIDS or any other sexually
submission. This ascendancy or influence is transmissible disease and the virus or
grounded on his parental authority over his child, disease is transferred to the victim.
which is recognized by our Constitution and laws,
as well as on the respect and reverence that 8. When committed by any member of the AFP
Filipino children generally accord to their or paramilitary units thereof or the PNP or
parents. any law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when the offender took
Pablo cannot be convicted of qualified rape under advantage of his position to facilitate the
Art. 266-B (1). The said crime consists of the twin commission of the crime.
circumstances of the victim's minority and her
relationship to the perpetrator, both of which 9. When by reason or on occasion of the rape,
must concur and must be alleged in the the victim has suffered permanent physical
information. It is immaterial whether the mutilation or disability.
relationship was proven during trial if that was
not specifically pleaded for in the information. In 10. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of
this case, relationship with AAA was not duly the offended party at the time of the
alleged in the information. Thus, his relationship commission of the rape.
with the victim cannot qualify the crimes of rape.
Ruling otherwise would deprive him of his 11. When the offender knew of the mental
constitutional right to be informed of the nature disability, emotional disorder, and/or
and cause of accusation against him. (People v. physical handicap of the offended party at
Armodia, G.R. No. 210654, 07 June 2017) the time of the commission of the crime. (Art.
266-B, RPC)
NOTE: A step-brother or step-sister relationship
between the offender and the offended party

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
NOTE: The foregoing circumstances are in the having carnal knowledge of her. After
nature of QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING Alejandro was done, he switched places with
CIRCUMSTANCES which must be specifically Angeles and the latter took his turn ravishing
pleaded or alleged with certainty in the AAA. Are the accused liable for simple rape?
Information.
A: NO. Alejandro and Angeles are liable for the
KNOWLEDGE of Mental Disability as a crime of Qualified Rape. Court deems it proper to
Qualifying Circumstance; NOT Mental upgrade the conviction in said case from Simple
Disability per se Rape to Qualified Rape. Art. 335 of the RPC states
that if the rape is committed under certain
Q: AAA was a 14-year-old girl with a mental circumstances, such as when it was committed by
age of only 5 years old. Sometime in 2002, AAA two (2) or more persons, the crime will be
informed her sister that she was not having Qualified Rape, as in this instance. (People v.
her period. They later found out that she was Alejandro and Angeles, G.R. No. 225608, 13 Mar.
pregnant. AAA’s aunt revealed that Allan 2017)
Corpuz raped AAA. A neuropsychiatric
examination was conducted and revealed that Q: At around 2:00 p.m., AAA was sleeping
her intelligence level was equivalent to inside their house with her two-year-old
Moderate Mental Retardation. sister and three-year-old brother. Rubio,
AAA’s father, approached AAA and removed
When AAA testified, she positively identified her shorts and panty. AAA tried to push him
Allan as the father of her child and that when away but he was too strong, and he succeeded
she was 13 years old, Allan had sex with her in inserting his penis inside her vagina. AAA
on four (4) occasions, each of which he gave continued resisting despite being afraid that
her money. Is the qualifying circumstance of Rubio would hurt her. After some time, Rubio
Rape under Art. 266-B (10) present in this ejaculated outside her vagina. Is Rubio guilty
case? of qualified rape?
A: NO. Rape is qualified "when the offender A: YES. The case falls under Art. 266-B (2). Being
knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder AAA’s father, Rubio is presumed to have
and/or physical handicap of the offended party at employed force and/or intimidation. The fear
the time of the commission of the crime." This towards her father was more than enough to
qualifying circumstance should be particularly intimidate her to submit to his lewd advances
alleged in the Information. A mere assertion of without shouting for help. (People v. Rubio, G.R.
the victim's mental deficiency is not enough. No. 195239, 07 Mar. 2012)
Allan can only be convicted of four (4) counts of
rape under Art. 266-A 1(d) of the RPC because Q: AAA, a 67-year-old woman, was fast asleep
the prosecution failed to allege the qualifying when Bill covered her mouth, threatened her
circumstance in the Information. (People v. with a knife and told her not to scream
Corpuz, G.R. No. 208013, 03 July 2017) because he will have sexual intercourse with
her. Thereafter, he removed AAA’s
Q: AAA awoke to the sound of BBB's pleas for underwear.
mercy. Aided by the kerosene lamp placed on
the floor, AAA saw BBB being mauled and However, his penis was not yet erected so he
stabbed to death by Alejandro and Angeles. toyed with AAA’s sexual organ by licking it. He
then made his way up and tried to suck AAA’s
Thereafter, Angeles approached AAA and tongue. Once done, Bill held his penis and
restrained her arms, while Alejandro pulled inserted it to AAA’s vagina. In his defense, Bill
AAA's pants and underwear down and started argued that during the entire alleged incident,

Criminal Law
AAA never reacted at all. Is Bill guilty of rape? A: NO. In any event, the impregnation of a woman
is not an element of rape. XXX’s pregnancy,
A: YES. Bill is guilty of rape. The force, violence, therefore, is totally immaterial in this case. For
or intimidation in rape is a relative term, the conviction of an accused, it is sufficient that
depending not only on the age, size, and strength the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable
of the parties but also on their relationship with doubt that he had carnal knowledge of the
each other. AAA was already 67 years of age when offended party and that he had committed such
she was raped in the dark by Bill who was armed act under any of the circumstances under Art.
with a knife. A woman of such advanced age could 266-A of the RPC. (People v. Abat, G.R. No. 202704,
only recoil in fear and succumb into submission. 02 Apr. 2014)
In any case, with such shocking and horrifying
experience, it would not be reasonable to impose Marital Rape
upon AAA any standard form of reaction.
Different people react differently to a given Q: Can rape be committed by a husband?
situation involving a startling occurrence. (People
v. Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, 12 Feb. 2014) A: YES. Under the new law, the husband may be
liable for marital rape, if his wife does not want to
NOTE: Impregnation of a woman is NOT an have sex with him. It is enough that there is
element of rape. indication of any amount of resistance as to make
it rape. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, 21
Q: On Sept. 22, 2001, XXX, a 16-year old girl, Apr. 2014)
and her uncle, Abat, went to poblacion to buy
medicine, with permission of XXX’s parents. Marital rape is recognized in Art. 266-C of the RPC
Instead of proceeding to the poblacion, Abat which provides that in case it is the legal husband
drove to another barangay. who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness
by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish
Upon reaching the barangay, Abat dragged the criminal action or penalty.
XXX inside a deserted nipa hut. Abat
undressed himself then laid XXX down on a Q: Paolo and Marga are husband and wife.
bamboo bed. Abat inserted his penis into Marga refuses to have sexual intercourse with
XXX’s vagina. XXX tried to push Abat away but her husband so the latter used force and
the latter threatened to kill her and her family intimidation against her. Paolo was able to
if she would tell anybody about the “act”. Abat penetrate his penis inside Marga’s vagina. Is
made a push and pull movement, after which Paolo guilty of rape?
he ejaculated.
A: YES. A woman is no longer the chattel-
The following day, Abat brought XXX home. antiquated practices labeled her to be. A husband
XXX told her parents about the incident. Abat who has sexual intercourse with his wife is not
was charged with rape. On April 24, 2002, XXX merely using a property, he is fulfilling a marital
gave birth to a baby girl. Abat contends that if consortium with a fellow human being with
it were true that he raped XXX in September dignity equal to that he accords himself. He
2001, then the baby girl XXX gave birth to in cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by
April 2002 would have been born coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her
prematurely; since the baby appeared to be full and free consent. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No.
healthy, she could not have been the result of 187495, 21 Apr. 2014)
the alleged rape in September 2001. Is Abat’s
contention correct?

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Incestuous Rape NOTE: When the woman is under 12 years of age

or is demented, sexual intercourse with her is
It refers to rape committed by an ascendant of the always rape, even if the sexual intercourse was
offended woman. In incestuous rape of a minor, with her consent. This is because the law
proof of force and violence exerted by the presumes that the victim, on account of her
offender is not essential. Moral ascendancy or tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her
parental authority of the accused over the own.
offended party takes the place of violence.
NOTE: Art. 266-A of the RPC, the provision on
Q: XXX, a 13-year-old girl, testified that her Statutory Rape, has been further amended by R.A.
father, De Chavez, raped her. Her sister, YYY No. 11648 which was signed into law on March 4,
saw what happened and testified as well. Dr. 2022. Art. 266-A of the RPC now reads:
Roy Camarillo, the Medico-Legal Officer who
conducted laboratory examination on XXX, “Art. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. –
found the presence of deep healed lacerations Rape is Committed:
on XXX’s organ. De Chavez contends that the
prosecution was not able to prove the “1) By a person who shall have carnal knowledge
accusations against him beyond reasonable of another person under any of the following
doubt. Is his contention correct? circumstances:
A: NO. His contention is not correct. There is “x x x

sufficient basis to conclude the existence of carnal
knowledge when the testimony of a rape victim is “d) When the offended party is under sixteen
corroborated by the medical findings of the (16) years of age or is demented, even though
examining physician as "lacerations, whether none of the circumstances mentioned above be
healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of present: Provided, That there shall be no
forcible defloration." In this case, the victim's criminal liability on the part of a person having
testimony is corroborated not only by her sister carnal knowledge of another person under
but also by the medical findings of the examining sixteen (16) years of age when the age
physician, who testified that the presence of deep difference between the parties is not more than
healed lacerations on the victim's genitalia, is three (3) years, and the sexual act in question
consistent with the dates the alleged sexual acts is proven to be consensual, non-abusive, and
were committed. (People v. De Chavez, GR. No. non-exploitative: Provided, further, That if the
218427, 31 Jan. 2018) victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this
exception shall not apply.” (Disclaimer: This
Statutory Rape law is not covered by the 2022 Bar Syllabus
in Criminal Law)
Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old
is statutory rape. (People v. Espina, G.R. No. Q: Suppose a 13-year old retarded woman
183564, June 29, 2011) with mental capacity of a 5-year old had
sexual intercourse with a man, what is the
Elements of Statutory Rape crime committed?
1. That the offender had carnal knowledge of A: Statutory rape. Her mental and not only her
the victim; chronological age are considered. (People v.
2. That the victim is below twelve (12) years Manlapaz, G.R. No. L-41819, 28 Feb. 1978)
old; (People v. Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, Aug.
10, 2011), and

Criminal Law
Generally, to State the Exact, or at least the A: YES. XXX cannot be convicted through his
Approximate Date the Purported Rape was admission that he had sexual intercourse with
Committed is Not Necessary AAA in 2007. This is because the Information filed
in this case accused XXX of having sexual
GR: Time is not an essential element of the crime intercourse with AAA "sometime in July 2003."
of rape. What is important is that the information While it is true, as the RTC and the CA held, that
alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve the exact place and time of the commission of the
(12) years of age and that the accused had carnal crime is not an element of the crime of Rape, XXX
knowledge of her, even if the accused did not use still could not be convicted of the crime for to do
force or intimidation on her or deprived her of so would be to offend the basic tenets of due
reason. process in criminal prosecutions. XXX can only be
convicted of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness
XPN: The date of the commission of the rape for what transpired in 2003. (People v. XXX, G.R.
becomes relevant only when the accuracy and No. 226467, 17 Oct. 2018, J. Caguioa)
truthfulness of the complainant’s narration
practically hinge on the date of the commission of Q: Romeo was convicted of rape through
the crime. (People v. Dion, G.R. No. 181035, 04 July sexual assault. He claims that he should be
2011) acquitted as the prosecution was not able to
prove the accusations against him beyond
NOTE: The date of the commission of rape is not reasonable doubt. He likewise puts in issue
an essential element thereof, for the gravamen of the fact that there was no in-court
the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The identification.
discrepancies in the actual dates the rapes took
place are not serious errors warranting a reversal A: Jurisprudence consistently holds that
of the appellant’s conviction. What is decisive in a testimonies of minor victims are generally given
rape charge is the victim’s positive identification full weight and credence as the court considers
of the accused as the malefactor. (People v. their youth and immaturity as badges of truth and
Mercado, G.R. No. 189847, 30 May 2011) sincerity. Also, the fact that there was no in-court
identification was of no moment. In-court
Q: An information was filed against XXX for identification of the offender is essential only
the rape of his daughter AAA, who was 10 when there is a question or doubt on whether the
years old at the time, in 2003. During trial, one alleged to have committed the crime is the
AAA testified that in 2003, XXX forced her to same person who is charged in the information
touch his private parts. After that, the act was and subject of the trial. (People v. Garin, GR. No.
cut short since her mother timely arrived. She 222654, 21 Feb. 2018)
added that in 2007, XXX again tried to rape
her and succeeded in doing so. XXX admitted Q: AAA, 10 years old, went home from school
that he engaged in sexual intercourse with at around 12:00 noon to have lunch. On the
AAA in 2007, but claimed that it was way home, she met Gutierez at his house. He
consensual. brought her to his room, laid her down on the
bed and had carnal knowledge of her. He then
The RTC convicted XXX of rape despite the gave her P5.00 before she went back to school.
discrepancy of the dates, ruling that the exact AAA went back to school at about 2:10 p.m.
date or time of the commission is not an Her adviser asked her where she came from
element of the offense. The CA affirmed the because she was tardy. AAA admitted she
conviction. On appeal, XXX argues that he came from "Uncle Rod." AAA then was brought
could not be convicted for a crime that to the comfort room where another teacher
happened in 2007, since the information inspected her panties. She was eventually
charged him for rape in 2003. Is XXX correct?

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
brought to a hospital where she was against or without the consent of the victim. It
examined. operates on the theory that the sexual act was
consensual. It requires proof that the accused and
An Information was filed against Gutierez the victim were lovers and that she consented to
charging him of statutory rape under Art. 266- the sexual relations. For purposes of sexual
A of the RPC. During trial, AAA disclosed that intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse
Gutierez had done the same thing to her about cases under R.A. No. 7610, the sweetheart
ten (10) times on separate occasions. After defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in
each act, he would give her ten or five pesos. prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
Gutierez denied that AAA went to his house on cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse
the day of the incident and claimed he was with another person. (People v. Udang, G.R. No.
already at work at 1:30 p.m. Is Gutierez guilty 210161, 10 Jan. 2018)
of statutory rape beyond reasonable doubt?
Q: Three (3) separate Informations were filed
A: YES. In statutory rape, force, intimidation and in the RTC, charging Ruben with two (2)
physical evidence of injury are not relevant counts of Rape and one (1) count of Acts of
considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the Lasciviousness. Pleading his innocence,
age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge Ruben denied the accusations against him on
took place. The child's consent is immaterial the claim that he and AAA were live-in
because of her presumed incapacity to discern partners and that their sexual encounters
good from evil. were consensual. No other evidence was
presented to prove the fact of their
In this case, the defense did not dispute the fact relationship. Will Ruben’s defense prosper?
that AAA was ten (10) years old at the time of the
incident. AAA was able to narrate in a clear and A: NO. Ruben's flimsy defense of consensual
categorical manner the ordeal that was done to sexual congress pales in comparison to the
her. It is well-settled that when a woman, more so testimony of AAA, which was delivered in a clear
when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she and straightforward manner. At the outset, it
says in effect all that is required to prove the should be emphasized that the Court has
ravishment. The accused may thus be convicted consistently disfavored the "sweetheart theory"
solely on her testimony-provided it is credible, defense for being self-serving in nature. Being an
natural, convincing and consistent with human affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair
nature and the normal course of things. (People v. must be substantiated by the accused with
Gutierez, G.R. No. 208007, 02 Apr. 2014) convincing proof. It bears noting that Ruben's
defense was corroborated only by his daughter,
Sweetheart Theory in Rape Ruby Ann, which effectively weakened the
defense, being supported by a mere relative of the
As held in People v. Cabanilla, the sweetheart accused. In People v. Nogpo, Jr., the Court held that
defense is an affirmative defense that must be where nothing supports the sweetheart theory
supported by convincing proof. Having an illicit except the testimony of a relative, such defense
affair does not rule out rape as it does not deserves scant consideration. (People v. Ruben
necessarily mean that consent was present. A "Robin" Bongbonga, G.R. No. 2147710, 09 Aug.
love affair does not justify rape for a man does not 2017, J. Caguioa)
have an unbridled license to subject his beloved
to his carnal desires against her will. (People v. Q: An Information was filed against Fruelda
Cias, G.R. No. 194379, 01 June 2011) for the crime of rape. The private complainant
testified that she oversees the storeroom
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of where bars of soaps, coffee and other items
lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed used to generate funds for the congregation

Criminal Law
were stored. Clara Doctrine” posits that, it is a well-known fact

that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit
At around eight o'clock in the morning of 28 that they have been abused unless that abuse had
April 2014, she was charging her cellphone actually happened. This is due to their natural
inside the church premises when the accused instinct to protect their honor. (People v. Taño,
arrived and asked her where the storeroom 109 Phil. 912, GR No. L-11991, 31 Oct. 1960)
was. After being pointed to where the
storeroom was located, the Accused asked Sexual Abuse Shield Rule in Child Sexual
private complainant to retrieve bar soaps for Abuse Cases
him to which she obliged.
The following evidence is not admissible in any
The Accused suddenly grabbed her breasts. criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
Out of shock, private complainant shouted. abuse under the “sexual abuse shield” rule:
Although the Accused released her breasts,
he, however, immediately grabbed the front 1. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim
of private complainant's pants directly over engaged in other sexual behavior; and
her private part. The accused, to escape one's
liability, presented the idea that he has a 2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
prohibited love affair with the complainant. Is predisposition of the alleged victim (Sec. 30,
the defense of the accused tenable? Rule on Examination of a Child Witness [A.M.
No. 004-07-SC])
A: No. In rape, the 'sweetheart' defense must be
proven by compelling evidence: first, that the Under this rule, the accused is not allowed to
accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, prove the bad moral character of the offended
that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. party. However, evidence of any of the above is
The second is as important as the first, because admissible to prove that a person other than the
this Court has held often enough that love is not a accused was the source of semen, injury or other
license for lust. physical evidence. (Riano, 2019)
For the Court to even consider giving credence to The Maria Clara stereotype
such a defense, it must be proven by compelling
evidence. The defense cannot just present The Supreme Court in People v. Amarela and
testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as Racho (G.R. No. 225642-43, 17 Jan. 2018), through
in the instant case. Independent proof is required Justice Martires, enunciated that courts must not
— such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. rely solely on the Maria Clara stereotype of a
No such proof was presented by the defense in demure and reserved Filipino woman. Rather,
this case. (People v. Fruelda, G.R. No. 242690, 03 courts should stay away from such mindset and
Sept. 2020, J. Caguioa) accept the realities of a woman’s dynamic role in
society today; she who has over the years
Rape Shield Rule transformed into a strong and confidently
intelligent and beautiful person willing to fight
The character of the woman is immaterial in rape. for her rights.
It is no defense that the woman is of unchaste
character, provided the illicit relations were Q: In the evening of Aug. 30, 2012, private
committed with force and violence. complainant AAA was walking inside a
campus. Then suddenly, CICL XXX grabbed
"Women’s honor” Doctrine and pulled her towards a comer. He poked an
icepick on the right side of her body and
Women’s honor doctrine or the so-called “Maria uttered: "Wag ka sisigaw." CICL XXX kissed

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
AAA on the lips down to her neck while exacting test of moral certainty that the law
unbuttoning her blouse. He proceeded by demands to satisfy the burden of overcoming the
taking off her sando and bra. Uncontented, he appellant's presumption of innocence. (People v.
pulled down her panties and mashed her Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, 14 Dec. 2011)
breasts.
Reputation in the Prosecution of Rape,
When a teacher passed by, CICL XXX ran away, Immaterial
giving AAA the chance to escape. This was
reported to the Women's Desk of the Batasan It is immaterial in rape, there being absolutely no
Hills Police Station. RTC found CICL XXX guilty nexus between it and the odious deed committed.
beyond reasonable doubt, as affirmed by the A woman of loose morals could still be a victim of
CA. CICL XXX contends that the RTC rape, the essence thereof being carnal knowledge
essentially applied the Maria Clara doctrine in of a woman without her consent. (People v.
giving credence to AAA's testimony, which he Navarro, G. R. No. 137597, 24 Oct. 2003)
argues has been abandoned in People v.
Amarela. Should the women’s honor doctrine Evidence which May be Accepted in the
apply in this case? Prosecution of Rape
A: NO. At the onset, the Court clarifies that it did 1. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance
not completely abandon the women's honor against the act of rape in any degree from the
doctrine in the case of People v. Amarela, but has offended party; or
tempered the application of the doctrine
according to the times. The Court in People v. 2. Where the offended party is so situated as to
Nocido explained that the doctrine of women’s render him/her incapable of giving consent.
honor recognizes the "well-known fact that (Art. 266-D, RPC)
women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that
they have been abused unless that abuse had Distinction between violation of Sec. 5 (b) of
actually happened, because it is their natural R.A. No. 7610 and Rape under the RPC as
instinct to protect their honor." discussed in the case of Malto v. People (2007)
However, as discussed in People v. Amarela, the Clarified
opinion enshrined under the Women's Honor
doctrine borders on the fallacy of non-sequitur, Victim is under 12 years of age or is
that while the factual setting back then would demented:
have been appropriate to say it is natural for a
woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual Sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12
assault; today we simply cannot be stuck to the years of age or is demented is always statutory
Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved rape, as Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 expressly states
Filipino woman. We should stay away from such that the perpetrator will be prosecuted under Art.
mindset and accept the realities of a woman's 266-A, par. 1(d) of the RPC as amended by R.A.
dynamic role in society today. (CICL XXX v. People, No. 8353.
G.R. No. 246146, 18 Mar. 2021)
Even if the girl who is below 12 years old or is
Necessity to Prove Every Count of Rape in demented consents to the sexual intercourse, it is
Cases of Multiple Rape always a crime of statutory rape under the RPC,
and the offender should no longer be held liable
It is settled that each and every charge of rape is under R.A. No. 7610. Even if the girl consented or
a separate and distinct crime that the law is demented, the law presumes that she is
requires to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. incapable of giving a rational consent.
The prosecution's evidence must pass the

Criminal Law
The same reason holds true with respect to acts then there is no crime committed, except in those
of lasciviousness or lascivious conduct when the cases where "force, threat or intimidation" as an
offended party is less than 12 years old or is element of rape is substituted by "moral
demented. Even if such party consents to the ascendancy or moral authority," like in the cases
lascivious conduct, the crime is always statutory of incestuous rape, and unless it is punished
acts of lasciviousness. The offender will be under the RPC as qualified seduction under Art.
prosecuted under Art. 336 of the RPC, but the 337 or simple seduction under Art. 338. (People
penalty is provided for under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019)
7610. Therefore, there is no conflict between
rape and acts of lasciviousness under the RPC, “Children exploited in prostitution” under
and sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct R.A. No. 7610
under R.A. No. 7610.
The phrase "children exploited in
If sexual intercourse is committed with a child prostitution" contemplates four (4) scenarios:
under 12 years of age, who is deemed to be
"exploited in prostitution and other sexual 1. a child, whether male or female, who for
abuse," then those who engage in or promote, money, profit or any other consideration,
facilitate or induce child prostitution under Sec. indulges in lascivious conduct
5(a) of R.A. No. 7610 shall be liable as principal by 2. a female child, who for money, profit or any
force or inducement under Art. 17 of the RPC in other consideration, indulges in sexual
the crime of statutory rape under Art. 266-A(1) of intercourse;
the RPC; whereas those who derive profit or 3. a child, whether male or female, who due to
advantage therefrom under Sec. 5(c) of R.A. No. the coercion or influence of any adult,
7610 shall be liable as principal by indispensable syndicate or group, indulges in lascivious
cooperation under Art. 17 of the RPC. conduct; and
4. a female, due to the coercion or influence of
Victim is 12 years old or less than 18: any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse.
If the victim who is 12 years old or less than 18
and is deemed to be a child "exploited in NOTE: The element of "exploited in prostitution"
prostitution and other sexual abuse" because she does not cover a male child, who for money, profit
agreed to indulge in sexual intercourse "for or any other consideration, or due to coercion or
money, profit or any other consideration or due influence of any adult, syndicate, or group,
to coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or indulges in sexual intercourse. It is only when the
group," then the crime could not be rape under victim or the child who was abused is a male that
the RPC, because this no longer falls under the the offender would be prosecuted under Sec. 5(b)
concept of statutory rape, and there was consent. R.A. No. 7610 because the crime of rape does not
That is why the offender will now be penalized cover child abuse of males. (People v. Tulagan,
under Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 7610, and not under Art. supra)
266-A.
“Other sexual abuse” under R.A. 7610
But if the said victim does not give her consent to
sexual intercourse in the sense that the sexual The term "other sexual abuse," on the other
intercourse was committed through force, threat hand, should be construed in relation to the
or intimidation, the crime is rape under par. 1, definitions of "child abuse" under Sec. 3, Art. I of
Art. 266-A of the RPC. R.A. No. 7610 and "sexual abuse" under Sec. 2(g)
of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and
However, if the same victim gave her consent to Investigation of Child Abuse Cases.
the sexual intercourse, and no money, profit,
consideration, coercion or influence is involved,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
In the former provision, "child abuse" refers to “(b) Those who commit the act of sexual
the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
child which includes sexual abuse, among other exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
matters. sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is
under sixteen (16) years of age, the perpetrators
In the latter provision, "sexual abuse" includes shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph
the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, 2, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or amended, otherwise known as "The Revised
assist another person to engage in, sexual Penal Code", for rape, or lascivious conduct, as
intercourse or lascivious conduct or the the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. lascivious conduct when the victim is under
sixteen (16) years of age shall be reclusion
Thus, the term "other sexual abuse" is broad perpetua in its medium period;” (Disclaimer:
enough to include all other acts of sexual abuse This law is not covered under the 2022 Bar
other than prostitution. Accordingly, a single Syllabus for Criminal Law)
act of lascivious conduct is punished under Sec.
5(b), Art. III, when the victim is 12 years old and Applicable Laws and Penalty for the Crimes of
below 18, or 18 or older under special Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness, and Violation of
circumstances. In contrast, when the victim is R.A. No. 7610 depending on the Age of the
under 12 years old, the proviso of Sec. 5(b) states Victim
that the perpetrator should be prosecuted under
Art. 336 of the RPC for acts of lasciviousness, In sum, the following are the applicable laws and
whereby the lascivious conduct itself is the sole penalty for the crimes of acts of lasciviousness or
element of the said crime. This is because in lascivious conduct and rape by carnal knowledge
statutory acts of lasciviousness, as in statutory or sexual assault, depending on the age of the
rape, the minor is presumed incapable of giving victim, in view of the provisions of pars. 1 and 2
consent; hence, the other circumstances of Art. 266-A and Art. 336 of the RPC, as amended
pertaining to rape – force, threat, intimidation, by R.A. No. 8353, and Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610:
etc. – are immaterial. (People v. Tulagan, supra) (People v. Tulagan, supra)
NOTE: Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 has been NOTE: The following table was lifted from the
amended by R.A. No. 11648 which was signed case of People v. Tulagan, supra.
into law on March 4, 2022. Sec. 3, R.A. No. 11648
provides:

Criminal Law
Designation of the Crime and Imposable Penalty
Age of the Victim 12 years old or below 18,

Under 12 years old or 18 years old and
or 18 under special
demented above
Crime Committed circumstances
Acts of Acts of Lasciviousness
Lascivious conduct under
Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC
Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610:
committed against in relation to Sec. 5(b) of
reclusion temporal in its Not applicable
children exploited in R.A. 7610: reclusion
medium period to
prostitution or other temporal in its medium
reclusion perpetua
sexual abuse period
Sexual Assault Sexual assault under Art. Lascivious conduct under
committed against 266-A (2) of the RPC in Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610:
children exploited in relation to Sec. 5(b) of R.A. reclusion temporal in its Not applicable
prostitution or other 7610: reclusion temporal medium period to
sexual abuse in its medium period reclusion perpetua
Rape under Art. 266-A (1)
Sexual Intercourse Sexual abuse under Sec.
of the RPC: reclusion
committed against 5(b) of R.A. 7610: reclusion
perpetua, except when the
children exploited in temporal in its medium Not applicable
victim is below 7 years old
prostitution or other period to reclusion
in which death penalty
sexual abuse perpetua
shall be imposed
Rape under Art. 266-A in
relation to Art. 266-B of
Rape under Art. 266-A in
the RPC: reclusion Rape under Art.
Rape by Carnal relation to Art. 266-B of
perpetua, except when the 266-A of the RPC:
Knowledge the RPC: reclusion
victim is below 7 years old reclusion perpetua
perpetua
in which case death
penalty shall be imposed
Sexual assault under Art. Lascivious conduct under
Sexual assault
266-A (2) of the RPC in Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610:
Rape by Sexual under Art. 266-A of
relation to Sec. 5(b) of R.A. reclusion temporal in its
Assault the RPC: prision
7610: reclusion temporal medium period to
mayor
in its medium period reclusion perpetua

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Sec. 5 of R.A. 7610 Penalizes Not Only Child old BBB, and (3) 9-year old CCC.
Prostitution, the Essence of which is Profit,
but also Other Forms of Sexual Abuse of The RTC found Baya guilty beyond reasonable
Children (People v. Tulagan, supra) doubt of one (1) count of acts of
lasciviousness against AAA, two (2) counts of
SEC. 5 (A) SEC. 5 (B) rape against BBB, and one (1) count of acts of
OF R.A. 7610 OF R.A. 7610 lasciviousness against CCC. On appeal, the CA
Punishes sexual affirmed with modification the RTC Decision.
intercourse or In the acts of lasciviousness case against AAA,
lascivious conduct the CA acquitted Baya because AAA did not
committed on a child testify to prove the commission of the crime.
subjected to other
Punishes acts sexual abuse. It Is Baya guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
pertaining to or covers not only a
connected with child situation where a a. Acts of lasciviousness against AAA?
prostitution wherein child is abused for
the child is abused profit but also one in A: NO. With AAA's non-presentation in court and
primarily for profit. which a child, through the uncertainty of BBB and CCC's testimonies on
coercion, AAA's presence during the incident, Baya's guilt
intimidation or was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
influence, engages in The Court sustains the CA's ruling of acquittal on
sexual intercourse or acts of lasciviousness against AAA.
lascivious conduct.
b. Rape against BBB?
Q: BBB testified that in the afternoon of Sept.
A: YES. The Court observed that the Information
26, 2006, Baya’s sister (Joy) asked her, AAA
charging Baya of rape against BBB in relation to
and CCC to fold her clothes in her house. The
R.A. 7610 did not include Art. 266-A of the RPC,
victims AAA, BBB, and CCC were watching the
as amended by R.A. 8353 or the Anti-rape Law.
television while folding the clothes at the
Sec. 5(b), Art. III of R.A. 7610 states that if the
second floor. Baya was inside the room while
victim is below 12 years old, the offender shall be
the victims were doing their chores.
prosecuted under the RPC.
When Joy went out of the house, Baya asked

The provision above referred to the old article on
the victims to lie down together. He removed
rape and acts of lasciviousness of the RPC,
BBB's shorts and panty, positioned himself on
because R.A. 7610 was approved on June 17,
top of her, and, inserted his penis into her
1992, prior to the enactment of R.A. 8353 on Sept.
vagina. After abusing her, AAA and CCC were
30, 1997. R.A. 8353 repealed Art. 335 of the RPC,
next. BBB saw that Baya also violated AAA and
and formed new provisions as found in Arts. 266-
CCC because they were all lying side by side.
A to 266-D under Crimes against Persons. With
When Baya was done, he gave them money.
this legal development, Sec. 5(b), Art. III of R.A.
CCC narrated that there were five other
7610 should be amended to replace Art. 335 with
similar incidents, but she could no longer
Art. 266-A of the RPC. Thus, even if the
recall the dates.
Information did not include the relevant
provision of the RPC, Baya was still prosecuted
Baya was charged with five (5) counts of rape
and convicted under the RPC because R.A. 7610
and four (4) counts of acts of lasciviousness
mandated it.
under Art. 336 of the RPC in relation to Sec.
5(b), Art. III, R.A. 7610 for sexually abusing
The circumstance applicable in this case is Par.
three minors: (1) 7-year old AAA, (2) 9-year
(d) of Art. 266-A of the RPC, which provides that

Criminal Law
the offended party is under twelve (12) years of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
age or is demented, even though none of the other buttocks, or the introduction of any object into
circumstances mentioned are present, the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
considering that BBB was nine years old at the whether of the same or opposite sex, with an
time of the incident as proven by her birth intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
certificate. The fact of carnal knowledge was arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
established through BBB and CCC's positive person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
identification of Baya as their abuser. BBB exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
testified he removed her shorts and panty, person.”
positioned himself on top of her, and inserted his
penis into her vagina. BBB's Initial Medico-Legal Here, CCC testified that Baya raised her shorts
Report showed "clear evidence of blunt force or and pressed his penis into her vagina. However,
penetrating trauma." With the prosecution since the shorts were tight, his penis did not
sufficiently establishing all the elements of rape penetrate her. BBB corroborated CCC's
applicable in this case, Baya's guilt was proved testimonies. Clearly, the act complained of
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court constitutes as lascivious conduct under the IRR of
sustains the CA's conviction on rape. R.A. 7610. (People v. Baya, G.R. No. 242512, 14
Aug. 2019)
c. Acts of lasciviousness against CCC?
Circumstantial Evidence
A: YES. In the criminal case for acts of
lasciviousness against CCC, Baya was charged of In the case of People v. ZZZ, the Supreme Court
violating Art. 336 of the RPC, in relation to Sec. ruled that the commission of the crime of rape
5(b), Art. III of the R.A. 7610. may be proven not only by direct evidence, but
also by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
In People v. Ladra, the Court held that "before an evidence are "proof of collateral facts and
accused can be held criminally liable for circumstances from which the existence of the
lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610, main fact may be inferred according to reason
the requisites of the crime of [a]cts of and common experience." In the absence of direct
[l]asciviousness as penalized under Art. 336 of evidence, a resort to circumstantial evidence is
the RPC x x x must be met." usually necessary in proving the commission of
rape. This is because rape "is generally
On the other hand, Sec. 5(b), Art. III of R.A. 7610 unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left
provides that: to testify for [him or] herself. It becomes even
“Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual more difficult when the complex crime of rape
Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, with homicide is committed because the victim
who for money, profit, or any other consideration could no longer testify. (G.R. No. 228828, 24 July
or due to the coercion or influence of any 2019)
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed Absence of Signs of External Physical Injuries
to be children exploited in prostitution and does Not Signify Lack of Resistance on the Part
other sexual abuse.” (Emphasis supplied) of the Rape Victim
Sec. 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Resistance from the victim need not be carried to
Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases the point of inviting death or sustaining physical
or the IRR of R.A. 7610 defines lascivious conduct injuries at the hands of the rapist.
as:
NOTE: In rape, the force and intimidation must be
“h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional viewed in light of the victim’s perception and
touching, either directly or through clothing, of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
judgment at the time of the commission of the contention correct thereby absolving him
crime. As already settled in jurisprudence, not all from criminal liability?
victims react the same way. Moreover, resistance
is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no A: NO. Different people have varying reactions
burden to prove that she did all within her power during moments of trauma; more so, a 6-year-old
to resist the force or intimidation employed upon child being attacked by people whom she
her. As long as the force or intimidation is believed to be her protectors. It must be
present, whether it was more or less irresistible emphasized that a 6-year-old child cannot be
is beside the point. (People v. Baldo, G.R. No. expected to react similarly as an adult, given her
175238, 24 Feb. 2009) limited understanding of the evils of this world
and the desires of men who have no bounds. It is
Physical resistance need not be established in for the same reason that this Court cannot
rape when intimidation is exercised upon the subscribe to the defense's assertion that private
victim who submits against her will to the rapist’s complainant's testimony should not be given
lust because of fear for her life or personal safety. weight. It is unfathomable that a 6-year-old child
(People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 168650, 26 Oct. 2007) would be able to describe in such detail how she
was ravaged by men she considered protectors
Physical Resistance Need NOT be Established unless her statements were true. Her candid,
to Prove the Commission of Rape straightforward, and consistent testimony must
prevail over the self-serving allegations of the
It has long been established that a victim's failure defense. Even when she was intimidated by the
to struggle or resist an attack on his or her person defense attorney, private complainant, who was
does not, in any way, deteriorate his or her then eight (8) years old, did not falter, proving the
credibility. Physical resistance need not be attorney's attempt to disparage her futile. (People
established to prove the commission of a rape or v. Sumayod, supra)
sexual assault, as the very nature of the crime
entails the use of intimidation and fear that may A Medico-legal Finding in the Prosecution of
paralyze a victim and force him or her to submit Rape Cases, NOT Indispensable
to the assailant. (People v. Sumayod, G.R. No.
230626, 09 Mar. 2020) The medico-legal findings are “merely
corroborative in character and is not an element
Q: AAA was six (6) years old when she was of rape”. The prime consideration in the
raped by Eliseo multiple times. AAA revealed prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not
this to BBB, her grandmother. Subsequently, necessarily the medical findings; a medical
Eliseo was charged with rape and rape by examination of the victim is not indispensable in
sexual assault. The RTC found Eliseo guilty of a prosecution for rape. The victim's testimony
the crime charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict an
the ruling of the trial court. accused. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. 191265, 14 Sept.
2011)
In his brief, Eliseo put private complainant Q: 11-year old "AAA" went to the Pasig public
AAA's credibility in question, contending that market to buy a pair of slippers. However,
the RTC erred in basing their conviction on "AAA" was not able to buy her pair of slippers
her testimony given that her allegations were because appellant suddenly grabbed her left
contrary to common experience. He asserted arm and pulled her towards the nearby Mega
that private complainant's lack of struggle, Parking Plaza.
resistance, or the fact that she did not cry
during the rapes was unnatural. Is Eliseo’s Upon reaching the fourth floor of Mega
Parking Plaza, appellant pulled "AAA’s"

Criminal Law
shorts and panty down to her knees. When Ricalde returned to the sofa, XXX ran
Appellant then sat on the stairs, placed "AAA" toward his mother’s room to tell her what
on his lap, inserted his penis into her vagina happened. He also told his mother that
and performed push and pull movements. Ricalde played with his sexual organ. XXX’s
"AAA" felt pain in her vagina. Immediately mother armed herself with a knife for self-
upon seeing the sexual molestations, Boca, defense when she confronted Ricalde about
the security guard, grabbed appellant’s arm, the incident, but he remained silent. She
handcuffed him and brought him to the asked him to leave. Is Ricalde guilty of the
barangay hall. Is the appellant guilty of the crime of rape?
crime of rape?
A: YES. All the elements of rape is present in the
A: YES. Appellant is guilty of the crime of rape. case at bar. Rape under the second paragraph of
Testimonies of child-victims are normally given Art. 266-A is also known as "instrument or object
full weight and credit, since when a girl, rape," "gender-free rape," or "homosexual rape."
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary Any person who, under any of the circumstances
to show that rape has in fact been committed. mentioned in the first paragraph hereof shall
When the offended party is of tender age and commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice,
account of what transpired, considering not only or any instrument or object, into the genital or
her relative vulnerability but also the shame to anal orifice of another person.
which she would be exposed if the matter to
which she testified is not true. Youth and The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is
immaturity are generally badges of truth and "the insertion of the penis into another person’s
sincerity. The absence of fresh lacerations in mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
“AAA’s” hymen does not prove that appellant did into another person’s genital or anal orifice.’’
not rape her. A freshly broken hymen is not an (Ricalde v. People, G.R. No. 211002, 21 Jan. 2015)
essential element of rape and healed lacerations
do not negate rape. In addition, a medical Hymenal Laceration NOT an Element of the
examination and a medical certificate are merely Crime of Rape
corroborative and are not indispensable to the
prosecution of a rape case. The credible Q: AAA narrated that, she had fallen asleep
disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her after doing laundry, while her stepfather, ZZZ,
is the most important proof of sexual abuse. was doing carpentry works. Suddenly, she
(People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 190622, 07 Oct. 2013) woke up and found ZZZ on top of her, his
lower body naked. He then sat on the floor
Q: XXX (then a 10-year old boy) requested his with his penis showing and removed her short
mother to pick up Ricalde at McDonald’s Bel- pants and underwear, after which he went
Air, Sta. Rosa. Ricalde, then thirty-one (31) back on top of her and masturbated. He took
years old, is a distant relative and textmate of AAA's hands and put them on his penis, telling
XXX. her that if she became pregnant, "he would be
happy." ZZZ then succeeded in having carnal
After dinner, XXX’s mother told Ricalde to knowledge with AAA.
spend the night at their house as it was late.
He slept on the sofa while XXX slept on the Upon examination, it was found that there
living room floor. It was around 2:00 a.m. was redness and abrasion on the right side of
when XXX awoke as "he felt pain in his anus the victim's labia minora, "caused by a
and stomach and something inserted in his smooth, soft object.” ZZZ testified that AAA’s
anus." He saw that Ricalde "fondled his penis." mother, BBB, arrived and she opened the door

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
at once. BBB asked ZZZ if he raped AAA, which of age, are merely acts of lasciviousness and not
he denied. He was around 12 meters away attempted rape because intent to have sexual
from AAA, holding a hammer on the window. intercourse is not clearly shown. (People v.
ZZZ claimed that BBB was influenced by her Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, 11 Dec. 2013)
cousins to accuse him. The cousins were
allegedly mad at him and wanted BBB and him To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be
to separate since he was "not a useful person." shown that the erectile penis is in the position to
Is ZZZ guilty of the crime of rape beyond penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, 08 Oct.
reasonable doubt? 2014) or the offender actually commenced to
force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ.
A: YES. AAA’s recollection on how ZZZ committed (People v. Banzuela, supra)
the crime was detailed; her testimony, consistent.
Likewise, the absence of hymenal laceration fails Principles in Reviewing Rape Cases
to exonerate ZZZ. This Court has consistently held
that an intact hymen does not negate the In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by
commission of rape. The absence of external three (3) settled principles:
signs or physical injuries on the complainant's
body does not necessarily negate the commission 1. An accusation of rape can be made with
of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, facility and while the accusation is difficult to
an element of the crime of rape. (People v. ZZZ, prove, it is even more difficult for the person
G.R. No. 229862, 19 June 2019) accused, although innocent, to disprove;
Attempted Rape vs. Acts of Lasciviousness 2. Considering the intrinsic nature of the crime,
only two persons being usually involved, the
ATTEMPTED ACTS OF testimony of the complainant should be
RAPE LASCIVIOUSNESS scrutinized with great caution; and
There is no intention
There is intent to 3. The evidence for the prosecution must stand
to lie with the offended
effect sexual or fall on its own merit, and cannot be
woman. The intention
cohesion, although allowed to draw strength from the weakness
is merely to satisfy
unsuccessful. of the evidence for the defense. (People v.
lewd design.
Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, 30 May 2011)
Q: Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old
Q: ZZZ was charged with the crime of rape
stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He
after he allegedly had carnal knowledge of his
pulled out a knife and threatened her with
granddaughter, AAA, against her will. The
harm unless she submitted to his desires. He
prosecution offered the testimonies of the
was touching her chest and sex organ when
victim AAA and Barangay Captain Manuel
his wife caught him in the act.
Lotec. The victim, AAA, presented a
straightforward and positive testimony that
The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge
her grandfather raped her. Barangay Captain
Braulio for acts of lasciviousness under Art.
Lotec testified that when AAA told him that
336 of the RPC, for lascivious conduct under
ZZZ raped her, Barangay Captain Lotec
R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection against Child
brought her to the police station where a
Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act),
police officer and a local social worker
or for rape under Art.266-A of the RPC. What
attended to her. Upon cross-examination,
is the crime committed? Explain. (2016 BAR)
Barangay Captain Lotec described AAA during
their conversation as “pale and trembling.”
A: The acts of Braulio of touching the chest and
Was the prosecution able to prove beyond
sex organ of Lulu who is under twelve (12) years

Criminal Law
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused- lewdness and lust for her. (Cruz v. People, G.R. No.
appellant ZZZ for the crime of rape? 166441, 08 Oct. 2014)
A: YES. In determining a victim’s credibility in Q: Pojo raped AAA, but it took AAA twenty-
rape cases, courts should be wary of adopting seven (27) days from the crime to report the
outdated notions of a victim’s behavior based on incident of the rape. Should AAA file a
gender stereotypes. Regardless of such complaint later on, will it affect her credibility
preconceptions, conviction may be warranted as a complaining witness?
based “solely on the testimony of the victim,
provided of course, that the testimony is credible, A: NO. A delay in reporting the incident of rape
natural, convincing, and consistent with human does not diminish the credibility of the
nature and the normal course of things.” complaining witness. (People v. Pojo, G.R. No.
183709, 06 Dec. 2010)
In this case, AAA's account of having been
Q: An Information was filed against Teodoro
attacked by accused-appellant was sufficiently
Ansano for the rape of 15-year-old minor AAA,
corroborated by Barangay Captain Lotec's
a resident of XXX. AAA testified that on April
testimony that he saw AAA "pale and trembling."
6, 2005, at about 5:00 PM, she was going to
Such description is based on his personal
fetch her father at Narra, where the latter was
knowledge, having actually observed and spoken
then selling goods at the river. Accused
to AAA regarding her ordeal. This, taken with the
Ansano was then carrying a bolo, wearing a
prosecution's other corroborating evidence and
long-sleeved shirt and long pants used in the
AAA's straightforward identification of accused-
farm; while AAA was wearing red t-shirt and
appellant as the perpetrator, makes AAA's
school uniform skirt.
testimony sufficiently credible independent of
her perceived propensity for truthfulness based
Ansano poked his bolo at her and told her to
on gender stereotypes. (People v. ZZZ, G.R. No.
go with him to the falls near the Narra tree.
229209, 12 Feb. 2020)
Because she was afraid and he threatened to
kill her if she does not go with him, she went
Q: Cruz and his wife employed AAA and BBB to
along. She came to know the name and
help them in their plastic and glassware
identity of the accused on March 19, 2006 at
business during a town fiesta in La Union.
8:00 PM, when she saw him in their house
After fixing the wares in order for display they
having a drinking spree with her father. She
went to bed inside the tents. Less than an hour
was able to recognize him ("namumukhaan");
passed, AAA was awakened with Cruz on top
he has a scar and "butil-butil" on his face; he
of her mashing her breast and touching her
has a moustache and "medyo singkit." The
vagina. AAA fought back and was able to free
defense presented accused himself, Teodoro
herself from Cruz. She went out to seek for
Ansano, 45 years old, single, slipper maker
help. Is Cruz guilty for the crime of attempted
and residing at XXX. He stated that he does not
rape?
personally know AAA.
A: NO. Cruz is not guilty of attempted rape. The
The RTC convicted Ansano of the crime
intent to commit rape must be inferred from
charged. The CA affirmed Ansano's
overt acts directly leading to rape. In embracing
conviction, and held that the prosecution was
AAA and touching her vagina and breasts did not
able to sufficiently prove the elements of the
directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The
crime charged. Did the CA err in convicting
lack of evidence showing his erectile penis being
Ansano?
in the position to penetrate her when he was on
top of her deterred any inference about his intent
to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
A: YES. The Court laments that neither the RTC

nor the CA was able to discuss the doubt on
Ansano's identity as the perpetrator of the crime
even though the issue was glaring in the records
of the case. Both the RTC and the CA focused on
whether the crime indeed happened and
examined AAA's testimony only through that
lens. The RTC simply said that "[t]he clear,
consistent and spontaneous testimony of [AAA]
unrelentingly established how Ansano sexually
[assaulted] her on April 6, 2005 with the use of
force, threat and intimidation." The CA was
unfortunately as terse, as it held that: "AAA
positively identified accused-appellant as the
perpetrator. The clear, consistent and
spontaneous testimony of AAA established that
accused-appellant committed rape against the
victim," adding that Ansano's defense of alibi and
denial simply failed to stand in light of AAA's
positive identification.
A conviction in a criminal case must be supported

by proof beyond reasonable doubt — moral
certainty that the accused is guilty. The defense
may be weak, but the prosecution is even weaker.
As a result of this finding, it will be unnecessary
to discuss the other issues raised. (People v.
Ansano, G.R. No. 232455. 02 Dec. 2020, J. Caguioa)

A: Although the crime of kidnapping can only be

H. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL committed by a private individual, the fact that
LIBERTY AND SECURITY the accused is a public official does not
ARTS. 267-292, RPC, TITLE IX automatically preclude the filing of an
information for kidnapping against him. A public
officer who detains a person for the purpose of
extorting ransom cannot be said to be acting in an
CHAPTER 1: CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY official capacity.
Sec. 1: Illegal Detention PO3 Borja’s membership in the Philippine

National Police does not automatically preclude
the filing of an information for kidnapping or
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
serious illegal detention against him. He may be
ILLEGAL DETENTION
ART. 267, RPC prosecuted under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal
Code if it is shown that he committed acts
unrelated to the functions of his office. (People v.
Elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
P03 Borja, G.R. No. 199710, 02 Aug. 2017)
Detention (2006 BAR) (P-K-I-C-MoSSMiFP)
2. He Kidnaps or detains another, or in any
1. Offender is a Private individual who is not
other manner deprives the latter of his
any of the parents of the victim;
liberty;
NOTE: If the offender is a public officer who

3. Act of detention or kidnapping must be
has the authority to arrest or detain a person,
Illegal; and
the crime committed is Arbitrary Detention.
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the

Q: Ronalyn Manatad was walking with her
following Circumstances is present: (2009
friend in Quezon City, when a man who was
BAR)
later identified to be PO3 Julieto Borja,
grabbed Ronalyn’s right forearm and took her
a. Kidnapping or detention lasts for More
inside a van where three (3) other men were
than three (3) days; (2014 BAR)
waiting. The abductors called Ronalyn’s
b. It is committed Simulating public
brother, Edwin and demanded P100,000 in
authority;
exchange for Ronalyn’s liberty. Edwin sought
c. Any Serious physical injuries are
assistance from the National Anti-Kidnapping
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
Task Force. When Edwin and PO3 Borja met at
detained or threats to kill him are made;
Wildlife Park for the exchange of the ransom
or
money, the police operatives immediately
d. The person kidnapped or detained is a
arrested PO3 Borja.
Minor, Female, or a Public officer.
(1991, 2005 BAR)
However, they failed to rescue Ronalyn. The
kidnappers of Ronalyn thereafter took her to
NOTE: In case of a minor, the kidnapper must
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
NOT be one of the parents.
where she was charged with illegal sale of
shabu.
For the crime of kidnapping to exist, there must
be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the
The RTC found PO3 Borja guilty beyond
malefactors was to deprive the offended party of
reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom.
her liberty, and not where such restraint of her
Can PO3 Borja, as a public official, be
freedom of action was merely incident in the
prosecuted for the crime of kidnapping?

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
commission of another offense primarily A: YES, the accused is liable for Serious Illegal
intended by the offenders. (People v. Puno, G.R. Detention as against the daughter of the judge. In
No. 97471, 17 Feb. 1993) the case at bar, when the accused detains the
daughter of the judge and was not allowed to be
Essence of the Crime of Kidnapping released until the judge acquits him, there was
actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty.
The actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, Deprivation of liberty is qualified to serious
coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. illegal detention when the victim is a female
(People v. Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, 03 Oct. 2011) punishable under Art. 267 of the RPC.
NOTE: The original Spanish version of Art. 267 The accused may also be liable for the crime of
used the term lock up (encarcerar) rather than Grave Coercion under Art. 286 of the RPC. Since
kidnap (sequestrator or raptor) which includes the purpose of the accused is to compel the judge
not only imprisonment of a person but also the to acquit him, the taking of the judge’s daughter
deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and constitutes violence to control the judge to do
length of time. (People v. Jatulan, GR. No. 171653, something against his will.
24 Apr. 2007)
Deprivation as Contemplated in Art. 267, RPC
When Detention is Considered Illegal
Deprivation required by Art. 267 of the RPC
When such detention is not ordered by a means not only the imprisonment of a person, but
competent authority or not permitted by law. also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever
form and for whatever length of time. It involves
Crimes that May be Possibly Committed when a situation where the victim cannot go out of the
a Female is Transported from One Place to place of confinement or detention or is restricted
Another or impeded in his liberty to move. If the victim is
a child, it also includes the intention of the
1. Forcible abduction – If a woman is accused to deprive the parents of the custody of
transported from one place to another by the child. (People v. Baluya, G.R. No. 181822, 13
virtue of restraining her of her liberty and Apr. 2011)
that act is coupled with lewd designs.
Q: Jomarie, a minor, was dragged to the house
2. Kidnapping with serious illegal detention – of Gutierrez after she refused to go with him.
If a woman is transported just to restrain her Upon reaching the house, he tied her hands.
liberty. There is no lewd design or intent. When Jomarie pleaded that she be allowed to
go home, he refused. Although Jomarie only
3. Grave coercion – If a woman is carried away stayed outside the house, it was inside the
just to break her will, to compel her to agree gate of a fenced property which is high enough
to the demand or request by the offender. such that people outside could not see what
happens inside. Was there kidnapping?
Q: The accused in a pending case forcibly
snatched the daughter of a judge and kept her A: YES. When Gutierrez tied the hands of Jomarie,
in an undisclosed location. The accused then the former’s intention to deprive Jomarie of her
called to tell the judge that the daughter liberty has been clearly shown. For there to be
would only be released if the judge would kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is
acquit the accused in the pending case. Did the restrained from going home.
accused commit a crime with these acts?
Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR) Because of her tender age, and because she did
not know her way back home, she was then and

there deprived of her liberty. It has been Effect of the Voluntary Release of the Victim
repeatedly held that if the victim is a minor, the on the Criminal Liability of the Kidnappers
duration of his detention is immaterial. (People v. (2004 BAR)
Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, 03 Oct. 2011)
1. If it is serious illegal detention, the voluntary
Q: Anniban and Lerio are neighbors. Lerio release has no effect on the criminal liability
entered the house of Anniban, laid down of the offenders.
beside the infant child of Anniban and began
chatting with her. Lerio then told Anniban 2. If it is slight illegal detention, the voluntary
that she would take the infant outside to bask release will mitigate the criminal liability of
him under the morning sun but the latter the offenders.
refused.
3. In kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release
A few minutes later, Anniban realized that will not mitigate the crime.
Lerio and her child were no longer in the
house. After searching, Anniban found her Ransom
infant child, Lerio’s boyfriend, and Lerio on
board a vessel. Lerio, together with co- The money, price or consideration paid or
accused were charged with Kidnapping of a demanded for the redemption of a captured
Minor. Are they liable as charged? person or persons, the payment of which releases
them from captivity.
A: YES. All the elements of kidnapping under Art.
267(4) are present. The prosecution has No specific form of ransom is required to
adequately and satisfactorily proven that consummate the felony of kidnapping for
accused-appellant is a private individual; that ransom, as long as the ransom was intended as a
accused-appellant took one-month old baby bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s
Justin Clyde from his residence, without the freedom. (People v. Jatulan, GR. No. 171653, 24
knowledge or consent of, and against the will of Apr. 2007)
his mother; and that the victim was a minor, one-
month old at the time of the incident, the fact of Demand for Ransom is NOT Necessary to
which accused-appellant herself admitted. Consummate the Crime
(People v. Lerio, G.R. No. 209039, 09 Dec. 2015)
Asking for ransom money is not an element of the
Q: Suppose the kidnapped victim offense. No specific form of ransom is required to
disappeared, will such disappearance negate consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom
criminal liability of the kidnappers? so long as it was intended as a bargaining chip in
exchange for the victim’s freedom. Neither actual
A: NO. In kidnapping, the essential element is demand for nor actual payment of ransom is
deprivation of the victim’s liberty and the necessary for the crime to be committed. It is
subsequent disappearance of the victim will not enough if the crime was committed for the
exonerate the accused from prosecution. purpose of extorting ransom. (People v.
Salimbago, G.R. No. 121365, 14 Sept. 1999)
Otherwise, kidnappers can easily avoid
punishment by the simple expedient of disposing Qualifying Circumstances of the Crime of
of their victim’s bodies. (People v. Bernal, G.R. No. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
113685, 19 June 1997)
1. If the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort
ransom;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
NOTE: If the victim is kidnapped and illegally of Art. 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. (People
detained for the purpose of extorting v. Montanir, et. al, G.R. No. 187534, 04 Apr. 2011)
ransom, the duration of his detention is
immaterial. (People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 178039 Q: Suppose aside from demanding money, two
19 Jan. 2011) (2) persons were killed on occasion of
kidnapping, what is the crime committed?
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention; A: Kidnapping for ransom with homicide (not
3. When the victim is raped; or double homicide) is committed. Regardless of the
4. When the victim is subjected to torture or number of killings or death that occurred as a
dehumanizing acts. consequence of the kidnapping, the appropriate
denomination of the crime should be the special
NOTE: If the victim is a woman or a public officer, complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
the detention is always serious no matter how homicide. (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, 581
short the period of detention is. SCRA 691, 17 Mar. 2009)
Special Complex Crimes that May Arise in When the Taking of the Victim is Only
Kidnapping Incidental to the Basic Purpose to Kill
1. Kidnapping with murder or homicide; The crime is murder and not the special complex
crime of kidnapping with homicide because the
NOTE: Homicide is used in the generic sense primordial intent is to kill the victim and the
and includes murder because the killing is deprivation of liberty is merely incidental
not treated as a separate crime but a thereto. (People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, 28 Jan.
qualifying circumstance. 2003)
2. Kidnapping with rape; or When Other Persons, Not the Victims

3. Kidnapping with physical injuries. Themselves, are Killed on the Occasion of
Kidnapping
Q: Rafael was forcibly dragged and poked with
a gun by the accused. Upon Rosalina’s plea for Two separate crimes of murder or homicide and
pity due to Rafael’s existing heart ailment, kidnapping are committed. The killing would be
Rosalina was allowed to apply CPR. Later that treated as a separate crime.
afternoon, while being detained inside a
room, unknown to Rosalina, Rafael had just Q: The accused detained the victim AAA for
died and his body was placed inside the trunk thirty-nine (39) days and raped her four (4)
of a car. What crime was committed? times, is the RTC correct in its ruling that
kidnapping with rape, four (4) counts of rape
A: The special complex crime of Kidnapping with and rape through sexual assault were
Homicide due to R.A. No. 7659, which amended committed?
Art. 267 of the RPC. As expounded in People v.
Ramos (G.R. No. 118570, 12 Oct. 1998), where the A: NO. The crime committed was a special
person kidnapped is killed in the course of the complex crime of kidnapping with rape.
detention, regardless of whether the killing was Emphatically, the last paragraph of Art. 267 of the
purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, RPC, as amended, states that when the victim is
the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or
longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated is raped, or is subjected to torture or
as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall
special complex crime under the last paragraph be imposed. This provision gives rise to a special

complex crime. As to Consideration of Multiple Rapes

If there are multiple
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had rapes, only one rape
been committed in the special complex crime of shall be complexed
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only with forcible
one kidnapping with rape. In a way, R.A. No. 7659 Even if there are abduction because
depreciated the seriousness of rape because no multiple rapes, there the abduction is a
matter how many times the victim was raped, like is only one crime of necessary means to
in the present case, there is only one crime kidnapping with rape. commit only the first
committed – the special complex crime of rape, thus the other
kidnapping with rape. (People v. Mirandilla, Jr., rape incidents will be
G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011) treated as separate
crimes.
Q: If the crime of kidnapping was committed As to Treatment of Attempted Rape
through conspiracy and rape was committed If rape is merely
on the occasion thereof, but one of the If rape was merely attempted, there is
conspirators were no longer associated with attempted, 2 separate only forcible
the one who raped the victim, can he be held crimes are abduction, the
liable for kidnapping with rape? committed- attempt to rape is
kidnapping and deemed merely a
A: NO. There was no opportunity to prevent his attempted rape. manifestation of lewd
co-conspirators from raping the victim because at designs.
the time of rape, he was no longer associated with
his co-conspirators. He cannot be held liable for Kidnapping vs. Forcible Abduction
the subsequent rape of the victim. (People v.
Anticamara et al., G.R. No. 178771, 08 June 2011) FORCIBLE
KIDNAPPING
ABDUCTION
Kidnapping with Rape vs. Forcible Abduction
with Rape At the outset, the At the outset, the
intention of the taking of the victim
FORCIBLE offender is merely to is coupled with
KIDNAPPING WITH detain the victim. lewd designs.
ABDUCTION WITH
RAPE
RAPE
As to Plurality of Crimes Kidnapping for Ransom vs. Robbery, insofar
The crime is The crime is complex as the delivery of money to the offenders is
composite or a special under Art. 48 since concerned
complex crime if the forcible abduction is a
woman kidnapped is necessary means to KIDNAPPING FOR
ROBBERY
also raped. commit the rape. RANSOM
As to Lewd Designs The motive of the
There is no lewd Ransom is paid in offenders is not to
There is lewd design. exchange for the restrain or deprive
design.
offended party’s the victim of his
As to Treatment of Rape
liberty. liberty but to divest
Rape is not a separate him of his valuables.
crime but merely a Rape may be treated
qualifying as a separate crime.
circumstance.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Illegal Detention vs. Arbitrary Detention Voluntary Release as a Privileged Mitigating

Circumstance for Slight Illegal Detention
ILLEGAL ARBITRARY
It is a privileged mitigating circumstance because
DETENTION DETENTION
the penalty is lower by one (1) degree. But, it
Committed by a must show that he was in a position to prolong
Committed by a
private person who the detention for more than three (3) days and
public officer who
kidnaps, detains, or yet he released the person detained within that
detains a person
otherwise deprives time.
without legal grounds
another of his liberty
Crime is against Crime against the No mitigation of the penalty is allowed when the
personal liberty and fundamental law of proceedings have already been instituted for in
security the State this case, the accused already acted because of
fear rather than repentance.
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
ART. 268, RPC UNLAWFUL ARREST
ART. 269, RPC
Elements of Slight Illegal Detention (P-I-C-K)
Elements of Unlawful Arrest (A-D-No)
1. Offender is a Private individual;
2. He Kidnaps or detains another, or in any 1. Offender Arrests or detains another person;
other manner deprives him of his liberty; 2. Purpose of the offender is to Deliver him to
3. Act of kidnapping or detention is Illegal; and the proper authorities; and
4. Crime is committed without the attendance 3. Arrest or detention is Not authorized by law
of any of the Circumstances enumerated in or there is no reasonable ground therefor.
Art. 267.
NOTE: In unlawful arrest, the illegal detention is
NOTE: If there is a demand for ransom, the only incidental. However, if it is arbitrary
penalty is Reclusion Perpetua to death just like detention, it is the unlawful arrest which is
when what was committed was serious illegal incidental.
detention and a demand for ransom was made.
Essence of the Crime of Unlawful Arrest
Effect of the Voluntary Release of the Victim
on the Criminal Liability of the Kidnappers The arrest must be made for the purpose of
delivering the person arrested to the proper
If the offender: (3-B-W) authorities but it was made without any
reasonable grounds therefor.
1. Voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped
or detained within three (3) days from the NOTE: If the purpose is not to deliver the person
commencement of the detention; to the proper authorities, the crime could be
2. Without having attained the purpose Illegal Detention under Art. 267 or 268 of the RPC
intended; and since the person arrested would necessarily be
3. Before the institution of criminal deprived of his liberty.
proceedings against him, his liability is
mitigated. (1997, 2004 BAR) Persons Liable under this Article
Offender is any person, whether a public officer

or a private individual. However, the public
officer must not be vested with the authority to

arrest or detain a person or must not act in his which enacts laws of local application. He or she
official capacity. Otherwise, Art. 124 (Arbitrary is a person in authority, per Sec. 388 of the Local
Detention) is applicable and not Art. 269. Government Code. Meanwhile, a barangay tanod
is deemed as an agent of persons in authority
If the offender is a public officer or a law enforcer whose duties are described in Sec. 388 of the
and he arrested or detained, without legal or Local Government Code. While deemed as
reasonable ground, any person within his persons in authority and agents of persons in
jurisdiction for the purpose of delivering him to authority, respectively, the barangay kagawad
the proper authorities, such officer is guilty of and barangay tanod are not the public officers
Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124 of the RPC. whose official duty is to arrest or detain persons
contemplated within the purview of Art. 269 of
If the person arrested or detained is not within the RPC. Even granting that petitioners may have
his jurisdiction, the officer’s act would constitute had the authority to inquire into the surrounding
Unlawful Arrest under this article. circumstances, and that what transpired was a
stop and frisk search, petitioners failed to cite any
Barangay Kagawad and Barangay Tanod, NOT suspicious circumstance that warranted Pacis'
Public Officers Contemplated Within the immediate arrest.
Purview of Art. 269
Petitioners argue that due to the numerous
Q: Duropan and Coloma were Barangay reports of stealing nipa leaves, it was reasonable
Kagawad and Barangay Tanod, respectively, for them to suspect that Pacis violated the law.
of Lincod, Maribojoc, Bohol. Duropan, Coloma, This argument falls short in light of three (3)
and another barangay official saw William things: (1) they were aware that ALIMANGO
Pacis (Pacis), Lino Baldoza Jr., Jeremias existed, whose members were authorized to
Moquila, Melvin Magbanua, and Ronnel harvest nipa; (2) they personally knew Pacis; and
Zambra harvesting nipa palm in a (3) they were uncertain that Cabalit owns the
plantation. Coloma approached them and land where they found Pacis and his group.
asked who gave them authority to harvest. (Duropan v. People, G.R. No. 230825, 10 June 2020)
Pacis replied that they were ALIMANGO
members, cooperative duly registered which Period of Detention Fixed by Law
was authorized to develop, utilize, and
protect the Mangrove-Nipa Area in Lincod, There is no period of detention fixed by law. What
Maribojoc, Bohol. is controlling is the motive of the offender.
Despite their objections, Pacis' group was If his purpose is to deliver him to the proper
brought to the Police Station of Maribojoc, authorities, it is still unlawful arrest. But the
Bohol. Upon investigation, Pacis and his absence of this motive may be shown by the
companions were released. The Maribojoc length of time the victim is detained.
Chief of Police determined that the barangay
officials had no legal basis to arrest Pacis. Are Crimes that May be Committed if a Person is
Duropan and Coloma liable under Art. 269 of Arrested and/or Detained
the RPC?
1. If the arrest is made without a warrant and
A: YES. Petitioner Duropan was a barangay under circumstances not allowing a
kagawad, while petitioner Coloma was a warrantless arrest, the crime would be
barangay tanod of Lincod, Maribojoc, Bohol. unlawful arrest.
A barangay kagawad is a member of the 2. If the person arrested is not delivered to the
legislative council of the sangguniang barangay, authorities, the private individual making the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
arrest incurs criminal liability for illegal is that the offender was entrusted with the
detention under Art. 267 or 268. custody of the minor, what is actually being
punished is not the kidnapping but the deliberate
3. If the offender is a public officer, the crime is failure of that person to restore the minor to his
arbitrary detention under Art. 124. parents or guardians.
4. If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, As the penalty for such an offense is so severe, the
but the public officer delays delivery of the Court further explained that “deliberate” as used
person arrested to the proper judicial in Art. 270 means something more than mere
authorities, the crime is delay in the delivery negligence - it must be premeditated, headstrong,
of detained persons under Art. 125. foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously
wrong. (People v. Marquez, G.R. No. 181440, 13
Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons vs. Apr. 2011)
Unlawful Arrest
Crime Can be Committed by the Parents of the
Minor
DELAY IN THE
UNLAWFUL
DELIVERY OF
ARREST This happens where they live separately and the
DETAINED PERSONS
custody of the minor is given to one of them, the
Detention is for some Detention is not other parent kidnaps such minor from the one
legal ground. authorized by law. having the lawful custody of the child.
Crime is committed by
failing to deliver such Absence of Any of the Elements of Art. 270,
Committed by
person to the proper RPC
making an arrest not
judicial authority
authorized by law.
within a certain If any of the elements of Art 270 is absent, the
period. kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Art.
The offender is a 267 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention),
The offender is a private individual, or but if the accused is any of the parents, Art. 267
public officer who has a public officer who will not apply. Arts. 270 and 271 will apply.
the authority to arrest has no authority to
or detain a person. arrest or detain a Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention vs.
person. Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor
Sec. 2: Kidnapping of Minors KIDNAPPING AND KIDNAPPING AND

SERIOUS ILLEGAL FAILURE TO
DETENTION RETURN A MINOR
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO
As to Relation of Offender to the Victim
RETURN A MINOR
Offender is not Offender is entrusted
ART. 270, RPC
entrusted with the with the custody of
custody of the victim. the minor.
Elements of Kidnapping and Failure to Return As to Acts Punished
a Minor (2002 BAR) (En-Fa) What is punished is
the deliberate failure
1. Offender is Entrusted with the custody of a Illegally detaining or of the offender having
minor person; and kidnapping the the custody of the
2. He deliberately Fails to restore the said minor. minor to restore him
minor to his parents or guardians. to his parents or
guardian.
While one of the essential elements of this crime

INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME Sec. 3: Slavery and Servitude

ART. 271, RPC
SLAVERY
Elements of Inducing a Minor to Abandon his ART. 272, RPC
Home (M-I)
Elements of Slavery
1. A Minor is living in the home of his parents or
guardian or the person entrusted with his 1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains
custody; and a human being; and
2. Offender Induces said minor to abandon such 2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave
home. such human being.
Inducement must be actual, committed with If a person was obliged to render service in
criminal intent, and determined by a will to cause another’s house as a servant without
damage. The minor should not leave his home of remuneration whatever and to remain there so
his own free will. long as he has not paid his debt, the crime of
slavery is committed. (De los Reyes v. Alojado, G.R.
The Minor Actually Need NOT Abandon the No. 5671, 24 Aug. 1910)
Home to Commit the Crime
Qualifying Circumstance in the Crime of
It is not necessary that the minor actually Slavery
abandon the home to commit the crime. What
constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a When the purpose of the offender is to assign the
minor to abandon his home or the home of his offended party to some immoral traffic (e.g.,
guardians and it is not necessary that the minor Prostitution).
actually abandons the home.
Slavery vs. White Slave Trade
Rationale for Penalizing the Crime of Inducing
a Minor to Abandon his Home WHITE SLAVE
SLAVERY
TRADE
It is intended to discourage and prevent The offender is NOT The offender is
disruption of filial relationship and undue engaged in engaged in
interference with the parents’ right and duty to prostitution. prostitution.
the custody of their minor children and to rear
them. Slavery vs. Illegal Detention
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention vs.

SLAVERY ILLEGAL DETENTION
Inducing a Minor to Abandon his Home
The offended party is detained.
INDUCING A The purpose for the The purpose is to
KIDNAPPING AND
MINOR TO detention is to deprive or restrain the
SERIOUS ILLEGAL
ABANDON HIS enslave the offended offended party of his
DETENTION
HOME party. liberty.
Art. 267, RPC
Art. 271, RPC
Cannot be committed Parents can commit
by the parents of the this crime against
minor their own children

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR Minor is compelled to

ART. 273, RPC render services for Debtor himself is the
the supposed debt of one compelled to
Elements of Exploitation of Child Labor his parent or work for the offender.
(R-A-R) guardian.
Service of minor is
1. Offender Retains a minor in his service; not limited to Limited to household
2. It is Against the will of the minor; and household and farm and farm work.
3. It is under the pretext of Reimbursing work.
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the CHAPTER 2: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
custody of such minor. (2006, 2009 BAR)
Sec. 1: Abandonment of Helpless Persons
NOTE: Indebtedness is not a ground for
and Exploitation of Minors
detention. However, if the minor consents to
render service and be retained under the pretext
of reimbursing a debt incurred, there is no crime. ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
The debt must be that incurred by the AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM
ascendants, guardian or custodian of the minor. ART. 275, RPC
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION Punishable Acts

IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
1. Failing to render assistance to any person
ART. 274, RPC
whom the offender finds in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of dying when he
Elements (C-A-P)
can render such assistance without
detriment to himself, unless such omission
1. Offender Compels a debtor to work for him,
shall constitute a more serious offense.
either as household servant or farm laborer;
2. It is Against the debtor’s will; and
Elements: (F-A-W-N)
3. The purpose is to require or enforce the
a. The place is Not inhabited;
Payment of a debt. (2006 BAR)
b. Accused found there a person Wounded
or in danger of dying;
NOTE: If there is no creditor-debtor relationship
c. Accused can render Assistance without
between the offender and the offended party,
detriment to himself; and
coercion is committed.
d. Accused Fails to render assistance.
Exploitation of Child Labor vs. Services

2. Failing to help or render assistance to
Rendered under Compulsion in Payment of
another whom the offender has accidentally
Debt
wounded or injured.
SERVICES
NOTE: The character of the place is
EXPLOITATION OF RENDERED UNDER
immaterial.
CHILD LABOR COMPULSION IN
Art. 273, RPC PAYMENT OF DEBT
3. Failing to deliver a child under seven (7)
Art. 274, RPC
years of age whom the offender has found
Does not distinguish
abandoned, to the authorities or to his family,
Victim is a minor. whether victim is a
or failing to take him to a safe place.
minor or not.

NOTE: It is immaterial that the offender did 2. If the life of the minor was in danger because
not know that the child is under seven (7) of the abandonment.
years.
If the offender is the parent of the minor who is
Uninhabited Place abandoned, he shall be deprived of parental
authority.
It is determined by possibility of person receiving
assistance from another. Even if there are many NOTE: Parents guilty of abandoning their
houses around the place, it may still be children shall be deprived of parental authority.
uninhabited if the possibility of receiving
assistance is remote. ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY A PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY;
ABANDONING A MINOR INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
Elements of Abandoning a Minor (C-A-No-7) Acts Punished under Art. 277
1. Offender has the Custody of the child; 1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or
2. Child is under seven (7) years of age; other persons without the consent of the one
3. He Abandons such child; and who entrusted such minor to the care of the
4. He has No intent to kill the child when the offender or, in the absence of that one,
latter is abandoned. without the consent of the proper
authorities; and
Kind of Abandonment Contemplated by Law
2. Neglecting one’s children by not giving them
The abandonment contemplated by law is not the the education which their station in life
momentary leaving of a child but the requires and financial condition permits.
abandonment of such minor that deprives him of
the care and protection from danger to his Elements of the Abandonment of Minor by
person. One Charged with the Rearing or Education of
said Minor (Cha-Del-Not)
NOTE: A permanent, conscious, and deliberate
abandonment is required in this article. There 1. Offender has Charge of the rearing of
must be an interruption of the care and education of a minor;
protection that a child needs by reason of his 2. He Delivers said minor to a public institution
tender age. or other persons; and
3. One who entrusted such child to the offender
Qualifying Circumstances under Art. 276, RPC has Not consented to such act; or if the one
who entrusted such child to the offender is
1. When death of the minor resulted from such absent, the proper authorities have not
abandonment. consented to it.
NOTE: Intent to kill cannot be presumed NOTE: Only the person charged with the rearing
from the death of the child. The ruling that or education of the minor is liable.
intent to kill is conclusively presumed from
the death of the victim is applicable only to
crimes against persons and not to crimes
against security, particularly the crime of
abandoning a minor under Art. 276.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Elements of the Crime of Indifference of EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

Parents (Pa-Ne-S) ART. 278, RPC
1. Offender is a Parent; Punishable Acts

2. He Neglects his children by not giving them
education; and 1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 to perform
3. His Station in life requires such education any dangerous feat of balancing, physical
and his financial condition permits it. strength or contortion, the offender being
any person;
NOTE: For the parents to be penalized for the
crime of Indifference of Parents, it must be shown 2. Employing children under 16 years of age
that they are in a position to give their children who are not the children or descendants of
the education in life and that they consciously and the offender in exhibitions of acrobat,
deliberately neglect their children. gymnast, rope walker, diver, or wild animal
tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc., or
Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted circus manager or person engaged in any of
with his Custody; Indifference of Parents vs. said callings;
Abandoning a Minor
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of
ABANDONMENT OF age in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in
MINOR BY PERSON the next preceding paragraph, the offender
ENTRUSTED WITH ABANDONING A being engaged in any of the said callings;
HIS CUSTODY; MINOR
INDIFFERENCE OF ART. 276, RPC 4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
PARENTS gratuitously to any person if any of the
ART. 277, RPC callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any
As to Custody habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
The custody of the being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or
offender is specific, person entrusted in any capacity with the
The custody of the
that is, the custody for care of such child; and
minor is stated in
the rearing or
general.
education of the 5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to
minor. abandon the home of its ascendants,
As to Age guardians, curators or teachers to follow any
Minor is under 18 Minor is under 7 person entrusted in any of the callings
years of age. years of age. mentioned in par. 2 or to accompany any
As to Abandonment habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
Minor is abandoned being any person.
in such a way as
Minor is delivered to
to deprive him of the NOTE: The exploitation of the minor must be of
a public institution or
care and protection such nature as to endanger his life or safety in
other person.
that his tender years order to constitute the offense described in this
need. article.
Kind of Business contemplated under Art. 278
Art. 278 contemplates a business that generally

attracts children so that they themselves may
enjoy working there unaware of the danger to

their own lives and limb, such as circuses. Exploitation of Minors vs. R.A. No. 7610
(Special Protection of Children against Child
When the Employer is the Parent or Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
Ascendant of the Child who is already 12
Years of Age EXPLOITATION R.A. No. 7610
As to its Application
The crime of exploitation of minors is not Applies to minors Applies to minors
committed if the employer is a parent or below 16 years of age. below 18 years old.
ascendant unless the minor is less than twelve As to Danger to the Child
(12) years old. As long as the
employment is
If the employer is an ascendant, the law regards The business is of inimical – even
that he would look after the welfare and such kind that would though there is no
protection of the child. Hence, the age is lowered place the life or limb physical risk – and
to twelve (12) years. Below that age, the crime is of the minor in detrimental to the
committed. danger, even though child’s interest –
working for him is not against moral,
Qualifying Circumstance under Art. 277 against the will of the intellectual, physical,
minor. and
If the delivery of the child to any person following mental development
any of the callings of acrobat, gymnast, rope- of the minor.
walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus As to Liability of Employer
manager or to any habitual vagrant or beggar is If the child fell and
made in consideration of any price, compensation suffered physical
or promise, the penalty is higher. injuries while
working, the
Exploitation of Minors vs. Inducing a Minor to employer shall be No such similar
Abandon his Home liable for said provision exists
physical injuries in under R.A. 7610.
INDUCING A MINOR addition to his
EXPLOITATION
TO ABANDON liability for
OF MINORS
HIS HOME exploitation of
ART. 278 (5), RPC
ART. 271, RPC minors.
The purpose of
inducing the minor to Criminal Liability for Neglect of Child under
abandon the home is Art. 59 (4) of P.D. 603 Attaches if Any of the
No such purpose
to follow any person Parents is Guilty of Neglecting the Child’s
engaged in any of the Education
callings mentioned
Victim is under 16 Victim is under 18 The crime may be committed by any of the
years of age years of age parents. Liability for the crime does not depend
on whether the parent is also guilty of neglecting
his/her child. The law intends to punish the
neglect of any parent, which neglect corresponds
to the failure to give the child the education which
the family’s station in life and financial condition
permit. The irresponsible parent cannot
exculpate himself/herself from the consequences
of his/her neglect by invoking the other parent’s

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
faithful compliance with his or her own parental necessary that it be a permanent dwelling of a
duties. (De Guzman v. Perez, G.R. No. 156013, 25 person.
July 2006)
NOTE: In general, all members of the household
NOTE: The neglect of child punished under Art. must be presumed to have authority to extend an
59(4) of P.D. 603 is also a crime (known as invitation to enter the house.
indifference of parents) penalized under the
second paragraph of Art. 277 of the RPC (De “Against the Will”
Guzman v. Perez, supra). Hence, it is excluded
from the coverage of R.A. No. 7610. The entrance is either expressly or impliedly
prohibited.
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES
FOR OTHER OFFENSES NOTE: There must be an opposition on the part
ART. 279, RPC of the owner of the house to the entry of the
accused. Lack of permission does not amount to
The offender is not only liable for the prohibition. (People v. De Peralta, G.R. No. L-
abandonment or exploitation but also for all its 17332, 18 Aug. 1921)
consequences. If as a result, physical injuries or
death resulted, another crime is committed by Instances where Prohibition to Enter a
authority of Art. 279. Dwelling is Implied or Presumed
1. Entering a dwelling of another at late hour of

Sec. 2: Trespass to Dwelling
the night.
2. When the entrance is made through means
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING not intended for ingress.
ART. 280, RPC 3. The existence of enmity or strained relations
between the accused and the occupant.
Elements of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling 4. The door is closed even if it is not locked.
(P-E-A) (2002, 2009 BAR)
Qualifying Circumstance of the Offense
1. Offender is a Private person;
2. He Enters the dwelling of another; and If the offense is committed by means of violence
3. Such entrance is Against the latter’s will. or intimidation, the penalty is higher (prision
correctional in medium and maximum periods;
If the Offender is a Public Officer fine not exceeding P200,000).
If the offender is a public officer or employee, the If violence or intimidation is employed, there is
entrance into the dwelling against the will of the no need for prohibition. In fact, even if violence or
occupant is violation of domicile punishable intimidation took place immediately after the
under Art. 128. offender has entered the dwelling, there is
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. (U.S. v. Abanto,
Dwelling G.R. No. 5266, 16 Feb. 1910; U.S. v. Arceo, G.R. No.
1491, 05 Mar. 1904)
A place that a person inhabits or any building or
structure exclusively devoted for rest and Examples of Trespass by Means of Violence
comfort. Whether a building is a dwelling house
or not depends upon the use. It includes the 1. Pushing the door violently and maltreating
dependencies which have interior the occupants after entering.
communication with the house. It is not

2. Cutting of a ribbon string with which the things, the trespass yielding to the more
door latch of a closed room was fastened. The serious crime.
cutting of the fastenings of the door was an
act of violence. 3. But if the purpose is not shown and while
inside the dwelling he was found by the
3. Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of occupants, one of whom was injured by him,
the house immediately after entrance. the crime committed will be trespass to
dwelling and frustrated homicide, physical
Examples of Trespass by Means of injuries, or if there was no injury, unjust
Intimidation vexation.
1. Firing a revolver in the air by persons Q: At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced
attempting to force their way into a house. his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay,
Mamerto’s son, saw Dante and accosted him.
2. The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
the house upon gaining an entrance. abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and
went out of his room. Dante, who was about to
Trespass to Dwelling may be Committed by escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered
the Owner of the House injuries which, were it not for the timely
medical attendance, would have caused his
In cases where the owner has allowed the rooms death. Mamerto sustained injuries that
or the houses to be rented by other persons, incapacitated him for twenty-five (25) days.
trespass to dwelling is committed if the owner What crime/s did Dante commit? (1994 BAR)
thereof enters the room or house without the
knowledge and consent and against the will of the A: Dante committed qualified trespass to
boarder or tenant. dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the
Circumstances when the Crime of Trespass to assault on Mamerto. The crime of qualified
Dwelling is NOT Committed (2006 BAR) trespass to dwelling should not be complexed
with frustrated homicide because when the
1. When the purpose of the entrance is to trespass is committed as a means to commit a
prevent serious harm to himself, the more serious crime, trespass to dwelling is
occupant or third persons. absorbed by the greater crime and the former
constitutes an aggravating circumstance of
2. When the purpose of the offender in entering dwelling. (People v. Abedoza, 53 Phil 788)
is to render some service to humanity or
justice. OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
ART. 281, RPC
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns
and other public houses while they are open. Elements of Other Forms of Trespass
Crimes that May be Committed when a Person 1. Offenders enter the closed premises or the
Trespasses a Dwelling fenced estate of another;
1. If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not NOTE: The term premises signifies distinct
shown, trespass is committed. and definite locality. It may mean a room,
shop, building or definite area, but in either
2. If the purpose is shown, it may be absorbed case, locality is fixed.
in the crime as in robbery with force upon

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
2. Entrance is made while either of them is other condition even though not unlawful,
uninhabited; and the offender attained his purpose;
NOTE: A place is said to be uninhabited if 2. By making such threat without the offender
there is no one living on such place. attaining his purpose; and
3. Prohibition to enter is manifest; and 3. By threatening another with the infliction

4. Trespasser has not secured the permission of upon his person, honor or property or that of
the owner or the caretaker thereof. his family of any wrong amounting to a crime,
the threat, not being subject to a condition.
Trespass to Dwelling vs. Trespass to Property
Essence of Grave Threats
TRESPASS TO TRESPASS TO
DWELLING PROPERTY It is essential that there be intimidation. In
As to Offender intimidation, there is a promise of some future
Offender is a private Offender is any harm or injury, either to the person, honor, or
person. person. property of the offended party. (Reyes, 2017)
As to Commission
Offender enters It must inspire terror or fear upon another. It is
Offender enters a characterized by moral pressure that produces
closed premises or
dwelling house. alarm.
fenced estate.
As to Place
Place entered is Place entered is Threat
inhabited. uninhabited.
As to Act Constituting the Crime It is the declaration of an intention or
Act constituting the determination to injure another by the
crime is entering the commission upon his person, honor, or property
Act constituting the closed premises or or upon that of his family of some wrong which
crime is entering the the fenced estate may or may not amount to a crime.
dwelling against the without securing the
will of the owner. permission of the Qualifying Circumstance of the Offense
owner or caretaker
thereof. If the threat is made in writing or through a
As to Prohibition middleman, the penalty is to be imposed in its
maximum period.
Prohibition to enter is Prohibition to enter
express or implied. must be manifest.
Grave Threats vs. Light Threats
Sec. 3: Threats and Coercion

GRAVE THREATS LIGHT THREATS
When the wrong When the wrong
GRAVE THREATS threatened to be threatened to be
ART. 282, RPC inflicted amounts to a inflicted does not
crime. amount to a crime.
Punishable Acts
Threat vs. Coercion
1. Threatening another with the infliction upon
his person, honor, or property, or that of his THREAT COERCION
family of any wrong amounting to a crime Essence of threat Essence of coercion is
and demanding money or imposing any is intimidation. violence or intimidation.

There is no condition 2. Threatening to publish a libel – If there is

Wrong or harm
involved; hence, there is such a threat to make a slanderous or
done is future and
no futurity in the harm or libelous publication against the offended
conditional.
wrong done. party.
Threat vs. Robbery BONDS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR

ART. 284, RPC
THREAT ROBBERY
As to Intimidation The person making the threats under the
Intimidation is future Intimidation is actual preceding articles (grave and light threats) may
and conditional. and immediate. also be required by the court to give bail
Intimidation may be conditioned upon the promise not to molest the
Intimidation is
through an person threatened or not to pursue the threats
personal.
intermediary. he/she made.
As to Subject Involved
May refer to the If the person making the threat failed to post a
Refers to personal
person, honor or bond, such person can be sentenced to the
property.
property. penalty of destierro.
As to Intent to Gain
Intent to gain is not an There is intent to OTHER LIGHT THREATS
essential element. gain. ART. 285, RPC
As to Danger of the Threat
The danger to the The danger involved Punishable Acts
victim is not instantly is directly imminent
imminent nor the to the victim and the 1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
gain of the culprit obtainment of gain drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it
immediate. immediate. be in lawful self-defense. Here, the weapon
must not be discharged;
LIGHT THREATS
ART. 283, RPC 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of
anger, with some harm constituting a crime,
Elements of Light Threats (T-No-De-Pu) without persisting in the idea involved in his
threat; and
1. Offender makes a Threat to commit a wrong;
2. The wrong does Not constitute a crime; 3. Orally threatening to do another any harm
3. There is a Demand for money or that other not constituting a felony.
condition is imposed, even though lawful;
and NOTE: In other light threats, there is no demand
4. Offender has attained or has not attained his for money nor any condition imposed when the
Purpose. offender threatens the offended party. His acts
are limited to verbal threat during the incident
NOTE: Light threat is in the nature of involving him and the offended party.
blackmailing.
Possible Crimes involving Blackmailing
1. Light threats – If there is no threat to publish

any libelous or slanderous matter against the
offended party; and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Other Light Threats vs. Grave Threats 3. Person that restrained the will and liberty of
another has No authority of law or the right
OTHER LIGHT to do so.
GRAVE THREATS
THREATS
ART. 282, RPC
ART. 285, RPC NOTE: Coercion is consummated even if the
The threat is made in offended party did not accede to the purpose of
The threat is made
the heat of anger, and the coercion. The essence of coercion is an attack
with the deliberate
the subsequent acts of on individual liberty.
purpose of creating in
the accused showed
the mind of the
that he did not persist Paragraph 2: Penalty next higher in degree
person threatened
in the idea involved in
the belief that the
his threat. (U.S. v. Purpose of the Law in Punishing Grave
threats will be carried
Paguirigan, 14 Phil. Coercion
into effect.
453)
To enforce the principle that no person may take
Nature of Other Light Threats the law into his own hands and that ours is a
government of law and not of men. (People v.
It is not subject to a demand for money or any Mangosing, CA-G.R. No. 1107-R, 29 Apr. 1948)
material consideration and the wrong threatened
does not amount to a crime. When Grave Coercion Occurs
GRAVE COERCIONS Grave coercion arises only if the act which the
ART. 286, RPC offender prevented another to do is not
prohibited by law or ordinance.
Punishable Acts
Kinds of Grave Coercion
1. Preventing another, by means of violence,
1. Preventive – The offender uses violence to
threat or intimidation, from doing something
prevent the victim from doing what he wants
not prohibited by law; and
to do. Here, the act prevented is not
prohibited by law.
2. Compelling another, by means of violence,
threat or intimidation, to do something
NOTE: In grave coercion, the act of
against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
preventing by force must be made at the time
the offended party was doing or about to do
Elements of Grave Coercion (1998, 1999,
the act to be prevented. If the act was already
2009 BAR) (Pre-No-V)
done when violence is exerted, the crime is
unjust vexation.
1. A person Prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
2. Compulsive – The offender uses violence to
compelled him to do something against his
compel the offended party to do what he does
will, be it right or wrong;
not want to do. The act compelled may or
may not be prohibited by law.
2. Prevention or compulsion be effected by
Violence, threats or intimidation; and
NOTE: The threat must be present, clear,

imminent and actual. Such threat cannot be
made in writing or through a middle man.

No Grave Coercion when a Person Prohibits LIGHT COERCION

Another to Do an Act because the Act is a ART. 287, RPC
Crime, and Violence and Intimidation is
Employed Elements of Light Coercion (Se-Vi-Cre-P)
There is no grave coercion because the act from 1. Offender must be a Creditor;
which a person is prevented from doing is a 2. He Seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
crime. It may only give rise to threat or physical 3. Seizure of the thing be accomplished by
injuries, if some injuries are inflicted. means of Violence or a display of material
force producing intimidation; and
However, in case of grave coercion where the 4. Purpose of the offender is to apply the same
offended party is being compelled to do to the Payment of the debt.
something against his will, whether it be wrong
or not, the crime of grave coercion is committed In the crime of other light coercion or unjust
if violence or intimidation is employed in order to vexation embraced in Art. 287(2), violence is
compel him to do the act. absent. Thus, taking possession of the thing
belonging to the debtor, through deceit and
Q: Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his misrepresentation for the purpose of applying
initials. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace. the same to the payment of debt is unjust
Isagani asked Roy to return to him the vexation under the second paragraph of Art. 287.
necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, “If you Unjust Vexation (1994, 2006, 2007, 2009,
will not give back the necklace to me, I will kill 2010 BAR)
you!” Out of fear for his life and against his
will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani. What Unjust vexation is any act committed without
offense did Isagani commit? (1998 BAR) violence but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes
an innocent person.
A: Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion
(Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of NOTE: In determining whether the crime of
serious threats or intimidation, to do something unjust vexation is committed, the offender’s act
against the latter’s will, whether it be right or must have caused annoyance, irritation, vexation,
wrong. Serious threats or intimidation torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of
approximating violence constitute grave the person to whom it is directed. (People v.
coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of Gozum, 54, O.G. 7409)
the threat in this case because it was committed
with a gun, is a deadly weapon. Resulting Crimes when the Property of a
Debtor is Seized
Qualifying Circumstances of Grave Coercion
1. Light coercion – If by means of violence, the
1. If the coercion is committed in violation of property is applied to the debt.
the exercise of the right of suffrage.
2. If the coercion is committed to compel 2. Robbery – If the value of the property seized
another to perform any religious act. is greater than that of the debt (intent to gain
3. If the coercion is committed to prevent is present in this case) and violence and
another from performing any religious act. intimidation are employed.
3. Estafa – If there is no obligation on the part

of the offended party but was only feigned.
There is estafa because deceit is employed.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS; COMPULSORY CHAPTER 3: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION

PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE AND PAYMENT OF SECRETS
OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS
ART. 288, RPC
FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROHIBITION OR COMBINATION OF CAPITAL
Punishable Acts and their Elements OR LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
ART. 289, RPC
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly
or knowingly permitting the act of forcing or
Elements
compelling of the laborer or employee of the
offender to purchase merchandise or
1. Offender employs violence or threats, in a
commodities of any kind from him.
degree as to compel or force the laborers or
employees in the free legal exercise of their
Elements: (Pao-Em-For)
industry or work; and
a. Offender is any Person, agent or officer
2. Purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent
of any association or corporation; coalitions of capital or labor, strike of
b. He or such firm or corporation has
laborers or lockout of employers.
Employed laborers or employees; and
c. He Forces or compels directly or The acts shall not constitute a more serious
indirectly, or knowingly permits to be
offense in accordance with the provisions of the
forced or compelled, any of his or its
Code.
laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any
DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH
kind from him or said firm or
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
corporation. (2014 BAR)
ART. 290, RPC
2. Paying the wages due his laborer or
employee by means of tokens or objects Elements (D-I-P-S)
other than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by 1. Offender is a Private individual or even a
such laborer or employee. public officer not in the exercise of his official
function;
Elements: (O-Pa-Not) 2. He Seizes the papers or letters of another;
a. Offender Pays the wages due a laborer or 3. Purpose is to Discover the secrets of such
employee employed by him by means of another person; and
tokens or object; 4. Offender is Informed of the contents of the
b. Those tokens or objects are Other than papers or letters seized.
the legal currency of the Philippines; and
c. Such employee or laborer does Not NOTE: It is not applicable to parents, guardians,
expressly request that he be paid by or persons entrusted with the custody of minors
means of tokens or objects. with respect to papers or letters of the children
or minors placed under the care or custody.
NOTE: The use of tokens, promissory notes,
vouchers, coupons, or any other form alleged to Nature of the Crime
represent legal tender is absolutely prohibited
even when expressly requested by the employee. This is a crime against the security of one’s papers
and effects. The purpose must be to discover its
effects. The act violates the privacy of
communication. It is necessary that the offender

should actually discover the contents of the letter. REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE
ART. 291, RPC
NOTE: Contents of the correspondence need not
be secret. Prejudice to the offended party is not Elements (Ma-L-Rev)
an element of the offense.
1. Offender is a Manager, employee or servant;
“Seize” as contemplated in this Article 2. He Learns the secrets of his principal or
master in such capacity; and
There must be taking possession of papers or 3. He Reveals such secrets.
letters of another even for a short time only. If the
papers or letters were delivered voluntarily to NOTE: Damage is not an element of this article.
the accused, this crime is not committed.
Essence of the Crime of Revealing Secrets with
Qualifying Circumstance Abuse of Office
When the offender reveals the contents of such The offender learned of the secret in the course of
paper or letters of another to a 3rd person, the employment. He is enjoying a confidential
penalty is higher. relation with the employer or master so he
should respect the privacy of matters personal to
Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private the latter.
Individual vs. Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
ART. 292, RPC
PUBLIC OFFICER
DISCOVERING Elements (Pew-S-R-P)
REVEALING
SECRETS THROUGH
SECRETS OF
SEIZURE OF 1. Offender is a Person in charge, employee or
PRIVATE
CORRESPONDENCE workman of a manufacturing or industrial
INDIVIDUAL
ART. 290, RPC establishment;
ART. 230, RPC
Public officer comes Offender is a private
2. Manufacturing or industrial establishment
to know the secret of individual or even a
has a Secret of the industry which the
any private public officer not in the
offender has learned;
individual by reason exercise of his official
of his office. function.
NOTE: The business secret must not be
It is necessary that the
known to other business entities or persons.
The secret is not offender seizes the
It is a matter to be discovered, known and
necessarily papers or letters of
used by and must belong to one person or
contained in papers another to discover
entity exclusively. Secrets must relate to
or letters. the secrets of the
manufacturing process.
latter.
If there is a secret 3. Offender Reveals such secrets; and
Reveals the secret
discovered, it is not
without justifiable
necessary that it be NOTE: The revelation of the secret might be
reason.
revealed. made after the employee or workman has
ceased to be connected with the
establishment.
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
2. Robbery by the use of force upon things.

I. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (Arts. 299 and 302, RPC)
ARTS. 293-332, RPC, TITLE X
Elements of Robbery in General (P-U-I-V)
1. There is Personal property belonging to

CHAPTER 1: ROBBERY IN GENERAL another; (1992, 1996 BAR)
2. There is Unlawful taking of that property;
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY 3. Taking must be with Intent to gain; and
ART. 293, RPC 4. There is Violence against or intimidation of
any person or force upon things. (1992,
Robbery (1998 BAR) 2002, 2005 BAR)
It is the taking of personal property belonging to NOTE: Robberies committed in different houses
another, with intent to gain, by means of violence constitute separate crimes of robbery. But if the
against or intimidation of any person or using robberies are committed upon different victims
force upon anything. on the same occasion and in the same place only,
one robbery is committed as the robberies are
NOTE: For the appellant to be guilty of mere incidents of a single criminal intent.
consummated robbery, there must be
incontrovertible proof that property was taken Personal Property is the Subject of Robbery
from the victim. The appellant is guilty of
attempted robbery only when he commences the The property taken must be personal property,
commission of robbery directly by overt acts and for if real property is occupied by means of
does not perform all the acts of execution which violence against or intimidation of person, the
would produce robbery by reason of some causes crime is usurpation. (Art. 312, RPC)
or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. Q: Is Robbery committed when police officers
seized the opium without causing the
Illustration: In a case, Totoy demanded from the prosecution of the offenders, and thereafter
victim, "Tol, pera-pera lang ito, dahil kailangan said police officers appropriated the opium?
lang." The victim refused to part with his earnings
and resisted. He even tried to get out of the A: YES. The person from whom the property was
taxicab but Totoy pulled him back and stabbed taken need not be the owner of such. Legal
him. Randy, Rot-Rot, and Jon-Jon followed suit possession is sufficient. (U.S. v. Sana Lim, G.R No.
and stabbed the victim with their bladed 9604, 19 Nov. 1914)
weapons. The victim was able to flee from the
vehicle without anything being taken from him. Generally, Identity of Real Owner is NOT
Totoy and his confederates commenced by overt Necessary
acts the execution of the robbery, but failed to
perform all the acts of execution by reason of the GR: The identity of the real owner is not
victim's resistance. (People v. Bocalan, G.R. No. necessary so long as the personal property taken
141527, 04 Sept. 2003) does not belong to the accused.
Classification of Robbery XPN: If the crime is Robbery with Homicide
1. Robbery with violence against, or Presumption of Intent to Gain

intimidation of persons (Arts. 294, 297, and
298, RPC); In unlawful taking of personal property intent to

gain is presumed. The element of personal Q: Police Inspector Belver was alighting from
property belonging to another and that of intent a bus in front of Bicol Express Eater when he
to gain must concur. was approached by three men, later identified
as Poquiz, Valencia, and Olerfenes. The three
Occurrence of Violence and Intimidation men declared a robbery. Valencia then
snatched Belver’s backpack while the other
GR: Violence or intimidation must be present accused attempted to take his hanger bag, but
before the taking of personal property is the latter failed to do so. The accused argues
complete. that the element of intent to gain is wanting
since Belver was never totally dispossessed of
XPN: When violence results in homicide, rape his possessions. Is their contention correct?
intentional mutilation or any of the serious
physical injuries penalized under pars. 1 and 2 of A: NO. The crime of Robbery is considered
Art 263, the taking of the personal property is complete from the moment the offender gains
robbery complexed with any of those crimes possession of the thing even if he has no
under Art. 294, even if the taking was already opportunity to dispose of the same. In the present
complete when the violence was used by the case, Belver’s bag was already forcibly taken and
offender. was dispossessed of the same when Poquiz and
Valencia left the scene of the crime. It is of no
Unlawful Taking moment that Belver was able to subsequently
recover the items forcibly taken from him. Such
It means appropriating a thing belonging to instance does not preclude the presence of intent
another and placing it under one’s control and to gain on the part of the accused. (Ruel Poquiz
possession. and Rey Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 238715, 11 Jan.
2021)
The property must belong to another. Thus, one
who, by means of violence or intimidation, took Q: One Sunday afternoon, while standing at
his own property from the depositary is not guilty the corner of C.P. Garcia and Katipunan
of robbery. Avenue, an off-duty police officer accosted a
motorcycle rider and asked them to alight.
The taking of personal property must be unlawful The off-duty police officer then inspected the
to constitute robbery. If the property is in motorcycle’s compartment box. Pretending
possession of the offender given to him in trust by that a sachet of shabu was found, the off-duty
the owner, the crime is estafa. Also, the unlawful police officer demanded P1,000 in order to
taking must not be under the claim of title or prevent an arrest.
ownership.
Fearful of being incarcerated for life for a
Unlawful Taking is Complete when crime that was not really committed, the
motorcycle rider readily complied. Unknown
1. As to robbery with violence against or to the off-duty police officer, a surveillance
intimidation of persons– from the moment camera caught the entire incident. Will a
the offender gains possession of the thing charge of robbery prosper against the off-
even if the culprit had no opportunity to duty police officer? Explain briefly. (2020-21
dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is BAR)
complete.
A: YES, the charge for Robbery against the off-
2. As to robbery with force upon things– the duty police officer will prosper. The elements of
thing must be taken out of the the crime of robbery under Art. 293 of the RPC
building/premises to consummate the crime. are: (1) that there is taking of personal property;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
(2) the personal property belongs to another; (3) money or property by voluntarily
the taking is with animus lucrandi; and (4) the force or intimidation
taking is with violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things. Sec. 1: Robbery with Violence against or
Intimidation of Persons
There is intimidation when there is unlawful
coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear. To
OBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
take, or attempt to take, by intimidation means
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
“wilfully to take, or attempt to take, by putting in
ART. 294, RPC
fear of bodily harm.” As shown in United States v.
Osorio, material violence is not indispensable for
there to be intimidation, intense fear produced in Punishable Acts under Art. 294, RPC (2000,
the mind of the victim which restricts or hinders 2005, 2010 BAR)
the exercise of the will is sufficient. (Jomar Ablaza
v. People, G.R. No. 217722, 26 Sept. 2018) 1. When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery the crime of homicide is committed;
In this case, the demand of the police officer for
P1,000 to refrain from arresting the motorcycle 2. When the robbery is accompanied by:
rider and because of the fear of being a. Rape;
incarcerated for a crime he did not commit and b. Intentional mutilation; or
the motorcycle rider complied, the charge for c. Arson
robbery against the off-duty police officer is
proper since the taking with intent to gain, 3. When by reason or on the occasion of such
commited through intimidation are present. robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting
in:
Robbery with Violence vs. Grave Threats vs. a. Insanity;
Grave Coercion b. Imbecility;
c. Impotency; or
d. Blindness is inflicted
ROBBERY
GRAVE GRAVE
WITH
THREATS COERCION 4. When by reason or on the occasion of
VIOLENCE
robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting
There is in the:
No intent to No intent to
intent to a. Loss of the use of speech;
gain gain
gain b. Loss of the power to hear or to smell;
Intimidation c. Loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or
is immediate a leg;
Intimidation;
and offended d. Loss of the use of any of such member;
Promises
Immediate party is or
some future
harm compelled to e. Incapacity for the work in which the
harm or
do something injured person is theretofore
injury
against his habitually engaged is inflicted
will
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in
Robbery vs. Bribery the commission of the robbery is carried to a
degree clearly unnecessary for the
ROBBERY BRIBERY commission of the crime;
The victim is He parts with his

6. When in the course of its execution, the
deprived of his money, in a sense,
offender shall have inflicted upon any person

not responsible for the commission of the 2. What is the crime committed?
robbery any of the physical injuries in
consequence of which the person injured: A: The crime committed is Robbery with
Intimidation of Persons. (Asa v. People, supra)
a. Becomes deformed;
b. Loses any other member of his body; The Complex Crime of Robbery in an
c. Loses the use thereof; Inhabited House by Armed Persons and
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the Robbery with Violence Against or
performance of the work in which he is Intimidation of Persons
habitually engaged for more than 90
days; or In the case of Aurora Fransdilla v. People, the
e. Becomes ill or incapacitated for labor information fully alleged the complex crime of
for more than 30 days. robbery in an inhabited house under Art. 299,
RPC, and robbery with intimidation or violence
7. If the violence employed by the offender does under Art. 294, RPC by averring that "the above-
not cause any of the serious physical injuries named accused, conspiring together,
defined in Art. 263, or if the offender employs confederating with and mutually helping one
intimidation only. another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously with intent to gain, and by means
NOTE: The crime defined in this article is a special
of violence and intimidation upon person rob the
complex crime. Art. 48 does not apply.
residence x x x." And, secondly, the Prosecution
competently proved the commission of the
Q: A messaged B threatening to post
complex crime by showing during the trial that
provocative photos of her. B begged the latter
the accused, after entering the residential house
not to release her photos because a lot of
of the complainants at No. 24-B Mabait St.,
people would be affected. In desperation, B
Teacher's Village, Quezon City, took away
told A that she would do anything to get back
valuables, including the vault containing
her photos. A then told her that he would
Cynthia's US dollar currencies, and in the process
delete all the photos in his possession and
committed acts of violence against and
take down her fake Facebook account if she
intimidation of persons during the robbery by
would agree to have sex with him. B did not
slapping and threatening Lalaine and tying her
agree and instead offered to pay P5,000.00 in
up, and herding the other members of the
exchange of the pictures and petitioner
household inside the bodega of the house. (G.R.
agreed.
No. 197562, 20 Apr. 2015)
1. Did the counter-offer constitute as

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
consent?
Robbery with Homicide (2009, 2014 BAR)

A: NO. B’s counter-offer does not make it "with
her consent," as the same was made as a result of
If death results or even accompanies a robbery,
A’s existing and continuing threat of posting the
the crime will be robbery with homicide provided
private photos on Facebook. It is worthy to note
that the robbery and the homicide are
that A did not offer to voluntarily and
consummated. The crime of robbery with
unconditionally return the photos of B but
homicide is a special complex crime or a single
instead asked for something in exchange for him
indivisible crime. The killings must have been
not to post the same on Facebook. In effect, when
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of
A accepted private complainant's counter-offer of
robbery. As long as the homicide resulted, during,
P5,000.00 instead of sex, his demand was merely
or because of the robbery, even if the killing is by
amended or changed from sexual into a monetary
mere accident, robbery with homicide is
one. (Asa v. People, G.R. No. 236290, 20 Jan. 2021)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
committed. (People v. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, caused his death when the robbers pointed
04 Mar. 2004) their guns at him. Was there robbery with
homicide?
NOTE: Even if the killing preceded or was done
ahead of the robbing, whether intentional or not, A: YES. It is immaterial that death supervened as
the crime is robbery with homicide. If aside from a mere accident as long as the homicide was
homicide, rape or physical injuries are also produced by reason or on the occasion of the
committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, because it is only the result which
robbery, the rape or physical injuries are matters, without reference to the circumstances,
considered aggravating circumstances in the or causes, or persons intervening in the
crime of robbery with homicide. Whenever commission of the crime which must be
homicide is committed as a consequence of or on considered. (People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 82375,
the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part 18 Apr. 1990)
as principals in the commission of the crime will
also be guilty as principals in the crime of robbery Q: A, B, C committed robbery in the house of
with homicide. Angelica. Simeon, the houseboy of Angelica
put up a fight. He tried to wrest the gun from
Elements of Robbery with Homicide (I-B-A-H) the hand of A. In the process, the gun fired
hitting A who died as a result. Who is liable for
1. The taking of personal property with the death of A? And what crime is committed?
violence or Intimidation against persons;
2. The property taken Belongs to another; A: B and C are liable for Robbery with Homicide.
3. The taking was done with Animo lucrandi; Simeon is not liable because his act is in
and accordance with law. The crime applies to the
4. On the occasion of the robbery or by reason robbers themselves. The death of their
thereof, Homicide was committed. (People v. companion A was by reason or on the occasion of
Baccay, G.R. No. 120366, 16 Jan. 1998; People robbery.
v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, 20 July 1999)
Q: Suppose the victims were killed, not for the
NOTE: Homicide as used in paragraph (1) of Art. purpose of committing robbery and the idea
294 is to be understood in its generic sense as to of taking the money and other personal
include parricide and murder. property of the victims was conceived by the
culprits only after killing. Is this a case of
Intent to Commit Robbery must Precede the robbery with homicide?
Killing
A: NO. The intention of the perpetrators is really
The offender must have the intent to take to kill the victim and robbery came only as an
personal property before the killing. afterthought. The perpetrators are liable for two
separate crimes of robbery and homicide or
Intent to Kill NOT Necessary murder, (qualified by abuse of superior strength).
(People v. Domingo, supra)
In robbery with homicide, the law does not
require that the homicide be committed with NOTE: There is no crime of robbery in band with
intent to kill. The crime exists even though there murder or robbery with homicide in band or
is no intention to commit homicide. robbery with multiple homicides. If on the
occasion of the robbery with homicide, robbery
Q: On the occasion of the robbery, the with force upon things was also committed, the
storeowner, a septuagenarian, suffered a crime committed would not only be one robbery
stroke due to the extreme fear which directly but also a complex crime of robbery with

homicide and robbery with force upon things. A: NONE. Treachery cannot be considered as
qualifying circumstance of murder, because the
Q: Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, crime charged is the special crime of robbery
Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis and with homicide. The treachery which attended the
Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable commission of the crime must be considered not
to get any money from the vault because the as qualifying but merely as a generic aggravating
same was protected by a time-delay circumstance. (People v. Mantawar, 80 Phil. 817;
mechanism. They contended themselves with People v. Abang, G.R. No. L-14623, 29 Dec. 1960)
the customer’s cellphones and a total of
P5,000 in cash. After they dashed out of the NOTE: When in the course of the robbery
bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled someone is killed but rape and arson are also
the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian committed, the crime is still Robbery with
which resulted in the latter’s death. What Homicide. The rape and arson can be appreciated
crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon, and as aggravating circumstance. (Estrada, 2011)
Jonathan commit? Explain your answer.
(2007 BAR) ROBBERY WITH RAPE
A: Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of Robbery with Rape (1996, 1999, 2003, 2004
robbery, while Jonathan committed the special BAR)
complex crime of robbery with homicide. Jervis
and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery The crime of robbery with rape is a crime against
only because that was the crime conspired upon property which is a single indivisible offense. The
and actually committed by them, assuming that rape accompanies the robbery. In a case where
the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the rape and not homicide is committed, there is only
bank’s customers was effected by intimidation. a crime of robbery with rape if both the robbery
They will not incur liability for the death of the and the rape are consummated.
pedestrian because they have nothing to do with
it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death NOTE: Although the victim was raped twice on
of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery, the occasion of Robbery, the additional rape is
because he alone brought about such death. not considered as an aggravating circumstance in
Although the death caused was not intentional the crime of robbery and rape. There is no law
but accidental, it shall be a component of the providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s
special complex crime of robbery with homicide for that matter to be considered as aggravating
because it was committed in the course of the circumstance. It further observed that the
commission of the robbery. enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Art. 14 of the RPC is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of
No Crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide the same Code, which enumerates the mitigating
(1995, 2007, 2009 BAR) circumstances where analogous circumstances
may be considered. (People v. Regala, G.R. No.
There is no crime of robbery with multiple 130508, 05 Apr. 2000; People v. Sultan, G.R. No.
homicide under the RPC. The crime is robbery 132470, 27 Apr. 2000)
with homicide notwithstanding the number of
homicides committed on the occasion of the Elements of Robbery with Rape (I-B-A-R)
robbery and even if murder, physical injuries, and
rape were also committed on the same occasion. 1. The taking of personal property is committed
(People v. Hijada, G.R. No. 123696, 11 Mar. 2004) with violence or Intimidation against
persons;
Q: Is there such a crime as robbery with 2. The property taken Belongs to another;
murder? 3. The taking is characterized by intent to gain

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
or Animus lucrandi; and about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape

4. The robbery is accompanied by Rape. OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood
outside the door of her bedroom and did
For a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape nothing to prevent XA from raping OD.
to stand, it must be shown that the rape
was committed by reason or on the occasion of What crime or crimes did XA, YB, and ZC
a robbery and not the other way around. This commit, and what is the criminal liability of
special complex crime under Art. 294 of the RPC each? (2004 BAR)
contemplates a situation where the original
intent of the accused was to take, with intent to A: The crime committed by XA, YB, and ZC is the
gain, personal property belonging to another and composite crime of robbery with rape, a single,
rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the RPC.
an accompanying crime. (People v. Gallo, G.R. No.
181902, 31 Aug. 2011) Although the conspiracy among the offenders
was only to commit robbery and only XA raped
Q: In the complex crime of robbery with rape, CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present
is the fact showing that one person charged as and aware of the rape being committed by their
co-conspirator sexually assaulted the victim co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA
relevant? from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby
concurred in the commission of the rape by their
A: NO. Whether the accused-appellant sexually co-conspirator XA.
assaulted the victim is irrelevant. The accused
may still be convicted of the special complex The criminal liability of all, XA, YB, and ZC, shall
crime of robbery with rape when conspiracy be the same, as principals in the special complex
exists. When two or more persons are charged as crime of robbery with rape which is a single,
co-conspirators in the crime of robbery with indivisible offense where the rape accompanying
rape, it is irrelevant whether one or all of them the robbery is just a component.
committed the rape. For as long as conspiracy to
rob is proven, all will be treated as principals in Criminal Intent to Gain Precedes Intent to
the crime of robbery with rape. (People v. Rape
Coritana, G.R. No. 209584, 03 Mar. 2021)
The law does not distinguish whether rape was
Q: In case there is conspiracy, are all committed before, during, or after the robbery. It
conspirators liable for the crime of robbery is enough that the robbery accompanied the rape.
with rape? Robbery must not be a mere accident or
afterthought.
A: YES. In People v. Suyu, it was ruled that once
conspiracy is established between several Illustration: Where 6 accused entered the house
accused in the commission of the crime of of the offended party, brandishing firearms and
robbery, they would all be equally culpable for knives and after ransacking the house for money
the rape committed by anyone of them on the and jewelry, brought the offended party out of the
occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them house to a grassy place where she was ordered to
proves that he endeavored to prevent the others undress and although she was able to run away,
from committing rape. (People v. Gallo, supra) was chased and caught, and thereafter raped by
all of the accused, the latter committed robbery
Q: Together XA, YB, and ZC planned to rob with rape. (People v. Villagracia, G.R. No. 94311, 14
Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking Sept. 1993)
one of the windows in her house. After taking
her personal properties and as they were

Instances when There Could be a Separate timely arrival of the police, such that the
Crime of Robbery and Rape offenders had no choice but to detain the victims
as hostages in exchange for their safe passage, the
If the two (2) crimes were separated both by time detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery
and space, there is no complex crime of Robbery and is not treated as a separate crime.
with Rape. (People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 104285-86,
21 May 1993) ROBBERY WITH ARSON
R.A. No. 7659
Q: Can there be such a crime as robbery with
attempted rape? Commission of Composite Crime
A: NO. The crime cannot be a complex crime of The composite crime would only be committed if
robbery with attempted rape under Art. 48, the primordial intent of the offender is to
because a robbery cannot be a necessary means commit robbery and there is no killing, rape, or
to commit attempted rape; nor attempted rape, to intentional mutilation committed by the offender
commit robbery. (People v. Cariaga, C.A., 54 O.G. during the robbery. Otherwise, the crime would
4307) be robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape,
or robbery with intentional mutilation, in that
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES order and the arson would only be an aggravating
circumstance.
Physical Injuries must be Serious
Robbery must Precede Arson
To be considered as such, the physical injuries
must always be serious. If the physical injuries are It is essential that robbery precede the arson, as
only less serious or slight, they are absorbed in in the case of rape and intentional mutilation,
the robbery. The crime becomes merely robbery. because the amendment included arson among
But if the less serious physical injuries were the rape and intentional mutilation which have
committed after the robbery was already accompanied the robbery.
consummated, there would be a separate charge
for the less serious physical injuries. It will only NOTE: Arson has been made a component only of
be absorbed in the robbery if it was inflicted in robbery with violence against or intimidation of
the course of the execution of the robbery. The persons but not of robbery by the use of force
same is true in the case of slight physical injuries. upon things. Hence, if the robbery was by the use
of force upon things and therewith arson was
Q: Suppose a gang robbed a mansion in Forbes committed, two distinct crimes are committed.
Park. On the occasion of the robbery, physical
injuries were inflicted on the household OTHER CASES OF SIMPLE ROBBERY
members. The robbers also detained the
children to compel their parents to come out Any kind of robbery with less serious physical
with the money. What crime/s is/are injuries or slight physical injuries falls under this
committed by the robbers? specie of robbery.
A: The detention was a necessary means to NOTE: But where there is no violence exerted to
facilitate the robbery. Thus, the offenders will be accomplish the snatching, the crime committed is
held liable for the complex crimes of robbery with not robbery but simple theft.
serious physical injuries and serious illegal
detention. There is sufficient intimidation where the acts of
the offender inspired fear upon the victim
But if the victims were detained because of the although the accused was not armed.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, penalty imposed upon all the malefactors shall be
COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE the maximum of the corresponding penalty
AND BY A BAND, OR WITH THE USE OF provided by law, without prejudice to the
FIREARM ON A STREET, ROAD OR ALLEY criminal liability for illegal possession of such
ART. 295, RPC firearms. This is a special aggravating
circumstance applicable only in a case of robbery
Qualifying Circumstances in band.
If committed: Liability for the Acts of the Other Members of

1. In an uninhabited place; the Band
2. By a band;
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, A member of the band is liable for any of the
motor vehicle, or airship; assaults committed by the other members
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments thereof, when the following requisites concur:
in a train, or in any manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the 1. That he was a member of the band;
respective conveyances; or 2. That he was present at the commission of a
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the robbery by that band;
intimidation is made with the use of 3. That the other members of the band
firearms, the offender shall be punished by committed an assault; and
the maximum periods of the proper 4. That he did not attempt to prevent the
penalties prescribed in Art. 294. assault.
Any of these five qualifying circumstances of In Robbery by a band, all are liable for any assault
robbery with physical injuries or intimidation committed by the band, unless one or some
must be alleged in the information and proved attempted to prevent the assault.
during the trial.
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
Non-Applicability of this Article in Other COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN
Cases CIRCUMSTANCES
ART. 297, RPC
This article does not apply in cases of Robbery
with homicide, robbery with intentional Application of this Article
mutilation, robbery with rape and robbery with
serious physical injuries resulting in insanity, It applies when homicide is committed on the
imbecility, impotency or blindness. This is occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery.
because the Article omitted these crimes in the
enumeration. (Reyes, 2008) The term homicide is used in a generic sense. It
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
ROBBERY COMMITTED BY A BAND
ART. 296, RPC The clause “unless the homicide committed shall
deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of
Robbery Committed by a Band (2010 BAR) this code” may be illustrated thus: In an
attempted or frustrated robbery, the killing of the
Robbery is committed by a band when at least victim is qualified by treachery or relationship.
four (4) armed malefactors take part in the The proper penalty for murder or parricide shall
commission of a robbery. be imposed because it is more severe.
NOTE: If any unlicensed firearm is used, the

EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF c. By using false keys, picklocks, or similar

VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION tools; or
ART. 298 d. By using any fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
Elements (Com-De-V) (2001 BAR) authority.
1. Offender has intent to Defraud another; The whole body of culprit must be inside the
2. Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or building to constitute entering.
deliver any public instrument or document;
and 3. Once inside the building, the offender took
3. Compulsion is by means of Violence or personal property belonging to another
intimidation. with intent to gain.
Force upon Things

Art. 298 applies even if the document signed,
executed, or delivered is a private or commercial
It requires some element of trespass into the
document.
establishment where the robbery was
committed; e.g. the offender must have entered
Robbery by Execution of Deeds vs. Grave
the premises where the robbery was committed.
Coercion
If no entry was effected, even though force may
have been employed in the taking of the property
ROBBERY BY from within the premises, the crime will only be
GRAVE COERCION
EXECUTION OF DEEDS theft.
There is an intent to gain No intent to gain
There is an intent to There is no intent to Public Building
defraud defraud
It refers to every building owned by the
Government or belonging to a private person but
Sec. 2: Robbery by the Use of Force upon Things
used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE Inhabited House
DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
ART. 299, RPC It refers to any shelter, ship or vessel constituting
the dwelling of one or more persons even though
Elements of the 1st Kind of Robbery with Force the inhabitants thereof are temporarily absent
upon Things under Art. 299 therefrom when the robbery is committed.
1. Offender entered an inhabited house, or Dependencies

public building, or edifice devoted to
religious worship; (1992, 2007, 2008 BAR) It consists of all interior courts, corrals,
warehouses, granaries, barns, coach houses,
2. Entrance was effected by any of the following stables, or other departments, or enclosed
means: interior entrance connected therewith and which
form part of the whole. Orchards and other lands
a. Through an opening not intended for used for cultivation or production are not
entrance or egress; included, even if closed, contiguous to the
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or building, and having direct connection therewith.
breaking any door or window; (2000
BAR)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Requisites: ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE

a. It must be contiguous to the building; AND BY A BAND
b. It must have an interior entrance connected ART. 300, RPC
therewith; and
c. It must form part of the whole. The Robbery mentioned in this article, if
committed in an uninhabited place or by a band,
Illustration: A small store located on the ground shall be punished by the maximum period of the
floor of a house is a dependency of the house, penalty provided therefor.
there being no partition between the store and
the house, and in going to the main stairway, one Robbery with force upon things (Art. 299, RPC), in
has to enter the store which has a door. (U.S. v. order to be qualified, must be committed in an
Ventura, G.R. No. 13715, 22 Jan. 1919) uninhabited place and by a band (Art. 300, RPC)
while robbery with violence against or
False Keys intimidation of persons must be committed in an
uninhabited place or by a band. (Art. 295, RPC)
Genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys
other than those intended by the owner for use in
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR
the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
IN A PRIVATE BUILDING
ART. 302, RPC
Elements of the 2nd Kind of Robbery with
Force upon Things under Art. 299
Elements
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a
building or edifice devoted to religious
building which was not a dwelling house, not
worship, regardless of circumstances under
a public building, or not an edifice devoted to
which he entered it; and
religious worship;
2. Offender takes personal property belonging
2. Any of the following circumstances was
to another, with intent to gain, under any of
present:
the following circumstances:
a. Entrance was effected through an
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
opening not intended for entrance or
chests, or any other kind of locked or
egress
sealed furniture or receptacle, or door; or
NOTE: If the entrance was made through the
NOTE: Door refers only to “doors, lids or
door which was open, or closed but unlocked,
opening sheets” of furniture or other
and not through the window, the person who
portable receptacles, not to inside doors of
took personal property from the house with
house or building.
intent to gain is guilty only of theft and not
robbery. Where an opening created by the
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to
accidental bumping of a vehicle in the store’s
be broken or forced open outside the place
wall was made the entrance of the
of the robbery.
malefactor, the taking of the personal
property inside the store is robbery and not
NOTE: The crime committed would be
theft because the hole is not intended for
estafa or theft, if the locked or sealed
entrance or egress.
receptacle is forced open in the building
where it is kept and not taken away to be
b. Wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
broken outside.
window was broken

NOTE: Like Robbery in an inhabited house, Instances of Committing Robbery in a Store

the breaking should be made in order to and Crime Committed
effect the entrance into the place. If the wall,
roof, floor etc. was broken in the course of 1. If the store is used as a dwelling of one or
escaping, the act committed is not Robbery. more persons, the robbery committed
therein would be considered as committed in
c. Entrance was effected through the use of an inhabited house under Art. 299. (People v.
false keys, picklocks, or other similar Suarez, G.R. No. L-6431, 29 Mar. 1954)
tools;
2. If the store was not actually occupied at the
d. Door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or time of the robbery and was not used as a
closed furniture or receptacle was dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate
broken; house, the robbery committed therein is
punished under Art. 302. (People v. Silvestre,
e. Closed or sealed receptacle was 34 O.G. 1535)
removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere; 3. If the store is located on the ground floor of
the house belonging to the owner, having an
NOTE: Under letters d and e, the robber did interior entrance connected therewith, it is a
not enter through a window or effected dependency of an inhabited house and the
entrance by breaking the floor, door, wall, robbery committed therein is punished
etc. Otherwise, these circumstances by under the last paragraph of Art. 299. (U.S. v.
themselves already make the act as that of Tapan, G.R. No. 6504, 11 Sept. 1911)
robbery. In these cases, the robbers entered
through the door, and once inside, broke the ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS, OR
wardrobe, sealed or close receptacles etc., or FIREWOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
took away closed or sealed receptacle to be OR PRIVATE BUILDING
broken elsewhere. ART. 303, RPC
3. With intent to gain, the offender took Applicability

therefrom personal property belonging to
another. This applies when the robbery was committed by
the use of force upon things, without violence
Breaking of a padlock is use of force upon things. against or intimidation of any person in an
The crime committed by the accused who inhabited house, public building, or edifice
entered in a warehouse by breaking the padlock devoted to religious worship (Art. 299) or in an
of the door and took away personal property is uninhabited place or private building. (Art. 302)
robbery. (People v. Mesias, G.R. No. L-45749 29 Jan.
1938) The place where the robbery is committed under
Art. 302 must be a building which is not an
Building inhabited house or public building or edifice to
religious worship.
Includes any kind of structure used for storage or
safekeeping of personal property, such as (a)
freight car and (b) warehouse. (U.S. v. Magsino,
G.R. No. 1339, 28 Nov. 1903; U.S. v. Roque, et al., 4
Phil 242)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS Essence of Brigandage

OR SIMILAR TOOLS
ART. 304, RPC Brigandage is a crime of depredation wherein the
unlawful acts are directed not only against
Elements (Pick-La-Ro) (2009 BAR) specific, intended or preconceived victims, but
against any and all prospective victims anywhere
1. Offender has in his possession Picklocks or on the highway and whoever they may
similar tools; potentially be.
2. Such picklocks or similar tools are specially
adopted to the commission of Robbery; and Robbery by Band vs. Brigandage
3. Offender does not have Lawful cause for such
possession. ROBBERY BY BAND BRIGANDAGE
Purpose
FALSE KEYS Purpose is to commit
ART. 305, RPC robbery in highway;
Purpose is to commit
or to kidnap a person
robbery not
False Keys (S-O-Pick) for ransom or any
necessarily in
other purpose
highways.
1. Picklocks or similar tools; attained by force and
2. Genuine keys Stolen from the owner; violence.
3. Any key other than those intended by the Commission of the Crime
owner for use in the lock forcibly Opened by Actual commission of Mere formation is
the offender. robbery is necessary. punished.
Preconceived Victim
Possession of false keys in pars. 2 and 3 above are It may be committed
not punishable. If the key was entrusted to the There is always a
even without a
offender and he used it to steal, the crime preconceived victim.
preconceived victim.
committed is not robbery but theft.
The main object of the Brigandage Law is to
CHAPTER 2: BRIGANDAGE prevent the formation of bands of robbers. The
heart of the offense consists in the formation of a
BRIGANDAGE band by more than three armed persons for the
ART. 306, RPC purpose indicated in Art. 306. Such formation is
sufficient to constitute a violation of Art. 306.
Brigandage (HRV-4-Band)
On the other hand, if robbery is committed by a
band, whose members were not primarily
There is brigandage when the following
organized for the purpose of committing robbery
requisites are present:
or kidnapping, etc., the crime would not be
brigandage but only robbery. (People v. Puno, G.R.
1. There be at least 4 armed malefactors;
No. 97471, 17 Feb. 1993)
2. They formed a Band of robbers; and
3. The purpose is any of the following:
Highway Robbery under P.D. 532
a. To commit robbery in the Highway;

Highway robbery or brigandage is the seizure for
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of
ransom, extortion, or other unlawful purposes or
extortion or to obtain Ransom; and
the taking away of property of another by means
c. To attain by means of force and
of violence against or other unlawful means,
Violence any other purpose.
committed by any person on any Philippine

Highway. Indiscriminately
Committed against
committed against
predetermined victims
Any person who aids or protects highway persons
robbers or abets the commission of highway The offender is a The commission of
robbery or brigandage shall be considered as an brigand who roams in robbery is only
accomplice. public highways and incidental and the
carries out his robbery offender is not a
Philippine Highway in public highways brigand
Any road, street, passage, highway, and bridges

AIDING AND ABETTING
or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad
A BAND OF BRIGANDS
within the Philippines used by persons, or
ART. 307, RPC
vehicles, or locomotives, or trains for the
movement or circulation of persons or
Elements (Ari-B-K)
transportation of goods, articles, or property, or
both.
1. There is a band of Brigands;
2. Offender Knows the band to be of brigands;
Gravamen of Highway Robbery/Brigandage
and
under P.D. No. 532
3. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner Aids, abets or protects
The Supreme Court pointed out that the purpose
such band of brigands;
of brigandage is, inter alia, indiscriminate
b. He gives them information of the
highway robbery. P.D. 532 punishes as highway
movements of the police or other peace
robbery or brigandage only those acts of robbery
officers of the government; or
perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against
c. He acquires or receives the property
any person or persons on a Philippine highway as
taken by such brigands.
defined therein, not acts committed against a
predetermined or particular victim. (People v.
NOTE: There is presumption of law as to
Puno, G.R. No. 97471, 17 Feb. 1993)
knowledge, unless the contrary is proven. (Art.
307(2))
NOTE: In U.S. v. Feliciano (3 Phil. 422), it was
pointed out that highway robbery or brigandage
Penalty
is more than ordinary robbery committed on a
highway. The purpose of brigandage is
Prision correccional in its medium period to
indiscriminate robbery in highways. If the
prision mayor in its minimum period.
purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is
only robbery or robbery in band, if there are at
least four armed participants. CHAPTER 3: THEFT
Highway Robbery vs. Brigandage THEFT

ART. 308, RPC
HIGHWAY ROBBERY BRIGANDAGE
P.D. 532 Art. 306, RPC Theft
Crime must be Mere formation of

Theft is committed by any person who, with
committed band is punishable
intent to gain but without violence against or
One malefactor will At least 4 armed intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
suffice malefactors shall take personal property of another without
the latter’s consent.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Elements (I-B-P-Without-C-V) same to the owner or to the authorities since

the term “lost” is generic in nature and
1. There is taking of Personal property; embraces loss by stealing or by any act of a
2. Property taken Belongs to another; person other than the owner as well as by the
3. Taking was done with Intent to gain; act of the owner himself through same casual
4. Taking was done Without the Consent of the occurrence. (People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. L-
owner; and 18507, 31 Mar. 1966)
5. Taking is accomplished without the use of
Violence against or intimidation of persons Finder in Fact
of force upon things. (Baltazar v. People, G.R.
No. 164545, 20 Nov. 2006) A person who finds a lost item. The case of the
finder of a lost property affirms the fact that the
Illustration: While praying in church, A felt and offender obtains only physical possession of the
saw his wallet being taken by B, but because of thing. The finder in fact has an obligation to
the solemnity of the proceedings, he did not make deliver the property to the owner if known,
any move; while the taking was with his otherwise, surrender the property to the
knowledge, it was without his consent, and Theft authorities.
is committed.
Finder in Law
“Taking”
An officer of the law whom a lost item is
The act of depriving another of the possession surrendered or turned over.
and dominion of movable property. The taking
must be accompanied by the intention, at the time 3. Those who after having maliciously damaged
of the taking, of withholding the thing with some the property of another, remove or make use
character of permanency. of the fruits or object of the damage caused
by them; or
In the case of Pit-og v. People (G.R. No. 76539, 11
Oct. 1990), the Court acquitted the petitioner who 4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field
took the sugarcane and bananas believing them where trespass is forbidden or which belongs
to be her own, due to the absence of criminal to another and, without the consent of its
intent to gain. owner, hunt or fish upon the same or gather
fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
Persons Liable (1995, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2009 products.
BAR)
Q: While driving on the way to his apartment,
1. Those who, with intent to gain, but without Dawson placed a bundle of money on his lap.
violence against or intimidation of persons Upon alighting from the car, the bundled
nor force upon things, take personal money fell on the road near his vehicle. A
property of another without the latter’s minor noticed the bundled money and picked
consent; it up before going home. Pante and two other
minors shared the lost money and divided the
2. Those who having found lost property, fail to same among themselves. They were all
deliver the same to the local authorities or to charged with the crime of Theft. Pante denied
its owner; (1998, 2001 BAR) liability on the ground that he is not a finder
in law since the one who found the lost money
NOTE: Lost property includes stolen was his co-accused minor. Is his contention
property so that the accused who found a tenable?
stolen horse is liable if he fails to deliver the

A: NO. A finder under Art. 308 of the RPC is not A: NO. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the
only limited to the actual finder since the gist of personal property subject thereof belongs to
the offense is the furtive taking and another and not to the offender. It is irrelevant
misappropriation of the property found. Though whether the person deprived of the possession of
not the actual finder, there is no dispute that the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft
Pante knew for a fact that his two co-accused is committed by one who, with intent to gain,
minors did not own the subject money. Instead of appropriates property of another without the
returning the money, Pante convinced his co- consent of its owner. Furthermore, the crime is
accused minors not to return and to divide it committed even when the offender receives
among themselves. At that moment, Pante placed property of another but acquires only physical
himself precisely in the situation as if he was the possession to hold the same. P is a finder in law
actual finder. (Fernando Pante v. People, G.R. No. liable for theft not estafa.
218969, 18 Jan. 2021)
Test to Determine whether an Object can be
Ownership in Theft, Immaterial the Subject of Theft
Ownership is immaterial in theft. The subject of The test of what is the proper subject of larceny
the crime of theft is any personal property seems to be not whether the subject is corporeal
belonging to another. Hence, as long as the but whether it is capable of appropriation by
property taken does not belong to the accused another.
who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial
whether said offender stole it from the owner, a NOTE: In the old ruling, when a person stole a
mere possessor, or even a thief of the property. check but was not able to use the same because
(Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 176298, 25 Jan. 2012) the check bounced, he shall be guilty of the crime
of theft according to the value of the parchment.
Illustration: Where the finder of the lost or In the new ruling, however and following the
mislaid property entrusts it to another for same circumstances, he shall be guilty of an
delivery to a designated owner, the person to impossible crime. (Jacinto v. People, G.R. No.
whom it is thus confided, assumes by voluntary 162540, 13 July 2009)
substitution, as to both the property and the
owner, the same relation as was occupied by the Complete Unlawful Taking
finder. If he misappropriates it, he is guilty of
Theft as if he were the actual finder of the same. Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the
(People v. Avila, G.R. No. 19786, 31 Mar. 1923) moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of
Q: Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, the same.
and since it did not belong to him, he
approached policeman P and delivered the Immateriality of Carrying Away of the Thing
watch with instruction to return the same to Taken
whoever may be found to be the owner. P
failed to return the watch to the owner and, In theft, it is not required for the thief to be able
instead, sold it and appropriated for himself to carry away the thing taken from the owner.
the proceeds of the sale. The consummation of this crime takes place upon
the voluntary and malicious taking of the
Charged with theft, P reasoned out that he property which is realized upon the material
cannot be found guilty because it was not he occupation of the taking, that is, when he had full
who found the watch. Moreover, the watch possession thereof even if he did not have the
turned out to be stolen property. Is P's opportunity to dispose of the same.
defense valid? (1998 BAR)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Proof that the accused is in possession of a Q: Bea and Julia were inside a jeepney with
recently stolen property gives rise to a valid two male persons later identified as Gerald
presumption that he stole the property. and Dominic. When the jeepney stopped at a
red light, Gerald snatched the necklace of Bea
No Crime of Frustrated Theft then he and Dominic disembarked from the
jeepney and ran away. Gerald was
Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s apprehended and with the information that
personal property, is the element which produces he gave regarding Dominic’s identity, the
the felony in its consummated stage. At the same police were also able to arrest Dominic.
time, without unlawful taking as an act of Gerald and Dominic were both charged with
execution, the offense could only be attempted robbery. In snatching the necklace robbery or
theft, if at all. With these considerations, under theft?
Art. 308 of the RPC, theft cannot have a frustrated
stage. Theft can only be attempted or A: The crime committed by Edwin is only
consummated. (Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. theft, instead of robbery. The elements of
160188, 21 June 2007) robbery are: (1) there is a taking of personal
property; (2) the personal property belongs to
NOTE: The ability of the offender to freely another; (3) the taking is with animus lucrandi;
dispose of the property stolen is not a and (4) the taking is with violence against or
constitutive element of the crime of theft. Such intimidation of persons or with force upon things.
factor runs immaterial to the statutory definition Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any
of theft, which is the taking, with intent to gain, of person who, with intent to gain but without
personal property of another without the latter’s violence against or intimidation of persons nor
consent. force upon things, shall take the personal
property of another without the latter's consent.
Theft vs. Estafa
Thus, the distinguishing element between the
crimes of robbery and theft is the use of violence
THEFT ESTAFA
or intimidation as a means of taking the property
Where both the material belonging to another; the element is present in
If only the physical and juridical possession the crime of robbery and absent in the crime of
or material are transferred, theft. The testimonies of the witnesses reveal that
possession of the misappropriation of the the snatching of the necklace was without
thing is transferred property would violence against or intimidation of persons or
constitute estafa with force upon things. The Court clarified that
for the requisite of violence to obtain in cases of
Theft vs. Robbery simple robbery, the victim must have sustained
less serious physical injuries or slight physical
THEFT ROBBERY injuries in the occasion of the robbery. The Court
added that the fact that the necklace was
The offender does not
The offender uses "grabbed" did not automatically mean that force
use violence or
violence or attended the taking.
intimidation or does
intimidation or enters
not enter a house or
a house or building The Court explained that the use of the word
building through any
through any of the "grabbed", by itself, shows that violence or
of the means specified
means specified in physical force was employed by the offenders in
in Arts. 299 and 302,
Arts. 299 and 302, RPC taking Snyders' necklaces. The Court, however,
RPC
finds the argument to be a pure play of semantics.
Grab means to take or seize by or as if by a sudden

motion or grasp; to take hastily. Clearly, the same Union Plant to truckers who would buy
does not suggest the presence of violence or cement for profit.
physical force in the act; the connotation is on the
suddenness of the act of taking or seizing which In these transactions, he instructed the
cannot be readily equated with the employment customers that the payments be made in the
of violence or physical force. Here, it was form of “Pay to Cash” checks, for which he did
probably the suddenness of taking that shocked not issue any receipts. He did not remit the
Snyder and not the presence of violence or checks but these were either encashed or
physical force since, as pointed out by petitioner, deposited to his personal bank account. What
Snyder did not at all allege that She was pushed is the crime committed?
or otherwise harmed by the persons who took
her necklaces. (Edwin del Rosario v. People, G.R. A: Qualified theft through grave abuse of
No. 235739, 22 July 2019, J. Caguioa) confidence. His position entailed a high degree
of confidence, having access to funds collected
QUALIFIED THEFT from UCC clients. As Branch Manager of UCC who
ART. 310, RPC was authorized to receive payments from UCC
customers, he gravely abused the trust and
Qualified Theft (S-G-V-Co-Fi-Fi) (2007, 2010 confidence reposed upon him by the
BAR) management of UCC. Precisely, by using that
trust and confidence, Mirto was able to
1. If theft is committed by a domestic Servant; perpetrate the theft of UCC funds to the grave
2. If the theft is committed with Grave abuse of prejudice of the latter. (People v. Mirto, G.R. No.
confidence; 193479, 19 Oct. 2011)
NOTE: If the offense is to be qualified by Q: Mrs. S was a bank teller. In need of money,
abuse of confidence, the abuse must be grave, she took P5,000.00 from her money drawer
like an accused who was offered food and and made it appear that a certain depositor
allowed to sleep in the house of the made a withdrawal from his account when in
complainant out of the latter’s pity and fact no such withdrawal was made. What
charity, but stole the latter’s money in his crime was committed by Mrs. S?
house when he left the place.
A: Qualified theft. Mrs. S was only in material
3. If the property stolen is a motor Vehicle, mail possession of the deposits as she received the
matter or large cattle; (2002 BAR) same in behalf of the bank. Juridical possession
4. If the property stolen consist of Coconuts remains with the bank. Juridical possession
taken from the premises of a plantation; means possession which gives the transferee a
5. If the property stolen is Fish taken from a right over the thing which the transferee may set
fishpond or fishery; or up even against the owner. If a bank teller
6. If property is taken on the occasion of Fire, appropriates the money for personal gain then
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or the felony committed is theft. Further, since Mrs.
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil S occupies a position of confidence, and the bank
disturbance. (2006 BAR) places money in her possession due to the
confidence reposed on her, the felony of qualified
Q: Mirto is a Branch Manager of UCC. It was theft was committed. (Roque v. People G.R. No.
alleged that he used the credit line of 138954, 25 Nov. 2004)
accredited dealers in favor of persons who
either had no credit lines or had exhausted Q: Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop
their credit lines. He diverted cement bags and decided to take one of the smaller purses
from the company’s Norzagaray Plant or La without paying for it. Overcame by

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
conscience, she decided to leave her own conclusion than that Mejares, taking advantage of
purse in place of the one she took. Her act was her being a domestic helper of private
discovered and Clepto was charged with theft. complainant for approximately a year, committed
She claimed that there was no theft, as the the crime of qualified theft.
store suffered no injury or prejudice because
she had left a purse in place of the one she Thus, the Court has been consistent in holding
took. Comment on her defense. (2014 BAR) that "intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an
internal act that is presumed from the unlawful
A: The defense of Clepto has no merit. Theft is taking by the offender of the thing subject of
already consummated from the moment Clepto asportation. Thus, actual gain is irrelevant as the
took possession of one of the smaller purses important consideration is the intent to gain." In
inside a high-end shop, without paying for it. She this case, it is clear from the established facts that
took the personal property of another, with it was Mejares who opened the drawer in the
intent to gain, without the consent of the latter. masters' bedroom and took away the cash and
Damage or injury to the owner is not an element valuables it contained. (People v. Mejares, G.R. No.
of theft, hence, even if she left her purse in lieu of 2255735, 10 Jan. 2018)
the purse she took, theft is still committed.
THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL
Q: On May 22, 2012, according to Raquel LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
Torres, one of the household helper of victims ART. 311, RPC
Spouses Gavino, Belen Mejares received a call.
She hurried to the computer room and Theft of property of National Library and
answered the call away from Torres. When National Museum has a fixed penalty regardless
Mejares returned, she was “pale, perspiring, of its value, but if the crime is committed with
and panicky.” When Torres asked about the grave abuse of confidence, the penalty for
identity of the caller, Mejares did not answer. qualified theft shall be imposed.
She told her instead that Gavino met an
accident and instructed her to get something
CHAPTER 4: USURPATION
from a drawer in the master’s bedroom.
Since it was locked, Mejares was supposedly OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR

told to destroy it. When Mejares emerged USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
from the bedroom, she was holding a plastic ART. 312, RPC
hamper that contained black wallet and
envelopes and was talking to someone on her Punishable Acts
phone.
1. Taking possession of any real property
Later on, Mejares told Torres that she was belonging to another by means of violence
instructed by Gavino to also take a watch and against or intimidation of persons; and
jewelry since the cash was not enough to pay
the driver in the accident who was 2. Usurping any real rights in property
threatening to sue. Mejares placed everything belonging to another by means of violence
in a green bag and tried to leave the against or intimidation of persons. (Reyes,
condominium. Is Valencia liable of the crime 2021)
of qualified theft?
A: YES. Normal human experience, as well as the

consistency in and confluence of the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses, lead to no other

Elements of Occupation of Real Property or possession of any real property or shall usurp any
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property real rights in property belonging to another, is
criminally liable under Art. 312 of the RPC or
1. Offender takes possession of any real Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real
property or usurps any real rights in Rights in Property. In addition, they may also be
property; charged with other crimes resulting from their
2. Real property or real rights belongs to acts of violence.
another;
3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is No Separate Charge of Homicide
used by the offender in occupying real
property or usurping real rights in property; If in the act of occupying a real property,
(1996 BAR) and somebody was killed, there can be no separate
4. There is intent to gain. charge of homicide. If homicide was used in order
to occupy the property, then homicide is
If the accused is the owner of the property which absorbed. If a person was killed after the offender
he usurped from the possessor, he cannot be held has already occupied the property, he is liable for
liable for usurpation. Considering that this is a a separate charge of homicide.
crime against property, there must be intent to
gain. In the absence of the intent to gain, the act Acts Punished by R.A. No. 947
may constitute coercion.
Entering or occupying public agricultural land
Q: A group of homeless and destitute persons including public lands granted to private
invaded and occupied the houses built by the individuals.
National Housing Authority (NHA) for certain
military personnel. To gain entry to the Squatters
houses, the group intimidated the security
guards posted at the entrance gate with the 1. Those who have the capacity or means to pay
firearms they were carrying and destroyed rent or for legitimate housing but are
the padlocks of the doors of the houses with squatting anyway.
the use of crowbars and hammers. They 2. Also the persons who were awarded lots but
claimed that they would occupy the houses sold or lease them out.
and live therein because the houses were idle 3. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized
and they were entitled to free housing from housing, pre-empting possession by
the government. occupying the same. (Urban Development and
Housing Act, R.A. No. 7279)
For the reason that the houses were already
awarded to military personnel who have been NOTE: R.A. No. 7279 (Urban Development and
found to have fully complied with the Housing Act does not define the word “squatter.”
requirements for the award thereof, NHA What the law defines is “professional squatter.”)
demanded the group to vacate within ten (10)
days from notice the houses they occupied There is only civil liability if there is no violence
and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of or intimidation in taking possession of real
the deadline, the group refused to vacate the property.
houses in question. What is the criminal
liability of the members of the group, if any, Thus, if the accused took possession of the land of
for their actions? (2018 BAR) the offended party through other means, such as
strategy or stealth, during the absence of the
A: The members of the group who, by means of owner or of the person in charge of the property,
violence against or intimidation, shall take there is only civil liability. (People v. Dimacutak, et

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
al., 51 O.G. 1389) Qualifying Circumstances
ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS 1. Person who shall abscond with his property
ART. 313, RPC to the prejudice of his creditors shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor if he be a
Elements of Altering Boundaries or merchant.
Landmarks
2. Penalty of prision correccional in its
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of maximum period to prision mayor in its
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other medium period if he be not a merchant.
marks intended to designate the boundaries (Reyes, 2021)
of the same; and
CHAPTER 6: SWINDLING AND
2. Offender alters said boundary marks.
OTHER DECEITS
Intent to gain is not necessary. The mere act of
alteration or destruction of the boundary marks SWINDLING (ESTAFA)
is sufficient. ART. 315, RPC
CHAPTER 5: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY Elements of Estafa in General
1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of

FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY
confidence or by means of deceit – This
ART. 314, RPC
covers the three different ways of
committing estafa under Art. 315, thus:
Elements of Fraudulent Insolvency (D-A-P)
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of
1. Offender is a Debtor, that is, he has
confidence;
obligations due and payable;
b. By means of false pretenses or
2. He Absconds with his property; and
fraudulent acts; or
3. There be Prejudice to his creditors.
c. Through fraudulent means
The fraud must result in the actual prejudice of

2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
his creditors. If the accused concealed his
estimation is caused to the offended party or
property fraudulently but it turned out that he
third person.
has some other property with which to satisfy his
obligation, he is not liable under this article.
a. The failure of the entrustee to turn over
the proceeds of the sale of the goods,
Essence of the Crime
documents, or instruments covered by a
trust receipt, to the extent of the amount
Any property of the debtor is made to disappear
owing to the entruster, or as appearing
for the purpose of evading the fulfillment of the
in the trust receipt; or
obligations and liabilities contracted with one or
more creditors to the prejudice of the latter
b. The failure to return said goods,
Being a merchant qualifies the crime as the
documents, or instruments if they were
penalty is increased.
not sold or disposed of in accordance
with the terms of the trust receipt.

Elements of Estafa with Unfaithfulness or d. There is a demand made by the offended

Abuse of Confidence under Art. 315 (1) party to the offender.
1. Under par. (a): NOTE: The fourth element is not necessary

when there is evidence of misappropriation
a. Offender has an onerous obligation to of the goods by the defendant.
deliver something of value;
b. He alters its substance, quantity, or Illustration: The accused received in trust
quality; and the money from the complainants for the
c. Damage or prejudice is caused to particular purpose of investing the same with
another. the Philtrust Investment Corp. with the
obligation to make delivery thereof upon
Illustration: Where the accused is bound by demand but failed to return the same despite
virtue of a contract of sale, payment having demands. It was admitted that she used the
been received to deliver first class of rice (e.g. money for her business. Accused is guilty of
milagrosa) but delivered an inferior kind, or estafa through misappropriation. (Fontanilla
that he bound himself to deliver 1000 sacks v. People, G.R. No. 120949, 05 July 1996)
but delivered less than 1000 because the (2015 BAR)
other sacks were filled with different
materials, he is guilty of estafa with A money market transaction, however,
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence by partakes the nature of a loan, and non-
altering the quantity or quality of anything of payment thereof would not give rise to
value by virtue of an obligation to do so. criminal liability for estafa through
misappropriation or conversion. In money
2. Under par. (b): market placements, the unpaid investor
should institute against the middleman or
a. Money, goods, or other personal dealer, before the ordinary courts, a simple
property is received by the offender in action for recovery of the amount he had
trust, or on commission, or for invested, and if there is allegation of fraud,
administration, or under any other the proper forum would be the SEC.
obligation involving the duty to make (Sesbreno v. CA, G.R. No. 84096, 26 Jan. 1995)
delivery of, or to return, the same;
Q: AA and BB were initially engaged in the
NOTE: The obligation to return or business of buying-and-selling of appliances.
deliver the thing must be contractual Because AA had become a regular customer,
without transferring to the accused the she and BB had an agreement that her store
ownership of the thing received. would be used to establish Appliance Shop
Otherwise, his failure to return it will XYZ-Katipunan and that AA would be its
give rise to civil liability only. (Reyes, branch manager. When BB visited Appliance
2021) Shop XYZ-Katipunan branch, he did not find
any cash there. He grew suspicious, so he
b. There is misappropriation or conversion asked the auditor to conduct a preliminary
of such money or property by the audit. The preliminary audit revealed a
offender, or denial on his part of such shortage of around P65,000.00 per month of
receipt; operation. Is BB liable for Estafa?
c. Such misappropriation or conversion or A: NO. The elements of estafa through conversion

denial is to the prejudice of another; and or misappropriation, punished under Art. 315
(1)(b) of the RPC are: (1) that personal property

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
is received in trust, on commission, for A: NO. The essence of estafa under Art. 315(1)(b)
administration or under any other circumstance of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of
involving the duty to make delivery of or to money or property received, to the prejudice of
return the same, even though the obligation is the owner thereof. It takes place when a person
guaranteed by a bond; (2) that there is actually appropriates the property of another for
conversion or diversion of such property by the his own benefit, use, and enjoyment. The failure
person who has so received it or a denial on his to account, upon demand, for funds or property
part that he received it; (3) that such conversion, held in trust is a mere circumstantial evidence of
diversion or denial is to the injury of another; and misappropriation.
(4) that there be demand for the return of the
property. In other words, the demand for the return of the
thing delivered in trust and the failure of the
Anent the first element, when "the money, goods, accused to account for it are circumstantial
or any other personal property is received by the evidence of misappropriation.
offender from the offended party (1) in trust or
(2) on commission or (3) for administration, the However, this presumption is rebuttable. If the
offender acquires both material or physical accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure
possession and juridical possession of the thing to produce the thing delivered in trust, he may
received." not be held liable for estafa. In the case at bar,
however, since the medical representative failed
The Court, however, finds that BB only had to explain his inability to produce the thing
material possession, and not juridical possession, delivered to him in trust, the rule that “the failure
of the goods delivered to her for sale in Appliance to account, upon demand, for funds or property
Shop XYZ-Katipunan. held in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation” applies without doubt.
Juridical possession means a possession which (Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 132422, 30
gives the transferee a right over the thing which Mar. 2004)
the transferee may set up even against the owner.
(Zenaida Layson Vda. De Manjares v. People, G.R. Q: D’Aigle posits that Art. 315(1)(b) of the RPC
No. 207249, 14 May 2021, J. Caguioa) requires that the person charged was given
juridical possession of the thing
3. Under par. (c): misappropriated.
a. The paper with the signature of the Here, he did not acquire juridical possession
offended party is in blank; of the things allegedly misappropriated
b. Offended party delivered it to the because his relation to SPIs properties was
offender; only by virtue of his official functions as a
c. Above the signature of the offended corporate officer. It is actually SPI, on whose
party, a document is written by the behalf he has acted, that has the juridical
offender without authority to do so; and possession of the said properties. Is the
d. The document so written creates a D’Aigle correct?
liability of, or causes damage to, the
offended party or any third person. A: NO. Misappropriation or conversion may be
proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or
Q: Is the accused’s mere failure to turn over by circumstantial evidence. The failure to account
the thing delivered to him in trust despite upon demand, for funds or property held in trust,
demand and the duty to do so, constitutes is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
estafa under Art. 315(1)(b)?

As mentioned, D’Aigle failed to account for, upon credit, agency, business or imaginary
demand, the properties of SPI which were transactions; or
received by him in trust. This already constitutes c. By means of other similar deceits.
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or
conversion of said properties to petitioners own 2. Under par. (b) – Altering the quality,
personal use. (Andre D’Aigle v. People G.R. No. fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to
174181, 27 June 2012) his art or business.
Q: Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a 3. Under par. (c) – Pretending to have bribed
dealer of jewelry. Rosa agreed to sell a any government employee, without
diamond ring and a bracelet to Victoria on a prejudice to the action for calumny which the
commission basis, on the condition that, if the offended party may deem proper to bring
items cannot be sold, they may be returned to against the offender. (2014 BAR)
Victoria forthwith.
4. Under par. (d) – postdating a check or
Unable to sell the ring and the bracelet, Rosa issuing a check in payment of an obligation.
delivered both items to Aurelia with the (2014 BAR)
understanding that Aurelia should, in turn,
return the items to Victoria. Aurelia dutifully 5. Under par. (e) –
returned the bracelet to Victoria but sold the a. By obtaining any food, refreshment or
ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to accommodation at a hotel, inn,
herself, and issued a check to Victoria which restaurant, boarding house, lodging
bounced. house or apartment house without
paying thereof, with intent to defraud
Victoria sued Rosa for estafa under Art. 315 of the proprietor or the manager thereof;
the RPC, insisting that delivery to a third
person of the thing held in trust is not a b. By obtaining credit at any of said
defense in estafa. Is Rosa criminally liable for establishments using any false
estafa under the circumstances? (1999 BAR) pretense; or
A: NO. Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for c. By abandoning or surreptitiously

estafa. Although she received the jewelry from removing any part of his baggage from
Victoria under an obligation to return the same or any of said establishments after
deliver the proceeds thereof, she did not obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
misappropriate it. In fact, she gave them to accommodation therein, without
Aurelia specifically to be returned to Victoria. The paying thereof.
misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and
absent the showing of any conspiracy between Elements of Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d)
Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
criminally liable for Aurelia's acts. 1. The postdating or issuance of a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at the
Elements of Estafa by means of False time the check was issued;
Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts under Art. 315 2. Lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the
(2) check; and
3. Damage to the payee. (People v. Montaner,
1. Under par. (a) – G.R. No. 184053, 31 Aug. 2011)
a. Using fictitious name;
b. Falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Application of Art. 315 (2)(d) defense?
Art. 315 (2) (d) applies when: A: NO. In the case of People v. Isleta, et.al. and
1. Check is drawn to enter into an obligation reiterated in the case of Zalgado v. CA, it was held
2. Obligation is not pre-existing that the appellant, who only negotiated directly
and personally the check drawn by another, is
NOTE: The check must be genuine. If the check is guilty of estafa because he had “guilty knowledge
falsified and is encashed with the bank or that at the time he negotiated the check, the
exchanged for cash, the crime is estafa thru drawer has no sufficient funds.” (Garcia v. People,
falsification of a commercial document. G.R. No. 144785, 11 Sept. 2003)
Illustration: The accused must be able to obtain Elements of Estafa through Fraudulent Means
something from the offended party by means of under Art. 315 (3)
the check he issued and delivered. Thus, if A
issued a check in favor of B for a debt he has 1. Under par.(a) –
incurred a month or so ago, the dishonor of the a. Offender induced the offended party to
check for insufficiency of funds in the bank does sign a document;
not constitute Estafa. b. Deceit was employed to make him sign
the document;
But if A told B to deliver to him P10,000 and he c. Offended party personally signed the
would issue in favor of B a check in the sum of document; and
P11,000 as it was a Sunday and A needed the cash d. Prejudice was caused.
urgently, and B gave his P10,000 having in mind
the profit of P1,000 when he encashed the check Illustration: A induced an illiterate owner
on Monday and the check bounced when who was desirous of mortgaging his property
deposited, A can be held liable for Estafa. In such for a certain amount, to sign a document
case, it was clear that B would have not parted which he believed was only a power of
with his P10,000 were it not for the issuance of attorney but in truth it was a deed of sale. A
A’s check. is guilty of Estafa under par. 3(a) and the
damage could consist at least in the
Good Faith as a Defense disturbance in property rights. (U.S. v.
Malong, GR. No. L-12597, 30 Aug. 1917)
The payee’s knowledge that the drawer has no
sufficient funds to cover the postdated checks at 2. Under par. (b) – Resorting to some
the time of their issuance negates estafa. fraudulent practice to insure success in a
gambling game;
Effect of Failure to Comply with a Demand to
Settle the Obligation 3. Under par. (c) –
a. Offender removed, concealed, or
The effect of failure to comply with a demand to destroyed;
settle the obligation will give rise to a prima b. Any court record, office files,
facie evidence of deceit, which is an element of documents or any other papers; and
the crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or c. With intent to defraud another.
fraudulent act as stated in the second sentence of
paragraph 2(d), Art. 315 of the RPC. (People v. Illustration: When a lawyer, pretending to
Montaner, supra) verify a certain pleading in a case pending
before a court, borrows the folder of the case
Q: Can the fact that the accused was not the and removes or destroys a document which
actual maker of the check be put up as a

constitutes evidence in the said case, said Novation Theory

lawyer is guilty of estafa under par. 3(c).
It contemplates a situation wherein the victim’s
Q: What does fraud and deceit in the crime of acceptance of payment converts the offender’s
estafa mean? criminal liability to a civil obligation. It applies
only if there is a contractual relationship between
A: In Alcantara v. CA, the Court, citing People v. the accused and the complainant.
Balasa, explained the meaning of fraud and
deceit, viz.: Payment of an Obligation Before the
Institution of the Complaint
Fraud in its general sense is deemed to comprise
anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, Payment of an obligation before the institution of
omissions, and concealment involving a breach of the complaint does not relieve the offender from
legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly liability. Mere payment of an obligation before
reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by the institution of a criminal complaint does not,
which an undue and unconscientious advantage on its own, constitute novation that may prevent
is taken of another. criminal liability.
It is a generic term embracing all multifarious The criminal liability for estafa already
means which human ingenuity can device, and committed is not affected by the subsequent
which are resorted to by one individual to secure novation of contract, for it is a public offense
an advantage over another by false suggestions which must be prosecuted and punished by the
or by suppression of truth and includes all State. (Milla v. People, G.R. No. 188726, 25 Jan.
surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any 2012)
unfair way by which another is cheated.
Effect of Novation or Compromise to the
Deceit is the false representation of a matter of Criminal Liability of a Person Accused of
fact whether by words or conduct, by false or Estafa
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed which deceives Novation or compromise does not affect the
or is intended to deceive another so that he shall criminal liability of the offender. So, partial
act upon it to his legal injury. (Lateo y Eleazar v. payment or extension of time to pay the amount
People, G.R. No. 161651, 08 June 2011) misappropriated or acceptance of a promissory
note for payment of the amount involved does not
Demand as a Condition Precedent to the extinguish criminal liability, because a criminal
Existence of Estafa offense is committed against the people and the
offended party may not waive or extinguish the
GR: There must be a formal demand on the criminal liability that the law imposes for the
offender to comply with his obligation before he commission of the offense.
can be charged with estafa.
In order that novation of contract may relieve the
XPNs: accused of criminal liability, the novation must
1. When the offender’s obligation to comply is take place before the criminal liability is incurred;
subject to a period; and criminal liability for estafa is not affected by
2. When the accused cannot be located despite compromise or novation of contact for it is a
due diligence. public offense which must be prosecuted and
punished by the State at its own volition.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Q: Reynaldo and Adrandea were authorized to or by the novation of the contract. Nevertheless,
extend credit accommodation to clients up to in cases involving the type of estafa under Art.
P200,000. However, Metrobank’s client, 315, paragraph 1 (b), where there is an
Universal Converter Philippines, Inc., was underlying contractual relationship or bilateral
able to make withdrawals totaling agreement between the parties which they can
P81,652,000 against uncleared regional modify or alter, novation may serve to either
checks. Such withdrawals were without prior prevent the rise of criminal liability, or to cast
approval of Metrobank’s head office. doubt on the true nature of the original basic
transaction. The prevention of the rise of criminal
Subsequently, Metrobank and Universal liability happens when there is novation before
entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement an Information is filed in court.
whereby the latter acknowledged its
indebtedness to the former in the total Here, Nelly and Sorongon entered into an
amount of P50,990,976. Will the Debt amicable settlement before the former’s filing of
Settlement extinguish the criminal liability Information for estafa against the latter. There,
for estafa? the parties agreed that they would desist from
filing countercharges in the future. Hence,
A: NO. Novation is not a mode of extinguishing Sorongon should not be held liable for estafa.
criminal liability for estafa. The criminal liability (Sorongon v. People, G.R. No. 230669, 16 June 2021,
therefor is not affected by a compromise or J. Caguioa)
novation of contract. Reimbursement or belated
payment to the offended party of the money Robbery vs. Theft vs. Estafa
swindled by the accused does not extinguish the
criminal liability of the latter. (Metropolitan Bank
ROBBERY THEFT ESTAFA
and Trust Company v. Rogelio Reynado and Jose
Adrandea, GR. No. 164538, 09 Aug. 2010) Only
Only personal Subject
personal
property is matter may be
Q: In March 2005, Nelly and Sorongon entered property is
involved real property
into an amicable settlement over the latter’s involved
unpaid accounts to the former. The Taking is by Taking is not Taking is not
settlement provided that the parties agreed means of by means of by means of
that there will be no countercharges related force force upon force upon
to the case to be filed in the future. Nelly also upon things things or things or
agreed to waive her ownership of the or violence violence violence
properties subject of their dispute in favor of against or against or against or
Sorongon, one of these properties being a intimidation intimidation intimidation
cement mixer that was allegedly borrowed by of persons. of persons. of persons.
Sorongon from Nelly. Penalty does
not Penalty Penalty
In January 2006, Nelly filed a complaint for necessarily depends on depends on
estafa against Sorongon after the latter failed depend on the amount the amount
to return the cement mixer despite demand. the amount involved. involved.
Sorongon invoked the amicable settlement to involved.
negate his liability. Is Sorongon correct? Offender Offender
takes the takes the
Offender
A: YES. The general rule is that criminal liability property property
receives the
for estafa is not affected by payment, without the without the
property.
indemnification, reimbursement of or consent of consent of the
compromise as to the amounts misappropriated, the owner by owner and

using threats, without using Estafa with Abuse of Confidence vs.

intimidation threats, Malversation
or violence. intimidation
or violence. ESTAFA WITH
ABUSE OF MALVERSATION
NOTE: The crime is theft even if the property was CONFIDENCE
delivered to the offender by the owner or Funds or property are Involves public funds
possessor, if the latter expects an immediate always private or property
return of the property delivered, that is, he Offender is a private
delivered only the physical or material individual or even a Offender is usually a
possession of the property. (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. public officer who is public officer who is
No. 16961, 19 Sept. 1921) not accountable for accountable for public
public funds or funds or property
However, if what was delivered was juridical property
possession of the property, that is, a situation Crime is committed by
where the person to whom it was delivered can appropriating, taking
set off his right to possess even as against the Crime is committed by or misappropriating or
owner, and the latter should not be expecting the misappropriating, consenting, or,
immediate return of the property, the converting or denying through abandonment
misappropriation or taking of that property is having received or negligence,
estafa. (U.S. v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 6748, 16 Mar. money, goods or other permitting any other
1912) personal property person to take the
public funds or
Q: A, intending to redeem certain jewels, gave property
the pawnshop tickets to B, her servant, so that Offenders are entrusted with funds or property
the latter might take care of them
Continuing offenses
temporarily.
Estafa through false pretense made in writing is

One week later, B met C who got the tickets
only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime
and refused to return them alleging that the
of estafa through falsification.
tickets were of no value notwithstanding the
demands made by B. Later, C redeemed the
Estafa vs. Infidelity in the Custody of
jewels without the knowledge and consent of
Document
A or B. What crime did C commit?
INFIDELITY IN THE
A: Complex crime of theft and estafa, because
ESTAFA CUSTODY OF
the former is a necessary means to commit the
DOCUMENTS
latter. C, with intent to gain, took the pawnshop
tickets without the consent of either A or B. This Private individual
Public officer entrusted
is theft. By redeeming the jewels by means of the was entrusted with
with the document.
pawnshop tickets, he committed estafa using a the document.
fictitious name. (People v. Yusay, G.R. No. L-26957, Intent to defraud. No intent to defraud.
02 Sept. 1927)
Separate Charges of Estafa and Illegal
Recruitment
It is settled that a person may be charged and

convicted separately of illegal recruitment under
R.A. No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC. We OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING

explicated in People v. Cortez and Yabut that: In ART. 316, RPC
this jurisdiction, it is settled that the offense of
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where Other Forms of Swindling
the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary
for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where 1. Conveying, selling, encumbering, or
the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for mortgaging any real property, pretending to
conviction. Conviction for offenses under the be the owner of the same.
Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses
punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction Elements:
for estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC does a. Thing be immovable;
not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under b. Offender who is not the owner of said
the Labor Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of property should represent that he is the
the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in owner thereof;
his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in c. Offender should have executed an act of
large scale, and vice versa. (People v. Ochoa, G.R. ownership (selling, leasing,
No. 173792, 31 Aug. 2011; 2015 BAR) encumbering or mortgaging the real
property); and
Q: In providing the penalty, may the Court d. Act is made to the prejudice of the
validly provide penalties for crimes against owner or of a third person.
property based on the current inflation rate
computing from the time the case was filed? NOTE: There must be existing real property
in order to be liable under this Article. If the
A: NO. There seems to be a perceived injustice real property is inexistent, the offender will
brought about by the range of penalties that the be liable for estafa under par. 2(a).
courts continue to impose on crimes against
property committed today, based on the amount 2. Disposing real property knowing it to be
of damage measured by the value of money eighty encumbered even if the encumbrance be not
(80) years ago in 1932. However, this Court recorded. (1998 BAR)
cannot modify the said range of penalties because
that would constitute judicial legislation. Elements:
a. That the thing disposed of is real
Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely property;
to apply the law in such a way that it shall not
usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation NOTE: If the thing encumbered is a
and that in the course of such application or personal property, it is Art. 319 (selling
construction, it should not make or supervise or pledging personal property) which
legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, governs and not this Article.
modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or
rewrite the law, or give the law a construction b. Offender knew that the real property
which is repugnant to its terms. (Corpuz v. People, was encumbered, whether the
G.R. No. 180016, 29 Apr. 2014) encumbrance is recorded or not;
NOTE: Encumbrance includes every

right or interest in the land which exists
in favor of third persons
c. There must be express representation

by the offender that the real property is
free from encumbrance; and

d. Act of disposing of the real property be Elements:

made to the damage of another. a. Offender is a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action;
NOTE: If the loan had already been granted b. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such
before the property was offered as a security, obligation with his real property or
Art. 316 (2) is not violated. properties;
c. He sells, mortgages, or, in any other
3. Wrongful taking of personal property from manner encumbers said real property;
its lawful possessor to the prejudice of the and
latter or a third person; d. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is
without express authority from the
Elements: court, or made before the cancellation
a. Offender is the owner of personal of his bond, or before being relieved
property; from the obligation contracted by him.
b. Said personal property is in the lawful
possession of another; NOTE: Art. 316 contemplates the existence of
c. Offender wrongfully takes it from its actual damage as an element of the offense. Mere
lawful possessor; and intent to cause damage is not sufficient.
d. Prejudice is thereby caused to the
possessor or third person. Art. 316 (1) vs. Art. 315 par. 2 (a)
4. Executing any fictitious contract to the ART. 316 (1) ART. 315(2)(A)
prejudice of another; Refers only to real Covers real and
property personal property
5. Accepting any compensation given to him The offender exercises
under the belief it was in payment of services or executes, as part of It is broader because
or labor when he did not actually perform the false it can be committed
such services or labor; and representation, some even if the offender
act of dominion or does not execute
NOTE: This Article requires fraud as an ownership over the acts of ownership, as
important element. If there is no fraud, it property to the damage long as there was a
becomes payment not owing, known as and prejudice of the false pretense
solutio indebiti under the Civil Code with the real owner of the thing
civil obligation to return the wrong payment.
(Reyes, 2017) SWINDLING A MINOR
ART. 317, RPC
It would seem that what constitutes estafa
under this paragraph is the malicious failure
Elements of Swindling a Minor
to return the compensation wrongfully
received. (Reyes, 2017)
1. Offender takes advantage of the inexperience
or emotions or feelings of a minor;
6. Selling, mortgaging, or in any manner
2. He induces such minor to assume an
encumbering real property while being a
obligation, or to give release, or to execute a
surety in bond without express authority
transfer of any property right;
from the court or before being relieved from
the obligation.
NOTE: Real property is not included because
it cannot be made to disappear, since a minor
cannot convey real property without judicial
authority.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
3. Consideration is some loan of money, credit investment and unpaid interest income would
or other personal property; and be released to her. Unfortunately, she was
4. Transaction is to the detriment of such unable to recover it. Demands were made to
minor. Osorio, but these remained unheeded. Osorio
was charged with estafa under Art. 315(2)(e).
Actual Proof of Deceit or Misrepresentation, Is Osorio guilty of estafa under Art. 315(2)(e)?
NOT Necessary
A: NO. Osorio is not guilty of estafa under Art.
It is not essential that there is actual proof of 315(2)(e), but is guilty of other deceits under Art.
deceit or misrepresentation. It is sufficient that 318 of the RPC. Art. 318 of the RPC is broad in
the offender takes advantage of the inexperience application. It is intended as a catch-all provision
or emotions of the minor. to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under
Arts. 315, 316, and 317 of the RPC.
OTHER DECEITS
ART. 318, RPC Osorio, in soliciting Gabriel’s money, falsely
represented that it would be invested in Philam
Other Kinds of Deceit under Art. 318 (2000 Life and that its proceeds would be used to pay
BAR) for Gabriel's insurance premiums. This false
representation is what induced Gabriel to part
1. Defrauding or damaging another by any with her funds and disregard the payment of her
other deceit not mentioned in the preceding insurance premiums.
articles; and
Since Osorio deviated from what was originally
2. Interpreting dreams, making forecasts, agreed upon by placing the investment in another
telling fortunes, or taking advantage of the company, Gabriel's insurance policies lapsed.
credulity of the public in any other similar Osorio must be criminally liable for
manner, for profit or gain. misrepresenting to Gabriel that the latter's
money would be invested in Philam Life Fund
NOTE: Deceits in this article include false Management and that its proceeds may be
pretenses and fraudulent acts. utilized to pay for Gabriel's insurance premiums.
(Osorio v. People, G.R. No. 207711, 02 July 2018)
Q: Osorio, an agent of Philam Life, offered
Gabriel insurance policy. During the meeting, CHAPTER 7: CHATTEL MORTGAGE
Osorio presented her ID and calling card.
Gabriel accepted and consistently paid her REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF
premiums. Later on, Gabriel received a letter MORTGAGED PROPERTY
from PMIAM thanking her for investing her ART. 319, RPC
money with PMIAM.
NOTE: R.A. No. 11057, otherwise known as the
Gabriel confronted Osorio on why her
Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”), which
investment was diverted to PMIAM. Osorio
took effect on Feb. 9, 2019, expressly repealed
explained that PMIAM investments would Secs. 1 to 16 of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
yield a higher rate of return. Displeased,
Gabriel asked for a refund of her initial
Punishable Acts
investment. Consequently, Gabriel received
P13,000.00 from PMIAM. In spite of this,
1. Knowingly removing any personal property
Gabriel insisted on the refund.
mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law
to any province or city other than the one in
PMIAM informed Gabriel that her initial
which it was located at the time of execution

of the mortgage, without the written consent Chattel Mortgage vs. Estafa
of the mortgagee or his executors,
administrators, or assigns. CHATTEL ESTAFA
MORTGAGE ART. 316, RPC
Elements: As to Property Involved
a. Personal property is mortgaged under The property The property
the Chattel Mortgage Law; involved is a personal involved is a real
b. Offender knows that such property is so property. property.
mortgaged; As to Commission
c. Offender removes such mortgaged Selling or pledging of
personal property to any province or personal property
city other than the one in which it was already pledged or
located at the time of the execution of It is sufficient that the
mortgaged is
the mortgage; real property
committed by the
d. Removal is permanent; and mortgaged be sold as
mere failure to obtain
e. There is no written consent of the free, even though the
the consent of the
mortgagee or his executors, vendor may have
mortgagee in writing
administrators or assigns to such obtained the consent
even if the offender
removal. of the mortgagee in
should inform the
writing.
purchaser that the
NOTE: Any person can be the offender. thing sold is
mortgaged.
2. Selling or pledging personal property already As to Purpose
pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms To protect the
of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the To protect the
purchaser, whether
consent of the mortgagee written on the back mortgagee.
the first or the second.
of the mortgage and noted on the record
thereof in the office of the register of deeds of
CHAPTER 8: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
the province where such property is located.
INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS
Elements:
a. Personal property is already pledged NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P.D.
under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage 1613 on Simple Arson, and Art. 320, as amended
Law; by R.A. No. 7659 on Destructive Arson. (Reyes,
b. Offender, who is the mortgagor of such 2017)
property, sells, or pledges the same or
any part thereof; and DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
c. There is no consent of the mortgagee ART. 320, RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office Commission of Destructive Arson
of the register of deeds.
1. Any person who shall burn: (2000 BAR)
NOTE: Chattel mortgage must be valid and
subsisting. Removal of the mortgaged a. One or more buildings or edifices,
personal property must be coupled with consequent to one single act of burning,
intent to defraud. or as a result of simultaneous burnings,
or committed on several or different
occasions;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
b. Any building of public or private materials.

ownership, devoted to the public in
general, or where people usually gather NOTE: If there was intent to kill, the crime
or congregate for a definite purpose such committed is not arson but murder by means of
as, but not limited to official fire.
governmental function or business,
private transaction, commerce, trade Destructive Arson vs. Simple Arson under P.D.
workshop, meetings and conferences, or 1613
merely incidental to a definite purpose
such as but not limited to hotels, motels, The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished
transient dwellings, public conveyance from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or
or stops or terminals, regardless of viciousness of the criminal offender.
whether the offender had knowledge
that there are persons in said building or Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson
edifice at the time it is set on fire and
regardless also of whether the building is 1. If committed with intent to gain;
actually inhabited or not; (1994 BAR) 2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender be motivated by spite or
c. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, hatred towards the owner; or
airship or airplane, devoted to 4. If committed by a syndicate.
transportation or conveyance, or for
public use, entertainment or leisure; NOTE: The slightest discoloration of a part of a
building is consummated arson. But when a
d. Any building, factory, warehouse person who intends to burn a structure by
installation and any appurtenances collecting and placing rags soaked in a gasoline
thereto, which are devoted to the service and placed them near the wall of the building but
of public utilities; or who was discovered as he was about to set fire to
the rags is liable for attempted arson.
e. Any building the burning of which is for
the purpose of concealing or destroying CHAPTER 9: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
evidence of another violation of law, or
for the purpose of concealing
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to
ART. 327, RPC
collect from insurance. (1995 BAR)
2. Two or more persons or by a group of
persons, regardless of whether their purpose Malicious Mischief
is merely to burn or destroy the building or
the burning merely constitutes an overt act in The willful damaging of another’s property by
the commission of another violation of law. any act not constituting arson or crimes of
destruction due to hate, revenge, or mere
3. Any person who shall burn: pleasure of destroying.
a. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or Elements of Malicious Mischief

military powder or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or 1. Offender deliberately caused damage to the
general museum of the Government. property of another;
2. Such act does not constitute arson or other
b. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or crimes involving destruction; and
factory of inflammable or explosive

3. Act of damaging another’s property be was not justified in summarily and extra-
committed merely for the sake of damaging judicially demolishing Julita’s nipa hut. As it is,
it. Mario proceeded, not so much to safeguard the
lot, as it is to vent out his anger and express his
Q: There was a collision between the side view disgust over the “no trespassing” sign he placed
mirrors of two (2) vehicles. Immediately thereon. Indeed, his act of summarily
thereafter, the wife and the daughter of A demolishing the house smacks of his pleasure in
alighted from the CRV and confronted B. A, in causing damage to it. (Valeroso v. People, G.R. No.
view of the hostile attitude of B, summoned 149718, 29 Sept. 2003)
his wife and daughter to enter the CRV and
while they were in the process of doing so, B
SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF OR
moved and accelerated his Vitara backward
QUALIFIED MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
as if to hit them. Was there malicious
ART. 328, RPC
mischief?
Punishable Acts
A: YES. The hitting of the back portion of the CRV
by B was clearly deliberate. The act of damaging
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance
the rear bumper of the CRV does not constitute
of public functions;
arson or other crimes involving
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
destruction. When the Vitara bumped the CRV, B
3. Spreading any infections among cattle; and
was venting out his anger and hate as a result of
4. Causing damage to the property of the
a heated encounter between him and A.
National Museum or National Library, or to
(Taguinod v. People, G.R. No. 185833, 12 Oct.
any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
2011)
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public.
Q: Mario was hired by the PNB as caretaker of
its lot situated in Balanga, Bataan.
NOTE: The cases of malicious mischief under this
Consequently, Mario put up on the said lot a
article are also called qualified malicious
sign which reads "No Trespassing, PNB
mischief.
Property" to ward off squatters. Despite the
sign, Julita, believing that the said lot was
owned by her grandparents, constructed a OTHER MISCHIEFS
nipa hut thereon. Hence, Mario, together with ART. 329, RPC
four others, tore down and demolished
Julita's hut. Julita thus filed with the MTC a Q: The cows of B caused destruction to the
criminal complaint for malicious mischief. plants of A. As an act of revenge, A and his
Mario admitted that he deliberately tenants killed said cows. What is the crime
demolished Julita's nipa hut but he contends committed?
that the third element of the crime of
malicious mischief, i.e., that the act of A: The crime committed out of hate and revenge,
damaging another's property be committed is that of malicious mischief penalized by Art.
merely for the sake of damaging it, is not 329, RPC.
present in this case. He maintains that the
demolition of the nipa hut is for the purpose DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
of safeguarding the interest of his employer. MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
Was the court correct in convicting Mario of ART. 330, RPC
malicious mischief?
How Committed
A: YES, Mario’s conviction for malicious mischief
must be sustained. As to the third element, Mario It is committed by damaging any railway,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
telegraph, or telephone lines. possession of another; and
When is the Crime Qualified 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
This crime would be qualified if the damage
results in any derailment of cars, collision, or NOTE: The exemption does not apply to
other accident. strangers participating in the commission of the
offense.
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,
PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS Reason for Exemption
ART. 331, RPC
The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership
Persons Liable of the property between the offender and the
offended party.
1. Any person who shall destroy or damage
statues or any other useful or ornamental Persons also Included in the Enumeration
public monuments;
The stepfather, adopted children, natural
2. Any person who shall destroy or damage any children, concubine, paramour, and common-law
useful or ornamental painting of a public spouses.
nature.
CHAPTER 10: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL

LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL

LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ART. 332, RPC
Crimes involved in this Article
1. Theft;
2. Swindling (estafa); and
3. Malicious mischief.
If any of the crimes is complexed with another

crime, such as Estafa thru Falsification, Art. 332 is
not applicable.
Persons Exempted under Art. 332, RPC (2000,

2008 BAR)
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or

relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the

property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same passed into the

man. The sexual intercourse need not to be

J. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY proved by direct evidence. Circumstantial
ARTS. 333-346, RPC, TITLE XI evidence like seeing the married woman and her
paramour in scanty dress, sleeping together,
alone in a house, would suffice.
NOTE: Rape is no longer a crime against chastity.

Q: Is the acquittal of one of the defendants
It has been re-classified under R.A. No. 8353 as a
operates as a cause of acquittal of the other?
crime against persons.
A: NO, because of the following reasons:

Crimes which are considered as Private
Crimes (A-C-S-A-A)
1. There may not be a joint criminal intent,
although there is joint physical act. One of the
1. Adultery
parties may be insane and the other sane, in
2. Concubinage
which case, only the sane could be held liable
3. Seduction
criminally. (Reyes, 2017)
4. Abduction
5. Acts of lasciviousness
2. The man may not know that the woman is
They cannot be prosecuted except upon the married, in which case, the man is innocent.
complaint initiated by the offended party. The
law regards the privacy of the offended party 3. Death of the woman during the pendency of
here as more important than the disturbance to the action cannot defeat the trial and
the order of society. The law gives the offended conviction of the man.
party the preference whether to sue or not to sue.
But the moment the offended party has initiated 4. Even if the man had left the country and
the criminal complaint, the public prosecutor will could not be apprehended, the woman can be
take over and continue with prosecution of the tried and convicted.
offender. This is so because when the prosecution
starts, the crime already becomes public and it is Adultery vs. Prostitution
beyond the offended party to pardon the
offender. ADULTERY PROSTITUTION
It is a private It is a crime against
CHAPTER 1: ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE offense. public morals.
Committed by a woman
Committed by a
whether married or not,
ADULTERY married woman
who for money or
ART. 333, RPC who shall have
profit, habitually
sexual intercourse
indulges in sexual
Elements of Adultery (2002, 2008, 2015 BAR) with a man not her
intercourse or
husband.
lascivious conduct.
1. That the woman is married;
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man Pari delicto is NOT a Defense
not her husband.
3. As regards the man with whom she had Where the accused claims that her husband’s
sexual intercourse, he knows that she is extra-marital affair precludes him from filing a
married. criminal complaint for adultery on the ground of
pari delicto, the Court held that: The concept of
A single intercourse consummates the crime of pari delicto is not found in the RPC, but only in Art.
adultery. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a 1411 of the Civil Code, the latter relating only to
crime of adultery, even if it involves the same

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
contracts with illegal consideration. (Reyes, 2021; Illustration: For the crime of concubinage by
Arroyo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 96602, 19 Nov. 1991) having sexual intercourse under a
scandalous manner to exist, it must be done
CONCUBINAGE imprudently and wantonly as to offend
ART. 334, RPC modesty and sense of morality and decency.
Thus, where the accused and his mistress
Punishable Acts under Concubinage lived in the same room of a house, comported
themselves as husband and wife publicly and
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. privately, giving the impression to everybody
2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous that they were married, and performed acts
circumstances, with a woman who is not his in sight of the community which gave rise to
wife. criticism and general protest among
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place. neighbors, they committed concubinage.
Unlike in adultery where a single sexual c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
intercourse may constitute such a crime, in
concubinage, a married man is liable only when Illustration: If the charge is cohabiting with
he had sexual intercourse under scandalous a woman not his wife in any other place,
circumstances. proof of actual sexual intercourse may not be
necessary too. But the term “cohabit” means
Elements of Concubinage (1994, 2002, 2010 intercourse together as husband or wife or
BAR) living together as husband and wife. The
cohabitation must be for some period of time
1. Man must be married; which may be a week, a year or longer as
2. He committed any of the following acts: distinguished from occasional or transient
meetings for unlawful sexual intercourse.
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling; 3. As regards the woman, she must know him to
be married.
Illustration: If the charges consist in keeping
a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, there is Parties Included in the Complaint
no need of proof of sexual intercourse. The
conjugal dwelling is the house of the spouses The complaint must include both parties if they
even if the wife happens to be temporarily are both alive. In case of pardon or when the
absent therefrom. The woman however must offended spouse consented, the same shall bar
be brought to the conjugal house by the the prosecution of the offenses, provided it be
accused as concubine to fall under this done before the institution or filing of the
article. Thus, if the co-accused was criminal complaint.
voluntarily taken and sheltered by the
spouses in their house, and treated as an Q: May a husband be liable for concubinage
adopted child being a relative of the and adultery at the same time for the same act
complaining wife, her illicit relations with the of illicit intercourse with the wife of another
accused husband does not make her a man?
mistress.
A: YES. When the husband commits concubinage
b. Having sexual intercourse, under with a married woman and provided that the two
scandalous circumstances, with a offended parties, i.e., his wife and the husband of
woman who is not his wife; or his mistress file separate cases against him.

CHAPTER 2: RAPE AND ACTS OF Illustration: When the accused not only kissed
LASCIVIOUSNESS and embraced the complainant but also fondled
her breast with particular design to
independently derive vicarious pleasure
NOTE: Art. 335 of the RPC has been repealed by
therefrom, the element of lewd design exists.
R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997). The new
If lewd design cannot be proven as where the
provisions on Rape are found in Arts. 266-A to 266-
accused merely kissed and embraced the
D of the RPC.
complainant either out of passion or other
motive, touching her breast as a mere incident,
Kinds of Acts of Lasciviousness
the act would be categorized as unjust vexation.
(People v. Climaco, 46 O.G. 3186)
1. Under Art. 336 (Acts of lasciviousness); and
2. Under Art. 339 (Acts of lasciviousness with the
Offended Party under this Article
consent of the offended party)
The offended party may be a man or a woman:

ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ART. 336, RPC
1. Under twelve (12) years of age; or
2. Being over twelve (12) years of age, the
NOTE: See also discussion on Acts of lascivious acts were committed on him or her
Lasciviousness in relation to Rape and R.A. No. through violence or intimidation, or while
7610 under Title VIII: Crimes Against Persons – the offender party was deprived of reason, or
pages 302-310. otherwise unconscious.
Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness (A-P-C- Q: X was convicted for the crime of Acts of
FDFU) Lasciviousness against AAA. He contests that
since the prosecution was not able to prove
1. Offender commits any Act of lasciviousness the victim’s age, he is entitled to an acquittal.
or lewdness; Is the argument tenable?
2. Act of lasciviousness is committed against a
Person of either sex; and A: NO. To convict X of the crime of Acts of
3. It is done under any of the following Lasciviousness under the RPC, the prosecution, in
Circumstances: turn, had to prove the following elements, to wit:
(1) that the offender commits any act of
a. By using Force or intimidation; lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done: (a)
b. When the offended party is Deprived by using force and intimidation or (b) when the
of reason or otherwise unconscious; offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
c. By means of Fraudulent machination unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is
or grave abuse of authority; or under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended
d. When the offended party is Under 12 party is another person of either sex. The third
years of age or is demented. element is immediately satisfied for the offended
party is, naturally, a person of either sex.
Under Art. 336, acts of lasciviousness is
committed when the act performed with lewd Despite failure to prove the victim’s age, the
design was perpetrated under circumstances prosecution was able to prove all the elements of
which would have brought about the crime of the crime. The first element — that the offender
rape if sexual intercourse was effected. Where commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness —
circumstances however are indicative of a clear was sufficiently proved by the testimony of AAA
intention to lie with the offended party, the crime as regards the incident complained of. The third
committed is Attempted Rape. element was, in turn, immediately satisfied as the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
offended party was a person of either sex. (XXX v. that his constitutional right to be informed of
People, G.R. No. 243151, 02 Sept. 2019, J. Caguioa) the nature and cause of accusation against
him was violated. Rule on BBB’s contention.
Requirement in Order to Sustain Conviction
for Acts of Lasciviousness A: BBB’s contention is incorrect. Following the
doctrine of variance, even though the crime
It is essential that the acts complained of be charged against petitioner is for Attempted Rape,
prompted by lust or lewd designs and that the he can be convicted of the crime of Acts of
victim did not consent or encourage such acts. Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC without
violating his constitutional rights because the
Intent to Rape as an Element of the Crime latter is necessarily included in the crime of
Attempted Rape. (Valenzona v. People, G.R. No.
Intent to rape is NOT a necessary element of the 203785, 20 Jan. 2021)
crime of acts of lasciviousness; otherwise, the
crime would be attempted rape. Q: An information was filed against XXX for
the rape of his daughter AAA, who was 10
NOTE: There can be no frustration of acts of years old at the time, in 2003. During trial,
lasciviousness, rape, or adultery. From the AAA testified that in 2003, XXX forced her to
moment the offender performs all elements touch his private parts. After that, the act was
necessary for the existence of the felony, he cut short since her mother timely arrived. She
actually attains his purpose and, from that added that in 2007, XXX again tried to rape
moment, all the essential elements of the offense her and succeeded in doing so. XXX admitted
have been accomplished. that he engaged in sexual intercourse with
AAA in 2007, but claimed that it was
Q: BBB is AAA’s Grade VI teacher. An consensual.
information was filed against BBB for
attempted rape, viz: “BBB, with deliberate The RTC convicted XXX of rape despite the
intent, with lewd and prurient desires, laid on discrepancy of the dates, ruling that the exact
top of 11-year old AAA upon whom he date or time of the commission is not an
exercised moral ascendancy she being his element of the offense. The CA affirmed the
grade sixth pupil, after he pulled down her conviction. On appeal, XXX argues that he
underwear up to below her knee, and could not be convicted for a crime that
executed some pumping acts and motions happened in 2007, since the information
with his male organ on her pubic area while at charged him for rape in 2003. Is XXX correct?
the same time embracing and kissing her, but
accused's male organ was not able to A: YES. XXX cannot be convicted through his
penetrate nor touch the labia of the admission that he had sexual intercourse with
pudendum, accused performed overt acts but AAA in 2007. This is because the Information filed
did not perform all the acts of execution which in this case accused XXX of having sexual
constitute the crime of rape due to the fact intercourse with AAA "sometime in July 2003."
that the victim's thighs remained close While it is true, as the RTC and the CA held, that
together thereby protecting her female organ, the exact place and time of the commission of the
although accused ejaculated by reason of the crime is not an element of the crime of Rape, XXX
excitement at the moment. Contrary to law.” still could not be convicted of the crime for to do
so would be to offend the basic tenets of due
When adjudged by the Court, the process in criminal prosecutions. XXX can only be
Court convicted BBB of Acts of convicted of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness
Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC in for what transpired in 2003. (People v. XXX, G.R.
relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610. BBB insists No. 226467, 17 Oct. 2018, J. Caguioa)

Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Attempted Rape c. The above acts would result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive
ACTS OF environment for the employee.
ATTEMPTED RAPE
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Purpose is only to 2. In an educational or training
Purpose is to lie with environment, sexual harassment is
commit acts of
the offended woman. committed:
lewdness.
Lascivious acts are Lascivious acts are
a. Against one who is under the care,
themselves the final but the preparatory
custody or supervision of the offender;
objective sought by acts to the
the offender. commission of rape.
b. Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted
Illustration: When the accused lifted the dress of
to the offender;
the offended party, and placed himself on top of
her but the woman awoke and screamed for help
c. When the sexual favor is made a
and despite that, the accused persisted in his
condition to the giving of a passing grade,
purpose, tearing the drawers, kissing and
or the granting of honors and
fondling her breasts, the crime is not only acts of
scholarships, or the payment of a
lasciviousness but that of attempted rape.
stipend, allowance or other benefits,
privileges, or considerations; or
NOTE: Mere words can constitute sexual
harassment unlike in acts of lasciviousness,
d. When the sexual advances result in an
where there must be overt acts.
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or
Punishable Acts under the Anti-Sexual
apprentice.
Harassment Act (R.A. No. 7877)
NOTE: Any person who directs or induces

1. In a work-related or employment
another to commit any act of sexual harassment
environment, sexual harassment is
as herein defined, or who cooperates in the
committed when:
commission thereof by another without which it
would not have been committed, shall also be
a. The sexual favor is made as a condition
held liable under this Act. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7877)
in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment
Q: Will administrative sanctions bar
of said individual, or in granting said
prosecution of the offense?
individual favorable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotions, or
A: NO. It shall not be a bar to prosecution in
privileges; or the refusal to grant the
proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual
sexual favor results in limiting,
harassment.
segregating or classifying the employee
which in a way would discriminate,
deprive or diminish employment CHAPTER 3: SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF
opportunities or otherwise adversely MINORS AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE
affect said employee;
Commission of Seduction
b. The above acts would impair the
employee’s rights or privileges under Seduction is committed by enticing a woman to
existing labor laws; or unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of
marriage or other means of persuasion without

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
use of force. "The penalty next higher in degree shall be

imposed upon any person who shall seduce his
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION sister or descendant, whether or not she be a
ART. 337, RPC virgin or over eighteen years of age.”
(Disclaimer: This law is not covered under the
Acts that Constitute Qualified Seduction 2022 Bar Syllabus for Criminal Law)
1. Seduction of a virgin over twelve (12) years 2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
and under eighteen (18) years of age by descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
certain persons, such as, a person in public her age or reputation. In this case, it is not
authority, priest, home servant, domestic, necessary that the offended party is still a
guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any virgin.
capacity shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced; Persons Liable for Qualified Seduction
Elements: (2007 BAR) 1. Those who abused their authority:

a. Offended party is a virgin which is a. Person in public authority;
presumed if she is unmarried and of b. Guardian;
good reputation; c. Teacher; or
d. Person who, in any capacity, is
b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of entrusted with the education or
age; custody of the woman seduced.
c. Offender has sexual intercourse with NOTE: In the case of a teacher, it is not
her; necessary that the girl be his student. It is
enough that she is enrolled in the same
d. There is abuse of authority, confidence, school.
or relationship on the part of the
offender; and 2. Those who abused the confidence reposed in
them:
e. Offender is a public officer, a domestic a. Priest;
servant, priest, teacher, guardian, or b. Home servant; or
any person who has custody of the c. Domestic.
woman seduced.
3. Those who abused their relationship:
NOTE: The provision on Qualified Seduction has a. Brother who seduced his sister; or
been amended by R.A. No. 11648 which was b. Ascendant who seduced his
signed into law on March 4, 2022. Sec. 2, R.A. No. descendant.
11648 provides:
NOTE: If the offended party is a descendant or a
“Article 337. Qualified seduction. – The seduction sister of the offender – no matter how old she is
of a minor, sixteen and over but under eighteen or whether she is a prostitute – the crime of
years of age, committed by any person in public qualified seduction is committed.
authority, priest, home-servant, domestic,
guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any Virginity for Purposes of Qualified Seduction
capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or
custody of the minor seduced, shall be punished Virginity does not mean physical virginity. It
by prision correccional in its minimum and refers to a woman of chaste character or virtuous
medium periods. woman of good reputation.

NOTE: Virginity is not to be understood in a 2. Acts are committed upon a Woman who is
material sense as to exclude the idea of abduction virgin or single or widow of good reputation,
of a virtuous woman of a good reputation. Thus, under eighteen (18) years of age but over
when the accused claims he had prior sexual twelve (12) years, or a sister or descendant
intercourse with the complainant, the latter is regardless of her reputation or age; and
still to be considered a virgin.
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by Abuse of
SIMPLE SEDUCTION authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit.
ART. 338, RPC
Acts of Lasciviousness without Consent vs.
Acts of Lasciviousness with Consent
Elements of Simple Seduction
ACTS OF ACTS OF
1. Offended party is over twelve (12) and
LASCIVIOUSNESS LASCIVIOUSNESS
under eighteen (18) years of age;
WITHOUT WITH
2. She must be of good reputation, single or
CONSENT CONSENT
widow;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
The acts of
and
The acts are lasciviousness are
4. It is committed by means of deceit.
committed under committed under the
circumstances circumstances which,
NOTE: The provision on Qualified Seduction has
which, had there had there been carnal
been amended by R.A. No. 11648 which was
been carnal knowledge, would
signed into law on 04 March 2022. Sec. 2, R.A. No.
knowledge, would amount to either
11648 provides:
amount to rape. qualified seduction or
simple seduction.
"Article 338. Simple seduction. – The seduction of
The offended party is The offended party
a minor, sixteen and over but under eighteen
a female or a male. could only be female.
years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall
be punished by arresto mayor." (Disclaimer: If the offended party
The offended party
This law is not covered under the 2022 Bar is a woman, she need
must be a virgin.
Syllabus for Criminal Law) not be a virgin.
The deceit usually takes the form of promise to CORRUPTION OF MINORS

marry. If the promise to marry is made after the ART. 340, RPC, as amended by B.P. 92
sexual intercourse, there is no deceit. Neither is
there deceit if the promise is made by a married Persons Liable
man, the woman knowing him to be married.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the
NOTE: Virginity of the offended party is not prostitution or corruption of persons underage to
required. satisfy the lust of another.
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE NOTE: Under the present wordings of the law, a
CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY single act of promoting or facilitating the
ART. 339, RPC corruption or prostitution of minor is sufficient to
constitute violation of this article.
Elements (A-W-A)
Illustration: This is usually the act of a pimp who
1. Offender commits Acts of lasciviousness or offers to pleasure seekers, women for the
lewdness; satisfaction of their lustful desires. A mere

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
proposal would consummate the crime. But it 2. Consented abduction (Art 343, RPC)
must be to satisfy the lust of another, not the
proponent’s. The victim must be below eighteen FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
(18) years of age. ART. 342, RPC
Doing Unchaste Acts are Unnecessary Elements of Forcible Abduction (W-A-L)
It is NOT necessary that unchaste acts are done; 1. Person abducted is any Woman, regardless
mere proposal consummates the offense. Victim of her age, civil status, or reputation;
must be of good reputation, not a prostitute or
corrupted person. 2. Abduction is Against her will; and
WHITE SLAVE TRADE NOTE: If the female is below twelve (12)

ART. 341, RPC, as amended by B.P. 186 years of age, there need not be any force or
intimidation to constitute Forcible
Punishable Acts Abduction. In fact, the abduction may be with
her consent and the reason is because she
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution; has no will of her own, and therefore is
2. Profiting by prostitution; and incapable of giving consent.
3. Enlisting the service of any other for the
purpose of prostitution. 3. Abduction is with Lewd designs
NOTE: Mere enlisting of the services of women NOTE: Where lewd design was not proved or
for the purpose of prostitution, whether the shown, and the victim was deprived of her
offender profits or not, is punishable. liberty, the crime is kidnapping with serious
illegal detention under Art. 267.
Corruption of Minors vs. White Slave Trade
Illustration: If the accused carried or took
away the victim by means of force and with
CORRUPTION OF
WHITE SLAVE TRADE lewd design and thereafter raped her, the
MINORS
crime is forcible abduction with rape, the
It is essential that Minority need not be former being a necessary means to commit
victims are minors. established. the latter. The subsequent two other sexual
Not necessarily for intercourses committed against the will of
Generally for profit.
profit. the complainant would be treated as two
Committed by a Generally, committed separate counts of Rape. (People v. Bacalso,
single act. habitually. G.R. No. 94531-32, 22 June 1992)
CHAPTER 4: ABDUCTION Nature of the Crime of Forcible Abduction
The act of the offender is violative of the

Abduction
individual liberty of the abducted, her honor and
reputation, and of public order.
It is the taking away of a woman from her house
or the place where she may be for the purpose of
Sexual Intercourse is NOT Necessary
carrying her to another place with intent to marry
or to corrupt her. (People v. Crisostomo, 46 Phil.
Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible
775, G.R. No. 19034, 17 Feb. 1923)
abduction, the intent to seduce a girl is sufficient.
1. Forcible abduction (Art. 342, RPC)

NOTE: Rape may absorb forcible abduction if the NOTE: The virginity mentioned in this Article
main objective was to rape the victim. should not be understood in its material
sense and does not exclude the idea of
Crimes against Chastity where Age and abduction of a virtuous woman of good
Reputation of the Victim are Immaterial reputation because the essence of the offense
is not the wrong done to the woman but the
1. Rape; outrage to the family and the alarm produced
2. Acts of lasciviousness against the will or in it by the disappearance of one of its
without the consent of the offended party; members. (Valdepeñas v. People, G.R. No. L-
3. Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant; 20687, April 30, 1966)
or
4. Forcible abduction. 2. She must be over twelve (12) and under
eighteen (18) years of age;
Q: AAA was about to enter the school campus
with her friend when Cayanan, her brother- 3. Taking away of the offended party must be
in-law, arrived on a tricycle and pulled AAA with her Consent, after solicitation or
towards the tricycle. She tried shouting but cajolery from the offender; and
Cayanan covered her mouth. Cayanan
brought AAA to a dress shop to change her 4. Taking away of the offended party must be
clothes since she was in her school uniform, with Lewd designs.
and later to a Jollibee outlet. Afterwards, he
brought her to his sister’s house and raped NOTE: In consented abduction, it is not necessary
her inside a bedroom. AAA told her mother that the young victim (a virgin over twelve (12)
and brother of the incident and she was and under eighteen (18)) be personally taken
shown to be suffering from depressive from her parent’s home by the accused; it is
symptoms and presence of sexual abuse. sufficient that she was instrumental in leaving the
house. The accused must however use
Cayanan interposed the sweetheart defense solicitation, cajolery or deceit, or honeyed
and presented two love letters supposedly promises of marriage to induce the girl to escape
written by AAA. The RTC and CA convicted from her home.
Cayanan of Forcible Abduction with Qualified
Rape. Is Cayanan guilty for the crime of Q: Kim, who is barely sixteen (16) years of age,
forcible abduction with qualified rape? went home late one evening. Her mother
scolded her. Kim went out of their house and
A: NO. Cayanan should only be liable for qualified went to the house of her boyfriend Tristan.
rape. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime The mother of Tristan tried her best to send
of rape if the real objective of the accused is to Kim home but the latter refused to do so. That
rape the victim. In this case, circumstances show night, Kim slept in the room of Tristan and
that AAA’s abduction was with the purpose of they had sexual intercourse. The mother of
raping her. (People v. Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, 18 Kim filed a case of Consented Abduction
July 2014) against Tristan. Will the charge prosper?
CONSENTED ABDUCTION A: NO. Kim was not taken away after solicitation
ART. 343, RPC or cajolery. Kim was the one who went to the
house of Tristan.
Elements of Consented Abduction (2002 BAR)
(V-12-C-L)
1. Offended party must be a Virgin;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
CHAPTER 5: PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES OF ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION,

ABDUCTION, RAPE, AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ART. 344, RPC
Adultery and Concubinage vs. Seduction, Abduction, and Acts of Lasciviousness
SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION. AND

ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Prosecution
Must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by:
1. Offended party
2. Her parents
3. Grandparents, or
4. Guardians in the order named above.
Must be prosecuted upon complaint filed by the

GR: Offended party, even if a minor, has the right to
offended spouse. (1991 BAR)
institute the prosecution for the above mentioned
offenses, independently of her parents,
Both the guilty parties, if alive, must be included in
grandparents or guardian.
the complaint for adultery or concubinage.
XPN: If she is incompetent or incapable of doing so

upon grounds other than her minority.
NOTE: If the offended woman is of age, she should

be the one to file the complaint.
Pardon
An express pardon by the offended party or other
persons named in the law to the offender, as the
case may be, bars prosecution.
GR: Parent cannot validly grant pardon to the

Must be made by the offended party to both the
offender without the express pardon of the
offenders
offended party.
May be a bar to prosecution if made before the

XPN: When she is dead or otherwise incapacitated
institution of the criminal action
to grant it, her parents, grandparents or guardian
may do so for her.
May be express or implied
GR: Pardon by the offended party who is a minor

must have the concurrence of the parents.
XPN: When the offended girl has no parents who

could concur in the pardon.

Parties who may File the Complaint where Civil Liability of the Adulterer and the
Offended Minor Fails to File the Same Concubine
1. Parents; To indemnify for damages caused to the offended

2. Grandparents; or spouse.
3. Guardian.
NOTE: No civil liability is incurred for acts of
NOTE: The right to file the action granted to the lasciviousness.
parents, grandparents or guardian is exclusive
and successive in the order provided. LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS,
TEACHERS OR OTHER PERSONS
Legal Effect of the Marriage of the Offender ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY
and the Offended Party OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ART. 346, RPC
Marriage of the offender with the offended party
in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, Crimes Covered
and rape extinguishes criminal action or remits
the penalty already imposed. 1. Rape;
2. Acts of lasciviousness;
The extinguishment of criminal action by reason 3. Qualified seduction;
of marriage of the offended party with the 4. Simple seduction;
offended in the crimes of seduction, abduction, 5. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the
and acts of lasciviousness shall extend to co- offended party;
principals, accomplices, and accessories. 6. Corruption of minors;
However, in the case of rape, it is only the liability 7. White slave trade;
of the principal which will be extinguished. 8. Forcible abduction; and
9. Consented Abduction.
Rule on Extinction of Criminal Liability if the
Rape was committed by the husband Liability of Ascendants, Guardians, Teachers
or Other Persons Entrusted with the Custody
GR: The subsequent forgiveness of the wife of the Offended Party
extinguishes the criminal action against the
husband. Persons who cooperate as accomplices in the
perpetration of the crimes covered are punished
XPN: The crime shall not be extinguished if the as principals. They are:
marriage is void ab initio.
1. Ascendants;
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF 2. Guardians;
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY 3. Curators;
ART. 345, RPC 4. Teachers; or
5. Any other person who cooperates as
Civil Liability of Persons Guilty of Rape, accomplice with abuse of authority or
Seduction or Abduction confidential relationship.
1. To indemnify the offended woman;

2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from doing so; or
3. In every case to support the offspring.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
CRIMINAL LAW
the registration of the child with the Registry of
K. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL Births or that in so doing they were motivated by
STATUS OF PERSONS a desire to cause the loss of any trace as to the
ARTS. 347-352, RPC, TITLE XII child’s filiation to his prejudice.
When Substitution Takes Place
CHAPTER 1: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND Substitution takes place when X is born of A and
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS B; Y is born of C and D; and the offender with
intent to cause the loss of any trace of their
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF filiation, exchanges X and Y without the
ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND knowledge of their respective parents.
CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT
OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD The substitution may be effected by placing a live
ART. 347, RPC child of a woman in place of a dead one of another
woman. (Reyes, 2017)
Punishable Acts (Si-Su-Co)
Elements of the Third Way of Committing the
1. Simulation of births; Crime
2. Substitution of one child for another; and
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate 1. The child must be legitimate;
child with intent to cause such child to lose 2. The offender conceals or abandons such
its civil status. child; and
3. The offender has the intent to cause the child
The commission of any of the acts defined in this to lose its civil status.
Article must have, for its object, the creation of a
false civil status. The purpose is to cause the loss Abandoning a Minor vs. Simulation of Births,
of any trace as to the filiation of the child. (Reyes, Substitution of One Child for Another, and
2012) Concealment of a Legitimate Child
When Simulation of Birth Takes Place (2002 SIMULATION OF

BAR) BIRTHS,
SUBSTITUTION OF
ABANDONING A
Simulation of birth takes place when the woman ONE CHILD FOR
MINOR
pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not, ANOTHER, AND
ART. 276, RPC
and on the day of the supposed delivery, takes the CONCEALMENT OF A
child of another as her own. LEGITIMATE CHILD
ART. 347, RPC
The woman is liable together with the person Crime against Crime against the civil
who furnishes the child. (Guevara, as cited in security status of a person
Reyes, 2008) The offender must be
The offender is any
the one who has the
NOTE: The fact that the child will be benefited by person
custody of the child
simulation of birth is not a defense since it creates The purpose of the
a false status detriment of members of the family offender is to avoid The offender is to
to which the child is introduced. the obligation of cause the child to lose
rearing and caring its civil status
In People v. Sangalang (74 O.G. 5983), it was ruled the child
that for the crime to exist, it must be shown that
the pretending parents have registered or caused

USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS NOTE: The second husband or wife who knew of
ART. 348, RPC the first marriage is an accomplice. The witness
who falsely vouched for the capacity of either of
How Crime is Committed the contracting parties is also an accomplice.
(Reyes, 2008)
It is committed when a person represents
himself to be another and assumes the filiation The second or subsequent marriage should be
or the parental or conjugal rights of such another valid were it not for the first marriage. Otherwise,
person. There must be intent to enjoy the rights the charge of Bigamy will not materialize. (People
arising from the civil status of another. v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-5877, 28 Sept. 1954)
Inclusion in Civil Status Bigamy is NOT a Private Crime
Civil status includes one’s public station or the In the crime of Bigamy, it is immaterial whether
rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which it is the first or the second wife who initiates the
determine a person to a given class. action, for it is a public crime which can be
denounced not only by the person affected
Qualification of this Crime thereby but even by a civic-spirited citizen who
may come to know the same. (People v. Belen, C.A.,
If the purpose is to defraud offended parties and 45 O.G., Supp. 5, 88)
heirs.
Bigamy vs. Illegal Marriage
Illustration: Where a person impersonates
another and assumes the latter's right as the son Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. Illegal
of wealthy parents, the former commits a marriage also includes such other marriages
violation of this article. which are performed without complying with the
requirements of law, or such premature
marriages, or such marriages which was
CHAPTER 2: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
solemnized by one who is not authorized to
solemnize the same.
BIGAMY
ART. 349, RPC Q: A was legally married to B on November 26,
1992. He later filed a petition seeking the
Elements of Bigamy (1996, 2004, 2008, 2012 declaration of nullity of their marriage. On 10
BAR) (M-N-S-E) December 2001, he contracted a second or
subsequent marriage with C. The court later
1. That the offender has been legally Married; declared the nullity of the marriage of A and B
on June 27, 2006. Did A commit bigamy?
2. That the marriage has Not been legally
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is A: YES. At the time of his second marriage with
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be C, his marriage with B was legally subsisting. It is
presumed dead according to the Civil Code; noted that the finality of the decision declaring
the nullity of his first marriage with B was only on
3. That he contracts a Second or subsequent June 27, 2006 or about five (5) years after his
marriage; and second marriage to C. The second or subsequent
marriage of petitioner with C has all the essential
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has requisites for validity. (Teves v. People, G.R. No.
all the Essential requisites for validity, except 188775, 24 Aug. 2011)
for the existence of the first marriage.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Generally, a Judicial Declaration of Nullity of bigamy. As long as a marriage is contracted

Marriage is Necessary during the subsistence of a valid first marriage
the second marriage is automatically VOID, the
GR: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous nullity of the second marriage is NOT a defense
marriage is necessary before a subsequent one for the avoidance of criminal liability. (Tenebro v.
can be legally contracted. One who enters into a CA, G.R. No. 150758, 18 Feb. 2004)
subsequent marriage without first obtaining such
judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This Q: Can a person convicted of Bigamy still be
principle applies even if the earlier union is prosecuted for concubinage?
characterized by statutes as "void." (Mercado v.
Tan, G.R. No. 137110, 01 Aug. 2000) A: YES, if he or she continues to cohabit with the
live-in partner for which he was accused and
XPN: Where no marriage ceremony at all was tried for Bigamy. (People v. Cabrera, G.R. No.
performed by a duly authorized solemnizing 17855, 04 Mar. 1922)
officer.
NOTE: Bigamy is an offense against civil status
The mere private act of signing a marriage which may be prosecuted only at the instance of
contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage the State. Concubinage is an offense against
and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. chastity and may be prosecuted only at the
Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed instance of the offended party. (Reyes, 2017)
to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for
which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy. Commencement of Prescriptive Period
(Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, 06 Feb. 2004)
The prescriptive period does not commence from
NOTE: The death of the first spouse during the the commission thereof but from the time of its
pendency of the case does not extinguish the discovery by the complainant spouse.
crime because when the offender married the
second spouse, the first marriage was still Q: Vitangcol married Alice Eduardo and begot
subsisting. 3 children. After some time, Alice began
hearing rumors that her husband was
Q: May the declaration of nullity of the second previously married to another woman named
marriage on the ground of psychological Gina Gaerlan. Such marriage was supported
incapacity be raised as a defense in the crime by a marriage contract registered with the
of bigamy? NSO. This prompted Alice to file a criminal
complaint for bigamy against Vitangcol.
A: NO. Although the judicial declaration of the
nullity of a marriage on the ground of In his defense, Vitangcol alleges that he
psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of already revealed to Alice that he had a “fake
the celebration of the marriage insofar as the marriage” with his college girlfriend Gina and
vinculum between the spouses is concerned, it is that there is a Certification from the Office of
significant to note that said marriage is not the Civil Registrar that there is no record of
without legal effects. Among these effects is that the marriage license issued to Vitangcol and
the children conceived or born before the his first wife Gina which makes his first
judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall marriage as void. Is Vitangcol liable of the
be considered legitimate. There is, therefore, a crime of bigamy?
recognition written into the law itself that such
marriage, although void ab initio, may still A: YES, Vitangcol is liable of the crime of bigamy.
produce legal consequences. Among these legal Bigamy consists of the following elements: (1)
consequences is incurring criminal liability for that the offender has been legally married; (2)

that the first marriage had not yet been legally prove the nonexistence of all the elements of
dissolved or in case his or her spouse is absent, bigamy. The trial court was able to show that the
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed four elements were present being: (1) the
dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he marriage between the appellant and the private
contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and complainant is still existing; (2) the same has not
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has been legally declared to be dissolved; (3)
all the essential requisites for validity. appellant contracted a subsequent marriage with
a certain Jean Basan while his first marriage with
In this case, all the elements of bigamy are the private complainant is still subsisting; and (4)
present, since Vitangcol was still legally married the second marriage has all the
to Gina when he married Alice. His defense of essential requisites for its validity. An admission
Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of misunderstanding and subsequent
implying that there is no record of the marriage reconciliation does not prove the nonexistence of
license issued to Vitangcol and his first wife Gina any of the elements provided. Thus, Prudencio
will not lie because marriages are not dissolved should still be held guilty of bigamy. (De Guzman
through mere certifications by the civil registrar. v. People, G.R. No. 224742, 07 Aug. 2018)
Hence, Vitangcol is still considered to be legally MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST

married to Gina when he married Alice and is not PROVISIONS OF LAWS
exculpated from the bigamy charged. (Vitangcol ART. 350, RPC
v. People, G.R. No. 207406, 13 Jan. 2016)
Elements (1993, 2004 BAR)
Effect of Execution of an Affidavit of
Desistance During the Pendency of the Appeal 1. Offender contracted marriage;
in a Bigamy Case
2. He knew at the time that the:
Q: Prudencio married Arlene in 1994. In a. Requirements of the law were not
2007, Prudencio abandoned his wife and complied with; or
children and contracted a subsequent b. Marriage was in disregard of a legal
marriage with Basan in 2010. He was charged impediment.
for bigamy under Art. 349 of the RPC. The trial
court convicted him of the crime charged. 3. The act of the offender does not constitute
During the pendency of his appeal in the Court bigamy.
of Appeals, Arlene executed an Affidavit of
Desistance praying that the case be dismissed Illustration: Where the parties secured a
after she had reconciled with Prudencio. Is falsified marriage contract complete with the
Prudencio still guilty for bigamy despite the supposed signature of a mayor and which they
Affidavit of Desistance? presented to the priest who solemnized the
marriage, they committed Illegal Marriage.
A: YES. Prudencio should still be convicted for
bigamy. Affidavits of desistance that were Qualification of this Crime
executed after judgments of conviction had been
promulgated by trial courts are generally If either of the contracting parties obtains the
received with extensive caution. consent of the other by means of violence,
intimidation, or fraud.
Arlene’s Affidavit of Desistance provides that she
filed the Complaint due to a misunderstanding, Conviction of a violation of Art. 350 of the RPC
which both she and Prudencio had agreed to involves moral turpitude. The respondent is
reconcile. This Affidavit of Desistance cannot disqualified from being admitted to the bar.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
(Villasanta v. Peralta, G.R. AC-UNAV. 30 Apr. 1957)
PREMATURE MARRIAGES
ART. 351, RPC
NOTE: Art. 351 of the RPC was repealed by R.A. No.

10655, approved on March 13, 2015.
R.A. No. 10655 Decriminalized the Act of

Premature Marriage
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Family

Code on paternity and filiation, Art. 351 of RPC,
punishing the crime of premature marriage
committed by a woman is hereby repealed. (Sec.
1, R.A. No. 10655)
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL
MARRIAGE CEREMONY
ART. 352, RPC
Persons Liable
Art. 352 punishes priests or ministers of any

religious denomination or sect, or civil
authorities who shall perform or authorize any
illegal marriage ceremony.
NOTE: Art. 352 presupposes that the priest or

minister or civil authority is authorized to
solemnize marriages. If the priest or ministers
are not authorized to solemnize marriage under
the law, and shall perform the marriage
ceremony, they may be prosecuted for
Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions
under Art. 177 and not under this article.

BAR)
L. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR 3. It must be Malicious;
ARTS. 353-364, RPC, TITLE XIII 4. It must be Directed at a natural or juridical
person, or one who is dead; (2002 BAR) and
5. It must tend to cause the Dishonor, discredit
or contempt of the person defamed.
CHAPTER 1: LIBEL
No Necessity in Naming the Person Accused
Sec. 1: Definition, Forms, and Punishment
of this Crime In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable although it is not
necessary that he be named. It must be shown
DEFINITION OF LIBEL
that at least a third person could identify him as
ART. 353, RPC
the object of the libelous publication. (Borjal v. CA,
G.R. No. 126466, 14 Jan. 1999)
Libel
It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion

A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
is apparent or if the publication contains matters
of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
of description or reference to facts and
omission, condition, status, or circumstance
circumstances from which others reading the
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
article may know the person alluded to, or if the
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
so that those knowing such person could and did
that he was the person referred to. (Diaz v. People,
Commission of Libel
G.R. No. 159787, 25 May 2007)
Libel is a defamation committed by means of

Test to Determine whether a Statement is
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
Defamatory
phonograph, painting or theatrical or
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
To determine “whether a statement is
means.
defamatory, the words used are to be construed
in their entirety and should be taken in their
Persons Liable for Libel
plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they
would naturally be understood by persons
1. Any person who shall publish, exhibit or
reading them, unless it appears that they were
cause the publication or exhibition of any
used and understood in another
defamation in writing or by similar means; or
sense.” Moreover, charge is sufficient if the
words are calculated to induce the hearers to
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet,
suppose and understand that the person or
or the editor or business manager of a daily
persons against whom they were uttered were
newspaper, magazine or serial publication,
guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to
for defamation contained therein to the same
impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to
extent as if he were the author thereof.
hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.
(Lopez v. People and Escalante, G.R. No. 172203, 14
Elements (D-I-D-P-M) (2005, 2010 BAR)
Feb. 2011)
1. There must be an Imputation of a crime, or of

NOTE: The intention or meaning of the writer is
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
immaterial. It is the meaning that the words in
omission, condition, status or circumstance;
fact conveyed on the minds of persons of
2. Imputation must be made Publicly; (2003

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
reasonable understanding, discretion, and the libelous statement - for a man’s reputation is
candor which should be considered. the estimate in which others hold him, not the
good opinion which he has of himself.
Q: Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged
complaints from students, teachers and Illustration: The delivery of the libelous article
parents against Ago Medical and Educational to the typesetter is sufficient publication. (U.S. v.
Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine Crame, G.R. No. 4328, 13 Feb. 1908)
and its administrators. Rima and Alegre
remarked that “AMEC is a dumping ground, The sending of a letter to wife which maligns the
garbage of moral and physical misfits”; and husband was considered sufficient publication,
AMEC students who graduate “will be for the spouse is a third person to the victim
liabilities rather than assets” of the society. defamed. (U.S. v. Urbinana, G.R. No. 927, 08 Nov.
Claiming that the broadcasts were 1902)
defamatory, AMEC filed a complaint for
damages against FBNI, Rima and Alegre. Are Q: Dolores Magno was charged and convicted
the aforementioned remarks or broadcasts of libel for the writings on the wall and for the
libelous? unsigned letter addressed to the Alejandro
spouses, containing invectives directed
A: YES. There is no question that the broadcasts against Cerelito Alejandro. Dolores contends
were made public and imputed to AMEC defects that the prosecution failed to establish the
or circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, presence of the elements of authorship and
discredit and contempt. Rima and Alegre’s publication of the malicious writings on the
remarks are libelous per se. Taken as a whole, the wall, as well as the unsigned letter addressed
broadcasts suggest that AMEC is a money-making to the Alejandro spouses. She argues that
institution where physically and morally unfit since the letter was addressed to the spouses,
teachers abound. Every defamatory imputation is Fe (Cerelito’s wife) was, insofar as Cerelito is
presumed malicious. Rima and Alegre failed to concerned, not a third person for purposes of
show adequately their good intention and publication. Is she liable?
justifiable motive in airing the supposed gripes of
the students. As hosts of a documentary or public A: To be liable for libel under Art. 353 of the RPC,
affairs program, Rima and Alegre should have the following elements must be shown to exist:
presented the public issues free from inaccurate
and misleading information. (Filipinas 1. The allegation of a discreditable act or
Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and condition concerning another;
Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of 2. Publication of the charge;
Medicine, G.R. No. 14199, 17 Jan. 2005) 3. Identity of the person defamed; and
4. Existence of malice.
REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
The element of publication is satisfied when, after
ART. 354, RPC
writing the defamatory matter, the same is made
known to someone other than the person to
Publication of the Libelous Article is NOT
whom it is being pertained to. If the statement is
Necessary
sent straight to a person for whom it is written
there is no publication of it. It could not be said,
It is not necessary that the libelous article must
however, that there was no publication with
be published; communication of the defamatory
respect to Fe. While the letter in question was
matter to some third persons is sufficient. It is not
addressed to “Mr. Cerelito & Fe Alejandro,” the
required that the person defamed has read or
invectives contained therein were directed
heard about the libelous remark. What is
against Cerelito only. Writing to a person other
material is that a third person has read or heard
than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute

publication for the person to whom the letter is words attributed against her. In response,
addressed is a third person in relation to its writer Commissioner Yorac issued a Letter denying
and the person defamed therein. (Magno v. the statements attributed to her by the
People, G.R. No. 133896, 27 Jan. 2006) Inquirer. Enrile repeatedly demanded
Inquirer to correct the said news article but
Malice his demands proved futile as no correction
was made. Left with no recourse, he filed a
A term used to indicate the fact that the offender Complaint for Damages against Defendants-
is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and Appellants alleging that the news article
speaks not in response to duty but merely to imputed upon him defamatory acts of (a)
injure the reputation of the person defamed. having benefited from the coco levy fund, (b)
accumulating ill-gotten wealth, and (c) being
NOTE: Malice is presumed and the test is the a Marcos crony. Will the case filed by Enrile
character of the words used. The meaning of the prosper?
writer or author is immaterial.
A: NO. Like "fair commentaries on matters of
Kinds of Malice public interest, " fair reports on matters of
public interest is also included in the list of
1. Malice in fact may be shown by proof of ill- qualifiedly privileged communications, and are
will, hatred, or purpose to injure. thus included under the protective mantle of
privileged communications. In order to
2. Malice in law is presumed from a defamatory successfully claim that an utterance covered
imputation. However, presumption is under qualifiedly privileged communications is
rebutted if it is shown by the accused that: libelous, the plaintiff must prove the existence
of malice in fact.
a. Defamatory imputation is true, in case
the law allows proof of the truth of the The subject matter of the article is undoubtedly a
imputation; matter of public interest. As the RTC itself
b. It is published with good intention; and correctly observed, "these are matters about
c. There is justifiable motive for making it. which the public has the right to be informed,
talcing into account the public character of the
Q: The Philippine Daily Inquirer published on funds involved." Enrile is likewise
its front page a news article with the heading: unquestionably a public figure. A public figure
"PCGG: no to coconut levy agreement" co- has been defined as a person who, by his
written by Cueto and Pazzibugan. In the said accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by
news article, the following statements were adopting a profession or calling which gives the
made: “In her public statement since the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his
controversy on the settlement erupted last affairs, and his character, has become a "public
week, Yorac said the settlement would allow personage." He is, in other words, a celebrity.
Marcos cronies, who had benefited from the
coco levy fund, particularly businessman From the foregoing, it could be indisputably
Eduardo "Danding" [Cojuangco], Jr., inferred, therefore, that the presumption of
Zamboanga City Mayor Maria Clara Lobregat existence of malice does not arise for the article,
and former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, to keep as the same is considered a "fair report on
their plundered loot.” matters of public interest" — and thus a
qualifiedly privileged communication. While,
After reading the news article, Enrile through generally, malice can be presumed from
his counsel, wrote to Commissioner Yorac to defamatory words, the privileged character of a
confirm whether she uttered the defamatory communication destroys the presumption of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
malice. The onus of proving actual malice then b. That it is made in good faith; and
lies on Enrile. The Court, however, holds that c. That it is without any comments or
Enrile failed to discharge the said burden. remarks.
What constitutes malice is not the fact that the NOTE: The instances when malice is not
articles contain matters which are false. For there presumed are examples of malice in fact.
to be malice, it must be that the articles were
published with the knowledge that the matters in Q: Do the defamatory remarks and comments
the article were false. It could not be said, on the conduct or acts of public officers which
however, that at the time of the article's are related to the discharge of their official
publication that petitioners already knew that duties constitute libel?
the statement did not, in fact, come from Yorac.
(PDI v. Enrile, G.R. No. 229440, 14 July 2021, J. A: NO. It will not constitute libel if the accused
Caguioa) proves the truth of the imputation. But any attack
upon the private character of the public officers
Instances when Malice is NOT Presumed on matters which are not related to the discharge
of their official functions may constitute libel.
1. Private communication made by any person
to another in the performance of any legal, A written letter containing libelous matter cannot
moral, or social duty. be classified as privileged when publicly
published and circulated. (Sazon v. CA, G.R. No.
Requisites: 120715, 29 Mar. 1996)
a. Person who made the communication
had a legal moral or social duty to make Invocation of Freedom of Speech
the communication or at least, he had
an interest to be upheld; Although a wide latitude is given to critical
b. Communication is addressed to an utterances made against public officials in the
officer, or a board, or superior, having performance of their official duties, or against
some interest or duty in the matter; and public figures on matters of public interest, such
c. Statements in the communication are criticism does not automatically fall within the
made in good faith without malice (in ambit of constitutionally protected speech.
fact).
If the utterances are false, malicious, or unrelated
2. Fair and true report made in good faith, to a public officer’s performance of his duties or
without any comments or remarks, of any irrelevant to matters of public interest involving
judicial, legislative, or other official public figures, the same may give rise to criminal
proceedings which are not of confidential and civil liability. (Fermin v. People, G.R. No.
nature, or of any statement, report, or speech 157643, 28 Mar. 2008)
delivered in the exercise of their functions.
Doctrine of Fair Comment
Requisites:
a. That it is a fair and true report of a While in general every discreditable imputation
judicial, legislative or other official publicly made is deemed false, because every
proceedings which are not of man is presumed innocent until his guilt is
confidential nature, or of any judicially proved, and every false imputation is
statement, report or speech delivered deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
in said proceedings, or of any other act discreditable imputation is directed against a
performed by public officers in the public person in his public capacity, it is not
exercise of their functions; necessarily actionable. In order that such

discreditable imputation to a public official may 2. Conditional or qualified – like a private

be actionable, it must either be a false allegation communication made by any person to
of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. another in the performance of any legal,
If the comment is an expression of opinion, based moral, or social duty, and a fair and true
on established facts, then it is immaterial that the report, made in good faith, without any
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it comments or remarks, of any judicial,
might reasonably be inferred from the facts. legislative or other official proceedings
(Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466, 14 Jan. 1999) which are not of confidential nature. Here,
even if the statements are defamatory, there
Privileged Communication is no presumption of malice. The prosecution
must prove malice in fact to convict the
It is a communication made bona fide upon any accused.
subject matter in which the party communicating
has an interest, or in reference to which he has a Q: In a judicial proceeding, when can a
duty and the person to whom the communication defamatory imputation be said to be a
is given has a corresponding interest. privileged communication?
Criticism A: The one obstacle that those pleading the

defense of privileged communication must
It deals only with such things as shall invite public hurdle is the test of relevancy. Under this test, a
attention or call for public comment. It does not matter alleged in the course of the proceedings
follow a public man into his private life nor pry need not be in every case material to the issues
into his domestic concerns. presented but should be legitimately related to
the issues or be so pertinent to the controversy
Common Defense in Libel that it may become the subject of inquiry in the
course of trial. (Alcantara v. Ponce, G.R. No.
That it is covered by privileged communication. 156183, 28 Feb. 2007)
1. Absolute – not actionable even if the author Q: Ponce filed a string of criminal complaints
has acted in bad faith: against Alcantara and his family, including
one for estafa. In essence, Ponce alleged that
a. Statements made by members of Alcantara had swindled him out of 3,000,000
Congress in the discharge of their official shares of Floro Cement Corporation. It was in
functions; the course of the preliminary investigation of
the complaint for estafa that Ponce, shortly
b. Allegations or statements made by the after giving his sur-rejoinder affidavit,
parties or their counsel in their pleadings submitted to the investigating prosecutor a
or motions or during the hearing of newsletter purporting to be a belated annex
judicial proceedings; to the affidavit.
c. Answers given by witnesses in reply to It was prefaced with the quotation “For every
questions propounded to them, in the extraordinary fortune there is a great crime”
course of said proceedings, provided that and the text: An example is Marcos. We need
said allegations or statements are not discuss this. Second example is the
relevant to the issues, and the answers Alcantaras.
are responsive or pertinent to the
questions propounded to said witnesses. The newsletter then went on to discuss SEC
(Alcantara v. Ponce, G.R. No. 156183, 28 Case No. 2507 in which Ponce accused the
Feb. 2007) Alcantaras of defrauding him of his shares in

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Iligan Cement Corporation. 2. Printing;

3. Lithography;
Claiming that the statements in the newsletter 4. Engraving;
were defamatory, Alcantara filed a complaint 5. Radio; (2002 BAR)
for libel. Ponce, on the other hand, raised 6. Phonograph;
privileged communication as a defense. Is the 7. Painting;
defense tenable? 8. Theatrical exhibition;
9. Cinematographic exhibition; or
A: YES. It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction 10. Any similar means. (2005 BAR)
that statements made in the course of judicial
proceedings are absolutely privileged. This Defamation through amplifiers is not libel, but
absolute privilege remains regardless of the oral defamation. (People v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-
defamatory tenor and the presence of malice if 17663, 30 May 1962)
the same are relevant, pertinent, or material to
the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. “In addition to the civil action which may be
Furthermore, the newsletter qualified as a brought by the offended party”
communication made bona fide upon any subject
matter in which the party communicating has an Notwithstanding this clause in Art. 355, civil
interest. The controversial statements were action for damages may be filed simultaneously or
made in the context of a criminal complaint separately with the criminal action. (Reyes, 2017)
against Alcantara, albeit for other, separate acts
involving greed and deceit, and were disclosed THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO
only to the official investigating the complaint. PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A
Liberally applying the privileged communication COMPENSATION
doctrine, these statements were still relevant to ART. 356, RPC
the complaint under investigation because, like
the averments therein, they also involved Punishable Acts
Alcantara’s alleged deceitfulness. (Alcantara v.
Ponce, G.R. No. 156183, 28 Feb. 2007) 1. Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child,
Multiple Publication Rule in Libel or other members of his family; and
A single defamatory statement, if published 2. Offering to prevent the publication of such

several times, gives rise to as many offenses as libel for compensation, or money
there are publications. For purposes of Art. 360 of consideration.
RPC, as amended, every time the same written
matter is communicated such communication is Illustration: The accused threatened to publish
considered a distinct and separate publication of in a weekly periodical, certain letters, amorous in
libel. (Soriano v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, 09 Nov. 1988) nature, written by a married woman and
addressed by her to a man, not her husband,
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING unless paid P4,000 to them. (U.S. v. Eguia, et al.,
OR SIMILAR MEANS G.R. No. L013540, 24 Oct. 1917)
ART. 355, RPC
Blackmail
Commission of Libel (W-PLERPP-TCA)
Any unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to
Libel may be committed by: the fears of the victim, especially extortion of
money by threats of accusation or exposure. (U.S.
1. Writing; v. Eguia, supra)

Felonies where Blackmail is Committed Elements of Oral Defamation
1. Light threats (Art. 283, RPC); and 1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or a
2. Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
the publication of, a libel for compensation. omission, condition, status, or
(Art. 356, RPC) circumstances;
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS 2. Imputation must be made publicly;

REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE
OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS 3. The imputation must be malicious;
ART. 357, RPC
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural
Elements (Rem-P-O) or juridical person, or one who is dead; and
1. That the offender is a Reporter, editor, or 5. The imputation must tend to cause dishonor,
manager of a newspaper daily or magazine; discredit, or contempt of the person
2. That he publishes facts connected with the defamed. (People v. Maratas, 11 Apr. 1980)
Private life of another; and
3. That such facts are Offensive to the honor, NOTE: The imputation must be verbally made or
virtue and reputation of said person. uttered. The slanderous remarks need not to be
heard by the offended party as long as they are
The prohibition applies, even though said uttered in the presence of a third person.
publication be made in connection with or under
the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of Slander
any judicial or administrative proceedings
wherein such facts have been mentioned. It is a libel committed by oral (spoken) means,
instead of in writing. It is also defined as the
Gag Law speaking base and defamatory words which tend
to prejudice another in his reputation.
Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to
adultery, divorce, issues about the legitimacy of Factors that Determine the Gravity of Oral
children, etc., will necessarily be barred from Defamation
publication. (Reyes, 2012)
1. Expressions used;
Under R.A No. 1477, a newspaper reporter 2. Personal relations of the accused and the
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of the offended party; and
news report he made, unless the court or a House 3. Circumstances surrounding the case.
or committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the NOTE: Social standing and the position of the
state. (Reyes, 2012) offended party are also taken into account.
Q: Lando and Marco are candidates in the

SLANDER
local elections. In his speeches Lando
ART. 358, RPC
attacked his opponent Marco alleging that he
is the son of Nanding, a robber and a thief, who
Kinds of Oral Defamation
amassed his wealth through shady deals. May
Marco file a case against Lando for grave oral
1. Simple slander; and
defamation? (1990 BAR)
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and
insulting nature.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
A: NO. Marco cannot file a case for grave oral Slander by Deed vs. Acts of Lasciviousness
defamation. If at all, he may file a case for light
slander. In the case of People v. Laroga (40 O.G. Kissing a girl in public and touching her breast
123), it was held that defamation in political without lewd designs, committed by a reject
meeting, when feelings are running high and suitor to cast dishonor on the girl was held to be
people could not think clearly, shall only amount slander by deed and not acts of lasciviousness.
to light slander. (People v. Valencia, G.R. No. 4136-R, 29 May 1950)
SLANDER BY DEED Sec. 2: General Provisions

ART. 359, RPC
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE
Slander by Deed (1994 BAR) ART. 360, RPC
A crime against honor which is committed by

Persons Liable for Libel
performing any act which casts dishonor,
discredit, or contempt upon another person. 1. Person who publishes, exhibits, or causes the
publication or exhibition of any defamation
Elements of Slander by Deed
in writing or similar means;
2. Author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
1. Offender performs any act not included in
3. Editor or business manager of a daily
any other crime against honor;
newspaper magazine or serial publication; or
2. Such act is performed in the presence of 4. Owner of the printing plant which publishes
other person or persons; and
a libelous article with his consent and all
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit, or
other persons who in any way participate in
contempt upon the offended party.
or have connection with its publication.
Kinds of Slander by Deed Where to File a Complaint for Libel
1. Simple slander by deed – performance of an

Criminal and civil actions for damages in case of
act, not use of words. written defamations shall be filed simultaneously
2. Grave slander by deed – that is which is of a
or separately with the court of first instance of the
serious crime.
province or city:
How to Determine Whether an Act is Slander

1. Where the libelous article is printed and first
by Deed or Not
published; or
Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes

2. Where any of the offended parties actually
slander by deed of a serious nature or not,
resides at the time of the commission of the
depends on the social standing of the offended offense.
party, the circumstances under which the act was
committed, the occasion, etc.
NOTE: The court where the criminal action or
civil action for damages is first filed shall acquire
Illustration: Thus, slapping a lady in a dance not
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
for the purpose of hurting her but to cause her
shame and humiliation for refusing to dance with Q: Is the author of a libelous article the only
the accused is slander by deed.
one liable for libel?
This crime involves an act, while libel or slander

A: NO. Art. 360 includes not only the author or the
involves words written or uttered.
person who causes the libelous matter to be

published, but also the person who prints or statements against the owners of Pacific
publishes it. Proof of knowledge of and Plans, Inc. The libel suit was filed before the
participation in the publication of the offending Regional Trial Court of Makati alleging that it
article is not required, if the accused has been is in Makati where the website was first
specifically identified as “author, editor, or accessed; hence, it is in Makati where it was
proprietor” or “printer/publisher” of the first published. Does the RTC Makati has
publication. (Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, 28 jurisdiction over the libel case?
Mar. 2008)
A: NO. The venue of libel cases where the
Rationale for the Criminal Liability of Persons complainant is a private individual is limited to
enumerated in Art. 360 of the RPC (2013 BAR) only either of two places, namely: 1) where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the
It was enunciated in U.S. v. Ocampo, that commission of the offense; or 2) where the
according to the legal doctrines and alleged defamatory article was printed and first
jurisprudence of the United States, the printer of published.
a publication containing libelous matter is liable
for the same by reason of his direct connection If the circumstances as to where the libel was
therewith and his cognizance of the contents printed and first published are used by the
thereof. With regard to a publication in which a offended party as basis for the venue in the
libel is printed, not only is the publisher but also criminal action, the Information must allege with
all other persons who in any way participate in or particularity where the defamatory article was
have any connection with its publication are printed and first published, as evidenced or
liable as publishers. (Fermin v. People, supra) supported by, for instance, the address of their
editorial or business offices in the case of
Q: The COMELEC Chairman was sued for libel newspapers, magazines, or serial publications.
due to his defamatory statements against This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to
Photokina Marketing Corporation. The forestall any inclination to harass. The same
Chairman raised as a defense the lack of measure cannot be reasonably expected when it
jurisdiction of the RTC since he delivered the pertains to defamatory material appearing on a
speech in his official capacity as COMELEC website on the internet as there would be no way
Chair. The RTC ruled that it was of determining the situs of its printing and first
Sandiganbayan and not RTC which has publication. To credit the premise of equating his
jurisdiction over the case. Is the RTC correct? first access to the defamatory article on the
website in Makati with “printing and first
A: NO. Art. 360 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. publication” would spawn the very ills that the
4363, is explicit on which court has jurisdiction to amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to
try cases of written defamations: The grant to the discourage and prevent. (Bonifacio et al v. RTC
Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses Makati, G.R. No. 184800, 05 May 2010)
committed in relation to public office, similar to
the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did PROOF OF TRUTH
not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original ART. 361, RPC
jurisdiction to try written defamation cases
regardless of whether the offense is committed in Admissibility of Proof of Truth
relation to office. (People v. Benipayo, G.R. No.
154473, 24 Apr. 2009) Proof of truth is admissible in any of the
following:
Q: A large group of disgruntled plan holders of
Pacific Plans, Inc. was sued for libel for 1. When the act or omission imputed
publishing in a website defamatory constitutes a crime regardless of whether the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
offended party is a private individual or a privileged matter. (U.S. v. Dorr, G.R. No. 1049, 16
public officer. May 1903; Reyes, 2008)
2. When the offended party is a government Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of

employee, even if the act or omission Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in
imputed does not constitute a crime, Libel Cases
provided, it is related to the discharge of his
official duties. All courts and judges concerned should
henceforth take note of the foregoing rule of
NOTE: Proof of truth must rest upon positive, preference set by the Supreme Court on the
direct evidence upon which a definite finding matter of the imposition of penalties for the crime
may be made by the court, but probable cause for of libel bearing in mind the following principles:
belief in the truth of the statement is sufficient.
(2009 BAR) 1. This Administrative Circular does not
remove imprisonment as an alternative
Proof of Truth is NOT Sufficient penalty for the crime of libel under Art. 355
of the RPC.
Proof of truth is not enough since it is also
required that the matter charged as libelous was 2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
published with good motives and for justifiable sound discretion, and taking into
ends. consideration the peculiar circumstances of
each case, determine whether the imposition
Possible Defenses in the Crime of Libel of a fine alone would best serve the interests
of justice or whether forbearing to impose
1. It appears that the matters charged as imprisonment would depreciate the
libelous is true; seriousness of the offense, work violence on
2. It was published with good motives; and the social order, or otherwise be contrary to
3. For a justifiable end. the imperative of justice.
LIBELOUS REMARKS 3. Should only a fine be imposed and the

ART. 362, RPC accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no
legal obstacle to the application of the RPC
Libelous remarks or comments connected with provision on subsidiary imprisonment.
the matter privileged under the provisions of Art.
354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the Prescriptive Periods
author thereof nor the editor or managing editor
of a newspaper from criminal liability. In relation to Art. 90 of the RPC, the prescriptive
periods for the filing of the complaint for the
Q: What is the liability of newspaper reporter offenses enumerated under Crimes against
for distorting facts connected with official Honor are:
proceedings?
1. Libel and similar offenses – one (1) year;
A: The author or the editor of a publication who 2. Oral defamation and slander by deed – six (6)
distorts, mutilates, or discolors the official months.
proceedings reported by him, add comments
thereon to cast aspersion on the character of the
parties concerned, is guilty of libel,
notwithstanding the fact that the defamatory
matter is published in connection with a

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR 08-2008 communication should be appreciated in favor of

RE: GUIDELINES IN THE OBSERVANCE OF A petitioner, especially considering the wide
RULE OF PREFERENCE IN THE IMPOSITION latitude traditionally given to defamatory
OF PENALTIES IN LIBEL CASES utterances against public officials in connection
with or relevant to their performance of official
Preference of Imposition of Fine duties or against public figures in relation to
matters of public interest involving them.
NOTE: Art. 355 of the RPC penalizes libel
with prision correctional in its minimum and In Buatis, Jr. v. People (G.R No. 142509, 24 Mar.
medium periods or fine ranging from P200.00 to 2006), the Court opted to impose upon petitioner,
P6,000.00 or both, in addition to the civil action a lawyer, the penalty of fine only for the crime of
which may be brought by the offended party. In libel considering that it was his first offense and
the following cases, the Court opted to impose he was motivated purely by his belief that he was
only a fine on the person convicted of the crime merely exercising a civic or moral duty to his
of libel: client when he wrote the defamatory letter to
private complainant.
In Sazon v. CA (G.R No. 120715, 29 Mar. 1996), the
Court modified the penalty imposed upon CHAPTER 2: INCRIMINATORY
petitioner, an officer of a homeowners’ MACHINATIONS
association, for the crime of libel from
imprisonment and fine in the amount of P200.00,
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
to fine only of P3,000.00, with subsidiary
ART. 363, RPC
imprisonment in case of insolvency, for the
reason that he wrote the libelous article merely
Elements (A-I-NotP)
to defend his honor against the malicious
messages that earlier circulated around the
1. Offender performs an Act;
subdivision, which he thought was the handiwork
2. By such act he directly Incriminates or
of the private complainant.
imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime; and
In Mari v. CA (G.R No. 127694, 31 May 2000),
3. Such act does Not constitute Perjury.
where the crime involved is slander by deed, the
Court modified the penalty imposed on the
NOTE: The crime of incriminatory machinations
petitioner, an ordinary government employee,
is limited to planting evidence and the like, which
from imprisonment to fine of P1,000.00, with
tend directly to cause false prosecution.
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
on the ground that the latter committed the
Incriminating an Innocent Person vs. Perjury
offense in the heat of anger and in reaction to a
by Making False Accusation
perceived provocation.
In Brillante v. CA (G.R. Nos. 118757 & 12157, 11 PERJURY BY

INCRIMINATING AN
Nov. 2005), the Court deleted the penalty of MAKING FALSE
INNOCENT PERSON
imprisonment imposed upon petitioner, a local ACCUSATION
politician, but maintained the penalty of fine of Committed by
P4,0000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in performing an act by The gravamen of the
case of insolvency, in each of the five (5) cases of which the offender offense is the
libel, on the ground that the intensely feverish directly incriminates imputation itself,
passions evoked during the election period in or imputes to an falsely made, before
1988 must have agitated petitioner into writing innocent person the an officer qualified to
his open letter; and that incomplete privileged commission of a take an oath
crime

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Giving of false another, as long as the

Limited to the act of statement under oath source is identified.
planting evidence and or the making of a
the like in order to false affidavit Intriguing against Honor vs. Incriminating an
incriminate an imputing to a person Innocent Person
innocent person the commission of a
crime INTRIGUING INCRIMINATING AN
AGAINST HONOR INNOCENT PERSON
Incriminatory Machination vs. Defamation The offender resorts The offender performs
or gossips for the an act that would
INCRIMINATORY purpose of incriminate or impute
DEFAMATION
MACHINATION disparaging the to an innocent person
Offender performs honor or reputation the commission of a
Offender avails
acts to directly of another. crime.
himself of written or
impute to an
spoken words in
innocent person the
besmirching the
commission of the
victim’s reputation.
crime.
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

ART. 364, RPC
Intriguing against Honor
Any scheme or plot which may consists of some

trickery.
Persons Liable
Any person who shall make any intrigue which

has, for its principal purpose, to blemish the
honor or reputation of another person.
Intriguing against Honor vs. Slander
INTRIGUING
SLANDER
AGAINST HONOR
Offender made the
The source of the
utterance, where the
defamatory
source of the
utterance is
defamatory nature of
unknown and the
the utterance is known,
offender simply
and offender makes a
repeats or passes the
republication thereof,
same, without
even though he repeats
subscribing to the
the libelous statement
truth thereof.
as coming from

Elements of Simple Imprudence (D-P)

M. QUASI-OFFENSES
ART. 365, RPC, TITLE XIV 1. There is lack of Precaution on the part of the
offender; (BAR 2008) and
2. Damage impending to be caused is not

SOLE CHAPTER: CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE immediate nor the danger clearly
manifested.
IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
ART. 365, RPC NOTE: Art. 64 of the RPC, relative to mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, is not applicable
Punishable Acts (1993, 2001, 2008, 2009 in quasi-offenses.
BAR)
Imprudence vs. Negligence
1. Committing through reckless imprudence
any act which, had it been intentional, would IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light
Deficiency of
felony; Deficiency of action
perception
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
2. Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise To avoid wrongful
To avoid wrongful
constitute a grave or a less serious felony; acts, paying proper
acts, one must take the
attention and using
necessary precaution
3. Causing damage to the property of another due diligence in
once they are foreseen
through reckless imprudence or simple foreseeing them
imprudence or negligence; and
NOTE: The RPC does not draw a well-defined
4. Causing through simple imprudence or demarcation line between negligent acts that are
negligence some wrong which, if done delictual and those which are quasi-delictual. It is
maliciously, would have constituted a light possible that a negligent act may be delictual and
felony. quasi-delictual at the same time.
Elements of Reckless Imprudence Failing to Lend Help as a Qualifying

(Da-V-A-M-P) Circumstance
1. Offender does or fails to do an Act; GR: Failing to lend help is a qualifying

2. The doing of or the failure to do that act is circumstance; it raises the penalty one degree
Voluntary; higher.
3. It be without Malice;
4. Material Damage results; and XPN: The driver can leave his vehicle without
5. There is an inexcusable lack of Precaution on aiding the victims if he:
the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act taken into consideration: a. Is in imminent danger of being harmed
(2007 BAR) b. Wants to report to the nearest officer of the
a. Employment or occupation; law; or
b. Degree of intelligence; c. Desires to summon a physician or a nurse
c. Physical condition; or for medical assistance to the injured (Sec.
d. Other circumstances regarding 55, R.A. No. 4136).
persons, time and place.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Effect of Accident in Art. 275(2) vs. Art. 365 Illustration: An automobile driver who, by the
negligence of another and not by his own
EFFECT OF ACCIDENT negligence, is suddenly placed in an emergency
IN FAILURE TO HELP and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision
EFFECT OF ACCIDENT
OR RENDER or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes
IN IMPRUDENCE AND
ASSISTANCE TO such a choice which a person of ordinary
NEGLIGENCE
ANOTHER WHOM HE prudence placed in such a position might make
ART. 365
HAS ACCIDENTALLY even though he did not make the wisest choice
INJURED
ART. 275(2) Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Falls under Crimes Falls under Criminal
Against Security Negligence “The thing speaks for itself.” Where the thing
Committed by means Committed by means which causes injury is shown to be under the
of dolo of culpa management of the defendant, and the accident is
Failure to lend help such as in the ordinary course of things does not
to one's victim is happen if those who have the management use
neither an offense by proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
itself nor an element absence of an explanation by the defendant, that
Failure to help or the accident arose from want of care. (Jarcia v.
of the offense therein
render assistance to People, G.R. No. 187926, 15 Feb. 2012)
penalized. Its
another whom one has
presence merely
accidentally wounded Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur
increases the penalty
or injured is an offense
by one degree. It
must be specifically 1. The accident was of a kind which does not
alleged in the ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
information 2. The instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance the person in charge; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due
This states that the contributory negligence of the to any voluntary action or contribution of the
party injured will not defeat the action if it be person injured.
shown that the accused might, by the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the NOTE: Under the res ipsa loquitur rule in its
consequences of the negligence of the injured broad sense, the fact of the occurrence of an
party. injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise
Emergency Rule a presumption of negligence, or make out a
plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
This provides that a person confronted with question of fact for defendant to meet with an
emergency may be left with no time for thought, explanation. It is not a rule of substantive law but
must make speedy decision based on impulse or more a procedural rule. Its mere invocation does
instinct, and cannot be held liable for the same not exempt the plaintiff with the requirement of
conduct as one who had the opportunity to proof to prove negligence. It merely allows the
reflect. plaintiff to present, along with the proof of the
accident, enough of the attending circumstances
The emergency rule is applicable only when the to invoke the doctrine creating an inference or
situation that arises is sudden and unexpected, presumption of negligence and to thereby place
and is such to deprive him of all opportunity for on the defendant the burden of going forward
deliberation. with the proof. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.

146710-15, 03 Apr. 2001) A: NO. The contention of X is wrong. To constitute

the offense of reckless driving, the act must be
Effect of Contributory Negligence on the Part something more than a mere negligence in the
of the Victim operation of the motor vehicle. The act is
required to be of willful and wanton disregard of
Contributory negligence on the part of the victim the consequences. The fact that Y’s body was
is not a valid defense to exculpate one from thrown four (4) meters away from his jeep
criminal liability although it could be mitigated. showed that X was driving his pick-up at a fast
(Addenbrook v. People, G.R. No. L-22995, 29 June speed when he overtook the jeep of Y.
1967)
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
NOTE: Reckless imprudence is not only a mode surrender cannot be appreciated in his favor.
or means of committing a crime. It is a crime by Paragraph 5 of Art. 365, RPC, expressly states that
itself. Thus, when a person drove his car in the imposition of the penalties, the courts shall
recklessly hitting a pedestrian who was killed, the exercise their sound discretion, without regard to
crime is reckless imprudence resulting in the rules prescribed in Art. 64 of the RPC.
homicide NOT homicide through reckless (Mariano v. People, G.R. No. 178145, 07 July 2014)
imprudence.
Q: X, while descending from a curved path,
The essence of the quasi offense of criminal collided with a motorcycle, killing Y, one of its
negligence under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in the passengers, and causing serious physical
execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if injuries to the two other victims. The body of
intentionally done, would be punishable as a Y was loaded to the vehicle of X but the latter’s
felony. The law penalizes the negligent or engine would not start; thus, the body was
careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of loaded in a different vehicle. The jack of X was
the consequence is only taken into account to used to extricate the body of Y from being
determine the penalty, it does not qualify the pinned under the vehicle of X. X, in his
substance of the offense. And, as the careless act defense, claimed that it was not his fault that
is single, whether the injurious result should the tricycle swerved in his direction.
affect one person or several persons, the offense
(criminal negligence) remains one and the same, X was charged with Reckless Imprudence
and cannot be split into different crimes and Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious
prosecutions. (Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, Physical Injuries and Damage to Property
17 Nov. 2010) under Art. 365 in relation to Art. 263 of the
RPC “with the aggravating circumstance that
Q: Y while alighting from his vehicle was hit by accused failed to lend on the spot to the
X with his car. This caused Y to be thrown four injured party such help that was in his hands
meters away from his jeepney. X was charged to give”. Should the court appreciate the
with frustrated murder and convicted in the alleged aggravating circumstance?
RTC of frustrated homicide. Upon appeal in
the CA, the crime was modified to reckless A: NO. The aggravating circumstance “that
imprudence resulting in serious physical accused failed to lend on the spot to the injured
injuries. X contends that he is not liable for party such help that was in his hands to give”
such crime because he lacked criminal intent; should not be appreciated. Verily, it is the
that he was not negligent in driving his pick- inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious
up truck; and that the CA should have indifference to the consequences of the conduct
appreciated voluntary surrender as a which supplies the criminal intent in Art. 365.
mitigating circumstance in his favor. Is X’s The limiting element in the last paragraph of Art.
contention correct? 365 of the RPC, which imposes the penalty next

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
higher in degree upon the offender who “fails to Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its
lend on the spot to the injured parties such help Consequences on Persons and Property are
as may be in his hands to give.”, according to case Material Only to Determine the Penalty
law, (a) is dependent on the means in the hands
of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of The two charges against petitioner, arising from
assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the same facts, were prosecuted under the same
the incident, is capable of giving; and (b) requires provision of the RPC, as amended, namely, Art.
adequate proof. X was able to supply the help 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.
according to the extent of capabilities. (Gonzaga
v. People, G.R. No. 195671, 21 Jan. 2015) Conceptually, quasi-offenses penalize "the
mental attitude or condition behind the act, the
Q: While X was driving his car, he noticed that dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight,
something was wrong in the accelerator. He the imprudencia punible," unlike willful offenses
drove his car under the house of A which is which punish the intentional criminal act. These
made of light materials. Upon opening the structural and conceptual features of quasi-
hood of his car, he smelled gasoline from offenses set them apart from the mass of
under the car. He lighted his lighter to see intentional crimes under the first 13 Titles of
what was wrong. All of a sudden, the car was Book II of the as amended.
set aflame. The fire spread to the house of A.
Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless
To save himself, A jumped from the window Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for
and suffered serious physical injuries. B, wife the Same Quasi-Offense
of A, failed to get out of the house and was
burnt to death. C, the son of A and B, suffered The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Art.
slight physical injuries when he got out of the 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not
house. The motorcycle of C was destroyed. merely a means to commit other crimes such that
What crime did X commit? conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
A: X committed Reckless Imprudence resulting to offense, regardless of its various resulting acts,
Homicide (for the death of B), Arson (for the undergirded this Court's unbroken chain of
burning of the house), Serious Physical Injuries jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to
(for the injuries sustained by A), and Damage to Art. 365.
property (for the destruction of motorcycle of C).
There is only one criminal information to be filed For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal
because grave or less grave felonies resulted negligence under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in the
from single act of imprudence. When X lighted his execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if
lighter despite smelling gasoline, he omitted that intentionally done, would be punishable as a
degree of care or caution to prevent injury or felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or
damage to another. The several crimes must be careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of
included in one information for Reckless the consequence is only taken into account to
Imprudence. determine the penalty, it does not qualify the
substance of the offense. And, as the careless act
However, with respect to the slight physical is single, whether the injurious result should
injuries sustained by C, resulting from the single affect one person or several persons, the offense
act of imprudence does not constitute a complex (criminal negligence) remains one and the same,
crime. Another information for Reckless and can not be split into different crimes and
Imprudence resulting in Slight Physical Injuries prosecutions.
must be filed against X. (Reodica v. CA, G.R. No.
125066, 08 July 1998)

Art. 48 Does not Apply to Acts Penalized Resulting to Homicide. It held that Rogelio’s
Under Art. 365 of the RPC act of driving very fast on the wrong side of
the road was the proximate cause of the
It is conceptually impossible for a quasi- collision, resulting to the death of Y and
offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting serious physical injuries to the two children.
two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Is the
an offense which is a necessary means for RTC and CA correct holding X liable to
committing another. Reckless Imprudence?
Prosecutions under Art. 365 should proceed from A: YES. Reckless imprudence, as defined in Art.
a single charge regardless of the number or 365 of the RPC, consists in voluntarily, but
severity of the consequences. In imposing without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
penalties, the judge will do no more than apply which material damage results by reason of
the penalties under Art. 365 for each inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
consequence alleged and proven. In short, there person performing or failing to perform such act,
shall be no splitting of charges under Art. 365, taking into consideration his employment or
and only one information shall be filed in the occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
same first level court. condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Q: Y was driving his motorcycle to bring his
two (2) minor children to school. While they In order to establish a motorist’s liability for the
were ascending a curving road on their negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown
proper lane on the right side of the road, a that there was a direct causal connection
Toyota Land Cruiser driven by X was swiftly between such negligence and the injuries or
descending the same lane from the opposite damages complained of. To constitute the offense
direction. Y blew the horn of his motorcycle to of reckless driving, the act must be something
signal the Land Cruiser to return to its proper more than a mere negligence in the operation of
lane but the Land Cruiser remained. In order a motor vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard
to avoid collision, Y tried to swerve to the left, of the consequences is required. Verily, it is the
but the Land Cruiser suddenly swerved inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious
towards the same direction and collided indifference to the consequences of the conduct
head-on with the motorcycle. X eventually which supplies the criminal intent and brings an
died in the hospital and his two children were act of mere negligence and imprudence under the
injured. operation of the penal law, without regard to
whether the private offended party may himself
The prosecutor charged X for Reckless be considered likewise at fault.
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide. In his
defense, X claimed that he was driving the In this case, the RTC and the CA uniformly found
Land Cruiser on his proper lane along the that’s act of driving very fast on the wrong side of
descending curving road. According to X, Y the road was the proximate cause of the collision,
was driving his motorcycle in a zigzag manner resulting to the death of Y and serious physical
on the Land Cruiser’s Lane while Rolf was on injuries to the two children. Indeed, the very fact
his proper lane. Undecided which side of the of speeding, under such circumstances, is
road to take to avoid collision, X stopped the indicative of imprudent behavior. As a motorist, X
Land Cruiser but the motorcycle of Y was bound to exercise ordinary care in such affair
nonetheless, bumped into it. by driving at a reasonable rate of speed
commensurate with the conditions encountered,
The RTC found X guilty beyond reasonable as this would enable him to keep the vehicle
doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
under control and avoid injury to others using the

highway.
Here, X was charged with the offense of Reckless

Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double
Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property
under Art. 365 in relation to Art. 263 of the RPC,
a complex crime. Art. 48 of the RPC provides that
when a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime, in this case,
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide,
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period. (Rogelio J. Gonzaga v People,
G.R. No. 195671, 21 Jan. 2015, as penned by J.
Caguioa)

Criminal Law
anal to genital, or oral to anal, whether

III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS between persons of the same or opposite sex;
2. Bestiality;
3. Masturbation;
4. Sadistic or masochistic abuse;
5. Lascivious exhibition of the genitals,
A. ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009 buttocks, breast, pubic area and/or anus; or
Secs. 3 (a-c), 4, and 5, R.A. No. 9775 6. Use of any object or instrument for lascivious
acts. (Sec. 3(c), R.A. 9775)
Child as contemplated under R.A. No. 9775 Primarily Sexual Purposes
Child refers to a person: Purposes which will fulfill all the following
1. BELOW 18 years of age; or conditions:
2. OVER 18 years of age but is unable to fully
take care of himself/herself from abuse, 1. The average person applying contemporary
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or community standards would find the work
discrimination because of a physical or taken as a whole appealing to prurient
mental disability or condition. (Sec. 3(a), interest and satisfying only the market for
par. 1, R.A.9775) gratuitous sex and violence;
A child shall also refer to: 2. The work depicts or describes sexual
conduct in a patently offensive way; and
1. A person, regardless of age, who is presented,
depicted or portrayed as a child as defined 3. The work taken as a whole imbued within its
herein; or context, manner or presentation, intention
and culture, lascivious, literary, artistic,
2. Computer-generated, digitally or manually political and scientific value. (Sec. 3(k), R.A.
crafted images or graphics of a person who is No. 9775)
represented or who is made to appear to be a
child as defined herein. (Sec. 3(a)(2), R.A. No. Child Pornography Materials
9775)
It refers to the means and methods by which child
Child Pornography pornography is carried out:
Any representation, whether visual, audio, or 1. As to Form –

written combination thereof, by electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or by any a. Visual depiction – which includes not
other means, of a child engaged or involved in only images of real children but also
real or simulated explicit sexual activities. (Sec. digital image, computer image or
3(b), R.A. No. 9775) computer-generated image that is
indistinguishable from that of real
Explicit Sexual Activity children engaging in an explicit sexual
activity. Visual depiction shall include:
Includes actual or simulated:
i. Undeveloped film and videotapes
1. Sexual intercourse or lascivious act ii. Data and/or images stored on a
including, but not limited to, contact computer disk or by electronic
involving genital to genital, oral to genital, means capable of conversion into a

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
visual image or sexual relationship by communicating any

iii. Photograph, film, video, picture, form of child pornography (Sec. 3(h), R.A. No.
digital image or picture, computer 9775). Grooming includes online enticement or
image or picture, whether made or enticement through any other means.
produced by electronic, mechanical
or other means Luring
iv. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures or
paintings depicting children The act of communicating, by means of a
v. Other analogous visual depiction computer system, with a child or someone who
the offender believes to be a child for the purpose
b. Audio representation of a person who of facilitating the commission of sexual activity or
is or is represented as being a child and production of any form of child pornography.
who is engaged in or is represented as (Sec. 3(i), R.A. No. 9775)
being engaged in explicit sexual activity,
or an audio representation that Pandering
advocates, encourages or counsels any
sexual activity with children which is an The act of offering, advertising, promoting,
offense under this Act. representing, or distributing through any means
any material or purported material that is
NOTE: Such representation includes intended to cause another to believe that the
audio recordings and live audio material or purported material contains any form
transmission conveyed through any of child pornography, regardless of the actual
medium including real-time internet content of the material or purported material.
communications. (Sec. 3(j), R.A. No. 9775)
c. Written text or material that advocates PUNISHABLE ACTS

or counsels’ explicit sexual activity with
a child and whose dominant 1. To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
characteristic is the description, for a coerce a child to perform in the creation or
sexual purpose, of an explicit sexual production of any form of child pornography;
activity with a child. (Sec. 3(c)(1), R.A. No.
9775) 2. To produce, direct, manufacture or create
any form of child pornography;
2. As to Content – It includes representation of
a person who is, appears to be, or is 3. To publish, offer, transmit, sell, distribute,
represented as being a child, the dominant broadcast, advertise, promote, export, or
characteristic of which is the depiction, for a import any form of child pornography;
sexual purpose, of the:
4. To possess any form of child pornography
a. Sexual organ or the anal region, or a with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
representation thereof; or broadcast;
b. Breasts, or a representation of the
breasts, of a female person. (Sec. 3(c)(2), NOTE: Possession of three (3) or more
R.A. No. 9775) articles of child pornography of the same
form shall be prima facie evidence of the
Grooming intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast.
The act of preparing a child or someone who the 5. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
offender believes to be a child for sexual activity provide a venue for the commission of

Criminal Law
prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens, 9775);

private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or
in establishments purporting to be a 15. Willfully and knowingly failing to comply
legitimate business; with the notice requirements by any mall
owner-operator and owner or lessor of other
6. For film distributors, theaters and business establishments (Sec. 10, R.A. No.
telecommunication companies, by 9775);
themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child 16. Knowingly, willfully and intentionally
pornography; violating duties of an internet content host
(Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9775); and
7. For a parent, legal guardian or person having
custody or control of a child to knowingly 17. Violation of the right to privacy of the child at
permit the child to engage, participate or any stage of the investigation, prosecution
assist in any form of child pornography; and trial of an offense under this Act. (Sec. 13,
R.A. No. 9775)
8. To engage in the luring or grooming of a
child; Child Pornography as a Transnational Crime
9. To engage in pandering of any form of child The Department of Justice may execute the
pornography; request of a foreign state for assistance in the
investigation or prosecution of any form of child
10. To willfully access any form of child pornography by:
pornography;
1. Conducting a preliminary investigation
11. To conspire to commit any of the prohibited against the offender and, if appropriate, to
acts stated in Sec. 4; file the necessary charges in court;
2. Giving information needed by the foreign
NOTE: Conspiracy to commit any form of state; and
child pornography shall be committed when 3. Applying for an order of forfeiture of any
two (2) or more persons agree with the proceeds or monetary instrument or
commission of any said prohibited acts and properly located in the Philippines used in
decide to commit it. connection with child pornography in the
court. (Sec. 22, R.A. No. 9775)
12. To possess any form of child pornography
(Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9775); NOTE: The principles of mutuality and
reciprocity shall be at all times recognized. (Sec.
13. Syndicated child pornography (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 22, R.A. 9775)
9775);
NOTE: Syndicated child pornography is B. ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

committed when it is carried out by a group Secs. 2 – 6, P.D. 1612
of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another. (Sec. 5, R.A.
No. 9775)
Fencing (2013, 2014 BAR)
14. Willfully and knowingly failing to comply

The act of any person who, with intent to gain for
with the notice and installation requirements
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
of an internet service provider (Sec. 9, R.A. No.
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article or object taken” during that robbery
article, item, object or anything of value which he or theft;
knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of 3. The accused knows or should have known
robbery or theft. (Sec. 2(a), P.D. 1612) that the thing is derived from that crime; and
(1998 BAR)
NOTE: To be liable for fencing, the offender buys
or otherwise acquires and then sells or disposes 4. He intends by the deal he makes to gain for
of any object of value that he knows or should be himself or for another. (Dimat v. People, G.R.
known to him to have been derived from the No. 181184, 25 Jan. 2012)
proceeds of the robbery or theft. (Caoili v. CA, G.R.
No. 128369, 22 Dec. 1997) NOTE: Fencing under P.D. 1612 is a distinct crime
from theft and robbery.
Nature of the Crime of Fencing
Fencing vs. Robbery and Theft
Fencing is a crime involving moral turpitude.
Actual knowledge of the fact that the property The law on fencing does not require the accused
received is stolen displays the same degree of to have participated in the criminal design to
malicious deprivation of one’s rightful property commit, or to have been in any wise involved in
as that which animated the robbery or theft the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft.
which by their very nature, are crimes of moral Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to
turpitude. (Dela Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be
121592, 05 July 5, 1996) consummated. (People v. Hon. De Guzman, G.R. No.
77368, 05 Oct. 1993)
Fence
Fencing is NOT a Continuing Offense
It includes any person, firm, association,
corporation or partnership or other organization Fencing is not a continuing offense. Jurisdiction is
who/which commits the act of fencing. (Sec. 2(b), with the court of the place where the personal
P.D. 1612) property subject of the robbery or theft was
possessed, bought, kept, or dealt with. The place
Officers of Juridical Persons are Liable under where the theft or robbery was committed is
this Law inconsequential. (People v. Hon. De Guzman,
supra)
If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or
association, the president or the manager or any Required Proof in the Prosecution of Anti-
officers thereof who knows or should have Fencing Law
known the commission of the offense shall be
liable. (Sec. 4, P.D. 1612) Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1612 is a special law
and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum
Elements of Fencing prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent.
1. A robbery or theft has been committed; The prosecution must prove that the offender
(1990, 1992, 1995, 2009, 2010 BAR) knew or should have known that the subject of
the offense he acquired and later sold was
2. The accused, who took no part in the robbery derived from theft or robbery and that he
or theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, intended to obtain some gain out of his acts.
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys (Dimat v. People, supra)
and sells, or in any manner deals in any

Criminal Law
Presumption of Fencing wanting in this case. The suspect is engaged in the

buy and sell of used garments, which are in the
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, nature of personal property.
or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence In civil law, possession of personal or movable
of fencing. property carries a prima facie presumption of
ownership. The presumption of “fencing” arises
NOTE: The presumption does not offend the only when the article or item involved is the
presumption of innocence enshrined in the subject of a robbery or thievery. (Sec. 5, P.D. 1612)
fundamental law. It only shifted the burden of
evidence to the defense. Burden of proof is upon
the fence to overcome the presumption. C. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Use Second-Hand R.A. 3019, as amended by R.A. 3047,
Articles P.D. 1288, B.P. Blg. 195, and R.A. 10910
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in

the buy and sell of any good, article item, object
Persons Covered under this Act (BAR 2000)
or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed
dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering
All public officers which include elective and
the same for sale to the public, secure the
appointive officials and employees, permanent or
necessary clearance or permit from the station
temporary, whether in the classified or
commander of the Integrated National Police in
unclassified or exempt service, receiving
the town or city where such store, establishment
compensation, even nominal from the
or entity is located.
government. (Sec. 2(b), R.A. No. 3019)
The Chief of Constabulary/Director General,

Government includes:
Integrated National Police, shall promulgate such
1. National government;
rules and regulations to carry out the provisions
2. Local government;
of this section. Any person who fails to secure the
3. GOCCs;
clearance or permit required by this section or
4. Other instrumentalities or agencies; and
who violates any of the provisions of the rules
5. Their branches. (Sec. 2(a), R.A. No. 3019)
and regulations promulgated thereunder shall
upon conviction be punished as a fence. (Sec. 6,
P.D. 1612) PUNISHABLE ACTS
Q: Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used 1. (a) Persuading, inducing, or influencing
garments, more popularly known as "ukay- another public officer to:
ukay." Among the items found by the police in i. Perform an act constituting a
a raid of her store in Baguio City were brand- violation of the Rules and
new Louis Feraud blazers. Arlene was Regulations duly promulgated by
charged with "fencing." Will the charge competent authority, or
prosper? Why or why not? (2010 BAR) ii. An offense in connection with the
official duties of the latter.
A: NO. The charge of “fencing” will not prosper.
For a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be (b) Allowing himself to be persuaded,
established that the article subject of the alleged induced or influenced to commit such
“fencing” has been derived from the proceeds of violation or offense. (Sec 3 (a), R.A.
the crime of theft or robbery—a fact which is 3019)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving and

any gift, present, share, percentage, or c. It was accepted during:
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in i. The pendency thereof; or
connection with any contract or transaction ii. Within 1 year after its
between the Government and any other termination.
party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law. (Sec. 5. Causing any undue injury to any party,
3 (b), R.A. 3019; 2010 BAR) including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits,
Elements: advantage or preference in the discharge of
a. The offender is a public officer; his official, administrative or judicial
b. He requested and/or received, directly functions through manifest partiality,
or indirectly, a gift, present or evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
consideration; negligence. (Sec. 3 (e), R.A. 3019) (1990,
c. The gift, present or consideration was 1991, 1997, 2005, 2009 BAR)
for the benefit of the said public officer
or for any other person; Elements:
d. It was requested and/or received in a. The accused must be a public officer
connection with a contract or discharging administrative, judicial, or
transaction with the Government; and official functions;
e. The public officer has the right to b. He must have acted with manifest
intervene in such contract or partiality, evident bad faith, or
transaction in his official capacity. inexcusable negligence; and
c. That his action caused:
3. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving i. Any undue injury to any party,
any gift, present or other pecuniary or including the government; or
material benefit, for himself or for another, ii. Giving any private party
from any person for whom the public officer, unwarranted benefits, advantage
in any manner or capacity, has secured or or preference in the discharge of
obtained, or will secure or obtain, any his functions.
Government permit or license, in
NOTE: Since bad faith is an element, good
consideration for the help given or to be
faith or lack of malice is a valid defense.
given. (Sec. 3 (c), R.A. No. 3019)
NOTE: This provision shall apply to officers
NOTE: This is a special form of bribery.
and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of
4. Accepting or having any member of his
licenses or permits or other concessions.
family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official
Q: Olympic Mines and Platinum Group applied
business with him during the pendency
and granted by the Provincial Mining
thereof or within one year after its
Regulatory Board (the Board) a small-scale
termination. (Sec. 3 (d), R.A. 3019)
mining permit which allowed them to extract
50,000 dry metric tons of laterite ore. The
Elements:
DENR also granted Olympic Mines and
a. The public officer accepted, or having
Platinum Group with their separate
any of his family member accept any
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
employment in a private enterprise;
which allows them to extract 50,000 dry
b. Such private enterprise has a pending
metric tons of nickel/ore mineral per year.
official business with the public officer;

Criminal Law
Platinum Group transported, for itself and on trucks in the total amount of P6,387,500.00 in
behalf of Olympic Mines, a total of behalf of Quezon. Municipal Mayor Leonardo
203,399.135 dry metric tons of nickel ore. also bid for two (2) small equipment
Olympic Mines applied for the renewal of its (hydraulic excavator and front cut unit cabin)
small-scale mining permit before the Board. amounting to a total of P1,670,000.00, for
The Board recommended to Reyes, provincial himself. Quezon was eventually declared the
governor, to grant the renewal, which he did. winning bidder of all seven (7) equipment.
What crime, if any, did Municipal Mayor
Subsequently, Olympic Mines and Platinum Leonardo commit?
Group’s ECC were cancelled due to over-
extraction. Later on, Reyes was charged with A: Municipal Mayor Leonardo violated of Sec.
violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti- 3(e), R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when he Practices Act. The elements of the offense are:
allegedly gave unwarranted benefits, (1) the accused must be a public officer
preference, and advantage to Olympic Mines discharging administrative, judicial or official
in the renewal of its permit. Is Reyes guilty of functions; (2) he or she must have acted with
violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019? manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence; and (3) his or her action
A: YES. Reyes committed gross inexcusable caused injury to any party, including the
negligence when he approved Olympic Mines' government, or giving any party unwarranted
renewal of its small-scale mining permit, benefits, advantage or preference in the
considering that Olympic Mines violated the discharge of his or her official functions.
terms and conditions of the permit. From May 30,
2005 to April 3, 2006, Platinum Group The following facts are undisputed: Municipal
transported 203,399.135 dry metric tons of Mayor Leonardo, then Quezon's Municipal
nickel ore under Olympic Mines' and Platinum Mayor, was expressly authorized to represent
Group's permit. This is clearly beyond the Quezon at the auction sale of trucks and heavy
100,000-dry metric ton threshold of the equipment. As it was, he did not only bid for
combined permits, a fact that Reyes does not Quezon, but also for himself. He merged the bid of
dispute. His act of renewing Olympic Mines' Quezon and his own bid to make it appear that
Small-Scale Mining Permits, despite a blatant they all pertained to Quezon. (Leonardo v. People,
violation of the terms of the permit, was correctly G.R. No. 246451, 03 Feb. 2021)
characterized as gross inexcusable negligence.
(Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 237172, 18 Sept. 2019) 6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act
Q: On Feb. 11, 2010, the Sangguniang Bayan of within a reasonable time on any matter
Quezon, Bukidnon issued Resolution No. 10th pending before him for the purpose of
SB 2010-27 authorizing then Municipal Mayor obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any
petitioner to cause the procurement of trucks person interested in the matter some
and heavy equipment in behalf of the pecuniary or material benefit or advantage,
Municipality of Quezon (Quezon). Quezon, or for the purpose of favoring his own
through Municipal Mayor Leonardo, joined interest or giving undue advantage in favor of
the auction conducted by United Auctioneers, or discriminating against any other
Inc. It paid the bid deposit of P100,000.00, to interested party. (Sec. 3 (f), R.A. 3019)
be deducted from the purchase price in case
of a successful bid. Elements:
a. Offender is a public officer;
Using the bid book and bid deposit of Quezon, b. Public officer neglected or refused to
Municipal Mayor Leonardo bid for five (5) act without sufficient justification after

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
due demand or request has been made party.” Is the decision correct?
on him;
c. Reasonable time has elapsed from such A: YES. In an application for a mayor's permit or
demand or request without the public license to do business in a municipality or city,
officer having acted on the matter the procedure is fairly standard and
pending before him; and uncomplicated. It requires the submission of the
d. Such failure to act is for the purpose of: required documents and the payment of the
i. Obtaining (directly or indirectly) assessed business taxes and fees. In case of failure
from any person interested in the to comply with the requirements, the application
matter some pecuniary or material deserves to be disapproved. If the application is
benefit or advantage; compliant, then approval is the action to be taken.
ii. Favoring his own interest; or An inaction or refusal to act is a course of action
iii. Giving undue advantage in favor of; anathema to public service with utmost
or responsibility and efficiency. If the deliberate
iv. Discriminating against any other refusal to act or intentional inaction on an
interested party. (Coronado v. application for mayor's permit is motivated by
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94955, 18 personal conflicts and political considerations, it
Aug. 1993) thus becomes discriminatory, and constitutes a
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Q: Fermina owns the Fersan Variety Store Act. (Corazon Lacap v. Sandiganbayan and the
engaged in the sale of school supplies, People, G.R. No. 198162, 21 June 2017, J. Caguioa)
furniture and accessories. She usually applies
for a Mayor's Permit between February and 7. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into
March of every year and has been submitting any contract or transaction manifestly and
to the Office of the Mayor for the issuance of grossly disadvantageous to the same,
Mayor's Permit the required documents. For whether or not the public officer profited or
the year 1999, she filed an Application for will profit thereby. (Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 3019)
Mayor's Permit and submitted the
requirements to the Mayor's Office. However, Elements:
accused Mayor Corazon Lacap denied her a. Accused is a public officer;
application and she (accused) was angry at b. The public officer entered into a contract
her. She went back to accused Lacap twice to or transaction on behalf of the
ask for reconsideration but she (Lacap) was government; and
even more angry, and told them to leave the c. Such contract or transaction is grossly
place. and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.
The Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision
holding Corazon guilty beyond reasonable Q: The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
doubt of violation of Sec. 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019 Committee on Behest Loans conducted an
for “Neglecting or refusing, after due demand investigation on all non-performing loans,
or request, without sufficient justification, to whether behest or non-behest. Among the
act within a reasonable time on any matter loan accounts investigated by the Committee
pending before him for the purpose of was that of the Philippine Pigment and Resin
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any Corporation (PPRC) which it found to have
person interested in the matter some possessed positive characteristics of behest
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or loans. A complaint was filed before the Office
for the purpose of favoring his own interest or of the Ombudsman (OMB) for violation of
giving undue advantage in favor of or Secs. 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019, as
discriminating against any other interested amended. The complaint alleged that 64% of

Criminal Law
the collaterals to said loan consisted of yet to Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It is true that Sec.
be acquired assets. Further, there was no 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
proof that the loans grossly and manifestly speaks of corrupt practices of public officers.
disadvantageous to the government or that "However, if there is an allegation of conspiracy,
there was evident bad faith, manifest a private person may be held liable together with
partiality or gross inexcusable negligence on the public officer." This is consistent with the
the part of PPRC. Will the complaint prosper? policy behind the statute, which, as provided in
its first section, is "to repress certain acts of
A: NO. The elements of evident bad faith, public officers and private persons alike which
manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable may constitute graft or corrupt practices or
negligence are lacking in the instant case; and which may lead thereto."
petitioner failed to prove that the questioned
foreign currency loans granted by the DBP to The reason that private persons may be charged
PPRC were grossly and manifestly with public officers under the Anti-Graft and
disadvantageous to the government. While Corrupt Practices Act is "to avoid repeated and
petitioner alleged that the subject foreign unnecessary presentation of witnesses and
currency loans were undercollateralized and exhibits against conspirators in different venues,
PPRC was undercapitalized, it failed to especially if the issues involved are the same. It
sufficiently establish that indeed the transactions follows, therefore, that if a private person may be
were either grossly and manifestly tried jointly with public officers, he or she may
disadvantageous to the government or that there also be convicted jointly with them." (Garcia-Diaz
was evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 193236, 17 Sept. 2018)
inexcusable negligence on the part of private
respondents. Furthermore, even if the collaterals Q: Accused Dela Cruz contends that he cannot
consisted mostly of assets yet to be acquired, the be held guilty of violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A.
inclusion of after-acquired properties in a 3019 as the law only mentioned that public
mortgage contract was held to be lawful as officials are offenders of such provision. Can a
decided by the Supreme Court in its previous private person be held guilty under R.A.
decisions. (PCGG v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., 3019?
G.R. No. 195962, 18 Apr. 2018, J. Caguioa)
A: YES. Private persons acting in conspiracy with
Private Persons as Offenders public officers may be indicted and if found guilty,
be held liable for the pertinent offenses under
Q: Public officers Solicitor General Galvez, Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019. This supports the "policy of
NAMRIA officials Solis, Fabian, Bonnevie, the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public
Valencia, and Viernes, and private person officers and private persons alike [which
Garcia-Diaz were charged for violating Sec. constitute] graft or corrupt practices act or which
3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices may lead thereto." (Granada v. People, G.R. No.
Act before the Sandiganbayan. Garcia-Diaz 184092, 22 Feb. 2017)
filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash Information,
contending that private persons cannot be 8. Directly or indirectly having a financial or
charged under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt pecuniary interest in any business, contract
Practices Act. May a private person be or transaction in which he:
charged and convicted of violating the
provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt a. Intervenes or takes part in his official
Practices Act? capacity;
A: YES. A private person may be charged and NOTE: Intervention must be actual and
convicted of violating the provisions of the Anti- in the official capacity of the public

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
officer. with the Government:
b. Is prohibited by the constitution or by 1. Person giving the gift, present, share,

law from having any interest. (Sec. 3(h), percentage or benefit in par. 2 and 3.
R.A. No. 3019) 2. Person offering or giving to the public officer
the employment mentioned in par. 4.
9. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, 3. Person urging the divulging or untimely
for personal gains, or having a material release of the confidential information in par.
interest in any transaction or act which: 11.
a. Requires the approval of a board, panel Q: May a public officer charged under Sec. 3(b)
or group of which he is a member and of R.A. No. 3019 (“directly or indirectly
which exercises discretion in such requesting or receiving any gift, present,
approval; or share, percentage or benefit, for himself of for
b. Even if he votes against the same or does any other person, in connection with any
not participate in the action of the board, contract or transaction between the
committee, panel or group. government and any other party, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to
NOTE: Interest for personal gain shall be intervene under the law”) also be
presumed against those public officials simultaneously or successively charged with
responsible for the approval of manifestly direct bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC?
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular Explain. (2010 BAR)
transaction or acts by the board, panel or
group to which they belong. (Sec. 3(i), R.A. No. A: YES. A public officer charged under Sec. 3 (b)
3019) of R.A. No. 3019 may also be charged
simultaneously or successively for the crime of
10. Knowingly approving or granting any license, direct bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC because
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of: two crimes are essentially different and are
penalized under distinct legal philosophies.
a. Any person not qualified for or not Violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 is a malum
legally entitled to such license, permit, prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the Code
privilege or benefit; or is a malum in se.
b. A mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled. (Sec. 3 Q: Differentiate Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 3019 and
(j), R.A. No. 3019) Direct Bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC. Will
there be double jeopardy if a person is
11. (a) Divulging valuable information of a: charged simultaneously or successively for
i. Confidential character violation of Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019 and the RPC?
ii. Acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to A: The violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 is
unauthorized person neither identical nor necessarily inclusive of
(b) Releasing such information in advance direct bribery. While they have common
of its authorized released date. (Sec. 3 elements, not all the essential elements of one
(k), R.A. No. 3019) offense are included among or form part of those
enumerated in the other. Whereas the mere
The following persons shall also be punished request or demand of a gift, present, share,
with the public officer and shall be permanently percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a
or temporarily disqualified, in the discretion of violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, acceptance
the Court, from transacting business in any form of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present

Criminal Law
is required in direct bribery. Adalim, not in his official capacity as a mayor, but
as a detainee charged with murder. Thus, for
Moreover, the ambit of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 purposes of applying the provisions of Sec. 3(e),
is specific. It is limited only to contracts or R.A. No. 3019, Adalim was a private party. (Ambil
transactions involving monetary consideration Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 175457, 06 July 2011)
where the public officer has the authority to
intervene under the law. Direct bribery, on the NOTE: The requirement before a private person
other hand, has a wider and more general scope: may be indicted for violation of Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019
(a) performance of an act constituting a crime; is that such private person must be alleged to
(b) execution of an unjust act which does not have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The
constitute a crime; and (c) agreeing to refrain or law, however, does not require that such person
refraining from doing an act which is his official must, in all instances, be indicted together with
duty to do. the public officer. If circumstances exist where
the public officer may no longer be charged in
Although the two charges against the petitioner court, as in the present case where the public
stemmed from the same transaction, the same act officer has already died, the private person may
led two separate and distinct offenses. No double be indicted alone. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539,
jeopardy attached since there was a variance 25 Mar. 2014)
between the elements of the offenses charged.
The constitutional protection against double Manifest Partiality
jeopardy proceeds from a second prosecution for
the same offense, not for a different one. There is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or
(Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70, 13 April predilection to favor one side or person rather
2007) than another. (Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
98494-98692, 17 July 2003; Webster, Third New
Q: Mayor Adalim was charged with murder. International Dictionary; Bouvier’s Law
He was transferred from the provincial jail Dictionary, Third Edition)
and detained him at the residence of Ambil, Jr.
Considering that Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 Gross Inexcusable Negligence
punishes the giving by a public officer of
unwarranted benefits to a private party, does Refers to negligence characterized by the want of
the fact that a Mayor was the recipient of such even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in
benefits take petitioners’ case beyond the a situation where there is a duty to act, not
ambit of said law? inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with
conscious indifference to consequences insofar
A: NO. In drafting the Anti-Graft Law, the as other persons may be affected. (Sistoza v.
lawmakers opted to use “private party” rather Desierto, G.R. No. 144784. 03 Sept. 2002)
than “private person” to describe the recipient of
the unwarranted benefits, advantage or Evident Bad Faith
preference for a reason. A private person simply
pertains to one who is not a public officer while a It connotes not only bad judgment but also
private party is more comprehensive in scope to palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
mean either a private person or a public officer purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
acting in a private capacity to protect his personal wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will
interest. (Sistoza v. Desierto, supra). It also contemplates a
state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
When Mayor Adalim was transferred from the design or with some motive or self-interest or ill
provincial jail and was detained at Ambil, Jr.’s will or for ulterior purposes. (Air France v.
residence, they accorded such privilege to Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438, 28 Sept. 1966)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
Undue Injury PROHIBITED ACTS FOR PRIVATE

INDIVIDUALS
The term “undue injury” in the context of Sec. 3(e)
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices 1. For any person having family or close
Act punishing the act of “causing undue injury to personal relation with any public official to
any party,” has a meaning akin to that of the civil capitalize or exploit or take advantage of
law concept of actual damage. (Guadines v. such family or personal relation by directly
Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. No. 164891, 06 or indirectly requesting or receiving any
June 2011) present, gift, or material or pecuniary
advantage from any person having some
Q: In violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, is business, transaction, application, request or
it necessary that the circumstances of: (1) contract with the government, in which such
“causing any undue injury to any party, public officer has to intervene. (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
including the Government”; and (2) “giving 3019)
any private party any unwarranted benefits,”
both be present to convict the accused of the NOTE: Family relations include the spouse or
said crime? relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
third (3rd) civil degree.
A: NO. The Supreme Court has clarified that the
use of the disjunctive word “or” connotes that Close personal relations include close
either act of (a) “causing any undue injury to any personal friendship, social and fraternal
party, including the Government” and (b) “giving relations, and professional employment, all
any private party any unwarranted benefits, giving rise to intimacy which assures free
advantage or preference,” qualifies as a violation access to such public officer.
of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. The use
of the disjunctive “or” connotes that the two 2. For any person to knowingly induce or cause
modes need not be present at the same time. In any public official to commit any of the
other words, the presence of one would suffice offenses defined in Sec. 3.
for conviction. (Alvarez v. People, G.R. No. 192591,
29 June 2011) Other Prohibited Acts for the Relatives
Q: Is proof of the extent of damage necessary GR: It shall be unlawful for the spouse or relative
to prove the crime? by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree of the President, Vice President, Senate
A: NO. The Supreme Court held in Fonacier v. President, or Speaker of the House to intervene,
Sandiganbayan, that proof of the extent or directly or indirectly, in any business,
quantum of damage is not essential. It is transaction, contract, or application with the
sufficient that the injury suffered or benefits government.
received can be perceived to be substantial
enough and not merely negligible. Under the XPNs:
second mode of the crime defined in Sec. 3(e) of 1. Any person who, prior to the assumption of
R.A. No. 3019, damage is not required. In order to office of any of the above officials to whom
be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices he is related, has been already dealing with
that the accused has given unjustified favor or the Government along the same line of
benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, business;
administrative or judicial functions. (Alvarez v.
People, supra) 2. Any transaction, contract, or application
already existing or pending at the time of
such assumption of public office;

Criminal Law
3. Any application filed by him the approval of expiration of his term of office, or upon his
which is not discretionary on the part of the resignation or separation from office:
official or officials concerned but depends Provided, that public officers assuming office
upon compliance with requisites provided less than two (2) months before the end of
by law, or rules or regulations issued the calendar year, may file their statements
pursuant to law; or in the following months of January. (Sec. 7,
R.A. No. 3019)
4. Any act lawfully performed in an official
capacity or in the exercise of a profession. DISMISSAL DUE TO UNEXPLAINED WEALTH
(Sec. 5, R.A. No. 3019)
A public official found to have acquired during
EXCEPTIONS his incumbency, whether in his name or in the
name of other persons, an amount of property
1. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his
insignificant value offered or given as a mere salary and to his other lawful income, that fact
ordinary token of gratitude or friendship shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. (Sec.
according to local customs and usage; and 8, R.A. No. 3019)
2. Practice of any profession, lawful trade or Court of Competent Jurisdiction over

occupation by any private persons or by any Offenses Punishable under this Act
public officer who under the law may
legitimately practice his profession, trade or The Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction to try
occupation during his incumbency except cases for violation of R.A. No. 3019 if the public
where the practice of such profession, trade officer is occupying a position corresponding to
or occupation involves conspiracy with any salary grade ‘27’ or higher. Those classified as
other person or public official to commit any salary grade ‘26’ or below may still fall within the
violations of said Act. (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 3019) jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that
they hold the positions enumerated by the law.
STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES Otherwise, jurisdiction shall be vested in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 1606)
Every public officer shall prepare and file with
the office of the corresponding Department Head, Private Individuals are Tried Jointly with
or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of Principals
an independent office, with the Office of the
President, or in the case of members of the In case private individuals are charged as co-
Congress and the officials and employees thereof, principals, accomplices, or accessories with the
with the Office of the Secretary of the public officers or employees, including those
corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn employed in government-owned or controlled
statement of assets and liabilities, including a corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said
statement of the amounts and sources of his public officers and employees in the proper
income, the amounts of his personal and family courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for over them. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 3019 as amended by
the next preceding calendar year: R.A. 8249)
1. Within thirty days (30) after the approval of Necessity of Preventive Suspension
this Act or after assuming office; and
It is mandatory for the court to place under
2. Within the month of January of every other preventive suspension a public officer accused
year thereafter, as well as upon the before it. Imposition of suspension, however, is

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
not automatic or self-operative. A pre-condition (60) days.” (Rios v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
therefor is the existence of a valid information, 129913, 26 Sept. 1997)
determined at a pre-suspension hearing. Such a
hearing is in accord with the spirit of the law, Prescriptive Period
considering the serious and far-reaching
consequences of a suspension of a public official 20 years. (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 3019 as amended by
even before his conviction, and the demands of R.A. No. 10910)
public interest for a speedy determination of the
issues involved in the case. Once a proper
determination of the validity of the information D. ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018
has been made, it becomes the ministerial duty of R.A. 8049, as amended by R.A. No. 11053
the court to issue the order of preventive
suspension. (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
124067, 27 Mar. 1998)
Hazing
No hard and fast rule exists in regulating conduct

Any act that results in physical or psychological
of pre-suspension hearing. (Luciano v. Mariano,
suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit,
G.R. No. L-32950, 30 July 1971)
neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an
initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite
Q: What pre-conditions are necessary to be
for admission or a requirement for continuing
met or satisfied before preventive
membership in a fraternity, sorority, or
suspension may be ordered? (1999 BAR)
organization including, but not limited to
paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced
A: The pre-conditions necessary to be met or
calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced
satisfied before a suspension may be ordered
consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug
are:
or other substance, or any other brutal treatment
or forced physical activity which is likely to
(1) There must be proper notice requiring the
adversely affect the physical and psychological
accused to show cause at a specific date of
health of such recruit, neophyte, applicant, or
hearing why he should not be ordered
member.
suspended from office pursuant to R.A.
3019; and
This shall also include any activity, intentionally
made or otherwise, by one person alone or acting
(2) There must be a determination of a valid
with others, that tends to humiliate or embarrass,
information against the accused that
degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a
warrants his suspension.
recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member to do
menial, silly, or foolish tasks. (Sec. 2, R.A. No.
However, no specific rules need be laid down for
11053)
pre-suspension hearing. Suffice it to state that
the accused should be given a fair and adequate
Initiation or Initiation Rites
opportunity to challenge the validity of the
criminal proceedings against him. (Luciano v.
Ceremonies, practices, rituals, or other acts,
Mariano, supra)
whether formal or informal, that a person must
perform or take part in order to be accepted into
Length of Preventive Suspension
fraternity, sorority, organization as a full-fledged
member. It includes ceremonies practices, rituals,
Under Sec. 63(b) of the Local Government Code,
and other acts in all stages of membership in a
“any single preventive suspension of local
fraternity, sorority, or organization. (Sec. 2, R.A.
elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty
No. 11053).

Criminal Law
Organization apply to any customary athletic events or other

similar contests or competitions or any activity or
An organized body of people which includes, but conduct that furthers a legal and legitimate
it is not limited to, any club, association, group, objective, subject to prior submission of a
fraternity, and sorority. This term shall include medical clearance or certificate. (Sec. 3, R.A. No.
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the 11053)
Philippine National Police (PNP), the Philippine
Military Academy (PMA), the Philippine National REGULATION OF SCHOOL-BASED
Police Academy (PNPA), and other similar INITIATION RITES
uniformed service learning institutions. (Sec. 2,
R.A. No. 11053) 1. A written application to conduct initiation
rites shall be made to the proper authorities
Schools of the school not later than seven (7) days
prior to scheduled initiation date;
Colleges, universities, and other educational
institutions. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 11053) 2. The written application shall indicate the
place and date of the initiation rites and the
PROHIBITION ON HAZING names of the recruits, neophytes, or
applicants to be initiated and the manner by
1. All forms of hazing shall be prohibited in which they will conduct the initiation rites;
fraternities, sororities, and organizations in
schools, including citizens' military training 3. The initiation rites shall not last more than
and citizens' army training. three (3) days;
2. The prohibition shall apply to all other 4. The application shall contain the names of
fraternities, sororities, and organizations the incumbent officers of the fraternity,
that are not school-based, such as sorority, or organization and any person or
community-based and other similar persons who will take charge in the conduct
fraternities, sororities and organizations. of the initiation rites;
3. In no case shall hazing be made a 5. The application shall be under oath with a
requirement for employment in any business declaration that it has been posted in the
or corporation. official school bulletin board, the bulletin
board of the office of the fraternity, sorority,
NOTE: The physical, mental, and practices to or organization, and two (2) other
determine and enhance the physical, mental, and conspicuous places in the school or in the
psychological fitness of prospective regular premises of the organization; and
members of the AFP and the PNP as approved by
the Secretary of National Defense and National 6. The application shall be posted from the time
Police Commission, duly recommended by the of submission of the written notice to the
Chief of Staff of the AFP and Director General of school authorities or head of organization
the PNP, shall not be considered as hazing and shall only be removed from its posting
purposes of this Act. three (3) days after the conduct of the
initiation rites.
The exemption provided herein shall likewise
apply to similar procedures and practices 7. The appropriate school authorities shall have
approved by the respective heads of other the obligation to disapproved the application
uniformed learning institutions as to their to conduct initiation rites that do not
prospective members, nor shall this provision conform with any of the requirements of this

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
section, and in unequivocal terms in a formal 3. Representatives who were present during
advice to the fraternity sorority, or the initiation shall make a report of the
organization concerned, taking into initiation rites to the appropriate officials of
consideration the safety and security of the school regarding the conduct of the said
participants in the activity. initiation: Provided, That if hazing is still
committed despite their presence, no liability
8. School officials shall have the authority to shall attach to them unless it is proven that
impose after due notice and summary they failed to perform an overt act to prevent
hearing, disciplinary sanctions, in or stop the commission thereof. (Sec. 5, R.A.
accordance with the school's guidelines and No. 11053)
regulations on the matter, which shall
include, but shall not be limited to, REGISTRATION OF FRATERNITIES,
reprimand, suspension, exclusion, or SORORITIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
expulsion, to the head and all other officers of
the fraternity, sorority and organization All existing fraternities, sororities, and other
which conducts an initiation without first organizations otherwise not created or organized
securing the necessary approval of the school by the school but has existing members who are
as required under this section. All members students or plans to recruit students to be its
of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, member shall be required to register with the
who participated in the unauthorized proper school authorities before it conducts
initiation rites, even if no hazing was activities whether on or off-campus, including
conducted, shall also be punished recruitment of members.
accordingly.
Upon registration, all fraternities, sororities, or
9. In case the written application for the organizations shall submit a comprehensive list
conduct of initiation rites contains false or of members, which shall be updated not later
inaccurate information, appropriate than thirty (30) days from the start of every
disciplinary sanctions in accordance with the semester or trimester, depending on the
school's guidelines and regulations on the academic calendar of the school.
matter ranging from reprimand to expulsion
shall be imposed, after due notice and School official shall have the authority to impose,
summary hearing, against the person who after due notice and summary hearings,
prepared the application or supplied the disciplinary penalties in accordance with the
false and inaccurate information and to the school's guidelines and regulations on the matter
head and other officers of the fraternity, including suspension to the head and other
sorority, or organization concerned. (Sec. 4, officers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization
R.A. No. 11053) who fail to register or update their roster of
members as required under this section.
MONITORING OF INITIATION RITES
Failure to comply with any of the requirements
1. The head of the school or an authorized shall result in the cancellation of the registration
representative must assign at least two (2) of the fraternity, sorority, or organization. (Sec. 6,
representatives of the school to be present R.A. No. 11053)
during the initiation.
FACULTY ADVISER
2. It is the duty of the school representatives to
see to it that no hazing is conducted during Faculty Adviser
the initiation rites and to document the
entire proceedings. The person who is responsible for monitoring the

Criminal Law
activities of the fraternity, sorority, or contribute to solving relevant and pressing

organization established or registered. issues of society. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 11053)
In case of violation of any of the provisions of this REGISTRATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED AND

Act, it is presumed that the faculty adviser has OTHER SIMILAR FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES,
knowledge and consented to the commission of OR ORGANIZATIONS
any of the unlawful acts stated therein.
GR: All new and existing community-based
NOTE: Schools shall require all fraternities, fraternities, sororities, or organizations,
sororities, or organizations, as a condition to the including their respective local chapters, shall
grant of accreditation or registration, to submit register with the barangay, municipality, or city
the name or names of their respective faculty wherein they are primarily based.
adviser or advisers who must not be members of
the respective fraternity, sorority, or NOTE: Upon registration, all community-based
organization. The submission shall also include a fraternities, sororities, or organizations including
written acceptance or consent on the part of the their respective local chapters, shall submit a
selected faculty adviser or advisers. (Sec. 7, R.A. comprehensive list of members and officers
No. 11053) which shall be updated yearly from the date of
registration. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 11053)
ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
REGULATION OF INITIATION RITES FOR
1. The responsibility of schools to exercise COMMUNITY-BASED AND OTHER SIMILAR
reasonable supervision in loco parentis over FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES, OR
the conduct of its students requires the ORGANIZATIONS
diligence that prudent parents would employ
in the same circumstances when
1. A written application to conduct the same
discriminating and protecting their children.
shall be made to the punong barangay in the
barangay or municipal or city mayor in the
2. It shall be the duty of schools to take more
municipality or city where the community-
proactive steps to protect its students from
based fraternity, sorority, or organization is
the dangers of participating in activities that
based, not later than seven (7) days prior to
involve hazing.
the scheduled initiation date;
3. Schools shall implement an information
2. The written initiation shall indicate the place
dissemination campaign at the start of every
and date of the initiation rites and the names
semester or trimester to provide adequate
of the recruits, neophytes, or applicants to be
information to students and parents or
initiated;
guardians regarding the consequences of
conducting and participating in hazing.
3. Such written application shall further
contain an undertaking that no harm or any
4. An orientation program relating to
membership in a fraternity, sorority, or kind shall be committed by anybody during
the initiation rites;
organization shall also be conducted by
schools at the start of every semester or
trimester. 4. A medical certificate of the recruit, neophyte,
or applicant must be attached to the
5. Schools shall encourage fraternities, application to ensure fitness to undergo
sororities, and organizations to engage in initiation when it involves physical activity
undertakings that foster holistic personal not failing under the definition of hazing as
growth and development and activities that used in this Act;

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
5. The initiation rites shall not last more than whether written or otherwise, or of an express
three (3) days; waiver of the right to object to the initiation rite
or proceeding which consists of hazing, as
6. The application shall contain the names of defined in this Act, made by a recruit, neophyte,
the incumbent officers of the community- or applicant prior to an initiation rite that
based fraternity, sorority, or organization involves inflicting physical or psychological
and any person or persons who will take suffering, harm, or injury, shall be void and
charge in the conduct of initiation rites; without any binding effect on the parties.
7. The application shall be under oath with a NOTE: The defense that the recruit, neophyte, or
declaration that it has been posted on the applicant consented to being subjected to hazing
official bulletin board of the barangay hall or shall not be available to persons prosecuted
the municipal or city hall where the under this Act." (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 11053)
community-based fraternity, sorority or
organization is based, and the bulletin board ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
of the office of the community-based
fraternity, sorority or organization; and The responsible officials of the school, the
uniformed learning institutions, the AFP, or the
8. The application shall be posted from the time PNP may impose the appropriate administrative
of submission of the written notice to the sanctions, after due notice and summary hearing,
punong barangay or municipal or city mayor on the person or the persons charged under this
and shall only be removed from its posting Act even before their conviction. (Sec. 12, R.A. No.
three (3) days after the conduct of the 11053)
initiation rites." (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 11053)
PERSONS LIABLE AND THE
MONITORING OF INITIATION RITES CORRESPONDING PENALTIES
1. The punong barangay of the barangay or the Other Principals:

municipal or city mayor of the municipality
or city where community-based fraternity, 1. The owner or lessee of the place where
sorority or organization is based must assign hazing is conducted shall be liable as
at least two (2) barangay or municipal or city principal and penalized with the penalty of
officials to be present during the initiation reclusion perpetua and a fine of Three
and document the entire proceedings. million pesos (P3,000,000) OR with the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of
2. Representatives who are present during the Two million pesos (P2,000,000) when such
initiation shall make a report of the initiation owner or lessee has actual knowledge of the
rites to the punong barangay, or the hazing conducted therein but failed to take
municipal or the city mayor regarding the any action to prevent the same from
conduct of the initiation. Provided, that if occurring or failed to promptly report the
hazing is still committed despite their same to the law enforcement authorities if
presence, no liability shall attach to them they can do so without peril to their person
unless it is proven that they failed to perform or their family.
an overt act prevent or stop the commission.
(Sec. 11, R.A. No. 11053) 2. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity,
NULLITY OF WAIVER AND CONSENT sorority, or organization, the parents shall be
held liable as principals and penalized with
Any form of approval, consent, or agreement, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine

Criminal Law
of Three million pesos (P3,000,000) OR with NOTE: The same shall apply to the president,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine manager, director, or other responsible officers
of Two million pesos (P2,000,000) when of businesses or corporations engaged in hazing
they have actual knowledge of the hazing as a requirement for employment in the manner
conducted therein but failed to take any provided herein.
action to prevent the same from occurring or
failed to promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities if such parents can E. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
do so without peril to their person or their R.A. No. 9160, as amended
family.
Other Accomplice
MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSE
The school authorities including faculty members
as well as barangay, municipal, or city officials Refers to a crime whereby the proceeds of an
shall be liable as an accomplice and likewise be unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making
held administratively accountable for hazing them appear to have originated from legitimate
conducted by the fraternities, sororities, other sources.
organizations, if it can be shown that the school
or barangay, municipal, or city officials allowed PERSONS LIABLE
or consented to the conduct of hazing, but such
officials failed to take action to prevent the same 1. Any person knowing that any monetary
from occurring or failed to promptly report to the instrument or property represents, involves,
law enforcement authorities if the same can be or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful
done without peril to their person or their family. activity, transacts or attempts to transact said
monetary instrument or property.
Prima Facie Evidence of Participation
2. Any person knowing that any monetary
The presence of any person, even if such person instrument or property involves the proceeds
is not a member of the fraternity, sorority, or of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to
organization, during the hazing is prima facie perform any act as a result of which he
evidence of participation therein as a principal facilitates the offense of money laundering.
unless such person or persons prevented the
commission of the acts punishable herein or 3. Any person knowing that any monetary
promptly reported the same to the law instrument or property is required under this
enforcement authorities if they can do so without Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-
peril, to their person or their family. Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do
so.
Joint Liability
Q: Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to
The incumbent officers of the fraternity, sorority, fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened
or organization concerned shall be jointly liable an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly
with those members who actually participated in deposited various amounts ranging from
the hazing. P500,000.00 to P1 Million. From this account,
the Mayor withdrew and used the money for
NOTE: Any person charged under this Act shall constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics,
NOT be entitled to the mitigating circumstances repairing schools and for all other municipal
that there was no intention to commit so grave a projects.
wrong.
It was subsequently discovered that Don

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and a. Imprisonment from six (6) months to
the amounts he deposited were proceeds four (4) years; OR
from his jueteng operations. What crime/s b. A fine of not less than P100,000 but not
were committed? Who are criminally liable? more than P500,000; OR
Explain. (2005 BAR) c. Both
A: BOTH. Don Gabito violated the Anti-Money 2. Penalties for Failure to Keep Records
Laundering Act (Sec. 4, R.A. 9160) for knowingly a. Imprisonment from six (6) months to
transacting money as property which involves or one (1) year; OR
relates to the proceeds of an unlawful activity b. A fine of not less than P100,000 but not
such as jueteng. In addition, he may be more than P500,000; OR
prosecuted for liability as a jueteng operator. c. Both
The mayor who allowed the opening of an 3. Malicious Reporting

account in his name is likewise guilty for violation
of the AMLA. He, knowing that the money Any person who, with malice, or in bad faith,
instrument or property involves the proceeds of reports or files a completely unwarranted
an unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform or false information relative to money
any act which results in the facilitation of money laundering transaction against any person:
laundering.
a. Imprisonment of six (6) months to four
PENAL PROVISIONS (4) years; AND
b. A fine of not less than P100, 000 but not
1. Penalties for the Crime of Money more than P500,000, at the discretion
Laundering of the court: Provided, That the offender
is not entitled to avail the benefits of the
Person who knowingly transacts using monetary Probation Law.
instrument from any unlawful activity:
Offender is a Corporation, Association,
a. Imprisonment ranging seven (7) to Partnership or any Juridical Person
fourteen (14) years; AND
b. A fine of not less than P3 Million but not The penalty shall be imposed upon the
more than twice the value of the monetary responsible officers, as the case may be, who
instrument or property involved in the participated in the commission of the crime or
offense. who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to
prevent its commission. The court may suspend
Person knowing that a monetary instrument or revoke its license.
involves proceeds from any unlawful activity, but
who fails to perform any act as a result of which Offender is an Alien
he facilitates the offense of money laundering:
In addition to the penalties herein prescribed, he
a. Imprisonment from four (4) to seven (7) shall be deported without further proceedings
years; AND after serving the penalties herein prescribed.
b. A fine of not less than P1.5 Million but not
Offender is a Public Official or Employee
more than P3 Million.
In addition to the penalties prescribed herein,

Person who knowingly fails to disclose and file
suffer perpetual or temporary absolute
any monetary instrument, required under the
disqualification from office, as the case may be.
rules, with AMLC
Any public official or employee who is called

Criminal Law
upon to testify and refuses to do the same or violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Law.
purposely fails to testify shall suffer the same Can Rudy move to dismiss the case on the
penalties prescribed herein. ground that he has no criminal record? (2006
BAR)
4. Breach of Confidentiality
a. Imprisonment ranging from three (3) to A: NO. Under the Anti-Money Laundering Law,
eight (8) years; AND Rudy would be guilty of a "money laundering
b. A fine of not less than P500,000 but not crime" committed when the proceeds of an
more than P1 Million. (Sec. 14, R.A. 9160) "unlawful activity," like jueteng operations, are
made to appear as having originated from
COVERED INSTITUTIONS legitimate sources. The money laundering crime
is separate from the unlawful activity of being a
1. Banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, jueteng operator, and requires no previous
and all other institutions and their conviction for the unlawful activity. (Sec. 3, R.A.
subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or No. 9160)
regulated by the BSP;
Q: To raise funds for his defense, Rudy sold
2. Insurance companies and all other the houses and lots to a friend. Can Luansing
institutions supervised or regulated by the Realty, Inc. be compelled to transfer to the
Insurance Commission; buyer ownership of the houses and lots?
3. A: YES. Luansing Realty, Inc. is a real estate

a. Securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, company, hence it is not a covered institution
investment houses and other similar under Sec. 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
entities; Only banking institutions, insurance companies,
b. Mutual funds, closed-end investment securities dealers and brokers, pre-need
companies, common trust funds, pre-need companies and other entities administering or
companies and other similar entities; otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or
c. Foreign exchange corporations, money financial derivatives are covered institutions.
changers, money payment, remittance, Hence, Luansing Realty, Inc. may not use the Anti-
and transfer companies and other similar Money Laundering Act to refuse to transfer to the
entities; buyer ownership of the houses and lots.
d. Other entities administering or otherwise
dealing in currency, commodities or Q: Did the bank violate any law in disclosing
financial derivatives. Rudy’s bank accounts to the AMLC?
Q: Rudy is jobless but is reputed to be a A: NO, the bank did not violate any law. The bank
jueteng operator. He has never been charged being specified as a "covered institution" under
or convicted of any crime. He maintains the Anti-Money Laundering Law, is obliged to
several banks bank accounts and has report to the AMLC covered and suspicious
purchased 5 houses and lots for his children transactions, without thereby violating any law.
from the Luansing Realty, Inc. since Since he This is one of the exceptions to the Secrecy of
does not have any visible job, the company Bank Deposit Act.
reported his purchases to the AMLC.
Thereafter, AMLC charged him with violation Q: Suppose the titles of the houses and lots are
of the Anti-Money Laundering Law. in possession of the Luansing Realty, Inc., is it
under the obligation to deliver the titles to
Upon request of the AMLC, the bank disclosed Rudy?
to it Rudy’s bank deposits amounting to P100
M. Subsequently, he was charged in court for A: YES, it has an obligation to deliver titles to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
Rudy. As Luansing Realty, Inc. is not a covered

institution under Sec. 3 of the Anti-Money
Laundering Act, it may not invoke this law to
refuse delivery of the titles to Rudy.
COVERED TRANSACTIONS
Covered Transactions under R.A. 9160 vs. R.A. 9194 vs. R.A. 10927
Comparison of R.A. No. 9160, R.A. No. 9194, and R.A. 10927
R.A. No. 10927
(An Act Designating Casinos
R.A. No. 9160 R.A. No. 9194
as Covered Persons under
R.A. No. 9160)
a. Single, series, or Transaction in cash or other Transaction in cash or other
combination of transactions equivalent monetary instrument equivalent monetary instrument
involving a total amount in involving a total amount in involving a total amount in
excess of Php4,000,000 or excess of P500,000 within 1 excess of Five hundred
an equivalent amount in banking day. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
foreign currency based on 9194) within one (1) banking day; for
the prevailing exchange rate covered persons under Sec.
within 5 consecutive 3(a)(8), a single casino
banking days. (Sec. 3, R.A. transaction involving an
No. 9160) amount in excess of Five
million pesos (P5,000,000) or
XPN: Those between a covered its equivalent in any other
institution and a person who, at currency. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 10927)
the time of the transaction was a
properly identified client and
the amount is commensurate
with the business or financial
capacity of the client; or those
with an underlying legal or
trade obligation, purpose, origin
or economic justification. (Sec. 3,
R.A. No. 9160)
b. Single, series or combination

or pattern of unusually
large and complex
transactions in excess of
Php4,000,000 especially
cash deposits and
investments having no
credible purpose or origin,
underlying trade obligation
or contract. (Sec. 3, R.A. No.
9160)

Criminal Law
SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS covered transaction and a suspicious transaction,

the covered institution shall be required to report
Transactions with covered institutions, the same as a suspicious transaction. (Sec. 9, R.A.
regardless of the amounts involved, with No. 9194)
attendant circumstances.
JURISDICTION
Circumstances Existing in Suspicious
Transactions 1. RTCs;
2. Sandiganbayan, if committed by public
1. There is no underlying legal or trade officers and private persons who are in
obligation, purpose or economic conspiracy with such public officers.
justification;
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC)
2. The client is not properly identified;
Composition
3. The amount involved is not commensurate
with the business or financial capacity of the 1. Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
client; (BSP) as Chairman;
2. Commissioner of the Insurance Commission;
4. Taking into account all known 3. Chairman of the Securities and Exchange
circumstances, it may be perceived that the Commission (SEC).
client’s transaction is structured in order to
avoid being the subject of reporting Investigation of Money Laundering Offenses
requirements under the Act;
The AMLC shall investigate:
5. Any circumstance relating to the transaction
which is observed to deviate from the profile 1. Suspicious transactions;
of the client and/or the client’s past 2. Covered transactions deemed suspicious
transactions with the covered institution; after an investigation conducted by the
AMLC;
6. The transaction is in any way related to an 3. Money laundering activities; and
unlawful activity or offense under this Act 4. Other violations of the AMLA, as amended
that is about to be, is being or has been (Rule 5.b., IRR of R.A. No. 9160)
committed; or
The AMLC does not exercise quasi-judicial
7. Any transaction that is similar or analogous powers and is simply an investigatory body. (Shu
to any of the foregoing. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 9194) v. Dee, as cited in Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza
and Binay Law Offices v. CA, G.R. No. 216914, 06
REPORTING OF COVERED AND Dec. 2016)
SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING
Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all
covered transactions and suspicious transactions 1. Customer Identification
within five (5) working days from occurrence
thereof, unless the Supervising Authority Covered institutions shall establish and
prescribes a longer period not exceeding ten (10) record the true identity of its clients based on
working days. official documents.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Special Penal Laws
2. Record Keeping 3. Reporting of Covered Transactions
All records of all transactions of covered Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC
institutions shall be maintained and safely all covered transactions within 5 working
stored for 5 years from the dates of days from occurrence thereof, unless the
transactions, and closed accounts for 5 years Supervising Authority concerned prescribes
from dates they were closed. a longer period not exceeding 10 working
days. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9160)
Authority to Freeze under R.A. 9160 vs. R.A. 9194 vs. R.A. 10927
COMPARISON OF R.A. NO. 9160, R.A. NO. 9194, AND R.A. NO. 10927
R.A. No. 9160 R.A. No. 9194 R.A. No. 10927
Upon determination that The Court of Appeals, upon Upon a verified ex parte petition by the
probable cause exists that application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that
any deposit or similar AMLC and after determination probable cause exists that any monetary
account is in any way related that probable cause exists that instrument or property is in any way
to an unlawful activity, the any monetary instrument or related to an unlawful activity as
AMLC may issue a freeze property is in any way related defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, the Court of
order, which shall be to an unlawful activity as Appeals may issue a freeze order
effective immediately, on defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, which shall be effective immediately,
the account for a period not may issue a freeze order for a period of twenty (20) days.
exceeding 15 days. which shall be effective
immediately. The freeze order Within the 20-day period, CA shall
Notice to the depositor that shall be for a period of 20 conduct a summary hearing, with
his account has been frozen days unless extended by the notice to the parties, to determine
shall be issued court. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 9194) whether or not to modify or lift the
simultaneously with the freeze order, or extend its
issuance of the freeze order. effectivity.
(Sec. 10, R.A. No. 9160)
The total period of the freeze order
issued by the Court of Appeals under
this provision shall not exceed 6
months.
Provided, That if there is no case filed

against a person whose account has
been frozen within the period
determined by the Court of Appeals, not
exceeding 6 months, the freeze order
shall be seemed ipso facto lifted:
Provided, further, That this new rule

shall not apply to pending cases in the
courts. In any case, the court should act
on the petition to freeze within 24
hours from filing of the petition. (Sec,
10, R.A. No. 10927)

Special Penal Laws
Q: Finding the existence of probable cause The right to due process, under these terms,
that the monetary instruments and requires a limitation or at least an inquiry on
properties enumerated in the ex-parte whether sufficient justification for the
application are related to an unlawful activity, governmental action. (Yambao v. Republic, G.R.
the Court of Appeals, through a Resolution No. 171054, 26 Jan. 2021)
dated July 5, 2005, issued a Freeze Order over
the subject monetary instruments of Gen. AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE
Ligot and Edgardo Tecson Yambao, the Ligot’s INTO BANK DEPOSITS
brother in-law who is alleged to be the Ligot’s (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9160)
dummy.
The AMLC may inquire into or examine any
On Nov. 18, 2005, this Court promulgated A.M.
particular deposit or investment with any
No. 05-11-04-SC limiting the effectivity of an
banking institution or non-bank financial
extended freeze order to 6 months. Asserting
institution upon order of any competent court in
the applicability of the said Rule, Yambao filed
cases of violation of this Act when it has been
an Urgent Motion for Summary Hearing to
established that there is probable cause that the
Limit Effectivity of Freeze Order and/or to
deposits or investments involved are in any way
Declare Expiration of Freeze Order. This was
related to a money laundering offense.
denied by the CA. The CA ruled that A.M. No.
05-11-04-SC is inapplicable in petitioner's
Provided, that this provision shall not apply to
case because the issues of extending and
deposits and investments made prior to the
lifting the Freeze Order issued against his
effectivity of this Act. (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9160)
monetary instruments and properties were
already resolved through the July 4, 2005 and
NOTE: The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
Sept. 20, 2005 CA Resolutions. Rule on the
may inquire into or examine any deposit or
proprietary of the CA’s denial to limit/declare
investment with any banking institution or non-
the expiration of the freeze order.
bank financial institution when the examination
is made in the course of a periodic or special
A: The CA erred in denying Yambao’s Urgent
examination, in accordance with the rules of
Motion for Summary Hearing to Limit Effectivity
examination of the BSP. (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9194)
of Freeze Order and/or to Declare Expiration of
Freeze Order.
Jurisdiction of Trial Courts
The relief is pre-emptive in character, meant to

In the issuance of a bank inquiry order, the power
prevent the owner from disposing his property
to determine the existence of probable cause is
and thwarting the State's effort in building its
lodged in the trial court. (AMLC v. Bolante, et al,
case and eventually filing civil forfeiture
G.R. No. 186717, 17 Apr. 2017)
proceedings and/or prosecuting the owner. The
Court issued A.M. No. 05-11-04 SC, limiting the
Elements of Sec. 11 of the AMLA, as amended
effectivity of an extended freeze order to six
months should be applied in Yambao’s case.
1. Ex-parte application by the AMLC;
2. Determination of probable cause by the CA;
To otherwise leave the grant of the extension to
and
the sole discretion of the CA, which may extend a
3. Exception of court order in cases involving
freeze order indefinitely or to an unreasonable
unlawful activities defined in Secs. 3(i)(1),
amount of time — carries serious implications on
(2), and (12). (Subido Pagente Certeza
an individual's substantive right to due process.
Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. CA, G.R. No.
This right demands that no person be denied his
216914, 06 Dec. 2016)
right to property or be subjected to any
governmental action that amounts to a denial.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Sec. 11 of the AMLA Not Violative of the Right shall apply.

to Due Process; Constitutional
2. Claim on Forfeited Assets
R.A. No. 9160 provides safeguards before the
issuance of a bank inquiry order, ensuring Where the court has issued an order of
adherence to the general state policy of forfeiture of the monetary instrument or
preserving the absolutely confidential nature of property in a criminal prosecution for any
Philippine bank accounts. (Subido Pagente money laundering offense, the offender or
Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. CA, any other person claiming an interest
supra) therein may apply, by verified petition, for a
declaration that the same legitimately
Succinctly, Sec. 11 of the AMLA providing for ex- belongs to him and for segregation or
parte application and inquiry by the AMLC into exclusion of the monetary instrument or
certain bank deposits and investments does not property corresponding thereto.
violate substantive due process, there being no
physical seizure of property involved at that The verified petition shall be filed with the
stage. It is the preliminary and actual seizure of court which rendered the judgment of
the bank deposits or investments in question conviction and order of forfeiture, within
which brings these within reach of the judicial fifteen (15) days from the date of the order
process, specifically a determination that the of forfeiture, in default of which the said
seizure violated due process. (Subido Pagente order shall become final and executory.
Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. CA,
supra) 3. Payment in Lieu of Forfeiture
There is no such violation [of substantive due Instances when Order of Forfeiture Cannot
process] because the physical seizure of the be Enforced
targeted corporeal property is not contemplated
in any form by the law. The AMLC may indeed be a. Any particular monetary instrument or
authorized to apply ex parte for an inquiry into property cannot, with due diligence, be
bank accounts, but only in pursuance of its located;
investigative functions akin to those of the
National Bureau of Investigation. As the AMLC b. It has been substantially altered,
does not exercise quasi-judicial functions, its destroyed, diminished in value or
inquiry by court order into bank deposits or otherwise rendered worthless by any act
investments cannot be said to violate any or omission, directly or indirectly,
person's constitutional right to procedural due attributable to the offender;
process. (Republic v. Bolante, G.R. No. 186717, 17
c. It has been concealed, removed,
April 2017)
converted or otherwise transferred to
prevent the same from being found or to
FORFEITURE PROVISIONS
avoid forfeiture thereof;
1. Civil Forfeiture d. It is located outside the Philippines or has

been placed or brought outside the
When there is a covered transaction report jurisdiction of the court; or
made, and the court has, in a petition filed for
the purpose ordered seizure of any monetary e. It has been commingled with other
instrument or property, in whole or in part, monetary instruments or property
directly or indirectly, related to said report, belonging to either the offender himself
the Revised Rules of Court on civil forfeiture or a third person or entity, thereby

Special Penal Laws
rendering the same difficult to identify or 3. Obtaining Assistance from Foreign States
be segregated for purposes of forfeiture.
The AMLC may make a request to any foreign
The Court may instead accordingly order State for assistance in:
the convicted offender to pay an amount
equal to the value of said monetary a. Tracking down, freezing, restraining and
instrument or property. (Sec. 12, R.A No. seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any
9160) unlawful activity;
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AMONG STATES b. Obtaining information that it needs relating

to any covered transaction, money
1. Request for Assistance from a Foreign laundering offense or any other matter
State directly or indirectly related thereto;
Where a foreign State makes a request for c. To the extent allowed by the law of the
assistance in the investigation or prosecution foreign State, applying with the proper
of a money laundering offense, the AMLC may court therein for an order to enter any
execute the request or refuse to execute the premises belonging to or in the possession
same and inform the foreign State of any valid or control of, any or all of the persons named
reason for not executing the request or for in said request, and/or search any or all
delaying the execution thereof. The principles such persons named therein and/or remove
of mutuality and reciprocity shall, for this any document, material or object named in
purpose, be at all times recognized. said request; and
2. Powers of the AMLC to Act on a Request for NOTE: The documents accompanying the
Assistance from a Foreign State request in support of the application should
be duly authenticated in accordance with
The AMLC may execute a request for the applicable law or regulation of the
assistance from a foreign State by: foreign State.
a. Tracking down, freezing, restraining and d. Applying for an order of forfeiture of any
seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of monetary instrument or property in the
any unlawful activity; proper court in the foreign State.
b. Giving information needed by the
NOTE: The request is accompanied by an
foreign State; and
authenticated copy of the order of the RTC
c. Applying for an order of forfeiture of any
ordering the forfeiture of said monetary
monetary instrument or property in the
instrument or property of a convicted
court.
offender and an affidavit of the clerk of court
NOTE: The court shall not issue such an order stating that the conviction and the order of
unless the application is accompanied by an the forfeiture are final and no further appeal
authenticated copy of the order of a court in lies.
the requesting State ordering the forfeiture of
4. Limitations on Requests for Mutual
said monetary instrument or property, and a
Assistance
certification or an affidavit of a competent
officer of the requesting State stating that the
GR: The AMLC may refuse to comply with
conviction and the order of forfeiture are final.
any request for assistance where the action
sought by the request contravenes any
provision of the Constitution or the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
execution of a request is likely to prejudice 6. Authentication of Documents

the national interest of the Philippines.
XPN: When there is a treaty between the A document is authenticated if the same is
Philippines and the requesting State signed or certified by a judge, magistrate or
relating to the assistance in relation to equivalent officer in or of, the requesting
money laundering offenses. State, and authenticated by the oath or
affirmation of a witness or sealed with an
5. Requirements for Requests for Mutual official or public seal of a minister, secretary
Assistance from Foreign States of State, or officer in or of, the government of
the requesting State, or of the person
a. Confirm that an investigation or administering the government or a
prosecution is being conducted in department of the requesting territory,
respect of a money launderer named protectorate or colony.
therein or that he has been convicted of
any money laundering offense; The certificate of authentication may also be
made by a secretary of the embassy or
b. State the grounds on which any person is legation, consul general, consul, vice consul,
being investigated or prosecuted for consular agent or any officer in the foreign
money laundering or the details of his service of the Philippines stationed in the
conviction; foreign State in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
c. Give sufficient particulars as to the
identity of said person; 7. Extradition
d. Give particulars sufficient to identify any The Philippines shall negotiate for the
covered institution believed to have any inclusion of money laundering offenses as
information, document, material or herein defined among extraditable offenses
object which may be of assistance to the in all future treaties. (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9160)
investigation or prosecution;
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
e. Ask from the covered institution POLITICAL HARASSMENT
concerned any information, document,
material or object which may be of
This Act shall not be used for political persecution
assistance to the investigation or
or harassment or as an instrument to hamper
prosecution;
competition in trade and commerce. No case for
money laundering may be filed against and no
f. Specify the manner in which and to
assets shall be frozen, attached or forfeited to the
whom said information, document,
prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office
material or object obtained pursuant to
during an election period. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9160)
said request, is to be produced;
g. Give all the particulars necessary for the RESTITUTION

issuance by the court in the requested
State of the writs, orders or processes Restitution for any aggrieved party shall be
needed by the requesting State; and governed by the provisions of the New Civil Code.
(Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9160)
h. Contain such other information as may
assist in the execution of the request.

Special Penal Laws
the private area of a person/s such as the

F. ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic
ACT OF 2009 area, buttocks or female breast without the
Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995 consent of the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the person/s
has/have a reasonable expectation of
privacy;
PHOTO OR VIDEO VOYEURISM
2. Copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied
1. The act of taking photo or video coverage of or reproduced, such photo or video or
a person or group of persons performing recording of sexual act or any similar activity
sexual act or any similar activity or with or without consideration;
capturing an image of the private person or
persons without the latter’s consent, under 3. Sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
circumstances in which such person/s distributed, such photo or video or recording
has/have a reasonable expectation of of sexual act, whether it be the original copy
privacy; or or reproduction thereof; or
2. The act of selling, copying, reproducing, 4. Publish or broadcast, or cause to be

broadcasting, sharing, showing, or published or broadcast, whether in print or
exhibiting the photo or video coverage or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the
recordings of such sexual act or similar photo or video coverage or recordings of
activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular such sexual act or any similar activity
phones, and similar means or device through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones
without the written consent of the person/s and other similar means or device. (Sec. 4,
involved, notwithstanding that consent to R.A. No. 9995)
take photo or video coverage of same was
given by such person. (Sec. 3(d), R.A. No. NOTE: The prohibition under paragraphs (2), (3)
9995) and (4) shall apply notwithstanding that consent
to record or take photo or video coverage of the
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
same was given by such person/s. (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
9995)
1. Circumstances under which a person
believes that he/she could disrobe in
XPN: Any peace officer, who is authorized by a
privacy, without being concerned that an
written order of the court, to use the record or
image or a private are of the person was
any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
being captured; or
investigation or trial of the crime of photo or
video voyeurism.
2. Circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that a private area of the
Requisites on the Issuance or Grant of Written
person would not be visible to the public,
Order
regardless of whether that person is in a
public or private place. (Sec. 3(f), R.A. No.
1. Upon written application and the examination
9995)
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he/she may produce; and
PROHIBITED ACTS (T-Co-P-S)
2. Upon showing that there are reasonable

1. Take photo or video coverage of a person or
grounds to believe that photo or video
group of persons performing sexual act or
voyeurism has been committed or is about to
any similar activity or to capture an image of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
be committed, and that the evidence to be which is manifestly out of proportion of his salary
obtained is essential to the conviction of any and to his other lawful income, such amount of
person for, or to the solution or prevention of property is then presumed prima facie to have
such crime. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9995) been unlawfully acquired.
INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Thus, if the public official is unable to show to the

satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully
Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, acquired the property in question, then the court
obtained or secured by any person in violation of shall declare such property forfeited in favor of
the preceding sections shall not be admissible in the State, and by virtue of such judgment, the
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative property aforesaid shall become property
or administrative hearing or investigation. (Sec. 7, forfeited in favor of the State. (Garcia v.
R.A. No. 9995) Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, 12 Oct. 2009)
PLUNDER
G. ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
Secs. 1, 2, and 6, R.A. No. 7080, A crime committed by a public officer, by himself
as amended by R.A. No. 7659 or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons, by
amassing, accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten
Public Officers
wealth through a combination or series of overt
acts in the aggregate amount or total value of at
Any person holding any public office in the
least fifty million pesos (P50 Million). (Sec. 2, R.A.
Government of the Republic of the Philippines by
No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659) (2014
virtue of an appointment, election, or contract.
BAR)
(Sec. 1(a), R.A. No. 7080)
There must be at least two (2) predicate crimes

“Government” under R.A. No. 7080
committed before one can be convicted of
plunder.
It includes the National Government, and any of
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
Elements of Plunder
including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries. (Sec. 1(b), 1. That the offender is a public officer who acts
R.A. No. 7080) by himself or in connivance with members of
his family, relatives by affinity or
ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates, or other persons;
Any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person, acquired by a 2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired
public officer, directly or indirectly, through ill-gotten wealth through a combination or
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates, series of the following overt or criminal acts:
and/or business associates. (Sec. 1(d), R.A. No,
7080) a. Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds,
Presumption under this Law or raids on the public treasury;
When a public officer or employee acquires b. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any

during his incumbency an amount of property commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickback, or any other form of

Special Penal Laws
pecuniary benefits from any person Q: Is the crime of plunder malum prohibitum
and/or entity in connection with any or malum in se?
government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position of the A: The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659
public officer concerned; that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is
a malum in se. For when the acts punished are
c. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are
or disposition of assets belonging to the mala in se and it does not matter that such acts
National Government or any of its are punished in a special law, especially since in
subdivisions, agencies or the case of plunder the predicate crimes are
instrumentalities of GOCCs or their mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to
subsidiaries; treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are
mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing
d. By obtaining, receiving, or accepting, Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance
directly or indirectly, any shares of against jaywalking, without regard to the
stock, equity, or any other form of inherent wrongness of the acts. (Estrada v.
interest or participation including the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 19 Nov. 2001)
promise of future employment in any
business enterprise or undertaking; COMBINATION/SERIES
e. By establishing agricultural, industrial, Combination

or commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementation At least two (2) acts falling under different
of decrees and orders intended to categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1(d).
benefit particular persons or special (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra)
interests;
Series
f. By taking undue advantage of official
position, authority, relationship, Two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling
connection, or influence to unjustly under the same category of enumeration found in
enrich himself or themselves at the Sec. 1(d). (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra).
expense and to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people and the Rule of Evidence
Republic of the Philippines; and
It is not necessary to prove each and every
g. That the aggregate amount or total criminal act done by the accused to commit the
value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, crime of plunder. It is sufficient to establish
accumulated, or acquired is at least P50 beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or
Million (Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful
11 Aug. 2015) scheme or conspiracy. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7080)
NOTE: The corpus delicti of plunder is the PATTERN

amassment, accumulation, or acquisition of
ill-gotten wealth valued at not less than Pattern
P50,000,000.00. The failure to establish the
corpus delicti should lead to the dismissal of Pattern consists of at least a combination or
the criminal prosecution. (Macapagal-Arroyo series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in
v. People, G.R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016) subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d) directed
towards a common purpose or goal, which is to
enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
acquire ill-gotten wealth, indicative of the overall A: NO. In order to prove the predicate act of raids
unlawful scheme or conspiracy to achieve said of the public treasury, there is a requirement of
common goal. As commonly understood, the term personal benefit on the part of the main
'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plunderer or his co-conspirators by virtue of
plan of action or method' which the principal their plunder. As a result, not only did the
accused and public officer and others conniving Prosecution fail to show where the money went
with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common but, more importantly, it failed to prove that GMA
goal. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra) and Aguas had personally benefited from the
same. Hence, the Prosecution did not prove the
The said acts are mentioned only as predicate predicate act of raids on the public treasury
acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. (Macapagal-Arroyo v.
relative thereto are not to be taken or to be People, G.R. No. 220598, supra)
understood as allegations charging separate
criminal offenses punished under the RPC, the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of H. ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials Secs. 3 (a, b), 4, and 5, R.A. No. 9745
and Employees. It bears stressing that the
predicate acts merely constitute acts of plunder
and are not crimes separate and independent of
Torture
the crime of plunder. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 148468, 28 Jan. 2003)
An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
NOTE: Under Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 7080, “in
person for such purposes as obtaining from
furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy” implies
him/her or a third person information or a
that plunder cannot be committed by just one
confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she
person.
or a third person has committed or is suspected
of having committed; or intimidating or coercing
Q: Senator X, with the help of his
him/her or a third person; or for any reason
subordinates, acquired the amount of
based on discrimination of any kind, when such
P100,000,000 through a misappropriation of
pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
public funds in just a single transaction. Is
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
plunder committed?
of a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority. (Sec. 3(a), R.A. No. 9745)
A: NO. There must be combination or series of the
means or similar schemes in Sec. 1 (d) of R.A. No.
NOTE: It does not include pain or suffering
7080. As defined in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
arising only from inherent in or incidental to
(2001), a combination and a series require at
lawful sanctions. (Sec. 3(a), R.A. No. 9745)
least two (2) overt criminal acts in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least P50 Million.
Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading
Thus, if there is only one transaction, the crime of
Treatment or Punishment
plunder is not committed, regardless of the
amount amassed by the public officer.
A deliberate and aggravated treatment or
punishment, not enumerated under Sec. 4 of this
Q: The Prosecution failed to prove that GMA
Act, inflicted by a person in authority or agent of
and Aguas benefited in the act of raids of the
a person in authority against a person under
public treasury. The Prosecution asserts that
his/her custody, which attains a level of severity
personal benefit is not a requirement for
causing suffering, gross humiliation or
plunder. Is the Prosecution correct?
debasement to the latter. (Sec. 3(b), R.A. No. 9745)

Special Penal Laws
NOTE: The assessment of the level of severity 8. Mutilation or amputation of the essential
shall depend on all the circumstances of the case, parts of the body such as the genitalia, ear,
including the duration of the treatment or tongue, etc.;
punishment, its physical and mental effects, and,
in some cases, the sex, religion, age, and state of 9. Dental torture or the forced extraction of
health of the victim. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9745) the teeth;
PUNISHABLE ACTS 10. Pulling out of fingernails;
11. Harmful exposure to the elements such as

I. ACTS OF TORTURE sunlight and extreme cold;
Torture, as punished under the law, may either be 12. The use of plastic bag and other materials
physical or mental/psychological. placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;
A. Physical Torture is a form of treatment or
punishment that causes severe pain, 13. The use of psychoactive drugs to change
exhaustion, disability, or dysfunction of one or the perception, memory. alertness or will
more parts of the body, such as: of a person, such as:
1. Systematic beating, head-banging, i. The administration or drugs to

punching, kicking, striking with induce confession and/or reduce
truncheon or rifle butt or other similar mental competency; or
objects, and jumping on the stomach;
ii. The use of drugs to induce extreme
2. Food deprivation or forcible feeding with pain or certain symptoms of a
spoiled food, animal or human excreta, disease; and
and other stuff or substances not
normally eaten; 14. Other analogous acts of physical torture.
3. Electric shock; B. Mental/Psychological Torture refers to acts

calculated to affect or confuse the mind
4. Cigarette burning, burning by electrically and/or undermine a person’s dignity, and
heated rods, hot oil or acid, or by the morale, such as:
rubbing of pepper or other chemical
substances on mucous membranes, or 1. Blindfolding;
acids or spices directly on the wound;
2. Threatening a person(s) or his/her
5. The submersion of the head in water or relative(s) with bodily harm, execution, or
water polluted with excrement, urine, other wrongful acts;
vomit and/or blood until the brink of
suffocation; 3. Confinement in solitary cells or secret
detention places;
6. Being tied or forced to assume fixed and
stressful bodily position; 4. Prolonged interrogation;
7. Rape and sexual abuse, including the 5. Preparing a prisoner for a “show trial,”
insertion of foreign objects into the sex public display, or public humiliation of a
organ or rectum, or electrical torture of detainee or prisoner;
the genitals;
6. Causing unscheduled transfer of a person

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
deprived of liberty from one place to (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9745)

another creating the belief that he/she
will be summarily executed; Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime
7. Maltreating a member/s of a person's Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be
family; absorbed by any other crime or felony committed
as a consequence or as a means in the conduct or
8. Causing the torture sessions to be commission thereof. In which case, torture shall
witnessed by the person’s family, be treated as a separate and independent
relatives, or any third party; criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable
without prejudice to any other criminal liability
9. Denial of sleep/rest; provided for by domestic and international laws.
(Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9745)
10. Shame infliction such as stripping the
person naked, parading him/her in public Applicability of Refouler
places, shaving the victim’s head or
putting marks on his/her body against No person shall be expelled, returned, or
his/her will; extradited to another State where there are
substantial grounds to believe that such person
11. Deliberately prohibiting the victim to shall be in danger of being subjected to torture.
communicate with any member of (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9745)
his/her family; and
PERSONS LIABLE
12. Other analogous acts of mental/
psychological torture. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 1. As principals for the crime of torture or
9745) other cruel or inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment:
II. ACTS CONSTITUTING CRUEL, INHUMAN,
AND DEGRADING TREATMENT a. Any person who actually participated or
OR PUNISHMENT induced another in the commission of
torture or other cruel, inhuman, and
Applicable to ALL Circumstances degrading treatment or punishment, or
who cooperated in the execution of the
A state of war or a threat of war, internal political act of torture or other cruel, inhuman,
instability, or any other public emergency, or a and degrading treatment or punishment
document or any determination comprising an by previous or simultaneous acts;
"order of battle" shall not and can never be
invoked as a justification for torture and other b. Any superior military, police or law
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or enforcement officer, or senior
punishment. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9745) government official who issued an order
to any lower ranking personnel to
Applicability of Exclusionary Rule commit torture for whatever purpose;
and
GR: Any confession, admission, or statement
obtained as a result of torture shall be c. The immediate commanding officer of
inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings. the unit concerned of the AFP or the
immediate senior public official of the
XPN: If the same is used as evidence against a PNP and other law enforcement
person or persons accused of committing torture. agencies, if:

Special Penal Laws
i. By his act or omission, or negligence, torture or other cruel, inhuman, and

he has led, assisted, abetted, or degrading treatment or punishment,
allowed, whether directly or provided the accessory acts are done
indirectly, the commission of torture with the abuse of the official’s public
by his/her subordinates; or functions. (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9745)
ii. He/she has knowledge of or, owing Prohibited Detention

to the circumstances at the time,
should have known that acts of Secret detention places, solitary confinement,
torture or other cruel, inhuman, and incommunicado, or other similar forms of
degrading treatment or punishment detention, where torture may be carried out with
will be committed, is being impunity are prohibited. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9745)
committed, or has been committed
by his/her subordinates or by others Applicability of the RPC
within his/her area of responsibility
and, despite such knowledge, did not The provisions of the RPC insofar as they are
take preventive or corrective action applicable shall be suppletory to this Act.
either before, during, or Moreover, if the commission of any crime
immediately after its commission, punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against
when he/she has the authority to Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal
prevent or investigate allegations of Liberty and Security) of the RPC is attended by
torture or other cruel, inhuman, and any of the acts constituting torture and other
degrading treatment or punishment cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or
but failed to prevent or investigate punishment as defined herein, the penalty to be
allegations of such act, whether imposed shall be in its maximum period. (Sec. 22,
deliberately or due to negligence. R.A. No. 9745)
2. Any public officer or employee will be liable RIGHTS TO PHYSICAL, MEDICAL, AND
as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
torture or other cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment or punishment is being Before and after interrogation, every person
committed and without having participated arrested, detained, or under custodial
in its commission, either as principal or investigation shall have the right to be informed
accomplice, takes part subsequent to its of his/her right to demand physical examination
commission: by an independent and competent doctor of
his/her own choice. Furthermore, any person
a. By profiting from or assisting the arrested, detained, or under custodial
offender to profit from the effects of the investigation, including his/her immediate
act of torture or other cruel, inhuman, family, shall have the right to immediate access to
and degrading treatment or punishment; proper and adequate medical treatment.
b. By concealing the act of torture or other The physical examination and/or psychological
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment evaluation of the victim shall be contained in a
or punishment and/or destroying the medical report, duly signed by the attending
effects or instruments of torture in order physician, which shall include in detail his/her
to prevent its discovery; or medical history and findings, and which shall he
attached to the custodial investigation report.
c. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in Such report shall be considered a public
the escape of the principal/s in the act of document. (Sec. 12, R.A. No. 9745)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
NOTE: Any person who does not wish to avail of financial relief programs that may be made
the rights may knowingly and voluntarily waive available to him/her under existing law and rules
such rights in writing, executed in the presence and regulations. (Sec. 18, R.A. No. 9745)
and assistance of his/her counsel. (Sec. 12, R.A.
No. 9745)
I. ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
RIGHTS OF A VICTIM ACT OF 2003
Secs. 3 – 12, R.A. No. 9208
1. To have a prompt and impartial investigation
by the CHR and other concerned government
agencies such as the DOJ, the PAO, the PNP, State Policy
the NBI, and the AFP;
It is the State’s Policy to give highest priority to
NOTE: A prompt investigation shall mean a the enactment of measures and development of
maximum period of sixty (60) working days programs that will promote human dignity,
from the time a complaint for torture is filed protect the people from any threat of violence
within which an investigation report and/or and exploitation, eliminate trafficking in persons,
resolution shall be completed and made and mitigate pressures for involuntary migration
available. An appeal, whenever available, and servitude of persons, not only to support
shall be resolved within the same period trafficked persons but more importantly, to
prescribed herein. ensure their recovery, rehabilitation, and
reintegration into the mainstream of society. (Sec.
2. To have sufficient government protection 2, R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364)
against all forms of harassment, threat,
and/or intimidation as a consequence of the PUNISHABLE ACTS
filing of a complaint for torture or the
presentation of evidence for such complaint;
1. Acts of Trafficking in Persons committed by
and
any person, natural or juridical
NOTE: The protection extends to other

a. To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer,
persons involved in the investigation/
transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or
prosecution such as his/her lawyer,
receive a person by any means, including
witnesses and relatives.
those done under the pretext of domestic
or overseas employment or training or
3. To be given sufficient protection in the
apprenticeship, for the purpose of
manner by which he/she testifies and
prostitution, pornography, or sexual
presents evidence in any forum to avoid
exploitation; (2014 BAR)
further trauma. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9745)
Q: International Justice Mission (IJM), a

Compensation to Victims of Torture
nongovernmental organization, coordinated
with the police in order to entrap persons
Any person who has suffered torture shall have
engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City.
the right to claim for compensation as provided
The team went to Queensland Motel and
for under R.A. No. 7309: Provided, that in no case
rented Rooms 24 and 25. These rooms were
shall compensation be any lower than ten
adjacent to each other. Room 24 was
thousand pesos (P10,000).
designated for the transaction while Room 25
was for the rest of the police team.
NOTE: Victims of torture shall also have the right
to claim for compensation from such other
PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D.

Special Penal Laws
Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or

Cebu City’s red-light district. Accused noticed deceptive means employed by Casio of human
them and called their attention by saying trafficking. (People v. Casio, G.R. No. 211465, 03
"Chicks mo dong?" (Do you like girls, guys?). Dec. 2014)
PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo convinced
accused to come with them to Queensland Q: TV5 segment producer Melvin Espenida
Motel. Upon proceeding toRoom 24, PO1 and his crew went to Plaza Morga and Plaza
Veloso handed the marked money to accused. Moriones in Tondo, Manila to investigate the
As accused counted the money, PO1 Veloso alleged prostitution operations in the
gave PSI Ylanan a missed call. This was their area. They had earlier designated a
pre-arranged signal. The rest of the team confidential asset, "Romeo David", on whom a
proceeded to Room 24, arrested accused, and lapel microphone was clipped, to pose as a
informed her of her constitutional rights. The customer and transact with the alleged pimps
police confiscated the marked money from for a night with a minor.
accused.
During the transaction, the pimps allegedly
Meanwhile, AAA and BBB were brought to asked for P500. Espenida, who was on board a
Room 25 and placed in the custody of the TV5 vehicle located about a hundred meters
representatives from the IJM and the DSWD. away from where David and the pimps were,
AAA described that her job as a prostitute heard the transaction through the
required her to display herself, along with microphone. Espenida and his crew filed a
other girls. She received money for every Complaint reporting about the rampant
customer who selected her. Is Casio properly human trafficking in Plaza Morga and Plaza
convicted of trafficking in persons, Moriones.
considering that AAA admitted that she works
as a prostitute? Acting on the complaint, the police operatives
conducted an entrapment operation, the
A: YES. Casio is properly convicted of trafficking pimps were eventually caught and arrested.
in persons, considering that AAA admitted that According to AAA, she was about to buy coffee
she works as a prostitute. Knowledge or consent at Plaza Moriones when Santiago called her,
of the minor is not a defense under R.A. No. 9208. offering to pay her to spend a night with a
Accused claims that AAA admitted engaging in customer. He allegedly promised to pay AAA
prostitution even before May 2, 2008. She P350 out of the P500 that the customer would
concludes that AAA was predisposed to having pay for the transaction. AAA later confirmed
sex with "customers" for money. For liability during trial that Santiago was the pimp, but
under our law, this argument is irrelevant. As said that she only saw Castillo and Legazpi for
defined under Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208, the first time upon getting into the van bound
trafficking in persons can still be committed even for the police station.
if the victim gives consent.
RTC and CA convicted Santiago of committing
AAA and BBB were recruited by Casio when their trafficking in persons punished under Sec.
services were peddled to the police who acted as 4(a) of R.A. No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking
decoys. AAA was a child at the time that accused in Persons Act. However, Santiago points out
peddled her services. AAA also stated that she that the lack of testimony from the
agreed to work as a prostitute because she confidential informant, David, raises doubts
needed money. Accused took advantage of AAA’s on whether "petitioner truly offered AAA to
vulnerability as a child and as one who need him." Is Santiago guilty beyond reasonable
money, as proven by the testimonies of the doubt for violating Sec. 4(a) of the Anti-
witnesses. AAA’s consent is rendered

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Trafficking in Persons Act, despite the lack of hiring, providing, offering, transportation
testimony from the confidential informant? transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of
persons with or without the victim’s consent or
A: YES. Santiago is guilty beyond reasonable knowledge, within or across national borders; (2)
doubt for violating Sec. 4(a) of the Anti- The means used include “by means of threat, or
Trafficking in Persons Act, despite the lack of use of force, or other forms of coercion,
testimony from the confidential informant. The abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of
testimony of the confidential informant is not position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of
relevant for conviction nor is it indispensable for the person, or, the giving or receiving of
a successful prosecution of this case because his payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
testimony would merely be corroborative and person having control over another person”; and
cumulative. The testimonies of the trafficked (3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the
person, AAA, clearly narrating what transpired exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
on the trafficking incident and the police officers forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
regarding the entrapment operation were services, slavery, servitude, or the removal or sale
sufficient to prove appellant's guilt of the crime of organs.”
charged. (Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 213760, 01
July 2019) In the instant case, the accused-appellant cannot
use as a valid defense either BBB's and AAA's
Q: The Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task consent to the transaction or that BBB received
Force conducted an entrapment operation in the payment on her behalf. The victim's consent
Lapu-Lapu City. At the bar, two women is rendered meaningless due to the coercive,
approached PO1 Nemenzo and PO1 Llanes abusive, or deceptive means employed by
and introduced themselves as AAA and BBB, perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without
minors. Upon hearing that they would need the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means,
two more girls, another woman approached a minor's consent is not given out of his or her
them and introduced herself as Nancy, who own free will. Trafficking in persons may be
was later identified as Ramirez. She told the committed also by means of taking advantage of
police officers that she could provide the girls. the persons' vulnerability as minors. Accused-
Then, BBB and Ramirez left, and after a while, appellant hired children to engage in
returned with two more girls. They agreed prostitution, taking advantage of their
that each girl would cost P600 as payment for vulnerability as minors. AAA's and BBB's
sexual services. After Ramirez provided the acquiescence to the illicit transactions cannot be
four girls, the group left and hailed a taxi considered as a valid defense. (People v. Ramirez,
heading for a Motel. Ramirez had told the girls G.R. No. 217978, 30 Jan. 2019)
to accept the money that they would be given.
b. To introduce or match for money, profit,
While in the taxi, one of the men handed her or material, economic or other
P2,400. BBB received the money and told her consideration, any person or, as
companions to set aside P400 as their pimp's provided for under R.A. No. 6955, any
share. Ramirez denied the allegations and Filipino woman to a foreign national, for
claimed that it was BBB who negotiated with marriage for the purpose of acquiring,
the customers and received the supposed buying, offering, selling, or trading
payment. Is Ramirez guilty of qualified him/her to engage in prostitution,
trafficking of persons? pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude, or
A: YES. The elements for crimes prosecuted debt bondage;
under R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No
10364, are: (1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining,

Special Penal Laws
c. To offer or contract marriage, real or servitude, including a scheme, plan, or

simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, pattern intended to cause the person
buying, offering, selling, or trading them either:
to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor or i. To believe that if the person did not
slavery, involuntary servitude, or debt perform such labor or services, he
bondage; or she or another person would
d. To undertake or organize tours and suffer serious harm or physical
travel plans consisting of tourism restraint; or
packages or activities for the purpose of ii. To abuse or threaten the use of law
utilizing and offering persons for or the legal processes;
prostitution, pornography, or sexual
exploitation; k. To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain,
transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide,
e. To maintain or hire a person to engage in adopt, or receive a child for purposes of
prostitution or pornography; exploitation or trading them, including
but not limited to, the act of buying
f. To adopt persons by any form of and/or selling a child for any
consideration for exploitative purposes consideration or for barter for purposes
or to facilitate the same for purposes of of exploitation.
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, Trafficking for purposes of exploitation
involuntary servitude, or debt bondage; of children shall include:
g. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of i. All forms of slavery or practices

persons for the purpose of prostitution, similar to slavery, involuntary
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced servitude, debt bondage and forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude, or labor, including recruitment of
debt bondage; children for use in armed conflict;
h. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, ii. The use, procuring or offering of a

transfer, obtain, harbor, maintain, child for prostitution, for the
provide, offer, receive, or abduct a production of pornography, or for
person, by means of threat, or use of pornographic performances;
force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or
intimidation for the purpose of removal iii. The use, procuring, or offering of a
or sale of organs of said person; child for the production and
trafficking of drugs; and
i. To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer,
harbor, maintain, offer, hire, provide, iv. The use, procuring, or offering of a
receive, or adopt a child to engage in child for illegal activities or work
armed activities in the Philippines or which, by its nature or the
abroad; circumstances in which it is carried
out, is likely to harm their health,
j. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, safety or morals; and
obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide, or
receive a person by means defined in Sec. l. To organize or direct other persons to
3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor, commit the offenses defined as acts of
slavery, debt bondage, and involuntary trafficking under this Act. (Sec. 4, R.A. No.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
9208, as amended) 2. To produce, print and issue, or distribute

unissued, tampered, or fake counseling
2. Attempted Trafficking certificates, registration stickers, overseas
employment certificates, or other certificates
Where there are acts to initiate the commission of of any government agency which issues these
a trafficking offense but the offender failed to or certificates, decals, and such other markers
did not execute all the elements of the crime, by as proof of compliance with government
accident or by reason of some cause other than regulatory and pre-departure requirements
voluntary desistance, such overt acts shall be for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
deemed as an attempt to commit an act of persons;
trafficking in persons. As such, an attempt to
commit any of the offenses enumerated in Sec. 4 3. To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
shall constitute attempted trafficking in persons. distribute, or cause the advertisement,
(Sec. 4-A(1), R.A. No. 9208, as amended) publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use
Acts that Constitute Attempted Trafficking in of information technology and the internet,
Persons where the Victim is a Child of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in
1. Facilitating the travel of a child who travels persons;
alone to a foreign country or territory
without valid reason therefor and without 4. To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation
the required clearance or permit from the or fraud for purposes of facilitating the
Department of Social Welfare and acquisition of clearances and necessary exit
Development (DSWD), or a written permit or documents from government agencies that
justification from the child’s parent or legal are mandated to provide pre-departure
guardian; registration and services for departing
persons for the purpose of promoting
2. Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit of trafficking in persons;
consent or a written consent for adoption;
5. To facilitate, assist, or help in the exit and
3. Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the entry of persons from/to the country at
purpose of selling the child; international and local airports, territorial
boundaries and seaports who are in
4. Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling possession of unissued, tampered, or
the child; and fraudulent travel documents for the purpose
of promoting trafficking in persons;
5. Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody
thereof through any means from among 6. To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, passport, travel documents, or personal
refugee or evacuation centers, and low- documents or belongings of trafficked
income families, for the purpose of selling the persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
child. (Sec. 4-A(2), R.A. No. 9208, as amended) prevent them from leaving the country or
seeking redress from the government or
Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons, or appropriate agencies;
Facilitate Trafficking in Persons
7. To knowingly benefit from, financial or
1. To knowingly lease or sublease, use, or allow otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
to be used any house, building, or services of a person held to a condition of
establishment for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;

Special Penal Laws
involuntary servitude, forced labor, or simultaneous acts defined under this Act. (Sec. 4-
slavery; B, R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
8. To tamper with, destroy, or cause the Accessories

destruction of evidence, or to influence or
attempt to influence witnesses, in an Whoever has the knowledge of the commission of
investigation or prosecution of a case under the crime, and without having participated
this Act; therein, either as principal or as accomplices,
take part in its commission in any of the following
9. To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or manners:
possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal,
remove, confiscate, or possess, any actual or 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the
purported passport or other travel, offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
immigration or working permit or document,
or any other actual or purported government 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the
identification, of any person in order to crime or effects or instruments thereof, in
prevent or restrict, or attempt to prevent or order to prevent its discovery; or
restrict, without lawful authority, the
person’s liberty to move or travel in order to 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
maintain the labor or services of that person; escape of the principal of the crime, provided
or the accessory acts with abuse of his or her
public functions or is known to be habitually
10. To utilize his or her office to impede the guilty of some other crime. (Sec. 4-C, R.A. No.
investigation, prosecution or execution of 9208, as amended)
lawful orders in a case under this Act. (Sec. 5,
R.A. No. 9208, as amended) QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
3. Any person who buys or engages the 1. When the trafficked person is a child;
services of trafficked persons for
prostitution. (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9208, as Q: AAA, a minor, narrated that Baby Velasco
amended) convinced her to work as a kasambahay in
Ilocos. However, AAA was instead forced to
PERSONS LIABLE work as a prostitute in a videoke bar run by
Tabieros and Infante. Upon arrest, the
Principal information stated: “… for the purpose of
exploitation, such as prostitution, did then
1. Any person, natural or juridical, who and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
commits any of the punishable acts of hire, maintain and manage said victim to
trafficking; engage in prostitution through sexual
2. Any person who promote or facilitate the services or lascivious conduct, in
acts of trafficking; or consideration of the payments and benefits
3. Any person who buys or engages the services given to her by customers, to her damage and
of trafficked persons for prostitution shall be prejudice.” What crime did Tabieros and
penalized. Infante commit?
Accomplice A: Tabieros and Infante committed acts of

qualified trafficking in persons in relation to
Whoever knowingly aids, abets, or cooperates in Section 4 (e) of Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-
the execution of the offense by previous or Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. Such prohibits

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
any person “to maintain or hire a person to involuntary servitude, or debt bondage;
engage in prostitution or pornography.”
Trafficking is qualified when "the trafficked 3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate,
person is a child. (People v. Tabieros and Infante, or in large scale.
G.R. No. 234191, 01 Feb. 2021)
NOTE: Trafficking is deemed committed by a
Q: CCC, FFF, and DDD, all minors, worked in syndicate if carried out by a group of three
ABC Bar. Their private parts were touched in (3) or more persons conspiring or
exchange for payment. FFF and DDD were confederating with one another. It is deemed
offered to have sexual intercourse with the committed in large scale if committed
customers but only DDD did it. against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group. (2015 BAR)
DDD testified that she was recruited by a
friend to work at the bar. Mommy Jojie was 4. When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant,
managing the bar when DDD first visited, and parent, sibling, guardian, or a person who
told her that her job was to: (1) entertain exercises authority over the trafficked
customers; (2) accompany them as they person or when the offense is committed by
drank; (3) kiss them; and (4) allow herself to a public officer or employee;
be touched intimately. DDD accompanied
customers to the VIP room more than 10 5. When the trafficked person is recruited to
times. The floor manager Lapena knew that engage in prostitution with any member of
she had sexual intercourse with customers, the military or law enforcement agencies;
and would get angry when she refused. What
crime is committed by Lapena? 6. When the offender is a member of the
military or law enforcement agencies;
A: Lapena is guilty of qualified trafficking.
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of
The first element is present. As Floor Manager trafficking in persons, the offended party
Lapena harbored, received, and maintained the dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is
minors for the purpose of prostitution and sexual afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency
exploitation. The second element of trafficking in Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune
persons was present. Lapena achieved the Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS);
consent of the minors CCC, FFF, and DDD to work
as GROs, by taking advantage of the vulnerability 8. When the offender commits one or more
and minority of the complainants. The third violations of Sec. 4 over a period of sixty (60)
element of trafficking in persons was present. or more days, whether those days are
The purpose of recruitment, transportation, continuous or not; and
transfer, harbouring, and trafficking, was
exploitation and prostitution, as already 9. When the offender directs or through
discussed in the two preceding paragraphs. another manages the trafficking victim in
carrying out the exploitative purpose of
Lastly, trafficking is qualified when the trafficked trafficking. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
person is a child. (People v. Lapena, G.R. No.
238213, 01 Feb. 2021) Q: In an entrapment operation, 2 minor girls
were rescued from being subjected to
2. When the adoption is effected through R.A. prostitution. Consequently, Sayo and Roxas
No. 8043 and said adoption is for the purpose were charged with a violation of R.A. No. 9208
of prostitution, pornography, sexual (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) –
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, Sayo for recruiting and transporting AAA and

Special Penal Laws
BBB (minors); while Roxas for managing and shall be irrelevant. (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9208, as
operating a room to be used for prostitution. amended)
The RTC found Roxas was found guilty beyond NOTE: Victims of trafficking for purposes of
reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in prostitution as defined under Sec. 4 of this Act are
Persons under Secs. 5(a) and 6(a) of R.A. No. not covered by Art. 202 of the RPC and as such,
9208. Is the conviction correct? shall not be prosecuted, fined, or otherwise
penalized under the said law. (Sec. 17, R.A. No.
A: NO. The RTC committed serious error in 9208, as amended)
convicting Roxas for Qualified Trafficking of
Persons. Q: Ronnie was able to convince Lolita to work
as a restaurant entertainer in Malaysia. When
Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 9208 refers to those acts which they were already at the restaurant, a Filipina
directly involve trafficking in persons, such as woman working there said that the place is a
recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring, prostitution den and the women there are
receiving, buying, offering, selling, or trading used as prostitutes. Lolita was forced to work
persons to engage in prostitution, pornography, as entertainer.
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or debt bondage. Several customers used Lolita many times.
Meanwhile, Sec. 5 refers to those acts that Some even had sexual intercourse with her
promote or facilitate any of the predicate acts of every hour. Ronnie was then sued for
Trafficking in Persons, including knowingly Trafficking in Persons. He claims that he
leasing or subleasing, using or allowing to be used cannot be convicted of the crime charged
any house, building, or establishment for the because he was not part of the group that
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons. transported Lolita from the Philippines to
Malaysia. Is he correct?
The offenses punished under Sec. 5 cannot be
qualified by Sec. 6 as what the latter seeks to A: NO. Trafficking in Persons under Sec. 3(a) and
qualify is the act of trafficking and not the 4 of R.A. No. 9208 is not only limited to
promotion of trafficking. Thus, the Court affirms transportation of victims, but also includes the
with modification Roxas' conviction and holds act of recruitment of victims for trafficking. The
that he is guilty of one count of violation of Sec. crime of recruitment for prostitution also
5(a) of R.A. No. 9208 for Acts that Promote constitutes trafficking. (People v. Lalli et al., G.R.
Trafficking in Persons and not Trafficking in No. 195419, 12 Oct. 2011)
Persons, qualified or otherwise. (People v. Susan
Sayo, G.R. No. 227704, 10 Apr. 2019, J. Caguioa) Inadmissibility of Past Sexual Behavior or
Predisposition as Evidence
Trafficked Persons are NOT Penalized
The past sexual behavior or the sexual
Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims predisposition of a trafficked person shall be
of the act or acts of trafficking and as such, shall considered inadmissible in evidence for the
not be penalized for unlawful acts committed as a purpose of proving consent of the victim to
direct result of, or as an incident or in relation to, engage in sexual behavior, or to prove the
being trafficked based on the acts of trafficking predisposition, sexual, or otherwise, of a
enumerated in this Act or in obedience to the trafficked person. (Sec. 17-B, R.A. No. 9208 as
order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. amended)
In this regard, the consent of a trafficked person
to the intended exploitation set forth in this Act NOTE: The consent of a victim of trafficking to the
intended exploitation shall be irrelevant where

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
any of the means set forth in Sec. 3(a) of this Act

has been used. (Sec. 17-B, R.A. No. 9208 as J. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
amended) THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Secs. 3, 5, and 26, R.A. No. 9262
Exercise of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
GR: The State shall exercise jurisdiction over any

Violence against Women and their Children
act defined under this Act even if committed
(VAWC)
outside the Philippines and whether or not such
act or acts constitute an offense at the place of
Any act or a series of acts committed by ANY
commission, the crime being a continuing
PERSON against a woman who is his wife, former
offense, having been commenced in the
wife, or against a woman with whom the person
Philippines and the other elements having been
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with
committed in another country, if the suspect or
whom he has a common child, or against her child
accused:
whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
without the family abode, which result in or is
1. Is a Filipino citizen; or
likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological
2. Is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or
harm or suffering, or economic abuse including
3. Has committed the act against a citizen of the
threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
Philippines.
harassment, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
(Sec. 3(a), R.A. No. 9262)
XPN: If the foreign government, with jurisdiction
recognized by the Philippines, has prosecuted or
NOTE: A man cannot be a victim under this Act.
is prosecuting such person for the conduct
He should resort to the appropriate provisions of
constituting the offense.
the RPC.
XPN to the XPN: Upon approval of the Secretary

Children
of Justice. (Sec. 26-A, R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
Those below eighteen (18) years of age or older

Prescriptive Period
but are incapable of taking care of themselves. It
includes the biological children of the victim and
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
other children under her care. (Sec. 3(h), R.A. No.
Trafficking cases 10 years
9262)
Trafficking cases committed
by a syndicate, or in a large 20 years
PUNISHABLE ACTS
scale, or against a child
The crime of violence against women and their

The prescriptive period shall commence to run
from the day on which the trafficked person is children is committed through any of the
delivered or released from the conditions of following acts:
bondage, or in the case of a child victim, from the
1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her
day the child reaches the age of majority. (Sec. 12,
child.
R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physical harm.
3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child

physical harm.

Special Penal Laws
4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of 8. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
imminent physical harm. conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or
5. Attempting to compel or compelling the psychological distress to the woman or her
woman or her child to engage in conduct child. This shall include, but not limited to,
which the woman or her child has the right to the following acts:
desist from or conduct which the woman or
her child has the right to engage in, or a. Stalking or following the woman or her
attempting to restrict or restricting the child in public or private places;
woman's or her child's freedom of movement
or conduct by force or threat of force, b. Peering in the window or lingering
physical or other harm or threat of physical outside the residence of the woman or
or other harm, or intimidation directed her child;
against the woman or child. This shall
include, but is not limited to, the following c. Entering or remaining in the dwelling
acts committed with the purpose or effect of or on the property of the woman or her
controlling or restricting the woman's or her child against her/his will;
child's movement or conduct:
d. Destroying the property and personal
a. Threatening to deprive or actually belongings or inflicting harm to animals
depriving the woman or her child of or pets of the woman or her child; and
custody to her/his family;
e. Engaging in any form of harassment or
b. Depriving or threatening to deprive the violence.
woman or her children of financial
support legally due her or her family, or 9. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
deliberately providing the woman's ridicule, or humiliation to the woman or her
children insufficient financial support; child, including, but not limited to, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of
c. Depriving or threatening to deprive the financial support or custody of minor
woman or her child of a legal right; children of access to the woman's
child/children. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9262)
d. Preventing the woman in engaging in
any legitimate profession, occupation, Prescriptive Period
business, or activity or controlling the
victim's own money or properties, or 1. Acts falling under Nos. 1-6 shall prescribe in
solely controlling the conjugal or twenty (20) years.
common money, or properties. 2. Acts falling under Nos. 7-9 shall prescribe in
ten (10) years. (Sec. 24, R.A. No. 9262)
6. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical
harm on oneself for the purpose of NOTE: VAWC shall be considered a public offense
controlling her actions or decisions. which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a
complaint by any citizen having personal
7. Causing or attempting to cause the woman or knowledge of the circumstances involving the
her child to engage in any sexual activity commission of the crime. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9262)
which does not constitute rape, by force or
threat of force, physical harm, or through
intimidation directed against the woman or
her child or her/his immediate family.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Elements of the Crime of Violence against substance (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 9262)
Women through Harassment 2. End of dating relationship prior to the
violence.
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman; NOTE: It is immaterial whether the relationship
had ceased for as long as there is sufficient
2. The offender, by himself or through another, evidence showing the past or present existence of
commits an act or series of acts of such relationship between the offender and the
harassment against the woman; and victim when the physical harm was committed.
(Dabalos v. RTC, Branch 59, Angeles City,
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial Pampanga, G.R. No. 193960, 07 Jan. 2013)
emotional or psychological distress to her.
(Ang v. CA, G.R. No. 182835, 20 Apr. 2010) Four (4) Acts included under Sec. 3: (P-E-P-S)
NOTE: Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes any act 1. Physical violence (Sec. 3(a)(A), R.A. 9262);
or series of acts that constitutes violence against 2. Economic abuse (Sec. 3(a)(D), R.A. 9262);
women. This means that a single act of 3. Psychological violence (Sec. 3(a)(C), R.A.
harassment, which translates into violence, 9262); and
would be enough. The object of the law is to 4. Sexual violence (Sec. 3(a)(B), R.A. 9262).
protect women and children. Punishing only
violence that is repeatedly committed would Physical Violence
license isolated ones. (Ang v. CA, supra)
Acts that include bodily or physical harm. (Sec.
Dating Relationship vs. Sexual Relations 3(a)(A), R.A. No. 9262)
Economic Abuse (2010 BAR)

DATING
SEXUAL RELATIONS
RELATIONSHIP
Acts that make or attempt to make a woman
It refers to a situation financially dependent which includes, but is not
wherein the parties
limited to, the following:
live as husband and
It refer to a single
wife without the 1. Withdrawal of financial support or
sexual act which may
benefit of marriage or preventing the victim from engaging in any
or may not result in
are romantically legitimate profession, occupation, business,
the bearing of a
involved over time or activity, except in cases wherein the other
common child. (Sec.
and on a continuing spouse/partner objects on valid, serious, and
3(f), R.A. No. 9262)
basis during the moral grounds as defined in Art. 73 of the
course of the Family Code;
relationship. (Sec.
3(e), R.A. No. 9262) 2. Deprivation or threat of deprivation of
financial resources and the right to the use
NOTE: A casual acquaintance or ordinary and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or
socialization between two individuals in a property owned in common;
business or social context is not a dating
relationship. 3. Destroying household property; or
Prohibited Defense 4. Controlling the victims’ own money or

properties or solely controlling the conjugal
1. Being under the influence of alcohol, any money or properties. (Sec. 3(a)(D), R.A. No.
illicit drug, or any other mind-altering 9262)

Special Penal Laws
Q: AAA had a romantic relationship with that such deprivation caused either AAA or
Melgar, which resulted in the birth of BBB, an BBB any mental or emotional anguish.
illegitimate child. Melgar freely
acknowledged the paternity of BBB. However, Sec. 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, a form of
AAA's relationship with Melgar turned sour as psychological violence, punishes the act of
the latter had an affair with a younger woman. "causing mental or emotional anguish, public
When BBB was just about one year old, Melgar ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her
stopped giving support, prompting AAA to file child, including, but not limited to, repeated
a case for support, which was eventually verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of
granted. This, notwithstanding, Melgar still financial support or custody of minor
refused to give support for her and BBB. As children or denial of access to the woman's
such, AAA was constrained to file the instant child/children." (Melgar v. People, G.R. No.
criminal case against Melgar. 223477, 14 Feb. 2018)
a. Is Melgar liable for violation of Sec. 5(e) of Doctrine in Melgar v. People Abandoned in
R.A. No. 9262? Acharon v. People; Secs. 5(i) and 5(e) of R.A.
b. Is Melgar liable for violation of Sec. 5(i) of 9262 are Mala in se
R.A. No. 9262?
The crimes penalized under Secs. 5(i) and 5(e) of
A: R.A. 9262 are mala in se, not mala prohibita, even
a. YES. Melgar is liable for the violation of Sec. though R.A. 9262 is a special penal law. The acts
5(e) of R.A. No. 9262 for his refusal to provide punished therein are inherently wrong or
support to his child. depraved, and the language used under the said
penal law requires a mental element. Being a
R.A. No. 9262 is a landmark legislation that crime mala in se, there must thus be a
defines and criminalizes acts of violence concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to
against women and their children (VAWC) constitute the crime.
perpetrated by women's intimate partners,
i.e., husband, former husband, or any person It is not enough, therefore, for the woman to
who has or had a sexual or dating experience mental or emotional anguish, or for
relationship, or with whom the woman has a her partner to deny financial support that is
common child, or against her child whether legally due her.
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without
the family abode, which result in or is likely It bears emphasis that Sec. 5(i) penalizes some
to result in, inter alia, economic abuse. As forms of psychological violence that are inflicted
may be gathered from the foregoing, on victims who are women and children." In
"economic abuse" may include the prosecutions under Sec. 5(i), therefore,
deprivation of support of a common child of "[p]sychological violence is the means employed
the man-accused and the woman-victim, by the perpetrator" with denial of financial
whether such common child is legitimate or support as the weapon of choice. In other words,
not. (Melgar v. People, G.R. No. 223477, 14 to be punishable by Sec. 5(i) of R.A. 9262, it must
Feb. 2018) ultimately be proven that the accused had the
intent of inflicting mental or emotional anguish
b. NO. Melgar is not liable for violation of Sec. upon the woman, thereby inflicting psychological
5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 since it cannot be proven violence upon her, with the willful denial of
that his deprivation of support caused financial support being the means selected by the
mental and emotional anguish. In this case, accused to accomplish said purpose.
while the prosecution had established that
Melgar indeed deprived AAA and BBB of This means that the mere failure or one's inability
support, no evidence was presented to show to provide financial support is not sufficient to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
rise to the level of criminality under Sec. 5(i), women and their children. All the elements of the
even if mental or emotional anguish is crime charged are present in the instant case. It is
experienced by the woman. In other words, even duly established that petitioner committed
if the woman were to suffer mental or emotional psychological violence through marital infidelity
anguish due to the lack of financial support, but and public ridicule or humiliation, which caused
the accused merely failed or was unable to so mental anguish and emotional suffering upon his
provide support, then criminal liability would not wife. While petitioner sorely attempts to
arise. A contrary interpretation to the foregoing downplay the effect of his marital infidelity, the
would result in absurd, if not outright pain and suffering is without a doubt real and raw
unconstitutional, consequences. (Acharon v. and far from being imaginary. Just because the
People, G.R. No. 224946, 09 Nov. 2021, J. Caguioa) wife was not bodily present to witness the
unfaithfulness of her husband, it does not negate
NOTE: The foregoing case is not covered by the the emotional pain and anguish his infidelity
cut-off period for jurisprudence for the 2022 Bar caused her. (XXX v. People, G.R. No. 241390, 13 Jan.
Exams. 2021)
Psychological Violence Sexual Violence
Acts or omissions causing or likely to cause An act, which is sexual in nature, committed
mental or emotional suffering of the victim such against a woman or her child. It includes, but is
as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, not limited to:
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital 1. Rape, sexual harassment, acts of
infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child
victim to witness the physical, sexual, or as a sex object, making demeaning and
psychological abuse of a member of the family to sexually suggestive remarks, physically
which the victim belongs, or to witness attacking the sexual parts of the victim’s
pornography in any form, or to witness abusive body, forcing her/him to watch obscene
injury to pets, or to unlawful or unwanted publications and indecent shows or forcing
deprivation of the right to custody and/or the woman or her child to do indecent acts
visitation of common children. (Sec. 3(a)(C), R.A. and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife
No. 9262) and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal
home or sleep together in the same room
Q: Sometime in October 2010, petitioner with the abuser;
started a fight with YYY, his legal wife, as it is
his usual habit when he is intoxicated. 2. Acts causing or attempting to cause the
Petitioner drove YYY and her four children victim to engage in any sexual activity by
out of the house. However, the spouses’ eldest force, threat of force, physical or other harm
child convinced his three sisters to return to or threat of physical or other harm or
their house. Later on, one of their daughters, coercion; or
AAA, reported to YYY through text messages
that petitioner was always drunk, and that he 3. Prostituting the woman or child. (Sec.
brought them to a videoke bar and introduced 3(a)(B), R.A. No. 9262)
one Pearl Manto. She thereafter learned that
the same woman was already living in their Protection Order
house for two months. Is petitioner liable for
violation of Sec. 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262? An order issued for the purpose of preventing
further acts of violence against a woman or her
A: YES. Sec. 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 penalizes some
child. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9262)
forms of psychological violence inflicted against

Special Penal Laws
Kinds of Protection Orders PPO
1. Barangay Protection Orders (BPO) A protection order issued by the court after
2. Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) notice and hearing. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9262)
3. Permanent Protection Orders (PPO)
NOTE: The court shall not deny the issuance of
BPO protection order on the basis of the lapse of time
between the act of violence and the filing of the
A protection order issued by the Punong application. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9262)
Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from
committing acts under Sec. 5 (a) and (b). (Sec. 14, Period of Effectivity of PPO
R.A. No. 9262)
It shall be effective until revoked by a court upon
Who issues a BPO application of the person in whose favor the
order was issued. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9262)
The Punong Barangay may issue a BPO. If he is
unavailable, the application shall be acted upon Where to File TPO and PPO
by any available Barangay Kagawad. (Sec. 14, R.A.
No. 9262) GR: TPO and PPO are filed in the Family court at
the place of residence of petitioner.
NOTE: If the BPO is issued by a Barangay XPN: In the absence of the Family court, with the
Kagawad, the order must be accompanied by an RTC, MeTC, MTC, or MCTC with territorial
attestation by the Barangay Kagawad that jurisdiction over the place of residence of the
the Punong Barangay was unavailable at the time petitioner. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 9262).
for the issuance of the BPO.
The issuance of a BPO or the pendency of
Period of Effectivity of BPO application for BPO shall not preclude a
petitioner from applying for, or the court from
The period of effectivity of a BPO shall be 15 days. granting a TPO or PPO. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9262).
(Sec. 14, R.A. No. 9262)
Who may File Petition for Protection Orders
TPO
A petition for protection order may be filed by
A protection order issued by the court on the date any of the following:
of filing of the application after ex
parte determination that such order should be 1. The offended party;
issued. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9262) 2. Parents or guardians of the offended party;
3. Ascendants, descendants, or collateral
Period of Effectivity of TPO relatives within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity;
The period of effectivity of a TPO shall be 30 days. 4. Officers or social workers of the DSWD or
(Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9262) social workers of local government units
(LGUs);
NOTE: The court shall schedule a hearing on the 5. Police officers, preferably those in charge of
issuance of a PPO prior to or on the date of the women and children's desks;
expiration of the TPO. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9262) 6. Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad;
7. Lawyer, counselor, therapist, or healthcare
provider of the petitioner; or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
8. At least two (2) concerned responsible 135981, 15 Jan. 2004)

citizens of the city or municipality where the
violence against women and their children Three (3) Phases of Cycle of Violence
occurred and who has personal knowledge of
the offense committed. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9262) 1. Tension-Building Phase - minor battering
occurs - it could be verbal or slight physical
If the applicant is not the victim, the application abuse or another form of hostile behavior.
must be accompanied by an affidavit of the
applicant attesting to: 2. Acute Battering incident - characterized by
brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes,
1. The circumstances of the abuse suffered by death. The battered woman deems this
the victim; and incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable.
2. The circumstances of consent given by the
victim for the filing of the application. 3. Tranquil, Loving or (at least nonviolent)
Phase - the couple experience profound relief.
When disclosure of the address of the victim will On one hand, the batterer may show a tender
pose danger to her life, it shall be so stated in the and nurturing behavior towards his partner.
application. In such a case, the applicant shall: On the other hand, the battered woman tries
to convince herself that the battery will never
1. Attest that the victim is residing in the happen again. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No.
municipality or city over which court has 135981, 15 Jan. 2004)
territorial jurisdiction; and
2. Provide a mailing address for the purpose of Battered Woman Syndrome as a Proper
service processing. (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9262) Defense
NOTE: A TPO cannot be issued in favor of a man Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to
against his wife under R.A. No. 9262. (Ocampo v. be suffering from battered woman syndrome DO
Judge Arcaya-Chua, A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, NOT incur any criminal and civil liability
23 Apr. 2010) notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262)
Battery Q: BBB and AAA had a relationship when the

latter was still raising her first child borne
An act of inflicting physical harm upon the CCC from a previous relationship. During the
woman or her child resulting to the physical and relationship with BBB, AAA bore two more
psychological or emotional distress. (Sec. 3(b), children namely, DDD and EEE.
R.A. No. 9262)
To legalize their relationship, BBB and AAA
Battered Woman Syndrome married in civil rights and thereafter, the
birth certificates of the children, including
A scientifically defined pattern of psychological CCC’s, was amended to change their civil
and behavioral symptoms found in women living status to be legitimated by virtue of the said
in battering relationships as a result of marriage. However, there were fights and
cumulative abuse. (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9262) arguments which caused them to have
strained relationship that led them to file a
NOTE: In order to be classified as a battered case under the VAWC.
woman, the couple must go through the battering
cycle at least twice. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. Pending the Court’s deliberation of the

Special Penal Laws
instant case, BBB filed a Manifestation and either before or after the effective date of
Motion to Render Judgment Based on a this Act.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). BBB
alleges that on July 29, 2013, he and AAA had 3. Replay the said tape record, wire record or
entered into a compromise anent the custody, disc record for any other person or persons.
exercise of parental authority over, and
support of DDD and EEE. Is the case a proper 4. Communicate the contents of the said tape
subject of a compromise agreement? record, wire record or disc record, either
verbally or in writing.
A: NO. The instant petition is not a proper subject
of a compromise agreement. The law explicitly 5. Furnish transcriptions of the said tape
prohibits compromise on any act constituting the record. Wire record or disc record, whether
crime of violence against women. Thus, in Garcia complete or partial, to any other person.
v. Drilon, the Court declared that violence is not a (Sec. 1(2), R.A. No. 4200)
subject for compromise. A process which
involves parties mediating the issue of violence 6. Knowingly does or aid, permit or cause to de
implies that the victim is somehow at fault. done any of the acts declared unlawful in
Sec. 1. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 4200)
NOTE: While AAA filed her application for a
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and a XPN: Any peace officer, who is authorized by a
Permanent Protection Order (PPO) as an written order of the Court, to execute any of the
independent action and not as an incidental relief acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving
prayed for in a criminal suit, the instant petition the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war
cannot be taken outside the ambit of cases falling and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in
under the provisions of R.A. No. 9262. Perforce, the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal
the prohibition against subjecting the instant to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
petition to compromise applies. (BBB* v. AAA*, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting
G.R. No. 193225, 09 Feb. 2015) to sedition, kidnapping and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national
K. ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT security. (Sec. 3(1), R.A. No. 4200)
Secs. 1 – 4, R.A. No. 4200
Written Order
Issued only upon written application and the

PUNISHABLE ACTS examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and
1. Tap any wire or cable, or by using any other a showing that:
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or 1. There are reasonable grounds to believe
spoken word by using a device commonly that any of the crimes enumerated
known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or hereinabove exception has been
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape committed or is being committed or is
recorder. (Sec. 1(1), R.A. No. 4200) about to be committed. Provided, that in
cases involving the offenses of rebellion,
2. Knowingly possess any tape record, wire conspiracy and proposal to commit
record, disc record, or any other such rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
record, or copies thereof, of any conspiracy to commit sedition, and
communication or spoken word secured inciting to sedition, such authority shall be
granted only upon prior proof that a

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case conversation through a telephone extension.

may be, have actually been or are being
committed; When the P8,000 agreed upon on the
telephone was delivered to Atty. T at the
2. There are reasonable grounds to believe appointed place and time, he (Atty. T) was
that evidence will be obtained essential to arrested by the police for Robbery/Extortion
the conviction of any person for, or to the on complaint of L who was accompanied by
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of his lawyer, Atty. X. Atty. X executed an
such crimes; and affidavit stating that he heard Atty. T
demanding P8,000 for the withdrawal of the
3. There are no other means readily available criminal complaint through a telephone
for obtaining such evidence. (Sec. 3(1), R.A. extension. On the basis of this affidavit, Atty. T
No. 4200) filed a criminal complaint against Atty. X and
L for violation of Sec. 1 of RA. No. 4200,
Period of Authorization of Written Order otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping
Act. which says:
Effective for the period specified in the Order, but
shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of
"It shall be unlawful for any person not being
issuance. (Sec. 3(2), R.A. No. 4200)
authorized by all the parties to any private
conversation or spoken word to tap any wire
After the expiration of such period, all recordings
or cable or by using any other device or
made under court authorization shall, within
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept
forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the
or record such communication or spoken
period fixed in the order, be deposited with the
word by using a device commonly known as
court in a sealed envelope or sealed package.
Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone,
Such package shall not be opened, or the
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their
otherwise described." If you were the Judge,
contents revealed. (Sec. 3(3), R.A. No. 4200)
would you convict or acquit L and his lawyer,
Atty. X? Explain.
XPN: Upon motion, with due notice and
opportunity to be heard to the person or persons
A: NO. It is a telephone extension and those
whose conversation or communications have
enumerated by law means an extension with
been recorded. (Sec. 3(3), R.A. No. 4200)
permanent recording of which a telephone
extension is not.
The court referred shall be understood to mean
the RTC within whose territorial jurisdiction the
An extension telephone cannot be placed in the
acts for which authority is applied is for are
same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the
executed. (Sec. 3(3), R.A. No. 4200)
other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of R.A. No.
4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as
Q: C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the
"tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line.
criminal case he filed against L, and so Atty. T
The telephone extension in this case was not
called up through telephone L, and informed
installed for that purpose.
him that C is willing to have the case
dismissed provided that L pays P8,000 and
A person should safely presume that the party he
makes a public apology. L told Atty. T to call
is calling at the other end of the line probably has
him up the following day as he would consult
an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a
his lawyer. The following day when Atty. T
third party listening as in the case of a party line
called up L, the latter requested his lawyer
or a telephone unit which shares its line with
Atty. X, who was in his (L's) office at that time,
another. (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, 16 Oct.
to secretly listen to the telephone

Special Penal Laws
1986) recording is authenticated by the testimony of the

witness:
Q: From an extension line, Ricardo overheard
a telephone conversation between Julito and 1. That he personally recorded the
Atty. Hipolito. The latter (Atty. Hipolito) was conversations;
asking money from Julito in exchange for 2. That the tape played in the court was the
dropping the extortion charge filed against one he recorded; and
Julito. Ricardo was charged of violating the 3. That the voices on the tape are those of the
Anti-Wire Tapping Act or R.A. No. 4200. Under persons such are claimed to belong.
these facts, was there a violation as charged?
(2013 BAR) In the given facts, it is clear that Jalbuena was able
to comply with the aforementioned requisites.
A: NO, because a telephone extension line is not Hence, there is no question that his voice
the device or arrangement contemplated by the recording is admissible. (Navarro v. CA and
law and the use of an extension line cannot be People, G.R. No. 121087, 26 Aug. 1999)
considered as wiretapping.
NON-ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE
Q: Lingan and Jalbuena, who were reporters
in a radio station, went to a police station to Any communication or spoken word, or the
report an offense while they were existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
investigating an entertainment house. The meaning of the same or any part, or any
stationed police officers, who were having a information therein contained obtained or
drinking spree, aggressively dismissed them. secured by any person in violation of the
provisions of the Act shall not be admissible in
During an altercation, Navarro hit Lingan with evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative
the back of his pistol and thereafter hit the or administrative hearing or investigation. (Sec. 4,
latter’s head on concrete. Lingan died from his R.A. No. 4200)
wounds, thus Navarro was charged of murder.
Jalbuena was able to produce a voice record of Q: In an annulment proceeding, among the
the altercation and used it as part of his exhibits offered by private respondent were
testimony. He testified that: he personally three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone
made the voice recording, the tape played in conversations between petitioner and
the court was the one he recorded, and the unidentified persons. Will the tapes be
speakers were petitioner Navarro and Lingan. admissible as evidence?
Is his voice recording valid and admissible as
evidence under R.A. No. 4200? A: NO. Absent a clear showing that both parties to
the telephone conversations allowed the
A: YES. The voice recording was made in the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the
police station where policemen were discharging subject tapes is mandatory under R.A. No. 4200.
their public functions. R.A. No. 4200 prohibits (Salcedo-Ortañez v. CA, G.R. No. 110662, 04 Aug.
only the overhearing, intercepting, or recording 1994)
of private communications. Since the exchange
between Navarro and Lingan was made while the
PERSONS LIABLE
former was in the exercise of his public functions,
the communication is public and hence not
1. Any person not being authorized by all the
prohibited.
parties to any private communication or
spoken word, be he a participant or not in the
Furthermore, his voice recording is admissible as
acts penalized. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 4200)
evidence since it was duly authenticated. A voice

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Q: Will R.A. No. 4200 apply to tapping of a drawee bank for the payment of such check
private conversation by one of the parties to a in full upon its presentment, which check is
conversation? subsequently dishonored by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
A: YES. The law makes no distinction as to would have been dishonored for the same
whether the party sought to be penalized by the reason had not the drawer, without any valid
statute ought to be a party other than or different reason, ordered the bank to stop payment;
from those involved in the private (Sec. 1(1), B.P. 22)
communication. The statute's intent to penalize
all persons unauthorized to make such recording 2. Any person who, having sufficient funds in or
is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". credit with the drawee bank when he makes
Consequently, "even a (person) privy to a or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep
communication who records his private sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to
conversation with another without the cover the full amount of the check if
knowledge of the latter will qualify as a violator" presented within a period of 90 days from
under this provision of R.A. No. 4200. (Ramirez v. the date appearing thereon, for which reason
CA, G.R. No. 93833, 25 Sept. 1995) it is dishonored by the drawee bank. (Sec.
1(2), B.P. 22)
2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does
or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done NOTE: Where the check is drawn by a
any of the acts declared to be unlawful or corporation, company, or entity, the person
violates the provisions of this Act or of any or persons who actually signed the check in
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or behalf of such drawer shall be liable under
causes such violation. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 4200) this Act. (Sec. 1(3), B.P. 22)
Elements for Violation of B.P. 22(1)

L. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
B.P. Blg. 22 1. That a person makes or draws and issues any
check;
2. The check is drawn or issued to apply on

Check
account or for a valuable consideration;
A bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on
3. The person who makes or draws and issues
demand. (Sec. 185, Act No. 2031)
the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit
Q: Does B.P. 22 cover manager’s check?
with the drawee bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment; and
A: NO. B.P. 22 does not cover manager’s check
because of its peculiar character and general use
4. At the time the check was presented for
in the commercial world. It is as good as the
payment at due date, the same was
money it represents and is therefore deemed as
dishonored for insufficiency of funds or
cash. (Festin, pp. 145)
credit or would have been dishonored for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any
PERSONS LIABLE (2013, 2014 BAR) valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
1. Any person who makes or draws and issues
any check to apply on account or for value, NOTE: Knowledge of insufficiency of funds is a
knowing at the time of issue that he does not state of mind, hence, the hardest element to
have sufficient funds in or credit with the prove.

Special Penal Laws
Elements for Violation of B.P. 22(2) Effect when the Check was Presented for
Payment on the 96th day after its Due Date
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank when he makes or If the payee presented the check and it bounced,
draws and issues a check; even if the payee sends a written notice of
dishonor to the drawer, the payee would not be
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to entitled to a presumption that the drawer had
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of knowledge that he has no funds when the check
the check if presented within a period of 90 was issued. Under Sec. 2 of B.P. 22, the said
days from the date appearing thereon; and presumption can only be utilized during the 90-
day period.
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee
bank. Stolen Check Cannot Give Rise to a Violation of
B.P. 22
Q: A and B agreed to meet at the latter’s house
to discuss B’s financial problems. On his way,
A stolen check cannot give rise to a violation of
one of A’s car tires blew up. Before A left the
B.P. 22 because the check is not drawn for a
meeting, he asked B to lend him money to buy
valuable consideration. Such checks were not
a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted
made to apply to a valid, due, and demandable
his bank deposits leaving a zero balance.
obligation. This, in effect, is a categorical ruling
Anticipating, however a replenishment of his
that the fact from which the civil liability of
account soon, B, issued a postdated check
respondent may arise does not exist. (Ching v.
with which A negotiated for the new tire.
Nicdao, G.R. 141181, 27 Apr. 2007)
When presented, the check bounced for lack

of funds. The tire company filed a criminal EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF
case against A and B. What would be the INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
criminal liability, if any, of each of the two
accused? Explain. Necessity of Actual Knowledge of
Insufficiency of Funds in B.P. 22
A: A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B in
buying a new tire for his car, may only be Knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit in
prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time the drawee bank for the payment of a check upon
of such negotiation that the check has no its presentment is an essential element of the
sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he offense.
is not criminally liable.
There is a prima facie presumption of the
B, who accommodated A with his check, may existence of this element from the fact of drawing,
nevertheless be prosecuted under B.P. 22 for issuing or making a check, the payment of which
having issued the check, knowing at the time of was subsequently refused for insufficiency of
issuance that he has no funds in the bank and that funds. It is important to stress, however, that this
A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e. for value. is not a conclusive presumption that forecloses or
B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the precludes the presentation of evidence to the
facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to contrary. (Lim Lao v. CA, G.R. No. 119178, 20 June
defraud in issuing the check negotiated. 1997)
Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to
help A. Criminal intent or dolo is absent. Notice of Dishonor is an Indispensable
Requisite for Prosecution
To hold a person liable under B.P. 22, the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
prosecution must not only establish that a check Insufficiency of Verbal Notice of Dishonor
was issued and that the same was subsequently
dishonored. It must further be shown that Verbal notice of dishonor is NOT sufficient. The
accused knew, at the time of the issuance of the notice of dishonor must be in writing. A mere oral
check, that he did not have sufficient funds or notice or demand to pay would be insufficient for
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of conviction under the law. (Marigomen v. People,
such check in full upon its presentment. G.R. No. 153451, 26 May 2005; Domagsang v. CA,
G.R. No. 139292, 05 Dec. 2000)
This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit
at the time of the issuance of the check is the If the drawer or maker is an officer of a
second element of the offense. In as much as this corporation, the notice of dishonor to the said
element involves a state of mind of the person corporation is not notice to the employee or
making, drawing or issuing the check, which is officer who drew or issued the check for and in its
difficult to prove, Sec. 2 of B.P. 22 creates a prima behalf. It is axiomatic that notice to the
facie presumption of such knowledge. corporation, which has a personality distinct and
separate from the officer of the corporation, does
For this presumption to arise, the prosecution not constitute notice to the latter. (Lao v. CA, G.R.
must prove the following: (a) the check is No. 119178, 20 June 1997)
presented within ninety (90) days from the date
of the check; (b) the drawer or maker of the check Receipt of Notice from the Drawee Bank by
receives notice that such check has not been paid the Payee
by the drawee; and (c) the drawer or maker of the
check fails to pay the holder of the check the The notice of dishonor may be sent by the
amount due thereon, or make arrangements for offended party or the drawee bank. (Lim Lao v.
payment in full within five (5) banking days after CA, G.R. No. 119178, 20 June 1997; Azarcon v.
receiving notice that such check has not been People, G.R. No. 185906, 29 June 2010; Resterio v.
paid by the drawee. People, G.R. No. 177438, 24 Sept. 2012)
In other words, the presumption is brought into Probative Value of the Unpaid or Dishonoured
existence only after it is proved that the issuer Check with Stamped Information “re: refusal
had received a notice of dishonor and that within to pay”
five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the
amount of the check or to make arrangements for Such is prima facie evidence of:
its payment. A notice of dishonor received by the
maker or drawer of the check is thus 1. The making or issuance of the check;
indispensable before a conviction can ensue. 2. The due presentment to the drawee for
(Dico v. CA, G.R. No. 141669, 28 Feb. 2005; Resterio payment and the dishonour thereof; and
v. People, G.R. No. 177438, 24 Sept. 2012) 3. The fact that the check was properly
dishonored for the reason stamped on the
NOTE: The presumption or prima facie evidence check. (Sec. 3, B.P. 22)
as provided in this section cannot arise, if such
notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge of
sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof Insufficient Funds
as to when such notice was received by the
drawer, since there would simply be no way of GR: There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge
reckoning the crucial 5-day period. (Lim Lao v. CA, of insufficient funds when the check was
G.R. No. 119178, 20 June 1997; Resterio v. People, presented within 90 days from the date
G.R. No. 177438, 24 Sept. 2012) appearing on the check and was dishonored.

Special Penal Laws
XPNs: G.R. No. 150618, 24 July 1989)

1. When the check was presented after 90 days
from date; Dishonor of the Check Due to a Stop Payment
Order
2. When the maker or drawer:
a. Pays the holder of the check in cash, Under Sec. 1, Par. 1 of B.P. 22, it is implied that
the amount due within five (5) banking when the stop payment order is with a valid
days after receiving notice that such reason, there can be no violation of B.P. 22.
check has not been paid by the drawee;
NOTE: Notwithstanding receipt of an order to
b. Makes arrangements for payment in stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice
full by the drawee of such check within that there were no sufficient funds in or credit
five (5) banking days after notice of with such bank for the payment in full of such
non-payment. check, if such be the fact. (Sec. 3, BP 22)
Q: Evangeline issued checks to accommodate Liability of Drawer in cases of Checks Issued

and to guarantee the obligations of Boni in in Payment of Installments
favour of another creditor. When the checks
issued by Evangeline were presented for When checks are issued in payment of
payment, the same was dishonored for the installments covered by promissory notes and
reason “Account Closed”. She was then said checks bounced, the drawer is liable if the
convicted of three (3) counts of violation of checks were drawn against insufficient funds,
B.P. 22. On appeal, she contended that the especially when the drawer, upon signing of the
prosecution failed to prove that she received promissory note, closed his account. Said check is
any notice of dishonor of the subject checks still with consideration. (Caram Resources v. Hon.
from the drawee bank. Thus, according to her, Contreras, A.M. No. MTJ-93-849, 26 Oct. 1994)
in the absence of such notice, her conviction
under B.P. 22 was not warranted for there was Liability of a Person who Issues Guarantee
no bad faith or fraudulent intent that may be Checks which were Dishonored in Violation of
inferred on her part. the Purpose of the Law
May Evangeline be held liable for violation of The mere issuance of any kind of check
B.P. 22 even in the absence of notice of regardless of the intent of the parties, i.e. whether
dishonor? the check is intended merely to serve as guaranty
or deposit, but which check is subsequently
A: NO. In order to create the prima facie dishonored makes the person who issued the
presumption that the issuer knew of the check liable for BP 22. (Lazaro v. CA, et.al., G.R. No.
insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or 105461, 11 Nov. 1993)
she received a notice of dishonor and within five
banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the Q: Suppose guarantee checks were issued for
amount of the check or arrange for its payment. It the lease of certain equipment but later their
is only then that the drawer may be held liable for equipment was pulled out. Is the drawer
violation of the subject law. liable?
In order to be punished for the acts committed A: NO. In the case of Magno v. CA (G.R. No. 96132,
under B.P. 22, it is required that not only should 26 June 1992), the accused issued a check of
the accused issue a check that is dishonored but warranty deposit for lease of certain equipment.
likewise the accused has actually been notified in
writing of the fact of dishonor. (Cabrera v. People, Even knowing that he has no funds or insufficient

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
funds in the bank, he does not incur any liability payment after receipt payment after
under B.P. 22, if the lessor of the equipment of notice of dishonour receipt of notice of
pulled out the loaned equipment. The drawer has dishonour
no obligation to make good the check because
there is no more deposit or guaranty. Recovery from Civil Action arising from B.P.
22 Precludes Recovery from Corresponding
Violation of B.P. 22 in case of a Check Drawn Civil Action arising from Estafa
against a Dollar Account
Double recovery is not allowed by the law. Settled
The law does not distinguish the currency is the rule that the single act of issuing a bouncing
involved under B.P. 22. Foreign checks, provided check may give rise to two distinct criminal
they are either drawn or issued in the Philippines, offenses: estafa and violation of B.P. 22.
though payable outside thereof, are within the
coverage of said law. (De Villa v. CA, G.R. No. However, the recovery of the single civil liability
87416, 08 Apr. 1991) arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing
check in either criminal case bars the recovery of
Violation of B.P. 22 vs. Estafa the same civil liability in the other criminal
action. While the law allows two simultaneous
VIOLATION OF civil remedies for the offended party, it
ESTAFA
B.P. 22 authorizes recovery in only one. In short, while
Malum prohibitum Malum in se two crimes arise from a single set of facts, only
Crime against public Crime against one civil liability attaches to it. (Rodriguez v. Hon.
interest property Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, 29 July 2005)
Deceit is an
Deceit not required
element PREFERENCE OF IMPOSITION OF FINE
The act
Punishes the making constituting the Penalty that the Judge may Impose for
or drawing of any offense is Violation of B. P. 22
check that is postdating or
subsequently issuing a check in SC-AC No. 12-2000, as clarified by SC-AC No. 13-
dishonoured, whether payment of an 2001, established a rule on preference in
issued in payment of obligation when imposing the penalties. When the circumstances
an obligation or to the offender has no of the case clearly indicate good faith or clear
merely guarantee an funds in the bank mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the
obligation. or his funds imposition of fine alone may be considered as the
The issuance of a check deposited therein preferred penalty. The determination of the
and not the non- were not sufficient circumstances that warrant the imposition of fine
payment of obligation to cover the rests upon the trial judge only. Should the judge
is punished. amount of the deem that imprisonment is appropriate, such
check. penalty may be imposed.
Not violated if
Violated if check is
check is issued in Being a First-time Offender is NOT the Sole
issued in payment of a
payment of a pre- Factor for the Preferential Penalty of Fine
pre-existing obligation
existing obligation Alone
There must be
Damage not required
damage This circumstance is not the sole factor in
Drawer is given 5 Drawer is given 3 determining whether he deserves the preferred
banking days to make days to make penalty of fine alone. The penalty to be imposed
arrangements of arrangements of depends on the peculiar circumstances of each

Special Penal Laws
case. It is the trial court’s decision to impose any Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single Convention
penalty within the confines of the law. (SC-AC No. on Psychotropic Substances. (Sec. 3(j), R.A. No.
13-2001) 9165)
NOTE: In Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, Controlled Precursors and Essential

the SC modified the sentence imposed for Chemicals
violation of B.P. 22 by deleting the penalty of
imprisonment and imposing only the penalty of Includes those listed in Tables I and II of the 1988
fine in an amount double the amount of the check. UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
However, by virtue of the passage of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, the SC
explained that the clear tenor of Administrative PUNISHABLE ACTS
Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty but to lay 1. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
down a rule of preference in the application of the Controlled Precursors and Essential
penalties provided for in B.P. 22. (Vaca v. CA, G.R. Chemicals (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9165);
No. 131714, 16 Nov. 1998; Lim v. People, G.R. No.
130038, 18 Sept. 2000) 2. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution, and Transportation of
Prescriptive Period for Violation of B.P. 22 Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5,
Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a R.A. No. 9165);
penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty
(30) days but not more than one (1) year or by a 3. Maintenance of a Den, Dive, or Resort. (Sec. 6,
fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four R.A. No. 9165);
(4) years in accordance with the Act No. 3326. 4. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive, or
Resort (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9165);
The running of the prescriptive period, however,
should be tolled upon the institution of 5. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
proceedings against the guilty person. (People v. Controlled Precursors and Essential
Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, 13 June 2012) Chemicals (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9165);
NOTE: Commencement of the proceedings for the 6. Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
prosecution of the accused before the Office of the Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 9,
City Prosecutor effectively interrupts the R.A. No. 9165);
prescriptive period for the offenses under B.P 22.
(People v. Pangilinan, supra) 7. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or
M. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS Controlled Precursors and Essential
ACT OF 2002 Chemicals (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 9165);
R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640
8. Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 11, R.A.
No. 9165) (2015 BAR);
Dangerous Drugs (2007 BAR) 9. Possession of Equipment, Instrument,

Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for
Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 12, R.A. No. 9165);
the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as
amended by the 1972 Protocol and in the 10. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Parties, Social Gatherings, or Meetings (Sec. 20. Consenting to or knowingly tolerating any
13, R.A. No. 9165); violation of this Act by a partnership,
corporation, association, or any juridical
11. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, entity, the partner, president, director,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for manager, trustee, estate administrator, or
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social officer (Sec. 30(1), R.A. No. 9165).
Gatherings, or Meetings (Sec. 14, R.A. No.
9165); 21. Knowingly authorizing, tolerating, or
consenting to the use of a vehicle, vessel,
12. Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15, R.A. No. aircraft, equipment or other facility, as an
9165); instrument in the importation, sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery,
13. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as distribution, transportation, or manufacture
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof of dangerous drugs, or chemical diversion, if
(Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9165); such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment, or
other instrument is owned by or under the
14. Maintenance and Keeping of Original control or supervision of the partnership,
Records of Transactions on Dangerous Drugs corporation, association, or juridical entity to
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential which they are affiliated by a partner,
Chemicals (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9165); president, director, manager, trustee, estate
administrator, or officer (Sec. 30(2), R.A. No.
15. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous
9165);
Drugs (Sec. 18, R.A. No. 9165);
22. Violating any rule or regulation issued by the
16. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs Dangerous Drugs Board in relation to R.A.
(Sec. 19, R.A. No. 9165); 9165 (Sec. 32, R.A. No. 9165);
17. Misappropriation, misapplication or failure 23. Issuance of False or Fraudulent Drug Test
to account for confiscated, seized or Results (Sec. 37, R.A. No. 9165);
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors 24. Violation of confidentiality rule on records of
and essential chemicals, drug dependents under voluntary
instruments/paraphernalia and/or submission (Sec. 72, R.A. No. 9165);
laboratory equipment including the
proceeds or properties obtained from the 25. Failure or refusal, intentionally or
unlawful acts by any public officer or negligently, to appear after due notice as a
employee (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 9165); witness for the prosecution in any
proceedings, involving violations of this Act,
18. Benefiting from the proceeds of the without any valid reason by any member of
trafficking of dangerous drugs, or have law enforcement agencies or any other
received any financial or material government official and employee (Sec. 91,
contributions or donations from natural or R.A. No. 9165);
juridical persons found guilty of trafficking
dangerous drugs by any elective local or 26. Causing the unsuccessful prosecution and/or
national official (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 9165); dismissal of the said drug-related cases,
deliberately or through patent laxity,
19. Planting of dangerous drugs, controlled inexcusable neglect, or unreasonable delay
precursors, or essential chemicals as by any government officer or employee
evidence (Sec. 29, R.A. No. 9165); tasked with the prosecution of said cases
under this Act. (Sec. 92, R.A. No. 9165)

Special Penal Laws
ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY Appreciation of Conspiracy in case of

Possession of Dangerous Drugs
Effect of Attempt or Conspiracy on the
Criminal Liability The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of
dangerous drugs does not exist. Simply put, the
The accused shall be penalized by the same circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in
penalty prescribed for the commission of the the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under
same as provided under: Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165. (Posiquit v. People, G.R.
No. 193943, 16 Jan. 2012)
1. Importation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND
delivery, distribution, and transportation of ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical Any person who, unless authorized by law, shall
3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort where import or bring into the Philippines any
any dangerous drug is used in any form dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and
4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or purity involved, including any and all species of
controlled precursor and essential chemical opium poppy or any part thereof or substances
5. Cultivation or culture of plants which are derived there from even for floral, decorative,
sources of dangerous drugs. and culinary purposes. (1990, 1992, 2006 BAR)
NOTE: Where the offense of sale was not SALE, TRADING, ADMINISTRATION,
consummated, the accused should not be DISPENSATION, DELIVERY, DISTRIBUTION,
prosecuted under mere possession, but under AND TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS
Sec. 26 for attempt or conspiracy. DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS
AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS (DRUG
Illustrative Case for Attempted Sale of PUSHING)
Dangerous Drugs
The Maximum Penalty shall be Imposed upon:
The policemen conducted a buy-bust operation.
After showing the substance, the sale was 1. Any person who organizes, manages, or acts
interrupted when the poseur-buyers as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities
immediately introduced themselves as police (Sec. 5(6), R.A. No. 9165); and
officers; hence, the crime was not consummated.
2. Any person, who acts as a
In such case, the accused already commenced by "protector/coddler" of any violator of the
overt acts the commission of the intended crime provisions under this Section. (Sec. 5(7), R.A.
by showing the substance to both of the No. 9165)
policemen but did not perform all the acts of
execution which would produce such crime by NOTE: Law enforcement agents who do not
reason of some cause or accident other than his arrest the drug pushers or illegal possessors may
own spontaneous desistance. be held liable as protectors or coddlers.
Such cause or accident is when the policemen Selling Illegal Drugs

introduced themselves and the sale was
immediately aborted. Hence, accused is guilty of Any act of giving away any dangerous drug
attempted sale of dangerous drugs. (People v. and/or controlled precursor and essential
Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, 06 July 2011)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
chemical whether for money or any other In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
consideration. (Sec. 3(ii), R.A. No. 9165) delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur buyer and
the receipt by the seller of the marked money
Elements: (I-D-P) consummate the illegal transaction. What
matters is the proof that the transaction or sale
1. The Identity of the buyer and seller, object, actually took place, coupled with the
and consideration; and presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the
2. The Delivery of the thing sold and Payment corpus delicti, as evidence. (People v. Amaro, G.R.
thereof. (People v. Buenaventura, G.R. No. No. 207517, 01 June 2016)
184807, 23 Nov. 2011)
Q: Around 5:40 p.m., the buy-bust team
Elements that Must be Proven in a proceeded to the target area. The informant
Prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous singled out alias Rico Enriquez, who was in an
Drugs (S-C-B-S) alley conversing with his male companions,
and approached him while his male
1. That the transaction or Sale took place; companions left. Enriquez and the informant
2. That the Corpus delicti or the illicit drug was went over to where P02 Cruz remained
presented as evidence; and standing. The informant introduced P02 Cruz
3. That the Buyer and Seller were identified. to Enriquez as a friend in need of shabu.
(People v. Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, 03 Aug. Enriquez asked how much he needed and P02
2011) Cruz replied, "kasang kinyentos lang" or P500.
Enriquez asked them to wait, withdrew into
NOTE: If a person is caught selling or pushing an alley, and returned shortly to hand P02
dangerous drugs and after his arrest, they found Cruz a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a
SIMILAR dangerous drugs in his body, the person white crystalline substance believed to be
may be charged and convicted of two offenses: shabu.
one for illegal sale and one for illegal possession.
After giving Enriquez five (5) pieces of One
Q: Mirondo was accused of selling illegal Hundred Peso (Pl00) bills in exchange for the
drugs. During trial, the testimonies of the item, P02 Cruz lit a cigarette, the previously
police who conducted the buy-bust operation arranged signal for the buy-bust team to effect
were used as evidence against Mirondo. The arrest upon consummation of the transaction.
illegal substance that was confiscated during P02 Cruz grabbed Enriquez's shirt, identified
the buy-bust operation was never presented himself as a police operative and informed
in court as evidence. Can Mirondo be Enriquez of the nature of his arrest. After
convicted of selling illegal drugs under R.A. examination, Forensic Officer Mangalip found
No. 9165 even though the drug substance was the specimen submitted positive for
not presented in court? Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.
A: NO. Mirondo cannot be convicted of the said Is Enriquez guilty of violating Secs. 5 and 15 of
crime. It is necessary to prove that the Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
with the presentation in court of the confiscated
prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. The A: YES. The presence of the following elements
narcotic substance itself constitutes the very required for all prosecutions for illegal sale of
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its dangerous drugs has been duly established in the
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of instant case: (1) proof that the transaction or sale
conviction. (People v. Mirondo, G.R. No. 210841, 14 took place; and (2) the presentation in court of
Oct. 2015) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

Special Penal Laws
Enriquez was caught red-handed delivering one of delivery of a dangerous drug, regardless of any
heat sealed plastic sachet containing white consideration. Payment of consideration is
crystalline substance to P02 Cruz, the poseur likewise immaterial in the distribution of illegal
buyer, in exchange for 500.00. P02 Cruz drugs. (People v. Yang, G.R. 148077, 16 Feb. 2004)
positively identified Enriquez in open court to be
the same person who sold to him the item which Transporting Shabu, Malum Prohibitum
upon examination was confirmed to be
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The act of transporting methamphetamine
Upon presentation thereof in open court P02 hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is
Cruz duly identified it to be the same object sold punished as an offense under a special law. The
to him by Enriquez. (People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. fact of transportation of the sacks containing
214503, 22 June 2016) dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by
proof of criminal intent, motive, or knowledge.
Q: Is the presentation of informant necessary (People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, 05 Feb. 2014)
in the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs? Q: Respondents were apprehended during
their flight from Hong Kong to NAIA Terminal
A: As a general rule, NO. In People v. Andaya, the 2. Customs Examiner Buenconsejo searched
confidential informant was not a police officer the false bottom of the luggage where she felt
but he was designated to be the poseur buyer a bulging hard rough object. She then opened
himself. The State did not present the confidential the zipper at the bottom, yielding a small clear
informant/poseur buyer during the trial to plastic pack containing crystallized granules.
describe how exactly the transaction between The inventory of the seized items was done in
him and Andaya had taken place. There would the presence of the accused, SAII Punzalan,
have been no issue against failure to present the Kagawad Abasola, and ABS-CBN/DWIZ Media
confidential informant/poseur-buyer except that Reporter Raoul Esperas. Buenconsejo then
none of the members of the buy-bust team had turned the bags over to the PDEA who
directly witnessed the transaction, if any, delivered the same to Forensic Chemist for
between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to analysis before turning them over to the trial
their being positioned at a distance at the court. Are the accused guilty of illegal
moment of the supposed transaction. The transportation of drugs?
presentation of the confidential informants as
witnesses for the Prosecution in those instances A: YES. The essential element for the crime of
could be excused because there were poseur illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the
buyers who directly incriminated the accused. movement of said drugs from one place to
another. To establish the accused's guilt, it must
In this case, however, it was different, because the be proven that: (1) the transportation of illegal
poseur buyer and the confidential informant drugs was committed; and (2) the prohibited
were one and the same. Without the poseur drug exists.
buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly
incriminate Andaya. (People v. Andaya, G.R. No. In the transport of illegal drugs, intent and proof
183700, 13 Oct. 2014) of ownership of the prohibited substances, much
less of the receptacles thereof, are not essential
Consummation of Crime of Illegal Sale of elements of the crime. The crime is complete
Drugs may be Sufficiently Established even in when it is shown that a person brings into the
the Absence of an Exchange of Money Philippines a regulated drug without legal
authority. The crime of transporting illegal drugs
The absence of actual or completed payment is being malum prohibitum, the accused's intent,
irrelevant, for the law itself penalizes the very act motive, or knowledge need not be shown. (People

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
v. Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan, If a Den, Dive, or Resort is Owned by a Third
G.R. No. 252154, 24 Mar. 2021) Person
No Transportation of Dangerous Drugs if the If such den, dive, or resort is owned by a third
Car is Stationary person, the same shall be confiscated and
escheated in favor of the government.
“Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs
Act is defined to mean “to carry or convey from Requisites:
one place to another.”
1. That the criminal complaint shall specifically
The essential element of the charge is the allege that such place is intentionally used in
movement of the dangerous drug from one place the furtherance of the crime;
to another. Since the accused was arrested inside
a car, when the car was not in transit such that the 2. That the prosecution shall prove such intent
car was parked and stationary, then there is no on the part of the owner to use the property
transportation. The conclusion that the accused for such purpose;
transported the drugs merely because he was in
a motor vehicle when he was accosted with the 3. That the owner shall be included as an
drugs has no basis and is mere speculation. It is accused in the criminal complaint.
the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the
element of transport of dangerous drugs, namely, EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS OF A
that transportation had taken place, or that the DEN, DIVE, OR RESORT
accused had moved the drugs some SEC. 7, R.A. No. 9165
distance. (San Juan v. People, G.R. No. 177191, 30
May 2011) 1. Any employee of a den, dive, or resort, who is
aware of the nature of the place as such; and
MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE ,OR RESORT
SEC. 6, R.A. No. 9165 2. Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph,
1. Any person or group of persons who shall is aware of the nature of the place as such and
maintain own or operate a den, dive, or shall knowingly visit the same
resort where any dangerous drug is used or
sold in any form or where any controlled MANUFACTURE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
precursor and essential chemical is used or AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND
sold in any form. ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS; EQUIPMENT,
INSTRUMENT, APPARATUS, AND OTHER
2. Any person who organizes, manages, or acts PARAPHERNALIA FOR DANGEROUS DRUGS
as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND
prescribed in this Section. ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
SEC. 8, R.A. No. 9165
3. Any person who acts as a
"protector/coddler" of any violator of the “Manufacture”
provisions under this Section.
The production, preparation, compounding, or
processing of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical,
either directly or indirectly, or by extraction from
substances of natural origin, or independently by
means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination

Special Penal Laws
of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall POSSESSION OF:

include any packaging or repackaging of such A. Dangerous drugs (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9165)
substances, design, or configuration of its form, B. Equipment, instrument, apparatus, and
or labeling, or relabeling of its container other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
(Sec. 12, ibid.)
NOTE: “Manufacture” does not include C. Dangerous drugs during parties, social
preparation, compounding, packaging, or gatherings, or meetings (Sec. 13, ibid.)
labeling of a drug or other substances by a duly D. Equipment, instrument, apparatus, and
authorized practitioner as an incident to his/her other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
administration or dispensation of such drug or during parties, social gatherings, or
substance in the course of his/her professional meetings (Sec. 14, ibid.)
practice including research, teaching, and
chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such Evidence in Prosecution of Illegal Possession
substances that are not intended for sale or for of Dangerous Drugs
any other purpose. (Sec. 3(u), R.A. No. 9165)
Requisites:
Prima Facie Proof of Manufacture of Any 1. The accused is in possession of an item or an
Dangerous Drugs object identified to be a prohibited or a
regulated drug;
Mere presence of any controlled precursor and 2. Such possession is not authorized by law;
essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the and
clandestine laboratory is prima facie proof of 3. The accused freely and consciously
manufacture of any dangerous drugs. possessed the said drug. (People v. Mendoza,
G.R. No. 186387, 31 Aug. 2011)
ILLEGAL CHEMICAL DIVERSION OF
CONTROLLED PRECURSORS NOTE: The act of throwing away the sachet, the
AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS contents of which were later determined to
SEC. 9, R.A. No. 9165 be shabu, presupposes that accused-appellant
had prior possession of it. (Castro v. People, G.R.
“Chemical Diversion” No. 193379, 15 Aug. 2011)
The sale, distribution, supply, or transport of Corpus Delicti in the Crime of Illegal
legitimately imported, in-transit, manufactured, Possession of Dangerous Drugs
or procured controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
form, to any person or entity engaged in the corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a
manufacture of any dangerous drug, and shall conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the identity and
include packaging, repackaging, labeling, integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be
relabeling, or concealment of such transaction shown to have been preserved. This requirement
through fraud, destruction of documents, necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique
fraudulent use of permits, misdeclaration, use of characteristic that renders it indistinct, not
front companies, or mail fraud. (Sec. 3(d), R.A. No. readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering,
9165) alteration, or substitution either by accident or
otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the
seized drug, evidence must definitely show that
the illegal drug presented in court is the same
illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-
appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
possession under R.A. No. 9165 fails. (People v. A: He is liable for Possession of Equipment,
Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, 06 Apr. 2011) Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 12 of R.A. 9165
Constructive Possession under R.A. 9165 and may also be liable for Use of Dangerous Drugs
under Sec. 15 of the same law since possession of
While it is not necessary that the property to be equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
searched or seized should be owned by the paraphernalia for dangerous drugs is prima facie
person against whom the search warrant is evidence that the possessor has smoked,
issued, there must be sufficient showing that the consumed, administered to himself, injected,
property is under the accused’s control or ingested, or used a dangerous drug and shall be
possession. Constructive possession exists when presumed to have violated Sec. 15 of R.A. No.
the drug is under the dominion and control of the 9165.
accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is Q: Chuck and Kenneth were walking along
found. The prosecution must prove that the Sampaloc when they saw a group of
accused had knowledge of the existence and policemen approaching them. Chuck
presence of the drugs in the place under his immediately handed to Kenneth, the sachet of
control and dominion and the character of the shabu he was carrying inside his pocket. The
drugs. (Del Castillo v. People, G.R. No. 185128, 30 police saw Kenneth placing the shabu inside
Jan. 2012) his bag. If Kenneth was unaware that what
was inside the sachet given to him was shabu,
Q: If an accused was caught in possession of is he nonetheless liable under the Dangerous
shabu and marijuana in one occasion, should Drugs Act? (2002 BAR)
he be charged with, and convicted of, one
offense only? A: NO. Kenneth will not be criminally liable if he
can show any proof of the absence of animus
A: YES. The law does not address a case wherein possidendi or present any evidence that would
an individual is caught in possession of different show that he was duly authorized by law to
kinds of dangerous drugs. However, it is a well- possess them. Possession of dangerous drugs
known rule of legal hermeneutics that penal or constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
criminal laws are strictly construed against the animus possidendi sufficient to convict an
State and liberally in favor of the accused. Thus, accused in the absence of a satisfactory
an accused may only be convicted of a single explanation of such possession. Thus, the burden
offense of possession of dangerous drugs if he or of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the
she was caught in possession of different kinds of absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
dangerous drugs in a single occasion. If (Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, 08 Aug.
convicted, the higher penalty shall be imposed, 2007; People v. Buntuyan, G.R. No. 206912, 10 Sept.
which is still lighter if the accused is convicted of 2014)
two (2) offenses having two (2) separate
penalties. This interpretation is more in keeping USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
with the intention of the legislators as well as SEC. 15, R.A. No. 9165
more favorable to the accused. (David v. People,
G.R. No. 181861, 17 Oct. 2011) Elements of Use of Dangerous Drugs (2005
BAR)
Q: If Paolo Ollero was caught in possession of
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and 1. The accused was apprehended for the use of
other paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs, dangerous drugs;
what is his offense?

Special Penal Laws
NOTE: “Use” is any act of injecting, NOTE: The land or portions thereof and/or
intravenously, or intramuscularly, of greenhouses on which any of said plants is
consuming, either by chewing, smoking, cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and
sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking, or escheated in favor of the State, unless the owner
otherwise introducing into the physiological can prove that he has no knowledge of such
system of the body, and of the dangerous cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due
drugs. (Sec. 3(kk), R.A. No. 9165) diligence on his part.
2. He was found to be positive for use of any MAINTENANCE AND KEEPING OF ORIGINAL
dangerous drugs; and RECORDS OF TRANSACTIONS ON
3. No other dangerous drug was found in his DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED
possession. PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
SEC.17, R.A. No. 9165
NOTE: Use of Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 15 of
R.A. No. 9165 shall not be applicable where the Persons Liable
person tested is also found to have in his/her
possession such quantity of any dangerous drug Any practitioner, manufacturer, wholesaler,
provided for under Sec. 11 of the same Act, in importer, distributor, dealer, or retailer who
which case the provisions stated therein shall violates or fails to comply with the maintenance
apply. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165) and keeping of the original records of
transactions on any dangerous drug and/or
Q: Does Sec. 15 cover unlawful acts other than controlled precursor and essential chemical in
those provided for under Art. II of R.A. No. accordance with Sec. 40 of this Act.
9165?
UNNECESSARY PRESCRIPTION OF
A: NO. The drug test in Sec. 15 does not cover
DANGEROUS DRUGS
persons apprehended or arrested for any other
SEC. 18, R.A. No. 9165
unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed
under Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. To make the
provision applicable to all persons arrested or
Persons Liable
apprehended for any crime not listed under Art.
II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning,
Any practitioner, who shall prescribe any
given that a drug testing will turn out to be
dangerous drug to any person whose physical or
mandatory for all persons apprehended or
physiological condition does not require the use
arrested for any crime. (Dela Cruz v. People, G.R.
or in the dosage prescribed therein, as
No. 200748, 23 July 2014)
determined by the Board in consultation with
recognized competent experts who are
CULTIVATION OR CULTURE OF PLANTS
authorized representatives of professional
CLASSIFIED AS DANGEROUS DRUGS
organizations of practitioners, particularly those
OR SOURCES THEREOF
who are involved in the care of persons with
SEC. 16, R.A. No. 9165
severe pain.
Cultivation as contemplated under R.A. No.

UNLAWFUL PRESCRIPTION
9165
OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
SEC. 19, R.A. No. 9165
Any act of knowingly planting, growing, raising,
or permitting the planting, growing, or raising of
Persons Liable
any plant which is the source of a dangerous drug.
(Sec. 3(i), R.A. No. 9165)
Any person who, unless authorized by law, shall

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
make or issue a prescription or any other writing a dangerous drug and/or controlled
purporting to be a prescription for any dangerous precursor and essential chemicals involved
drug. `in any offense be the proximate cause of
death of a victim (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165);
PENALTY
5. Any dangerous drug is administered,
Additional Penalty Imposed if Any of the Acts delivered, or sold to a minor who is allowed
Punishable under this Act is Committed by an to use the same in a den, dive, or resort (Sec.
Alien 6, R.A. No. 9165);
6. Any dangerous drug be the proximate cause

After service of sentence, he shall be deported
of the death of a person using the same in
immediately without further proceedings. (Sec.
31, R.A. No. 9165) such den, dive, or resort (Sec. 6, R.A. No.
9165);
Accessory Penalties Imposed
7. In case the clandestine laboratory is
undertaken or established under the
Civil interdiction, suspension of political rights
following circumstances:
such as the right to vote and be voted for. (Sec. 35,
R.A. No. 9165)
a. Any phase of the manufacturing process
was conducted in the presence or with
Aggravating Circumstances which May be
the help of minor/s.
Considered in Prosecuting Cases of
b. Any phase of manufacturing process was
Dangerous Drugs
established or undertaken within 100
meters of a residential, business, church
1. If the importation or bringing into the
or school premises.
Philippines of any dangerous drugs and/or
c. Any clandestine laboratory was secured
controlled precursor and essential chemicals
or protected with booby traps.
was done through the use of diplomatic
d. Any clandestine laboratory was
passport, diplomatic facilities, or any other
concealed with legitimate business
means involving his/her official status
operations.
intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of
e. Any employment of a practitioner,
the same (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9165);
chemical engineer, public official or
foreigner (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9165);
2. The sale trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution, or
8. In case the person uses a minor or a mentally
transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
incapacitated individual to deliver
controlled precursor and essential chemical
equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other
transpired within 100 meters from the
paraphernalia use for dangerous drugs (Sec.
school (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165);
10, R.A. No. 9165);
3. The drug pusher uses minors or mentally
9. Any person found possessing any dangerous
incapacitated individuals as runners,
drug during a party, or a social gathering, or
couriers and messenger, or in any other
meeting, or in the proximate company of at
capacity directly connected to the dangerous
least two (2) persons (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9165);
drug and/or controlled precursor and
and
essential chemical trade (Sec. 5, R.A. No.
9165); 10. Possession or having under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus, and
4. The victim of the offense is a minor or
other paraphernalia fit of intended for
mentally incapacitated individual, or should

Special Penal Laws
smoking, consuming, administering, buy-bust money by the accused in exchange for

injecting, ingesting, or introducing any the illegal drugs he was selling. (People v. Unisa,
dangerous drug into the body, during parties, G.R. No. 18572, 28 Sept. 2011)
social gatherings, or meetings, or in the
proximate company of at least 2 persons. The failure of the police officers to use ultraviolet
(Sec. 14, R.A. No. 9165) powder on the buy-bust money is not an
indication that the buy-bust operation was a
Nature of a Buy-bust Operation sham. “The use of initials to mark the money used
in a buy-bust operation has been accepted by the
In People v. Sembrano, citing People v. Agulay, this courts.” (People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, 14
Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of Dec. 2011)
entrapment which in recent years has been
accepted as a valid and effective mode of Prior Surveillance in Buy-bust Operation,
apprehending drug pushers. Moreover, in a buy- NOT a Prerequisite
bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the
same are not only authorized but also duty- validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust
bound to apprehend the violator and operation, there being no fixed or textbook
consequently search him for anything that may method for conducting one. It is enough that the
have been part of or used in the commission of elements of the crime are proven by credible
the crime. (People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, 15 June witnesses and other pieces of evidence. (People v.
2011) Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 01 June 2011)
Q: Is there a valid warrantless arrest in buy Coordination with PDEA, NOT an

bust operations? Indispensable Requirement
A: YES. There is a valid warrantless arrest when Absence of coordination with PDEA does not
a crime is actually being committed in the render the buy bust operation invalid. In People v.
presence of the police officer, more known as Roa, the Supreme Court held that coordination
crimes in flagrante delicto. A buy-bust operation with the PDEA is not an indispensable
is considered an entrapment in which the violator requirement before police authorities may carry
is caught in flagrante delicto and the officers out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Sec.
conducting such search has not only the authority 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the NBI, PNP, and the
but the duty to apprehend the violator and to Bureau of Customs to maintain "close
search him for anything that may have been part coordination with the PDEA on all drug related
of or used in the commission of the crime. (People matters," the provision does not, by so saying,
v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205414, 04 April 2016) make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua
non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a
The delivery of the contraband to the poseur- buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest. A
buyer and the receipt of the marked money buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere
consummates the buy-bust transaction between non-coordination with the PDEA. (People v. Unisa,
the entrapping officers and the accused. (People G.R. No. 185721, 28 Sept. 2011)
v. Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, 03 Aug. 2011)
NOTE: The Internal Rules and Regulations is
Purpose of using Ultra Violet Powder silent as to the consequences of the failure on the
part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of
The only purpose for treating with ultra-violet the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust
powder the buy-bust money to be used in the operation. This silence cannot be interpreted as a
actual buy-bust operation is for identification, legislative intent to make an arrest without the
that is, to determine if there was receipt of the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
participation of PDEA illegal or evidence detailing the buy-bust operation— “from the
obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the
(People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 186392, 18 Jan. 2012 pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
reiterating People v. Berdadero) payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
Q: Gabuya was caught selling illegal drugs illegal drug subject of sale.” (People v. De la Cruz,
through a buy-bust operation. He contends G.R. No. 185717, 08 June 2011)
that he cannot be held guilty because the
failure of the buy-bust team to coordinate Failure to Establish Corpus Delicti under R.A.
with the PDEA, among others. Is his No. 9165
contention meritorious?
It is settled that the State does not establish the
A: NO. Coordination of the buy-bust operation corpus delicti when the prohibited substance
with the PDEA is not an indispensable element of subject of the prosecution is missing or when
the crimes of illegal sale and possession of substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs such as shabu; thus, it is not a prohibited substance raise grave doubts about
fatal flaw. (People v. Gabuya, G.R. No. 195245, 16 the authenticity of the prohibited substance
Feb. 2015) presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders
the case for the State less than complete in terms
Presentation of the Informant for Conviction of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
under R.A. No. 9165, NOT Essential reasonable doubt. (People v. Relato, G.R. No.
173794, 18 Jan. 2012)
The presentation of an informant in an illegal
drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
is it indispensable for a successful prosecution AND PUNISHMENT
because his testimony would be merely
corroborative and cumulative. The informant’s Persons Exempt from Prosecution and
testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal Punishment under R.A. No. 9165
drug has been adequately proven by the Any person who:
prosecution.
1. Has violated Sec. 7 (Employees and Visitors
In People v. Nicolas, the Court ruled that “police of a Den, Dive or Resort), Sec. 11 (Possession
authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of of Dangerous Drugs), Sec. 12 (Possession of
confidentiality with which they surround their Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
poseur-buyers and informers since their Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drug),
usefulness will be over the moment they are Sec. 14 (Possession of Equipment,
presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do Instrument, Apparatus and Other
not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During
is understandable why, as much as permitted, Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings), Sec.
their identities are kept secret.” (People v. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs), and Sec. 19
Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, 14 Dec. 2011) (Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs),
Art. II of R.A. 9165.
Objective Test in Proving Buy-bust Operation
2. Voluntarily gives information:
In People v. Doria, the Court laid down the
“objective test” in determining the credibility of a. About any violation of Sec. 4
prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of (Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
buy-bust operations. It is the duty of the Controlled Precursors and Essential
prosecution to present a complete picture Chemicals), Sec. 5 (Sale, Trading,

Special Penal Laws
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, and faithfully comply without delay, any

Distribution and Transportation of condition or undertaking, reduced into
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled writing, lawfully imposed by the State as
Precursors and Essential Chemicals), further consideration for the grant of
Sec. 6 (Maintenance of a Den, Dive or immunity from prosecution and
Resort), Sec. 8 (Manufacture of punishment.
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals), NOTE: Provided, further, that this immunity
Sec. 10 (Manufacture or Delivery of may be enjoyed by such informant or witness
Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and who does not appear to be most guilty for the
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous offense with reference to which his/her
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and information or testimony was given:
Essential Chemicals), Sec. 13 (Possession Provided, finally, that there is no direct
of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, evidence available for the State except for the
Social Gatherings or Meetings), and Sec. information and testimony of the said
16 (Cultivation or Culture of Plants informant or witness.
Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are
Sources Thereof), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165; Applicability of RPC to R.A. No. 9165
b. About any violation of the offenses GR: The RPC shall NOT apply to this Act.
mentioned if committed by a drug
syndicate; or XPN: In cases of minor offenders where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts
c. Leading to the whereabouts, identities punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be
and arrest of all or any of the members reclusion perpetua to death.
thereof.
Plea-bargaining Provision (Prohibition on
3. Willingly testifies against such persons as Plea-bargaining, Sec. 23, R.A. No. 9165) is
described above; Provided, that the following Unconstitutional
conditions concur:
The Supreme Court’s sole prerogative to issue,
a. The information and testimony are amend, or repeal procedural rules is limited to
necessary for the conviction of the the preservation of substantive rights. Plea-
persons described above; bargaining is a rule of procedure. Sec. 23 of R.A.
No. 9165 is declared unconstitutional for being
b. Such information and testimony are not
contrary to the rule-making authority of the
yet in the possession of the State;
Supreme Court. (Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo, G.R. No.
226679, 15 Aug. 2017)
c. Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points;
Prohibition on Availing the Benefits of
d. The informant or witness has not been Probation Law by those Convicted for Drug
previously convicted of a crime involving Trafficking or Pushing
moral turpitude, except when there is no
other direct evidence available for the Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
State other than the information and pushing under R.A. No. 9165, regardless of the
testimony of said informant or witness; penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the
and privileges granted by the Probation Law.
e. The informant or witness shall strictly

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF 2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
CONFISCATED, SEIZED AND/OR apprehending officer to the investigating
SURRENDERED DANGEROUS DRUGS officer;
SEC. 21, R.A. No. 9165
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
Person in-charge of Confiscated, Seized
laboratory examination; and
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs
4. The turnover and submission of the marked

The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
to the court. (People v. Marcelino, G.R. No.
drugs, controlled precursors and essential
189325, 15 June 2011)
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
What the law requires is "substantial" and not
seized and/or surrendered, for proper
necessarily "perfect adherence" to the chain of
disposition.
custody rule as long as it can be proven that the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
Chain of Custody
items were preserved as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series
innocence of the accused. (People v. Piad, et al,
of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
G.R. No. 213607, 25 Jan. 2016)
chain of custody as “the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or
Q: Noah arrived at NAIA Terminal 1 from
controlled chemicals or plant sources of
Kenya. Upon inspection, Customs Examiner
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
Landicho noticed that while the smaller bag
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
was empty, its flap was hard and thick and its
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping
sidings were suspiciously padded and had
to presentation in court for destruction.” (People
tampered stitches.
v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, 10 Aug. 2011)
In the exclusion room, Landicho examined the

NOTE: Ideally, the custodial chain would include
bag before: (1) Noah; (2) three airport
testimony about every link in the chain or
employees; (3) Bureau of Customs Narcotics
movements of the illegal drug from the moment
Group; (4) agents of the Philippine Drug
of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence.
Enforcement Agency; and (5) other
(Castro v. People, G.R. No. 193379, 15 Aug. 2011)
government officers. The inspection revealed
seven rectangular packages, wrapped in
Links that Must be Established in the Chain of
vacuum-sealed aluminum foil, on which
Custody in a Buy-bust Situation
Landicho affixed his initials and signature.
Landicho then prepared an Inventory Report
In People v. Kamad (G.R. No. 174198, 19 Jan.
with several witnesses including the Anti-
2010), the Court acknowledged that the following
Narcotics Group. Landicho then turned over
links must be established in the chain of custody
the Inventory Report, along with Noah's
in a buy-bust situation:
personal belongings, to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency and Customs Task Force.
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by
In addition, there were pictures showing
the apprehending officer;
Noah with Landicho and other witnesses were
taken during the field-testing, marking, and
inventory. The seized items were brought to a
forensic chemist for laboratory examinations.

Special Penal Laws
The test results showed that the seized items Crucial Stage in the Chain of Custody under
contained shabu. Is there an unbroken chain R.A. No. 9165
of custody of the drug seized from the
accused? Crucial in proving chain of custody is the
marking of the seized drugs or other related
A: YES. The four links of chain of custody of items immediately after they are seized from
evidence were proven: (1) Landicho seized and the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting
marked the shabu obtained from accused- point in the custodial link; thus, it is vital that the
appellant; (2) he turned them over to Agent seized contrabands are immediately marked
Fajardo; (3) Agent Fajardo delivered them to because succeeding handlers of the specimens
Forensic Chemist Arcos; and (4) from the will use the markings as reference. The marking
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the drugs of the evidence serves to separate the marked
were presented in court. There was an unbroken evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time related evidence from the time they are seized
of its discovery up to its presentation in court. from the accused until they are disposed of at the
(Peoples v. Noah, G.R. No. 228880, 06 Mar. 2019) end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching,
"planting," or contamination of evidence. (People
Q: After laboratory examination of the seized v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011)
sachets of marijuana by the forensic chemist,
the PNP Crime Laboratory agreed to turn over Marking
custody of the seized items to an unnamed
receiving person at the City Prosecutor's The placing by the apprehending officer or the
Office before they were submitted as evidence poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on
to the trial court. Is there compliance to the the items seized. Long before Congress passed
fourth link in the chain of custody? R.A. No. 9165, the Supreme Court has
consistently held that failure of the authorities to
A: NO. The fourth link is the turnover and immediately mark the seized drugs casts
submission of the marked illegal drug seized reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the
from the forensic chemist to the court. It should corpus delicti. Marking after seizure is the
be emphasized that the City Prosecutor's Office is starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is
not, nor has it ever been, a part of the chain of vital that the seized contraband be immediately
custody of seized dangerous drugs. It has marked because succeeding handlers of the
absolutely no business in taking custody of specimens will use the markings as reference.
dangerous drugs before they are brought before (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 176350, 10 Aug.
the court. (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 219955, 2011)
05 Feb. 2018)
NOTE: In Sanchez, the Court explained that
While the procedure on the chain of custody consistency with the chain of custody rule
should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is requires that the marking of the seized items be
almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken done:
chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Sec.
21(1), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily 1. In the presence of the apprehended violator;
render an accused person's arrest illegal or the and
items seized or confiscated from him 2. Immediately upon confiscation.
inadmissible. (Saraum v. People, GR No. 205472,
25 Jan. 2016) In People v. Resurreccion, it was ruled that
“marking upon immediate confiscation” does not
exclude the possibility that marking can be at the
police station or office of the apprehending team.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
(People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 176350, 10 Aug. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
2011) complied with?
Q: Bombasi was caught selling illegal drugs A: NO. While an inventory was supposed to have
through a buy-bust operation. Police marked been conducted, this was done neither in the
the sachet subject of the sale with "MB," presence of Lescano, the person from whom the
corresponding to Bomabasi’s initials. drugs were supposedly seized, nor in the
However, the specimen brought to PNP Crime presence of his counsel or representative.
Laboratory was marked “MB-B.” Bombasi
claims that the integrity of the subject shabu Likewise, not one of the persons required to be
was not ensured and its identity was not present (an elected public official, and a
established with moral certainty. Can he be representative of the National Prosecution
held liable of sale of illegal drugs? Service or the media) was shown to have been
around during the inventory and photographing.
A: NO. The prosecution failed to establish the The mere marking of seized items, done in
identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes violation of the safeguards of the Comprehensive
the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential Dangerous Drugs Act, cannot be the basis of a
requirement in a drug-related case. The Court finding of guilt. By failing to establish identity of
therefore finds that the prosecution has not been corpus delicti, non-compliance with Sec. 21
able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond indicates a failure to establish an element of the
reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It
in the performance of official duty invoked by the follows that this non-compliance suffices as a
prosecution and relied upon by the courts a quo ground for acquittal. (Lescano v. People, G.R. No.
cannot by itself overcome the presumption of 214490, 13 Jan. 2016)
innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. (People v. Bombasi, G.R. No. Strict Compliance with Sec. 21
211608, 07 Sept. 2016)
Q: Two Informations were filed charging
Persons who must be Present during Physical Castillo for violation of R.A. No. 9165, Art. II,
Inventory and Photography of the Seized Secs. 5 and 11, for the illegal sale and illegal
Items possession of dangerous drugs. The
information alleged that in a buy-bust
1. Accused or the person/s from whom such operation, four (4) plastic sachets containing
items were confiscated and/or seized; OR suspected shabu were retrieved from
2. His/her representative or counsel; WITH Castillo/ The officers then brought the items
3. An elected public official; AND inside their vehicle, which was still parked
4. A representative of the National Prosecution near the place of arrest.
Service OR the media. (Sec. 21(1), R.A. No. There, SPO2 Yema marked the plastic sachet
9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640) subject of the buy-bust. Afterwards, the
officers brought Castillo to the Police Station.
Q: In a buy-bust operation, Lescano was There, the seized items were photographed
caught dealing marijuana. He was then along with the marked money and Castillo.
brought to the City Anti-Illegal Drug Special The seized items were also inventoried, as
Operation Team (CAIDSOT) office for witnessed by the Department of Justice
investigation. Inside the CAIDSOT office, an representative, Barangay Chair, SPO2 Yema,
inventory was allegedly conducted and and Castillo, who all signed the Certificate of
photographs of the marked money and the Inventory.
sachet were taken. Was Sec. 21 (1) of the

Special Penal Laws
In his defense, Castillo pointed out supposed kilometers car ride away from the place of
gaps in the chain of custody, including, among arrest.
others, irregularities in the seized items'
marking and the belated presence of the There, physical inventory and photographing
Department of Justice representative, only required under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 was
arriving at the police station when the conducted in the presence of Banding, the
inventory had already been prepared. The buy-bust team, and a media representative.
RTC nevertheless convicted Jayson as After the inventory, PO3 Corona prepared the
charged. Has Castillo’s guilt for violation of inventory receipt for “a sachet containing
R.A. No. 9165 been established beyond marijuana fruiting tops.” This was submitted
reasonable doubt? to the QCPD Crime Laboratory.
A: NO. There remains reasonable doubt on Banding was later on charged with violation
Castillo’s guilt for the crimes charged. Sec. 21 of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165. Banding argues that he
plainly requires the apprehending team to cannot be convicted due to lapses in the chain
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items of custody of the drugs seized. Can Banding be
and the photographing of the same immediately held criminally liable under Sec. 5 of R.A. No.
after seizure and confiscation, the inventory must 9165?
be done in the presence of the accused, his
counsel, or representative, a representative of the A: NO. Banding cannot be convicted under Sec. 5
DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who of R.A. 9165 due to the lapses in the chain of
shall be required to sign the copies of the custody procedure required under Sec. 21 of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. The same law. Sec. 21 requires strict compliance. The
presence of the three witnesses must be secured accuracy it requires goes into the covertness of
not only during the inventory but more buy-bust operation and the very nature of
importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. narcotic substance.
It is at this point in which the presence of the From the language of Sec. 21, the mandate to
three witnesses is most needed, as it is their conduct inventory and take photographs
presence at the time of seizure and confiscation "immediately after seizure and confiscation"
that would belie any doubt as to the source, necessarily means that these shall be
identity, and integrity of the seized drug. Here, accomplished at the place of arrest. When this
the absence of witnesses during seizure and is impracticable, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 allows
marking casts reasonable doubt on the actual for two (2) other options: at the nearest police
origin and identity of the drugs introduced in station or at the nearest office of the
evidence as those allegedly seized from accused- apprehending officer/team, whichever is
appellant. Ultimately, this same absence casts practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. To
reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's guilt for sanction non-compliance, the prosecution must
the offenses with which he is charged. (People v. prove that the inventory was conducted in either
Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 Aug. 2019) practicable place.
Q: Banding was arrested at Mercury Drug The physical inventory and photographing of the
Store Lagro branch in Quezon City for illegal drugs seized was not done in the place of arrest,
sale of dangerous drugs (Sec. 5, R.A. 9165). The but was done in Camp Karingal, which was
dangerous drugs sachets containing white impractical since it was 17 kilometers car ride
crystalline substance were marked by PO2 away from the place of arrest. The clerical errors
Inway with AB-20-09-10. To avoid the on- and discrepancies in the inventory receipt and
going commotion in the area, the team the chemistry report cannot be dismissed since
proceeded to Camp Karingal which is 17 they cast doubt as to the origin of the drug seized.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
(People v. Banding, G.R. No. 2333470, 14 Aug. “Immediately after seizure and confiscation”
2019)
It means that the physical inventory and
The witnesses' absence at the time of seizure is photographing of the drugs were intended by the
not a justifiable ground for not immediately law to be made immediately after or at the place
marking the items, since they should have, at the of apprehension. It is only when the same is not
onset, been present or near the place of seizure. practicable that the law allows the inventory and
Since the law requires the apprehending team to photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust
conduct the inventory in front of the required team reaches the nearest police station or the
witnesses and immediately after seizure, this nearest office of the apprehending team/officer.
necessarily means that, in buy-bust operations,
the required witnesses must be present at the Q: In the morning of July 26, 2003, an
time of seizure. (People v. Isidro Ramos, G.R. No. informant reported that a person identified
225335, 28 Aug. 2019) as "Joshua," later identified as Que, was
selling shabu. Acting on this report, P/C Insp.
Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted in Muksan organized a buy-bust operation with
Metropolis Starmall, Alabang. The PO3 Lim as poseur-buyer. PO3 Lim and the
confidential informant introduced Alejandro informant then left for the area of Fort Pilar.
to alias Salim and she told him that she
wanted to buy shabu. After the exchange of There, the informant introduced PO3 Lim to
money and shabu, Salim was arrested. A Que. PO3 Lim then told Que that he intended
commotion ensued so the buy-bust team was to purchase P100 worth of shabu. Que then
not able to put markings on the evidence. handed him shabu inside a plastic cellophane.
Upon reaching Brgy. Pinyahan, they In turn, PO3 Lim handed Que the marked
immediately conducted the inventory which P100 bill and gave the pre-arranged signal to
was done before the barangay officials of the have Que arrested. After the arrest, the
said barangay. Were the requirements under marked bill and another sachet of shabu were
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 complied with? recovered from Que. The marking of the
sachets of shabu supposedly obtained from
A: NO. To start, the conduct of the inventory in accused-appellant was conducted at a police
this case was not conducted immediately at the station without accused-appellant, or any
place of arrest but at the barangay hall of person representing him, around. There was
Pinyahan, Quezon City. There are police stations not even a third person, whose presence was
closer to Starmall, Alabang, in Muntinlupa City required by Sec. 21 (1) prior to its
and the office of the PDEA is also in Pinyahan, amendment – "a representative from the
Quezon City. And yet, the inventory was media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
conducted in the barangay hall of Pinyahan, and any elected public official."
Quezon City - which is not one of the allowed Que was then brought to the police station
alternative places provided under Sec. 21 of the where the sachets of shabu and the marked
IRR. More importantly, there was no compliance bill were turned over to the investigator,
with the three-witness rule. There were no SPO4 Tubo, who then marked these items
witnesses from the DOJ or the media. Only two with his initials. This case merely involves
witnesses who were elected barangay officials 0.0157 grams and 0.0783 grams of alleged
were present. It thus becomes evident that the shabu. He also prepared the letter request for
buy-bust team did not prepare or bring with them laboratory examination of the sachets'
any of the required witnesses at or near the place contents. P/C Insp. Diestro recounted their
of the buy-bust operation and the witnesses were office's receipt of a request for laboratory
a mere afterthought. (People v. Basher Tomawis, examination of the contents of two (2) plastic
G.R. No. 228890, 18 Apr. 2018, J. Caguioa) sachets. She noted that these contents tested

Special Penal Laws
positive for shabu. Did the law enforcers grounds; and

ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti?
2. There is showing that the police officers
A: NO. The prosecution here failed to account for intended to comply with the procedure, but
the intervening period between the supposed were thwarted by some justifiable
handover of the sachet from accused-appellant to consideration or reasons. (People v. Umipang,
P03 Lim, to the marking of the sachets by SPO4 G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012)
Tubo. Likewise, it absolutely failed to identify
measures taken during transit from the target Q: X was convicted for the crime of illegal sale
area to the police station to ensure the integrity and possession of dangerous drugs. However,
of the sachets allegedly obtained and to negate during the trial, it was proved that the three
any possibility of adulteration or substitution. witness rule was not complied with. Can the
presumption of regularity be used as a
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that defense to excuse compliance with Section 21
the conviction of the accused must rest, not on the of R.A. No. 9165?
weakness of the defense, but on the strength of
the prosecution. Since, there is no showing that a A: NO. After allegedly receiving the tip from the
proper inventory and taking of pictures was done confidential informant, the buy-bust team was
by the apprehending officers, the Court is left formed, a team briefing was conducted, and the
with absolutely no guarantee of the integrity of team went to the target area with the informant.
the sachets other than the self-serving assurances Conspicuously absent in the narration of facts by
of PO3 Lim and SPO1 Jacinto. (People v. Que, G.R. the prosecution is the part where the buy-bust
No. 212994, 31 Jan. 2018) team sought the attendance of the three required
witnesses. From the time they received the tip at
Citing People v. Que, what is critical in drug cases 4:30 p.m. up to the time they went to the target
is not the bare conduct of the inventory, marking, area at around 9:15 p.m., there was a span of
and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty around five (5) hours where they could have
that the items allegedly taken from the accused easily contacted the required witnesses, but there
retain their integrity, even as they make their way was no hint that they made any effort to do so.
from the accused to an officer effecting the Consequently, the requirement of the presence of
seizure, to an investigating officer to a forensic all the witnesses at the time of the operation,
chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are conduct of inventory, and photographing was not
introduced as evidence. Sec. 21(1)’s fulfilled.
requirements are designed to make the first and
second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory While the IRR has a saving clause excusing
and photographing immediately after seizure, deviation from the required procedure, the
exactly where the seizure was done, or at a application of such clause must be supported by
location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if the presence of the following elements: (1) the
not eliminates, room for adulteration or planting existence of justifiable grounds to allow
of evidence. (People v. Banding, supra) departure from the rule on strict compliance; and
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
Justifiable Reasons for Non-compliance on the seized items are properly preserved by the
Chain of Custody Rule apprehending team.
Minor deviations from the chain of custody rule is The above grounds were not present in this case;
justified when; thus, the buy-bust team's failure to comply with
the three-witness rule is inexcusable. Moreover,
1. Lapses in procedure were recognized and the buy-bust team likewise failed to immediately
explained in terms of their justifiable conduct the inventory and photographing of the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
seized items in the places allowed by law. (People but the prosecution could not even establish what
v. Quilatan, G.R. No. 218107, 09 Sept. 2019, J. procedure was followed by the arresting team to
Caguioa) ensure a proper chain of custody for the
confiscated prohibited drug. (People v. Ulat, G.R.
Q: In the crime of illegal possession of No. 180504, 05 Oct. 2011)
dangerous drugs, is the failure of the
policemen to make a physical inventory and The Marking Place being a “Muslim area” NOT
to photograph the two plastic sachets a Justifiable Ground for Non-compliance
containing shabu render the confiscated
items inadmissible in evidence? In the case of People v. Abdulah, the marking of
the seized drugs was not done immediately after
A: NO. In People v. Bralaan, it was ruled that non- accused-appellant's arrest. In his own words, PO3
compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team Temporal revealed that the team decided to mark
with Sec. 21 is not fatal as long as there is and inventory the items at the barangay hall after
justifiable ground therefore, and as long as the deeming the target area to be unsafe, it being "a
integrity and the evidentiary value of the Muslim area." To sustain the police officers'
confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved equating of a so-called "Muslim area" with
by the apprehending officer/team. Its non- dangerous places does not only approve of a
compliance will not render an accused’s arrest hollow justification for deviating from statutory
illegal or the items seized/ confiscated from him requirements, but reinforces outdated
inadmissible. stereotypes and blatant prejudices.
Islamophobia, the hatred against the Islamic
What is of utmost importance is the preservation community, can never be a valid reason to justify
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the an officer's failure to comply with Sec. 21 of R.A.
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the No. 9165. (People v. Samiah Abdulah, G.R. No.
determination of the guilt or innocence of the 243941, 11 Mar. 2020)
accused. (Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, 13 July
2011) No Need for Everyone who Came into Contact
with the Seized Drugs to Testify in Court
In cases of dangerous drugs, what is important
and necessary is for the prosecution to prove There is no need for everyone who came into
with moral certainty “that the dangerous drug contact with the seized drugs to testify in court.
presented in court as evidence against the There is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its
accused be the same item recovered from his implementing rules which requires that each and
possession.” (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, everyone who came into contact with the seized
06 June 2011) drugs to testify in court. As long as the chain of
custody of the seized drug was clearly established
Q: As a rule, non-compliance by the to have not been broken and the prosecution did
apprehending/buy-bust team with Sec. 21 of not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is
R.A. 9165 is not fatal as long as there is not indispensable that each and every person
justifiable ground therefore, and as long as who came into possession of the drugs should
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the take the witness stand. (People v. Amansec, G.R.
confiscated/seized items, are properly No. 186131, 14 Dec. 2011)
preserved by the apprehending
officer/team. When will this provision not Q: SPO1 Calupit and PO2 Lobrin acted as key
apply? persons to the search conducted at the house
of accused Derilo. The testimonies given by
A: If there were not merely trifling lapses in the them are bereft of any evidence that show that
handling of the evidence taken from the accused the plastic sachets supposedly containing the

Special Penal Laws
shabu were ever marked, whether at the condition of the specimen at the time the
scene or at the police station, and that they specimen was handed over to SPO1 Corea, the
were marked in the presence of the precautions taken by SPO1 Corea to ensure that
petitioner. Additionally, the Chemistry Report there had been no change in the condition of the
and the Certification of Laboratory item, and how SPO1 Corea transferred
Examination show inconsistencies with possession of the specimen to PO3 Carranza. In
regard to the referenced markings on the short, the chain of custody of the specimen from
plastic sachets and to the weight of the drug PO2 Santiago to SPO1 Corea and from SPO1 Corea
specimens. to PO3 Carranza was not firmly established.
(People v. Noel Cardenas, G.R. No. 229046. 11 Sept.
Thus, Derilo contended that he should not be 2019, J. Caguioa)
convicted for the manifest inconsistencies in
the testimonies and failure to preserve the Q: Pamela, a high school student, was caught
links in the unbroken chain of custody. Is he using shabu inside the campus of the school
correct? she is attending. Who shall have the authority
to apprehend her?
A: YES. To show an unbroken link in the chain of
custody, the prosecution’s evidence must include A: All school heads, supervisors and teachers are
testimony about every link in the chain, from the deemed persons in authority and empowered to
moment the item was seized to the time it is apprehend, arrest or cause the apprehension or
offered in court as evidence, such that every arrest of any person who shall violate any of the
person who handled the evidence would said provisions of Art. II of Dangerous Drugs Act,
acknowledge how and from whom it was pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
received, where it was and what happened to it (Sec. 44, IRR of R.A. No. 9165)
while in the witness’ possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which Q: PO1 Aure (poseur-buyer) and an
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The informant, approached Holgado. Holgado
same witness would then describe the asked the informant if he was buying drugs.
precautions taken to ensure that there had been The informant introduced PO1 Aure as a drug
no change in the condition of the item and no user. PO1 Aure then handed Holgado two
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have marked Php 100 bills. Holgado called Misarez.
its possession. Misarez stepped out of the restroom and
handed a plastic sachet containing a white
It is from the testimony of every witness who crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. PO1 Aure
handled the evidence from which a reliable examined the sachet’s contents and took out
assurance can be derived that the evidence his cellphone which was the pre-arranged
presented in court is one and the same as that signal that the sale of drugs had been
seized from the accused. (Derilo v. People, G.R. No. consummated. The police operatives then
190466, 18 April 2016) approached PO1 Aure and apprehended
Holgado and Misarez.
Q: X was convicted for the crime of illegal
possession of illegal drugs. During trial, the PO3 Abuyme prepared an inventory of the
person who handled the specimen was not the seized items. PO1 Aure supposedly marked
one presented as a witness. Is the unbroken the plastic sachet handed to him by Misarez at
chain of custody established in such case? the site of the buy-bust operation. Following
their arrest, Holgado and Misarez were
A: NO As SPO1 Corea was not presented by the charged with violating Secs. 5 (sale of
prosecution, the evidence on record is silent as to dangerous drugs), 11 (possession of
how SPO1 Corea handled the specimen, the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
dangerous drugs), and 12 (possession of drug Duties of School Heads, Supervisors, and
paraphernalia) of R.A. No. 9165. Teachers if they Caught a Person Violating the
Provisions of R.A. No. 9165
The RTC found Holgado and Misarez guilty of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs and acquitted 1. They shall affect the arrest of any person
them of the charges pertaining to Sec. 11 as violating Art. II of the Act and turn over the
the drugs supposedly seized were not investigation of the case to the PDEA;
introduced in evidence. Holgado, was also
acquitted of the charges relating to Sec. 12 of 2. They may summon the services of other law
as the paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo enforcement agencies to arrest or cause the
testified to in court were different from those apprehension or arrest of persons violating
indicated in the inventory supposedly made. Art. II of the Act;
The CA affirmed the conviction. Is the
presumption of regularity in the performance 3. They shall be trained on arrest and other
of duties applicable in this case? legal procedures relative to the conduct of
arrest of violators of the Act along with
A: NO. The presumption of regularity in the student leaders and Parents Teachers
performance of duties cannot be applied in this Association (PTA) officials; and
case. Given the flagrant procedural lapses the
police committed in handling the seized shabu 4. They shall refer the students or any other
and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of violators found to be using dangerous drugs
its custody, a presumption of regularity in the to the proper agency/office. (Sec. 44, IRR of
performance of duties cannot be made in this R.A. No. 9165)
case. The presumption applies when nothing in
the record suggests that the law enforcers Promotion of “drug-free workplaces”
deviated from the standard conduct of official
duty required by law; where the official act is The drug-free workplaces are promoted by:
irregular on its face, the presumption cannot
arise. (People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, 11 Aug. 1. A National Drug-Free Workplace Abuse
2014) Prevention Program shall be formulated by a
tripartite Task Force composed of
Instances when the School Heads, representatives from the DOLE, workers’ and
Supervisors, and Teachers Deemed to be employers’ groups.
Persons in Authority in the Apprehension,
Arrest or Cause of Arrest of Person Violating 2. The Secretary of the DOLE shall issue a
the Act Department Order creating a Task Force
consisting of tripartite and other agencies to
They shall be deemed persons in authority if they formulate policies and strategies for the
are in the school or within its immediate vicinity, purpose of developing a National Action
or even beyond such immediate vicinity if they Agenda on drug abuse prevention in the
are in attendance at any school or class function workplace. Pursuant to the declared policy of
in their official capacity as school heads, the State and the national workplace policy,
supervisors, and teachers. (Sec. 44, IRR of R.A. the DOLE shall issue a Department Order
9165) (DO) requiring all private companies to
adopt and implement drug abuse prevention
programs in the workplace, including the
formulation of company policies.

Special Penal Laws
3. Pursuant to the functions of the Board under IS A DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE: LET’S KEEP
Sec. 81(a) of the Act, the existing Civil Service IT THIS WAY!” or such other messages of
rules and policies needed to respond to drug similar import. (Sec. 48, IRR of R.A. No. 9165)
abuse in the public sector shall be adopted.
(Sec. 47, IRR of R.A. No. 9165) Inclusion of Workplace Drug Abuse Policies
and Programs as Part of CBA
Guidelines for the National Drug-Free
Workplace Program to be formulated by the It is required that all labor unions, federations,
Board and the DOLE associations, or organizations in cooperation
with the respective private sector partners shall
1. All private sector organizations with ten (10) include in their collective bargaining or any
or more personnel shall implement a drug similar agreements, joint continuing programs
abuse prevention program. and information campaigns for the laborers
similar to the programs provided under Sec. 47 of
a. The workplace program shall include the Act with the end in view of achieving a drug-
advocacy and capability building and free workplace. (Sec. 49, IRR of R.A. No. 9165)
other preventive strategies including but
not limited to: company policies, training Procedure to be Followed in Abatement of
of supervisors/managers, employee Drug-Related Public Nuisances
education, random drug testing,
employee assistance program, and Any place or premises which have been used on
monitoring and evaluation; two or more occasions as the site of the unlawful
sale or delivery of dangerous drugs, or used as
b. The workplace program shall be drug dens for pot sessions and other similar
integrated in the safety and health activities, may be declared to be a public
programs. nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated,
pursuant to the following procedures:
2. DOLE and labor and employers’ groups shall
also encourage drug-free policies and 1. Any city or municipality may, by ordinance,
programs for private companies with nine create an administrative board to hear
(9) workers or less. complaints regarding the nuisances, to be
composed of the following:
3. Any officer or employee found positive for
use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with a. City/Municipal Health Officer as
administratively which shall be a ground for chairperson;
suspension or termination, subject to the b. City/Municipal Legal Officer as member,
provisions of Art. 282 of Book VI of the Labor provided that in cities/municipalities
Code. with no Legal Officer, the City/Municipal
Administrator shall act as member; and
4. Private sector organizations may extend the c. The Local Chief of Police as member.
drug education program to the
employees/personnel and immediate 2. Any employee, officer, or resident of the city
families to contribute in the promotion of a or municipality may bring a complaint before
healthy drug-free family, community and the administrative board after giving not less
society. than three (3) days written notice of such
complaint to the owner of the place or
5. All private sector organizations shall display premises at his/her last known address;
in a conspicuous place a billboard or
streamer with a standard message of “THIS

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
3. Within three (3) days from receipt of the 3. The cost of treatment and rehabilitation
complaint, a hearing shall then be conducted based on a center’s facilities, programs and
by the administrative board, with notice to services (Sec. 74, IRR of R.A. No. 9165).
both parties, and the administrative board
may consider any evidence submitted, If the Family Income is within the Poverty
including evidence of general reputation of Threshold
the place or premises;
A family whose income is within poverty
4. The owner/manager of the premises or place threshold shall be fully subsidized by the
shall also be given an opportunity to present government. (Sec. 74, IRR of R.A. No. 9165)
any evidence in his/her defense;
Duties of DOH in the Treatment and
5. After hearing, the administrative board may Rehabilitation of Drug Dependent
declare the place or premises to be a public
nuisance; and 1. Formulate standards and guidelines for the
operation and maintenance of all treatment
6. The hearing shall be terminated within ten and rehabilitation centers nationwide;
(10) days from commencement. (Sec. 52, IRR
of R.A. No. 9165) 2. Develop a system for monitoring and
supervision of all drug rehabilitation centers
Persons Sharing the Cost of Treatment and nationwide;
Rehabilitation of a Drug Dependent who
Voluntarily Submitted Himself 3. Create programs which will advocate for the
establishment of LGU-assisted rehabilitation
The parent, spouse, guardian, or any relative facilities in each province;
within the fourth degree of consanguinity of any
person who is confined under the voluntary 4. Submit to the Department of Budget and
submission program or compulsory submission Management (DBM) a budget for the
program shall share the cost of treatment and establishment, and operation of drug
rehabilitation of a drug dependent. (Sec. 74, IRR of rehabilitation centers; and
R.A. No. 9165)
5. Facilitate the turn-over of all the
If the Dependent has No Parent, Spouse, rehabilitation centers from the PNP and NBI
Guardian or Relative within Fourth (4th) thru a Memorandum of Agreement that shall
Degree of Consanguinity be signed within sixty (60) days after
approval of this IRR. (Sec. 75, IRR of R.A. No.
In case a dependent has no parent, spouse, 9165)
guardian or relative within the fourth degree of
consanguinity, his/her rehabilitation shall be PROGRAM FOR TREATMENT AND
through the auspices of any government REHABILITATION OF
rehabilitation center. (Sec. 74, IRR of R.A. No. DRUG DEPENDENTS
9165) (ART. VIII)
Factors in Determining Costs for the Sharing Submission for Treatment and Rehabilitation
in Cost of Treatment and Rehabilitation of a Drug Dependent who is Found Guilty of
the Use of Drugs
1. Family income;
2. Capacity of the province/city/municipality A drug dependent who is found guilty of the use
based on their income classification; and of dangerous drugs may voluntarily submit

Special Penal Laws
himself for treatment and rehabilitation. The regulations of the center, the applicable rules
drug dependent may, by himself/herself or and regulations of the Board, including the
through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or after-care and follow-up program for at least
relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity eighteen (18) months following temporary
or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly discharge from confinement in the Center;
recognized representative, for treatment and
rehabilitation of the drug dependency. 2. He/she has never been charged or convicted
of any offense punishable under this Act, the
Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or R.A. No.
the matter to the Court which shall order that the 6425, as amended; the RPC, as amended, or
applicant be examined for drug dependency. (Sec. any special penal laws;
54, R.A. No. 9165)
3. He/she has no record of escape from a
Compulsory Confinement Center; or
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to 4. He/she poses no serious danger to
the contrary, any person determined and found himself/herself, his/her family or the
to be dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon community by his/her exemption from
petition by the Board or any of its authorized criminal liability. (Sec. 55, R.A. No. 9165)
representative, be confined for treatment and
rehabilitation in any Center duly designated or
accredited for the purpose. N. CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
R.A. No. 10175
A petition for the confinement of a person alleged
to be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center
may be filed by any person authorized by the
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Board with the RTC of the province or city where
such person is found. (Sec. 61, R.A. No. 9165)
Access refers to the instruction, communication
with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or
Length of Confinement for Treatment and
otherwise making use of any resources of a
Rehabilitation by the Drug Dependent
computer system or communication network.
(Sec. 3(a), R.A. No. 10175)
Confinement in a Center for treatment and
rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year, after
Alteration refers to the modification or change,
which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall
in form or substance, of an existing computer
be apprised by the head of the treatment and
data or program. (Sec. 3(b), R.A. No. 10175)
rehabilitation center of the status of said drug
dependent and determine whether further
Communication refers to the transmission of
confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
information through ICT media, including voice,
dependent and his/her family or the community.
video, and other forms of data. (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No.
(Sec. 54, R.A. No. 9165)
10175)
Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic,

Exemption from Criminal Liability of a Drug
optical, electrochemical, or other data processing
Dependent who is under the Voluntary
or communications device, or grouping of such
Submission Program and upon Release from
devices, capable of performing logical, arithmetic,
Confinement in the Center
routing, or storage functions and which includes
any storage facility or equipment or
1. He/she has complied with the rules and
communications facility or equipment directly

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
related to or operating in conjunction with such Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools,
device. It covers any type of computer device policies, risk management approaches, actions,
including devices with data processing training, best practices, assurance, and
capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, technologies that can be used to protect the cyber
computer networks and other devices connected environment and organization and user’s assets.
to the internet. (Sec. 3(d), R.A. No. 10175) (Sec. 3(k), R.A. No. 10175)
Computer data refers to any representation of Database refers to a representation of

facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or
for processing in a computer system including a instructions which are being prepared,
program suitable to cause a computer system to processed, or stored or have been prepared,
perform a function and includes electronic processed, or stored in a formalized manner and
documents and/or electronic data messages which are intended for use in a computer system.
whether stored in local computer systems or (Sec. 3(l), R.A. No. 10175)
online. (Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 10175)
Interception refers to listening to, recording,
Computer program refers to a set of instructions monitoring, or surveillance of the content of
executed by the computer to achieve intended communications, including procuring of the
results. (Sec. 3(f), R.A. No. 10175) content of data, either directly, through access
and use of a computer system, or indirectly,
Computer system refers to any device or group through the use of electronic eavesdropping or
of interconnected or related devices, one or more tapping devices, at the same time that the
of which, pursuant to a program, performs communication is occurring. (Sec. 3(m), R.A. No.
automated processing of data. It covers any type 10175)
of device with data processing capabilities
including, but not limited to, computers and Service provider refers to:
mobile phones. The device consisting of
hardware and software may include input, output 1. Any public or private entity that provides to
and storage components which may stand alone users of its service the ability to
or be connected in a network or other similar communicate by means of a computer
devices. It also includes computer data storage system; and
devices or media. (Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 10175)
2. Any other entity that processes or stores
Cyber refers to a computer or a computer computer data on behalf of such
network, the electronic medium in which online communication service or users of such
communication takes place. (Sec. 3(i), R.A. No. service. (Sec. 3(n), R.A. No. 10175)
10175)
Subscriber’s information – Any information
Critical infrastructure refers to the computer contained in the form of computer data or any
systems, and/or networks, whether physical or other form that is held by a service provider,
virtual, and/or the computer programs, relating to subscribers of its services other than
computer data and/or traffic data so vital to this traffic or content data and by which identity can
country that the incapacity or destruction of or be established:
interference with such system and assets would 1. The type of communication service used, the
have a debilitating impact on security, national or technical provisions taken thereto, and the
economic security, national public health and period of service;
safety, or any combination of those matters. (Sec.
3(j), R.A. No. 10175) 2. The subscriber’s identity, postal or
geographic address, telephone and other
access numbers, any assigned network

Special Penal Laws
address, billing and payment information, deleting, deteriorating, altering, or

available on the basis of the service suppressing computer data or program,
agreement or arrangement; and electronic document, or electronic data
message, without right or authority,
3. Any other available information on the site of including the introduction or
the installation of communication transmission of viruses.
equipment, available on the basis of the
service agreement or arrangement. (Sec. e. Misuse of Devices:
3(o), R.A. No. 10175)
i. The use, production, sale,
Traffic data or non-content data refers to any procurement, importation,
computer data other than the content of the distribution, or otherwise making
communication including, but not limited to, the available, without right of a device,
communication’s origin, destination, route, time, including:
date, size, duration, or type of underlying service.
(Sec. 3(p), R.A. No. 10175) a. A computer program, designed
or adapted primarily for the
PUNISHABLE ACTS purpose of committing any of
the offenses under this Act; or
Cybercrime Offenses (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10175)
b. A computer password, access
1. Offenses against the confidentiality, code, or similar data by which
integrity, and availability of computer the whole or any part of a
data and systems: computer system is capable of
being accessed with intent that
a. Illegal access - The access to the whole it be used for the purpose of
or any part of a computer system committing any of the offenses
without right. under this Act.
b. Illegal Interception - The interception ii. The possession of an item referred

made by technical means without right to in the preceding paragraph with
of any non-public transmission of intent to use said devices for the
computer data to, from, or within a purpose of committing any of the
computer system including offenses under this Sec. 4 of R.A. No.
electromagnetic emissions from a 10175.
computer system carrying such
computer data. f. Cyber-squatting – The acquisition of a
domain name over the internet in bad
c. Data Interference – The intentional or faith to profit, mislead, destroy
reckless alteration, damaging, deletion reputation, and deprive others from
or deterioration of computer data, registering the same, if such a domain
electronic document, or electronic data name is: (2019 BAR)
message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses. a. Similar, identical, or confusingly
similar to an existing trademark
d. System Interference – The intentional registered with the appropriate
alteration or reckless hindering or government agency at the time of
interference with the functioning of a the domain name registration;
computer or computer network by
inputting, transmitting, damaging, b. Identical or in any way similar with

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
the name of a person other than the 3. Content-Related Offenses –

registrant, in case of a personal
name; and a. Cybersex – The wilful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation,
c. Acquired without right or with directly or indirectly, of any lascivious
intellectual property interests in it. exhibition of sexual organs or sexual
activity, with the aid of a computer
2. Computer-Related Offenses system, for favor or consideration.
a. Computer-related Forgery b. Child Pornography – The unlawful or

prohibited acts defined and punishable
i. The input, alteration, or deletion of by R.A. No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
any computer data without right Pornography Act of 2009, committed
resulting in inauthentic data with through a computer system: Provided,
the intent that it be considered or That the penalty to be imposed shall be
acted upon for legal purposes as if (1) one degree higher than that
it were authentic, regardless provided for in R.A. No. 9775.
whether or not the data is directly
readable and intelligible. NOTE: Child pornography committed
online as to which, charging the offender
ii. The act of knowingly using under both Sec. 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175
computer data which is the product and R.A. No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
of computer-related forgery as Pornography Act of 2009 is void and
defined herein, for the purpose of unconstitutional. (Disini v. Secretary of
perpetuating a fraudulent or Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 18 Feb. 2014)
dishonest design.
c. Unsolicited Commercial
b. Computer-related Fraud – The Communications – The transmission of
unauthorized input, alteration, or commercial electronic communication
deletion of computer data or program with the use of computer system which
or interference in the functioning of a seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
computer system, causing damage products and services are prohibited
thereby with fraudulent intent: unless:
Provided, that if no damage has yet been
caused, the penalty imposable shall be i. There is prior affirmative consent
one (1) degree lower. from the recipient; or
c. Computer-related Identity Theft – The ii. The primary intent of the

intentional acquisition, use, misuse, communication is for service
transfer, possession, alteration or and/or administrative
deletion of identifying information announcements from the sender to
belonging to another, whether natural its existing users, subscribers or
or juridical, without right: Provided, that customers; or
if no damage has yet been caused, the
penalty imposable shall be one (1) iii. The following conditions are
degree lower. present:
1. The commercial electronic
communication contains a
simple, valid, and reliable way
for the recipient to reject.

Special Penal Laws
receipt of further commercial of an accused if he or she publishes a

electronic messages (opt-out) libelous article on an online news
from the same source; platform? Explain. (2019 BAR)
2. The commercial electronic A:

communication does not a. Mr. L’s contention that truth is a valid defense
purposely disguise the source in libel is tenable. Under Art. 361 of the RPC,
of the electronic message; and if the defamatory statement is made against
a public official with respect to the discharge
3. The commercial electronic of his official duties and functions, and the
communication does not truth of the allegations is shown, the accused
purposely include misleading will be entitled to an acquittal even though he
information in any part of the does not prove that the imputation was
message in order to induce the published with good motives and for
recipients to read the message. justifiable ends. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No.
172203, 14 Feb. 2011)
d. Libel — The unlawful or prohibited acts
of libel as defined in Art. 355 of the RPC, b. The accused may be liable under RA 10175,
as amended, committed through a or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
computer system or any other similar Under Sec. 4(c)(4), a cybercrime offense
means which may be devised in the includes the unlawful or prohibited acts of
future. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 10175) libel as defined in Art. 355 of the RPC
committed through a computer system or
Q: Mr. L is a newspaper reporter who writes any other similar means which may be
about news items concerning the judiciary. devised in the future.
Mr. L believed that members of the judiciary
can be criticized and exposed for the Thus, RA 10175 penalizes the publication of
prohibited acts that they commit by virtue of a libelous article on an online news platform,
the public nature of their offices. and the penalty to be imposed shall be one
(1) degree higher than that provided under
Upon receiving numerous complaints from
the RPC, pursuant to Sec. 6 thereof.
private citizens, Mr. L released a scathing
newspaper expose involving Judge G and his
Other Offenses (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10175)
alleged acts constituting graft and corruption.
Consequently, Mr. L was charged with the
1. Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of
crime of Libel.
Cybercrime – Any person who wilfully abets
or aids in the commission of any of the
In response, Mr. L contended that truth is a
offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held
valid defense in Libel and in this relation,
liable.
claimed that he was only exposing the truth
regarding Judge G's misdeeds. Further, Mr. L
2. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime –
contended that in any event, his expose on
Any person who willfully attempts to commit
Judge G is based on the complaints he
any of the offenses enumerated in this Act
received from private citizens, and as such,
shall be held liable. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10175)
should be deemed as a mere fair commentary
on a matter of public interest.
NOTE: The Supreme Court declared void for
a. Are the contentions of Mr. L tenable?
being unconstitutional the following provisions
Explain.
of R.A. No. 10175:
b. What is the effect on the criminal liability
1. Sec. 4(c)(3) which penalizes posting of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
unsolicited commercial communications; 2. An authority to take decisions on behalf of

the juridical person: Provided, That the act
2. Sec. 12 which authorizes the collection or committed falls within the scope of such
recording of traffic data in real-time; authority; or
3. Sec. 19 which authorizes the Department of 3. An authority to exercise control within the
Justice to restrict or block access to juridical person, the juridical person shall be
suspected Computer Data; held liable for a fine equivalent to at least
double the fines imposable in Sec. 7 up to a
4. Sec. 4(c)(4) with respect to persons who maximum of Ten million pesos (P10 Million).
simply receive the post and react to it; and
If the commission of any of the punishable acts
5. Sec. 5 with respect to Secs. 4(c)(2) on Child herein defined was made possible due to the lack
Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited of supervision or control by a natural person
Commercial Communications, and 4(c)(4) on referred to and described in the preceding
online Libel. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR paragraph, for the benefit of that juridical person
No. 203335, 18 Feb. 2014) by a natural person acting under its authority, the
juridical person shall be held liable for a fine
The terms “aiding or abetting” constitute broad
equivalent to at least double the fines imposable
sweep that generates chilling effect on those who
in Sec. 7 up to a maximum of Five million pesos
express themselves through cyberspace posts,
(P5 Million).
comments, and other messages. For example,
when “Google procures, stores, and indexes child
The liability imposed on the juridical person shall
pornography and facilitates the completion of
be without prejudice to the criminal liability of
transactions involving the dissemination of child
the natural person who has committed the
pornography,” does this make Google and its
offense (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 10175).
users aiders and abettors in the commission of
child pornography crimes?
SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND EXAMINATION OF
With respect to online libel, its vagueness raises COMPUTER DATA
apprehension on the part of internet users
because of its obvious chilling effect on the Where a search and seizure warrant is properly
freedom of expression, especially since the crime issued, the law enforcement authorities shall
of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the likewise have the following powers and duties.
cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as
the petitioners point out, formal crimes such as Within the time period specified in the warrant,
libel are not punishable unless consummated. to conduct interception, as defined in this Act,
and:
CORPORATE LIABILITY
1. To secure a computer system or a computer
data storage medium;
When any of the punishable acts herein defined
2. To make and retain a copy of those computer
are knowingly committed on behalf of or for the
data secured;
benefit of a juridical person, by a natural person
3. To maintain the integrity of the relevant
acting either individually or as part of an organ of
stored computer data;
the juridical person, who has a leading position
4. To conduct forensic analysis or examination
within, based on:
of the computer data storage medium; and
5. To render inaccessible or remove those
1. A power of representation of the juridical
computer data in the accessed computer or
person provided the act committed falls
computer and communications network.
within the scope of such authority;

Special Penal Laws
The law enforcement authorities may order any units and nongovernment organizations in
person who has knowledge about the functioning cybercrime prevention programs and other
of the computer system and the measures to related projects;
protect and preserve the computer data therein
to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary 6. To recommend the enactment of appropriate
information, to enable the undertaking of the laws, issuances, measures and policies;
search, seizure and examination.
7. To call upon any government agency to
Law enforcement authorities may request for an render assistance in the accomplishment of
extension of time to complete the examination of the CICC’s mandated tasks and functions; and
the computer data storage medium and to make
a return thereon but in no case for a period longer 8. To perform all other matters related to
than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the cybercrime prevention and suppression,
court. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 10175) including capacity building and such other
functions and duties as may be necessary for
Exclusionary Rule the proper implementation of R.A. 10175.
(Sec. 26, R.A. No. 10175)
Any evidence procured without a valid warrant
or beyond the authority of the same shall be Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer
inadmissible for any proceeding before any court Data
or tribunal. (Sec. 18, R.A. No. 10175)
When a computer data is prima facie found to be
CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ
COORDINATING CENTER (CICC) shall issue an order to restrict or block access to
such computer data. (Sec. 19, R.A. No. 10175)
The CICC shall have the following powers and
functions: Court having Jurisdiction over Offenses in
Violation of this Act
1. To formulate a national cybersecurity plan
and extend immediate assistance for the The RTC shall have jurisdiction over any
suppression of real-time commission of violation of the provisions of this Act including
cybercrime offenses through a computer any violation committed by a Filipino national
emergency response team (CERT); regardless of the place of commission.
2. To coordinate the preparation of appropriate Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was
and effective measures to prevent and committed within the Philippines or committed
suppress cybercrime activities as provided with the use of any computer system wholly
for in this Act; orpartly situated in the country, or when by such
commission any damage is caused to a natural or
3. To monitor cybercrime cases being bandied juridical person who, at the time the offense was
by participating law enforcement and committed, was in the Philippines.
prosecution agencies;
There shall be designated special cybercrime
4. To facilitate international cooperation on courts manned by specially trained judges to
intelligence, investigations, training and handle cybercrime cases. (Sec. 21, R.A. No. 10175)
capacity building related to cybercrime
prevention, suppression and prosecution;
5. To coordinate the support and participation

of the business sector, local government

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
Defacing or Tampering with a Serial Number

O. NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016
Secs. 3 to 4, R.A. 10883 It is the altering, changing, erasing, replacing, or
scratching of the original factory-inscribed serial
number on the motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever
NOTE: The old Anti-Carnapping law, R.A. No.
any motor vehicle is found to have a serial
6539, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, has been
number on its motor engine, engine block or
superseded by R.A. No. 10883, otherwise known
chassis which is different from that which is listed
as the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016.”
in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor
vehicles imported into the Philippines, that
Carnapping (1993, 2008 BAR)
motor vehicle shall be considered to have a
defaced or tampered with serial number. (Sec.
The taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
2(b), R.A. No. 10883)
belonging to another without the latter’s consent,
or by means of violence against or intimidation of Repainting
persons, or by using force upon things. (Sec. 3, R.A.
No. 10883) There is repainting whenever the new color of a
motor vehicle is different from its color as
PUNISHABLE ACTS registered in the Land Transportation Office
(LTO). (Sec. 2(g), R.A. No. 10883)
1. Carnapping (Sec. 3, R.A. 10883)
2. Concealment of Carnapping (Sec. 4, ibid.) Body Building
3. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers
of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks, and A job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to
Chassis (Sec. 14, ibid.) replace its entire body with a new body. (Sec.
4. Identity Transfer (Sec. 15, ibid.) 2(a), R.A. 10883)
5. Transfer of Vehicle Plate without Securing
Remodeling
the Proper Authority from the Land
Transportation Office (LTO) (Sec. 16, ibid.)
The introduction of some changes in the shape or
6. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts Taken from
form of the body of the motor vehicle. (Sec. 2(h),
a Carnapped Vehicle (Sec. 17, ibid.)
R.A. No. 10883)
Motor Vehicle
Dismantling
Any vehicle propelled by any power other than The tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part,
muscular power using the public highways, of a motor vehicle. (Sec. 2 (c), R.A. No. 10883)
except road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, Overhauling
fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not
used on public highways, vehicles, which run only The cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a
on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and motor vehicle by separating the motor engine
traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.
agricultural purposes. (Sec. 2(e), R.A. No. 10883) (Sec. 2(f), R.A. No. 10883)
NOTE: Trailers having any number of wheels, Commission of Carnapping

when propelled or intended to be propelled by
attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified 1. When carnapping is committed WITH
as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. violence against or intimidation of persons,
(Sec. 2(e), R.A. No. 10883) or force upon things; or

Special Penal Laws
Illustration: Pedro is about to leave from No. 187044, 14 Sept. 2011)

UST. Upon boarding his car, he was poked by
X with a gun. X, subsequently, took Pedro’s Unlawful Taking
car.
In People v. Bustinera, the Supreme Court defined
2. When carnapping is committed WITHOUT unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, as the taking
violence against or intimidation of persons, of the motor vehicle without the consent of the
or force upon things. owner, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
Illustration: Pedro, a law student, parked his things. It is deemed complete from the moment
car somewhere. While attending his Criminal the offender gains possession of the thing, even if
2 class, Pedro’s car was taken. he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
(People v. Lagat, supra)
NOTE: In either case, the taking is always
unlawful from the beginning. Presumption of Unlawfully Taking of the
Motor Vehicle
Even if the car was taken by means of violence or
intimidation, the crime is carnapping and not In Litton Mills, Inc. v. Sales, we said that for such
robbery. (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, 08 presumption to arise, it must be proven that:
June 2004)
a. The property was stolen;
Q: Pedro was hired as a taxi driver under the b. It was committed recently;
boundary system. One day, Pedro failed to c. That the stolen property was found in the
return the taxi since he was short of the possession of the accused; and
boundary fee. Is Pedro liable for carnapping? d. The accused is unable to explain his
possession satisfactorily. (People v. Lagat,
A: YES. While the nature of Pedro’s possession of supra)
the taxi was initially lawful as he was hired as a
taxi driver and was entrusted possession thereof, Intent to Gain
his act of not returning it to its owner
transformed the character of the possession into In Bustinera, the Court elucidated that intent to
an unlawful one. (People v. Bustinera, supra) gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act,
presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor
NOTE: Qualified theft of a motor vehicle is the vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important
crime if only the material or physical possession consideration is the intent to gain. The term
was yielded to the offender; otherwise, if juridical “gain” is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit
possession was also yielded, the crime is estafa. but also includes the benefit which in any other
sense may be derived or expected from the act
Elements of Carnapping which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the
thing which was taken without the owner’s
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; consent constitutes gain. (People v. Lagat, supra)
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other
than the offender himself; REGISTRATION
3. That the taking is without the consent of the
owner thereof; Requirement of Registration
4. That the taking was committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, 1. Registration of motor vehicle engine,
or by using force upon things; and engine block and chassis.
5. That the offender intends to gain from the
taking of the vehicle. (People v. Lagat, G.R. NOTE: Within one (1) year after the approval

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
of this Act, every owner or possessor of motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or
unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof body until it is numbered by the LTO; Provided,
in knock down condition shall register with that a PNP clearance shall be required prior to
the LTO the following: engraving the engine or chassis number. (Sec. 9,
R.A. No. 10883)
a. Motor vehicle engine
b. Engine block Duty of Importers, Distributors, and Sellers
c. Chassis
Any person engaged in the importation,
2. Registration of sale, transfer, conveyance, distribution, and buying and selling of motor
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks,
vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. chassis or body, shall:
NOTE: Within twenty (20) working days 1. Keep a permanent record of his stocks,
upon purchase/acquisition of a motor stating therein:
vehicle and substitution or replacement of a a. Their type, make, and serial numbers;
motor vehicle engine, engine block or and
chassis, every sale, transfer, conveyance of a b. The names and addresses of the
motor vehicle, substitution or replacement of persons from whom they were
a motor vehicle engine, engine block or acquired; and
chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered c. The names and addresses of the
with the LTO. persons to whom they were sold
2. Render an accurate monthly report of his

Effect if the Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine
transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.
Blocks and Chassis are NOT Registered
(Sec. 10, R.A. No. 10883)
1. It shall be considered as:
Requirement of Clearance and Permit
a. Untaxed importation;
b. Coming from an illegal source;
1. For assembly or rebuilding of motor
c. Carnapped vehicle.
vehicles – Any person who shall undertake to
2. It shall be confiscated in favor of the
assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or
Government.
rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first
Duty of Collector of Customs secure a certificate of clearance from the
Philippine National Police (PNP).
The Collector of Customs of a principal port of
NOTE: No such permit shall be issued unless
entry where an imported motor vehicle, motor
the applicant shall present a statement under
vehicle engine, engine block chassis or body is
oath containing the type, make, and serial
unloaded, shall, within seven (7) days after the
numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if
arrival of the imported motor vehicle or any of its
any, and the complete list of the spare parts
parts enumerated herein, report the shipment to
of the motor vehicle to be assembled or
the LTO, specifying the make, type, and serial
rebuilt together with the names and
numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle, motor
addresses of the sources thereof.
vehicle engine, engine block and chassis or body
and stating the names and addresses of the owner
In the case of motor vehicle engines to be
or consignee thereof.
mounted on motor boats, motor bancas and
other light water vessels, the applicant shall
If the motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis
secure a permit from the Philippine National
or body does not bear any serial number, the
Police, which office shall in turn furnish the
Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the

Special Penal Laws
Office the pertinent data concerning the

motor vehicle engines including their type, P. SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
make and serial numbers. (Sec. 12, R.A. No. AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION, AND
10883) DISCRIMINATION ACT
Secs. 3(a), 5, and 10, R.A. No. 7610
2. For shipment of motor vehicles, motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or
body – Any person who shall undertake to
NOTE: See also discussion on R.A. No. 7610 under
ship motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines,
Title VIII: Crimes against Persons – page 303-310.
engine blocks, chassis or body shall first
secure a certificate of clearance from the
Children as understood under R.A. 7610
PNP.
NOTE: The PPA shall not allow the loading of Children refer to:
motor vehicles in all interisland and international 1. Persons below eighteen (18) years of age; or
shipping vessels without a motor vehicle 2. Those over but are unable to fully take care
clearance from the PNP, except cargo trucks and of themselves or protect themselves from
other trucks carrying goods. Land Transportation abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)- discrimination because of a physical or
accredited public utility vehicles (PUV) and other mental disability or condition. (Sec. 3(a),
motor vehicles carrying foodstuff and dry goods. R.A. No. 7610)
The Philippine Ports Authority shall, within seven Child Abuse (2004 BAR)
(7) days upon boarding, submit a report to the
Philippine National Police of all motor vehicles The maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
loaded on board the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessell child which includes any of the following:
or ship for interisland and international
1. Psychological and physical abuse, neglect,
shipment. (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 10883)
cruelty, sexual abuse, and emotional
Convicted Foreign Nationals Deported After maltreatment; (2002, 2005 BAR)
Service of Sentence
2. Any act by deeds or words which debases,
Foreign nationals convicted under this Act shall degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
be deported immediately after service of dignity of a child as a human being;
sentence without further proceedings by the
3. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs
Bureau of Immigration. (Sec. 18, R.A. No. 10883)
for survival, such as food and shelter; or
PENALTIES
4. Failure to immediately give medical
1. If committed without violence against or treatment to an injured child resulting in
intimidation of persons – twenty (20) years serious impairment of his growth and
and one (1) day to thirty (30) years development or in his permanent incapacity
or death. (Sec. 3(b), R.A. No. 7610) (2002
2. If committed with violence or intimidation BAR)
of persons, or by force upon things – thirty
(30) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years Q: When Garingarao touched the breasts and
private parts of the minor, AAA, is it correct to
3. If committed and in the course thereof, the say that the accused should have been
owner, driver, or the occupant of the car is convicted only of acts of lasciviousness and
killed or raped – life imprisonment. not of violation of R.A. No. 7610 since the
incident happened only once?

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
A: NO. The Court has already ruled that it is Persons Liable under Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7610
inconsequential that sexual abuse under R.A. No.
7610 occurred only once. Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or induce child prostitution;
not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only 2. Those who commit any act of sexual
once is enough to hold Garingarao liable for acts intercourse or lascivious conduct with child
of lasciviousness under R.A. No. 7610. exploited in prostitution or subject to other
(Garingarao v. People, G.R. No. 192760, 20 July sexual abuse; and
2011) 3. Any person who shall derive any profit or
advantage therefrom, whether as manager or
PUNISHABLE ACTS owner of the establishment where the
prostitution takes place.
1. Child prostitution and other sexual abuse
Q: AA asked BB to remove her shirt otherwise
(Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7610);
he would tell her friends that she has
2. Attempt to commit child prostitution (Sec. 6,
contraceptive pills. He then mashed her
ibid.);
breast, which prompted BB to push him out of
3. Child trafficking (Sec. 7, ibid.);
her room. AA was convicted of Acts of
4. Attempt to commit child trafficking (Sec. 8,
Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC in
ibid.);
RTC. On the Court of Appeals, the judgment
5. Obscene publications and indecent shows
was modified and he was convicted of Section
(Sec. 9, ibid.);
5 (b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610. Is it proper?
6. Other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or
exploitation and other conditions
A: YES. For a conviction under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III
prejudicial to the child’s development (Sec.
of R.A. No. 7610, there must be confluence of the
10, ibid.);
following requisites, thus: (1) The accused
7. Establishments or enterprises promoting,
commits the act of sexual intercourse or
facilitating, or conducting activities
lascivious conduct; (2) The said act is performed
constituting child prostitution and other
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
sexual abuse, child trafficking, obscene
to other sexual abuse; and (3) The child, whether
publications and indecent shows, and other
male or female, is below 18 years of age. While
acts of abuse (Sec. 11, ibid.);
the Information against petitioner made no
8. Employment of children (Sec. 12, ibid.);
particular mention of Sec. 5 (b), Art. III of R.A. No.
9. Discrimination of children of indigenous
7610, this omission is not fatal to petitioner's
cultural communities (Sec. 20, ibid.); and
right to be informed of the nature and cause of
10. Confidentiality. (Sec. 29, ibid.)
accusation against him. What controls are the
actual facts recited in the Information as
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
constituting the offense charged, not its caption
or designation. (Carbonell v. People, G.R. No.
Children, whether male or female, who for
246702, 28 Apr. 2021)
money, profit, or any other consideration or due
to the coercion or influence of any adult,
Q: Interviewed for a newspaper, a former
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse
beauty queen revealed that when she was 16
or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
years old, she had her first sexual intercourse
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
with her ex-boyfriend, who was then 28 years
(Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7610)
old. In her narration, she said that she did not
know what she was doing and noted that her
NOTE: R.A. No. 7610 recognizes the existence of
ex-boyfriend of a more advanced age misled
a male prostitute as a victim and not just as an
her into doing what he wanted. She added
offender.
that, at certain points during the encounter,

Special Penal Laws
she repeatedly said no but her ex-boyfriend No. 210161, 10 Jan. 2018)
was just too strong for her. The ex-boyfriend
left her shortly thereafter. Was there a crime Here, regardless whether the former beauty
committed by the ex-boyfriend? Explain queen gave or did not give her consent to the
briefly. (2020-21 BAR) sexual intercourse, the adult ex-boyfriend having
sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old child
A: YES, the ex-boyfriend is liable for violation of defined under the law is liable for committing
R.A. 7610. Consent is immaterial in cases sexual abuse under R.A. 7610.
involving sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610
where the offended party is below 12 years of Q: One evening in Sept. 2002, AAA, then 12
age. However, consent is material when the years old, drank alcoholic beverages with
offended party is a child, who is 12 years old or Udang's children, her neighbors Betty Udang
above. This punishes sexual intercourse or and Bienvinido Udang, Jr. at their house. After
lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited drinking, AAA became intoxicated. Udang
in prostitution but also with a child subjected to carried her into a dark room where he laid
other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation her on the bed, undressed her, and started
where a child is abused for profit but also one in kissing her. Udang then went on top of AAA
which a child, through coercion, intimidation or and inserted his penis into her vagina. After
influence, engages in sexual intercourse or the incident, Udang went out to report for
lascivious conduct. (People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. duty as barangay tanod while AAA remained
227363, 12 March 2019) inside his house as she was still too weak to
move.
Under the given facts, the more advanced age of
the ex-boyfriend over the victim who was only 16 One (1) year and three (3) months after, in
years old, a child within the definition of the law, Dec. 2003, AAA, who by then was already 13
constitutes influence over the latter and the fact years old, again had some drinks at Udang's
that the victim did not know what she was doing house. This time, she was with Bienvinido, Jr.
and repeatedly said no during their enocounters and Udang himself. When AAA felt sleepy, she
show absence of consent. The ex-boyfriend then went into one (1) of the rooms inside the
may be held liable for violation of R.A. No. 7610. house. While AAA was lying in bed, Udang,
who had followed her into the room, went on
Alternative Answer: YES, the ex-boyfriend is top of her, undressed her, and inserted his
liable for violation of R.A. 7610. For purposes of penis into her vagina until he ejaculated. After
sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child having sexual intercourse with AAA, Udang
abuse cases under R.A. 7610, the sweetheart went out to report for duty as barangay tanod.
defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in AAA, too tired, remained lying in bed.
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse Bienvinido claims that AAA welcomed his
with another person. The language of the law is kisses and touches and consented to have
clear: it seeks to punish those who commit the act sexual intercourse with him. They engaged in
of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a these acts out of mutual love and affection
child exploited in prostitution or subejcted to (sweetheart theory). Is Bienvinido Udang, Sr.
other sexual abuse. Unlike rape, therefore, liable for two (2) counts of sexual abuse under
consent is immaterial in cases involving violation Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or under Art. 266-A
of Sec. 5, Art. III or R.A. 7610. The mere act of (1) of the RPC?
having sexual intercourse or committing
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in A: The trial court was wrong in ruling that
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse charging Udang with both rape, under under Art.
constitutes the offense. It is malum prohibitum, an 266-A(1) of the RPC, and sexual abuse under Sec.
evil that is proscribed. (People v. Udang, Sr., G.R. 5(b), of R.A. No. 7610, would violate his right

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
against double jeopardy. b. Inducing a person to be a client of a

child prostitute by means of written or
The “force, threat or intimidation” or deprivation oral advertisements or other similar
of reason or unconsciousness elements under means;
Art. 266-A (1) is not the same as the “coercion or c. Taking advantage of influence or
influence” required under the Sec. 5 (b), R.A. relationship to procure a child as
7610. Consent is immaterial in the crime of sexual prostitute;
abuse because the mere act of having sexual d. Threatening or using violence towards
intercourse with a child exploited in prostitution a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
or subjected to sexual abuse is already e. Giving monetary consideration goods
punishable by the law. However, consent or other pecuniary benefit to a child
exonerates an accused from a rape charge. with intent to engage such child in
(People v. Udang, G.R. No. 210161, 10 Jan. 10, prostitution.
2018)
2. Those who commit the act of sexual
NOTE: The ruling in the case of People v. Udang as intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
regards the non-application of double jeopardy exploited in prostitution or subject to other
overturned the 2009 People v. Abay ruling sexual abuse; Provided, that when the victim
wherein the Supreme Court ruled that charging is under twelve (12) years of age, the
an accused with both rape, under Art. 266-A (1) perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Art.
of the RPC, and sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b), of 335, par. 3, for rape and Art. 336 of the RPC,
R.A. 7610 would constitute a violation of the right for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case
of the accused against double jeopardy. may be; and
Non-applicability of Sweetheart Theory 3. Those who derive profit or advantage

therefrom, whether as manager or owner of
In the case of People v. Udang (supra), the the establishment where the prostitution
sweetheart theory applies in acts of takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort,
lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed place of entertainment or establishment
against or without the consent of the victim. It serving as a cover or which engages in
operates on the theory that the sexual act was prostitution in addition to the activity for
consensual. It requires proof that the accused and which the license has been issued to said
the victim were lovers and that she consented to establishment. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7610)
the sexual relations. For purposes of sexual
intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse Q: CCC, AAA's uncle, filed a complaint for
cases under R.A. No. 7610, the sweetheart malicious mischief against Torres, who
defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in allegedly caused damage to his multicab. AAA
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse witnessed the alleged incident and was
cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse brought by CCC to testify. At the barangay,
with another person. CCC, CCC’s wife and AAA were waiting for the
conciliation proceedings to begin when they
Persons Liable for Child Prostitution and chanced upon Torres. CCC's wife, persuaded
Other Sexual Abuse Torres to attend the proceedings to answer
for his liability which he vehemently denied.
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution which include, but In the middle of the brewing argument, AAA
are not limited to the following: suddenly interjected that Torres damaged
CCC's multicab and accused him of stealing
a. Acting as a procurer of a child CCC's fish nets. Torres told AAA not to pry in
prostitute; the affairs of adults and warned AAA that he

Special Penal Laws
would whip him if he did not stop. However, or any other hidden or secluded area under
AAA refused and continued the accusations. circumstances which would lead a
Infuriated, Torres whipped AAA on the neck reasonable person to believe that the child is
using a wet t-shirt three times causing the about to be exploited in prostitution and
latter to fall down from the stairs. CCC came to other sexual abuse.
AAA’s defense and punched Torres. They
engaged in a fistfight until they were 2. Any person is receiving services from a child
separated by Brgy. Captain. in a sauna, parlor or bath, massage clinic,
health club and other similar
Based on the physical examination, AAA establishments. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 7610)
sustained a contusion. The RTC and CA
convicted Torres guilty of Other Acts of Child Persons Liable for Child Trafficking
Abuse under Sec 10, par A of R.A. 7610. Is
Torres liable under Other Acts of Child Abuse Any person who shall engage in trading and
under Sec. 10, par. A of R.A. No. 7610? dealing with children including, but not limited
to, the act of buying and selling of a child for
A: YES. Torres is liable under Other Acts of Child money, or for any other consideration, or barter.
Abuse under Sec. 10, par. A of R.A. 7610. The (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 7610)
victim, AAA, was a child when the incident
occurred. Therefore, AAA is entitled to protection Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking
under R.A. No. 7610 the primary purpose of
which has been defined by previous There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
jurisprudence as a measure geared towards the
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign
implementation of a national comprehensive
country without valid reason therefor and
program for the survival of the most vulnerable
without clearance issued by the DSWD or
members of the population, the Filipino children,
written permit or justification from the
in keeping with the Constitutional mandate
child's parents or legal guardian;
under Art. XV, Sec. 3, par. 2, that "The State shall
defend the right of the children to assistance,
2. When a person, agency, establishment or
including proper care and nutrition, and special
child-caring institution recruits women or
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
couples to bear children for the purpose of
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
child trafficking;
prejudicial to their development."
3. When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or
Although it is true that not every instance of
employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar
laying of hands on the child constitutes child
or any other person simulates birth for the
abuse, petitioner's intention to debase, degrade,
purpose of child trafficking; or
and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child can be inferred from the manner in which
4. When a person engages in the act of finding
he committed the act complained of. (Torres v.
children among low-income families,
People, G.R. No. 206627, 18 Jan. 2017)
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care centers,
or other child-caring institutions who can be
Instances when There is an Attempt to
offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
Commit Child Prostitution
(Sec. 8, R.A. No. 7610)
1. Any person who, not being a relative of a
Persons Liable for Obscene Publications and
child, is found alone with the said child
Indecent Shows
inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn,
hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade,
other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
induce, or coerce a child to perform in obscene or legal duty.” (Disclaimer: R.A. No. 11648 is
exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or not covered under the 2022 Bar Syllabus
in video, or model in obscene publications or for Criminal Law)
pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the
said materials. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 7610) 3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer
a minor to any one prohibited by this Act to
Persons Liable for Other Acts of Neglect, keep or have in his company a minor as
Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other provided in the preceding paragraph;
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's
Development 4. Any person, owner, manager or one
entrusted with the operation of any public or
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts private place of accommodation, whether for
of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be occupancy, food, drink or otherwise,
responsible for other conditions prejudicial including residential places, who allows any
to the child's development; person to take along with him to such place
or places any minor herein described; or
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his
company a minor, twelve (12) years or under 5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or
or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in intimidate a street child or any other child to:
any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer
joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, a. Beg or use begging as a means of living;
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other b. Act as conduit or middlemen in drug
tourist resort or similar places. Provided, that trafficking or pushing; or
this provision shall not apply to any person c. Conduct any illegal activities. (Sec. 10,
who is related within the fourth degree of R.A. No. 7610)
consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition Sanctions of Establishments or Enterprises
or acts in the performance of a social, moral
or legal duty; All establishments and enterprises which
promote or facilitate child prostitution and other
NOTE: Sec. 10(b) of R.A. No. 7610 has been sexual abuse, child trafficking, obscene
amended by R.A. No. 11648 which was publications and indecent shows, and other acts
signed into law on March 4, 2022. Sec. 3, R.A. of abuse shall be immediately closed and their
No. 11648 provides: authority or license to operate cancelled, without
prejudice to the owner or manager thereof being
"(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his prosecuted under this Act and/or the RPC, as
company a minor sixteen (16) years of age or amended, or special laws. (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 7610)
under or who is ten (10) years or more his
junior in any public or private place, hotel, NOTE: An establishment shall be deemed to
motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, promote or facilitate child prostitution and other
pension house, sauna or massage parlor, sexual abuse, child trafficking, obscene
beach, and/or other tourist or similar places publications and indecent shows, and other acts
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its of abuse if the acts constituting the same occur in
maximum period and a fine of not less that the premises of said establishment. (Sec. 11, R.A.
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00): Provided, No. 7610)
That this provision shall not apply to any
person who is related within fourth degree of Employment of Children
consanguinity or affinity or any blood
recognized by law, local custom and tradition GR: No child below fifteen (15) years of age may
or acts in the performance of a social, moral be employed.

Special Penal Laws
XPNs: Prohibition on the Employment of Children in

1. When a child works directly under the sole Certain Advertisements
responsibility of his parents or legal
guardian and where only members of the No person shall employ child models in all
employer's family are employed: Provided, commercials or advertisements promoting:
however, that his employment neither
endangers his life, safety and health and 1. Alcoholic beverages;
morals, nor impairs his normal 2. Intoxicating drinks;
development: Provided, further, That the 3. Tobacco and its byproducts; and
parent or legal guardian shall provide the 4. Violence. (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 7610)
said minor child with the prescribed
primary and/or secondary education; or Discrimination of Children of Indigenous
Cultural Communities
2. When a child's employment or participation
Children of indigenous cultural communities
in public entertainment or information
shall not be subjected to any and all forms of
through cinema, theater, radio or television
discrimination. (Sec. 20, R.A. No. 7610)
is essential: Provided, the employment
contract concluded by the child's parent or
Who may File a Complaint
guardian, with the express agreement of the
child concerned, if possible, and the
1. Offended party;
approval of the DOLE: Provided, that the
2. Parents or guardians;
following requirements in all instances are
3. Ascendant or collateral relative within the
strictly complied with:
third degree of consanguinity;
4. Officer, social worker or representative of a
a. The employer shall ensure the
licensed child-caring institution;
protection, health, safety and morals of
5. Officer or social worker of the DSWD;
the child;
6. Barangay chairman; or
7. At least three (3) concerned responsible
b. The employer shall institute measures
citizens where the violation occurred.
to prevent the child's exploitation or
discrimination taking into account the “Comprehensive program against child abuse,
system and level of remuneration, and exploitation and discrimination”
the duration and arrangement of
working time; and This refers to the coordinated program of
services and facilities to protect children against:
c. The employer shall formulate and
implement, subject to the approval and 1. Child Prostitution and other sexual abuse;
supervision of competent authorities, a 2. Child trafficking;
continuing program for training and 3. Obscene publications and indecent shows;
skill acquisition of the child. (Sec. 12, 4. Other acts of abuses; and
R.A. No. 7610) 5. Circumstances which threaten or endanger
the survival and normal development of
NOTE: In the above exceptional cases where any children. (Sec. 3(d), R.A. No. 7610)
such child may be employed, the employer shall
first secure, before engaging such child, a work
permit from the DOLE which shall ensure
observance of the above requirement. (Sec. 12,
R.A. No. 7610)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Criminal Law
rest the conflicting resolutions of the Secretary of

Q. SWINDLING BY SYNDICATE Justice and more importantly, determine the
P.D. No. 1689 liability, if any, of petitioner BB.
The elements of Syndicated Estafa are as follows:

(a) Estafa or Other Forms of Swindling, as defined
A special law enacted for the specific purpose of
in Arts. 315 and 316 of the RPC, is committed; (b)
defining syndicated estafa and imposing a
the Estafa or Swindling is committed by a
specific penalty for the commission of the said
syndicate of five [5] or more persons; and, (c)
offense; no manifest intent to repeal or alter the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of
penalty for syndicated estafa. (People v. Mateo,
moneys contributed by stockholders, or
G.R. No. 210612, 09 Oct. 2017)
members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang
nayon[s]," or farmers' association, or of funds
Elements (F-E-M)
solicited by corporations/associations from the
general public.
1. Estafa or other forms of swindling as defined
in Arts. 315 and 316 of the RPC is committed; The Court finds no existing syndicate in which BB
and the other accused had any participation. As
2. The estafa or swindling is committed by a found by the DOJ Secretary, Atty. AA acted on his
syndicate of Five (5) or more persons; and own, without the participation or involvement of
BB or the other accused. Atty. AA was never
3. Defraudation results in the Misappropriation authorized by the ILC shareholders, i.e., BB and
of moneys contributed by stockholders, or the other accused, to transact with CC. There is
members of rural banks, cooperatives, simply no proof that all of the accused, including
“samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ BB, acted through ILC in defrauding CC. (Debuque
associations, or of funds solicited by v. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, 10 May 2021)
corporations/associations from the general
public. (People v. Timbayan and Puerto, G.R. Syndicate; When Considered (5-In-Fo)
No. 209655-60, 14 Jan. 2015)
1. Purported swindlers must at least be five (5)
Q: Atty. AA, BB and other accused were in number;
charged for syndicated estafa after the
Assistant City Prosecutor found probable 2. They must have Formed or managed a rural
cause for alleged defrauding CC. Atty AA, BB bank, cooperative, “samahang nayon,”
and the other accused elevated the finding to farmer’s association or any other
the DOJ Secretary who after flip-flopping corporation or association that solicits funds
many times ruled that only Atty. AA is liable from the general public; or
for estafa. Meanwhile, an Information for
Syndicated Estafa was filed before the RTC 3. They formed or managed such association
which was dismissed pursuant to a demurrer with the Intention of carrying out an
to evidence. Will the case for syndicated unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
estafa prosper? enterprise, or scheme. (Remo v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 192925, 09 Dec. 2016)
A: NO. It has become moot considering the
dismissal by the RTC of the case against PENALTY
petitioner BB based on a demurrer to evidence
which effectively amounted to an acquittal, and in Any person or persons who shall commit estafa
view of the death of the principal accused Atty. or other forms of swindling as defined in Arts.
AA. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court deem it 315 and 316 of the RPC, as amended, shall be
necessary to rule on the merits if only to lay to punished by life imprisonment to death if the

Special Penal Laws
swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate still under the same P.D. 1689 with a lower
consisting of five or more persons formed with penalty than syndicated estafa.
the intention of carrying out the unlawful or
illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and
the defraudation results in the misappropriation

of moneys contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperatives,
“samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ associations, or
of funds solicited by corporations/ associations
from the general public.
When not committed by a syndicate as above

defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of
the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos. (Sec. 1, P.D.
1689)
Q: The president, treasurer, and secretary of

ABC Corporation were charged with
syndicated estafa under the following
information: That on or about the 1st week of
Jan. 2010, the above-named accused,
conspired with one another to defraud Virna,
Lana, Deborah, and several other persons by
falsely or fraudulently pretending or
representing a transaction or series of
transactions. The accused made it appear that
they were in a legitimate business of foreign
exchange trading successively or
simultaneously operating under the name
and style of ABC Corporation and DEF
Management Philippines. The said
corporations are not licensed nor authorized
to engage in foreign exchange trading. They
induced and succeeded in inducing
complainants and several other persons to
give and deliver the amount of at least
P20,000,000. Will the case for syndicated
estafa prosper? Explain. (2010 BAR)
A: NO. A case for syndicated estafa will not

prosper because a syndicate for such crime under
P.D. 1689 must be comprised of five (5) or more
persons committing the estafa or other forms of
swindling defined in Arts. 315 and 316 of the
RPC; whereas the case given involved only three
(3) accused who are alleged to have conspired in
the commission of the swindling. But because the
amount defrauded exceeds P100,000, the case is

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Practical Exercises
IV. PRACTICAL EXERCISES
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ___________ . . . . ) S.S.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, [NAME] _______________, of legal age, Filipino, with assistance of counsel, and resident of [ADDRESS]
_______________, do hereby state under oath that:
1. I am [STATE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPLAINANT-AFFIANT]

____________________________.
2. I accuse and hereby charge [NAME] __________________, residing at [ADDRESS]

_______________________, of violating Article [ARTICLE NUMBER] _________________ of the Revised Penal Code
[STATE CRIME COMMITTED], committed against me when he publicly, maliciously and deliberately [STATE
ACTS COMMITTED CONSTITUTING THE CRIME] __________________________.
3. Prior resort to the Barangay conciliation system proved fruitless as [STATE REASONS FOR
FAILURE OF BARANGAY CONCILIATION] _____________________________. Consequently, a “Certification to File
Action” was issued by the Barangay Chairperson, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX “A”.
4. [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME]

_________________________.
5. [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME]

_________________________.
6. [STATE DAMAGES AND AMOUNTS THEREOF SOUGHT, AND REASONS FOR SEEKING
SUCH] _________________________.
[DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IF ANY]
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Complaint-Affidavit on [DATE]

_________________________.
[SIGNATURE]
[NAME] ______________
Complainant-Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this _________ day of [MONTH] ______ [YEAR] __________.

Criminal Law
[SIGNATURE]
Investigating Prosecutor
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND AM SATISFIED THAT HE
VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND UNDERSTOOD HIS AFFIDAVIT.
[SIGNATURE]

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Practical Exercises
INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASES
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH ________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. _____________
- versus - For: Qualified Theft
[NAME OF THE ACCUSED],

Accused.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x
INFORMATION
The Undersigned accuses [NAME OF THE ACCUSED] of the crime of [ALLEGED CRIME],
committed as follows:
That on or about [DATE COMMITTED], in the [PLACE COMMITTED] and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, a person of legal age, residing at [RESIDENCE ADDRESS OF THE
ACCUSED], and at the time of the commission of the crime [ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ALLEGED].
CONTRARY TO LAW.
[NAME OF PROSECUTOR]
Assistant City Prosecutor
[SIGNATURE]
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND AM SATISFIED
THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND UNDERSTOOD HIS AFFIDAVIT.
[SIGNATURE]
BAIL RECOMMENDED:

Criminal Law
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

City/Municipality of ________ . . . . . .) S.S.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
Re: I.S. No. ____________
I, [NAME] _______________, of legal age, with assistance of counsel, do hereby state under oath that:
1. I am [STATE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPLAINANT-AFFIANT]

____________________________.
2. I recently learned that I have been made a respondent in I.S. No. __________________, a charge for
[CRIME CHARGED] ______________, filed by a certain [NAME] ______________ on [DATE] ________________ before the
Office of the City Prosecutor for [CITY] ________________.
3. The charge is based on [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGEDLY SURROUNDING THE CRIME

CHARGED] _______________________________________.
4. There is no truth to the allegations in [NAME OF COMPLAINANT]’s complaint. There is no factual

nor legal basis to charge me with [CRIME CHARGED] ______________. The Complaint must be dismissed. To
rebut and contradict [NAME OF COMPLAINANT]’s malicious lies, I set forth the true circumstances leading
to the transaction below:
4.1. [STATE FACTS TO SHOW THAT NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED]

____________________________________________.
5. [STATE FACTS TO SHOW THAT NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED]

______________________________________________________.
[DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IF ANY]
6. For this reason, it is certainly incomprehensible that I should stand accused of [CRIME
CHARGED] _________ by [Mr./Ms. NAME OF COMPLAINANT] _____________________. [STATE OTHER REASONS
FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY] _____________________________________.
7. Considering the foregoing, I respectfully submit that there is no prima facie basis to conclude
that the crime of [CRIME CHARGED] _____________________ or that any crime at all has been committed. The
Complaint against me should, thus, be dismissed.
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Statement on [DATE] ________________.
[SIGNATURE]
[NAME] ______________
Affiant

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Practical Exercises
[SIGNATURE]
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND AM SATISFIED
THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND UNDERSTOOD HIS AFFIDAVIT.
[SIGNATURE]

Criminal Law
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

CITY OF ________ ) S.S.
I, , of legal age, Filipino, after having been duly sworn in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the private complainant in Criminal Case No/s.___________, entitled “People of the Philippines
vs. “ for pending before the ___________________.
2. After a careful deliberation of the attending circumstances surrounding the incident, I have
concluded that the precipitate filing of the case arose from a misunderstanding between me and
the accused.
3. “Issues” between me and the accused have been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties
concerned. For this reason, I am no longer interested in pursuing the civil aspect of this case.
Further, I will not be in any position to testify against the accused, especially on the latter’s guilt for
which the accused was hastily charged in court.
4. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truthfulness and veracity of the foregoing facts.
5. I am executing this affidavit of my own free will and volition for the purpose of seeking the dismissal
of Criminal Case No/s.__________, I hereby waive whatever rights and claims I may have in connection
with the subject matter of the above-mentioned case against __________________.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of ______, in ________________,
Philippines.
Affiant

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Practical Exercises
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH ________

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. __________________ Of
-versus- (State nature of the offense)
[NAME OF THE ACCUSED],

Accused.
x---------------------------------x
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
The UNDERSIGNED [NAME OF APPLICANT] after having been duly sworn, states:
1. That [Name of the person to be searched], who may be found at [Describe premises]
is in possession or has in his control [Name property subject of the offense; or stolen
or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or used or intended to be
used as the means of committing an offense] which he is keeping and concealing in
premises above described. [Cancel description not applicable.]
2. That a search warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to take possession
and bring to this court the following described property: [Give a complete and detailed
description of the property to be seized].
WHEREFORE, the undersigned prays this Honorable Court to issue a search warrant
authorizing any agent of the law to search the premises above described and to seize and surrender
to this Honorable Court the personal property mentioned to be dealt with as the law directs.
……………………………………………………………………………, Philippines, ………………..

20………………………..
……………..………………………………………., Applicant

Criminal Law
SEARCH WARRANT

MAKATI CITY, BRANCH ___________

Plaintiff,
-versus- Criminal Case No. ______________ Of

(State nature of the offense)
AMANDA DELA CRUZ,
Accused.
x --------------------------------x
To Any Peace Officer:
Greetings:
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath [Name of applicant]
and his witness [Name of witness] that there is probable cause to believe that [Describe the act charged]
has been committed or is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe
that [Name of person or persons to be searched] has in his possession or control in [Describe premises]
in [Name of street], district of ……………………. [Name property subject of the offense; or stolen or
embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or used or intended to be used as the means
of committing an offense which should be seized and brought to the undersigned.] [Cancel
description not applicable.]
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time in the day (or night) of the
premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the following personal property, to
wit: (Give a complete and detailed description of the property to be seized) and bring said property to
the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.
Witness my hand this ………………. day of ……………….. 20……………
………………………………………………………………., Judge

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Practical Exercises
ORDER OF ARREST

MAKATI CITY, BRANCH ____________
(Title)
To Any Lawful Officer:
You are hereby commanded to arrest [NAME OF THE ACCUSED], who is said to be at [Name of
place where accused resides] and who stands charged before me of the crime of [STATE THE CRIME]
and to bring him before me as soon as possible to be dealt with as the Rules of Court direct.
…………………………………………..
Judge, Regional Trial Court
of ……………………………………….
The bond for the release of the accused in this case is fixed at P …… which may be furnished by the
said accused either by depositing the amount in the office of the local municipal treasurer who should
transmit the same to this court or by furnishing a personal bond subscribed by two solvent sureties whose
solvency may be shown by their land tax receipts. The officers making his arrest are hereby authorized to
accept either of said bond.
…………………………………………..
Judge, Regional Trial Court
of ……………………………………….


Criminal Law - 2022 Ust Golden Notes (Confidential)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law - 2022 Ust Golden Notes (Confidential)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law - 2022 Ust Golden Notes (Confidential)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW (1734)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES

Address: Academics Committee

Tel. No: (02) 8731-4027

Released in the Philippines, 2022.

ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-2022

SARAH ANGELA D. EVA CHAIRPERSON

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2022

CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEE 2022

RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO ASST. HEAD, CRIMINAL LAW 1

ATTY. VINS PLATON

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

LENY G. GADIANA, R.G.C.

OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................................ 1

A. Crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations ......................................................................160

III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

IV. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

1 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

a crime that is malum prohibitum. The law a. GENERALITY

1. Generality A Consul is NOT Entitled to the Privileges and

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 2

3 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

citizenship. The fact that the vessel was registered – page 5)

GR: Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be

The law enforced at the time of the commission of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 4

Under this rule, where the evidence on an issue of

4. RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS

GR: Penal laws are applied prospectively.

XPNs: When retrospective application will be

1. The offender is NOT a habitual delinquent

Reason for the Exception: The sovereign, in

Sec. 68 of R.A. No. 9344 allows the retroactive

5 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

wrongful acts result from imprudence,

Intentional Felony vs. Culpable Felony (1999,

Felonies DOLO CULPA

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 6

Requisites of Culpa (Ne-F-In) Examples:

Imprudence Categories of Intent in Criminal Law

Deficiency in action or lack of skill, or failure to 1. General Criminal Intent – It is presumed

Negligence vs. Imprudence NOTE: In felonies by means of dolo, the third

7 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 8

9 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

NOTE: It may give rise to a complex crime

NOTE: There are only two (2) persons

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 10

11 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Proximate Cause Even if other causes cooperated in producing the

1. The direct, natural, and logical cause; Efficient Intervening Cause

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 12

body using a sharpened bamboo stick. When homicide against A. Is A liable?