A.

English Rule and french Rule

THE ENGLISH RULE IN CRIMINAL LAW
One of the basic characteristics of our penal law is the principle of territoriality. This doctrine simply means
that our penal laws are enforceable within the whole territory of the Philippines. The basis of this is Article
2 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that its provisions shall be enforced within the Philippine
archipelago including its atmosphere, its internal waters, and maritime zone. In other words, all crimes
committed within the territory of the Philippines are triable by our local courts. This rule, however,
admits exceptions. One of the exceptions is with respect to the foreign merchant vessels which
enter our territorial waters.
With respect to foreign merchant vessels, International Law provides with two rules: one, the French Rule,
and the second, the English Rule.
FRENCH RULE
Under the French Rule, crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel should not be prosecuted in
the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were committed, unless their commission
affects the peace and security of the territory. Meaning, our laws are not applicable with respect to the
crimes committed on board the foreign vessels. On the other hand, the English Rule dictates that the
crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the country within
territory they were committed. This means that crimes committed on board the said vessel can be tried in
the country where they are committed.
ENGLISH RULE
Now, which rule is being adhered by us? According to a 1910 decision promulgated by the Supreme Court,
we adopt the English Rule. Borrowing American jurisprudence, the Court said “when merchant vessels
enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would
subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or
merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the
country. No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offense or crime committed on the high
seas or within the territorial waters of any other country, but when she came within three miles of a line
drawn from the headlands, which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters,
and a new set of principles became applicable. The ship and her crew were then subject to the jurisdiction
of the territorial sovereign subject to such limitations as have been conceded by that sovereignty through
the proper political agency.”
Question: Assuming a foreign-registered merchant vessel enters Manila Bay loaded with tons of shabu,
can we prosecute the captain or any of its crew for Importation of dangerous drug under Section 4 of RA
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)? Is possession of dangerous drugs on board the
vessel a crime that is cognizable by a Philippine court?
Now, in order to solve this problem, we must determine whether the vessel is just “in transit” or its port of
destination is a Philippine port. What is “in transit”? According to one case, "in transit" simply means "on
the way or passage; while passing from one person or place to another; in the course of transportation."
If the vessel is just “in transit” or merely passing Philippine port, mere possession of a thing of prohibited
use in the Philippines (like shabu), aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not
constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an
extension of its own nationality. So, mere possession of dangerous drugs aboard the vessel is not triable
in our country.
However, the rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippines, is landed
from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the laws of the land, with respect
to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime. Similarly,
the rule does not apply to case of smoking opium (or any dangerous drug) on board the vessel as it already
produces its pernicious effects in the country.
The rule is different when the vessel’s destination is a Philippine port. If the foreign vessel is not in transit
and a Philippine port is its destination, any crime committed on board is triable in the Philippines except
those concerning internal management of the vessel. Hence, mere possession of shabu on board the
vessel is a crime which can be tried here.
To recap, the rules as far as foreign vessels are concerned are:
If it is in transit, possession of contraband on board is not a crime in the Philippines. To be triable, the
crime must be committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while in Philippine waters and that the crime
affects a breach of public order.
If the vessel’s destination is our port, then possession of illegal items on board is a crime that our courts
can take cognizance of.
CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP [Art 2 (1), RPC]
Territoriality
General Rule: Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize
crimes committed outside its territory.
Requisites [REYES, Book 1]:
1. Crime is committed while the ship is treading in:
a. Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
b. The high seas (extraterritorial)
2. The ship or airship must not be within the territorial jurisdiction of another country
3. The ship or airship must be registered in the Philippines under Philippine laws
Exceptions [SCIONS] [Art. 2, RPC]:
1. Crimes committed while on a Philippine Ship or airship
 2. Forging/Counterfeiting of Coins or Currency
3. Introduction of #2 into the country
4. Offenses committed by public officers or employees in the exercise of their functions.
5. Crimes against National Security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code
CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP [Art 2 (1), RPC]
Difference between Jurisdiction of Merchant Vessels and Foreign Warships Merchant Vessels
(applying English Rule)
Acts committed on a merchant vessel within the territorial limits of the Philippines are subject Philippine
penal laws if they breach public order and local courts are not deprived of jurisdiction over offenses on
board a merchant vessel if they disturb the order of the country.
Foreign Warships - are reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and are not subject
to the laws of another state. Nationality of Vessel – determined by the country of registry and not its
ownership.
Example: A Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
B. Difference between Mala Inse and Malum prohibitum
Mala In Se Mala Prohibita
Definition
A crime or an inherently immoral act, such as An act that is considered a crime because it is
murder, arson, orrape prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not
necessarily immoral
As to laws violated
A crime is mala in se, even if punishable under a Special laws
special law, when the acts are inherently immoral
 As to Use of Good Faith as a Defense
Valid defense General Rule: Not a valid Defense
Exceptions:
1. Civilian guards acting in good faith in carrying
firearms with no intention of committing an
offense were able to claim lack of intent as a
defense.
2. Accused has a pending application for a
permanent permit to possess a firearm
Criminal intent is necessary Criminal intent is not necessary
As to Degree of Accomplishment
Taken into account in determining the penalty to Not taken into account; the act is punishable only
be imposed. when consummated
As to Effect of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Taken into account in determining the Not taken into account in determining the imposable
imposable penalty penalty, unless provided for by special law
As to Degree of Participation *Presupposes more than one (1)
offender
Degree of participation of each offender is taken Degree of participation of each offender is not taken
into account. into account and all who participated in the act are
punished
to the same extent.
As to Stages of Execution
There are three stages: attempted, frustrated & No stages of execution
consummated
Penalties may be divided into degrees and There is no such division of penalties.
periods.
Apply Patulot Vs people
As she was about to enter the house, CCC, after gathering clothes from the clothesline outside her house,
was surprised to see Patulot who was holding a casserole. Without warning, Patulot poured the contents
of the casserole – hot cooking oil – on her. AAA and BBB, both minors, who were nearby, suddenly cried
because they were likewise hit by the hot cooking oil. CCC hurriedly brought AAA and BBB to her three
neighbors who volunteered to bring the children to the hospital for treatment. She then went to the
barangay hall also at South Signal, Taguig City, to report the incident.
The doctor, who examined and treated CCC and her children, testified that the injuries suffered by AAA
and BBB would heal for an average period of thirty (30) days. Next, DDD testified that he incurred
P7,440.00 in medical expenses for his wife and children.
The Regional Trial Court found Patulot guilty of child abuse under R.A. 7610.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Patulot can be punished for child abuse?
RULING:
The petitioner was convicted of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, a special law.
However, physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong, rendering material the existence of a criminal intent
on the part of the offender.
There are distinct acts punishable under R.A. No. 7610, to wit: (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child
exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.
“When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are
punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements
of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.”
C. Stages of Crimes
Three (3) Stages of Acts of Execution are:
Attempted - When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
2. Frustrated - When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony but
does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
3. Consummated - When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present;
the felony is produced
GRAVE FELONIES LESS GRAVE FELONIES LIGHT FELONIES
Those to which the law attaches Less grave felonies are those Light felonies are punishable only
the capital punishment or which the law punishes with when they have been
penalties which in any of their penalties which in their maximum consummated, with the exception
periods are afflictive. It includes period are correctional. It of those committed against
those punishable by: includes those punishable by: person or property.
1. Reclusion perpetua 1. Prision correccional
2. Reclusion temporal 2. Arresto mayor It includes those punishable by:
3. Perpetual or Absolute 3. Suspension 1. Arresto menor; or
Disqualification 4. Destierro 2. Fine not exceeding
4. Perpetual or Temporary 1. 5. Fine not exceeding ₱40,000; or
Special ₱1,200,000 but is not less 3. Both of the above
5. Disqualification than ₱40,000
6. Prision mayor
7. Fine more than
₱1,200,000.00
D. Justifying and exempting Circumstances
Justifying Circumstances
Where the act of the person is said to be in accordance with the law, so that such person is deemed
not to have transgressed the law.
1. Basis: Lack of dolo
2. Criminal Liability: None; there is no crime committed, the act being justified.
3. Civil Liability: None, except in par. 4, Art. 11 (avoidance of greater evil), where the civil liability is
4. borne by the persons benefited by the act in proportion to the benefit they may have received [Art.
5. 101, RPC].
6. Burden of Proof - rests on the accused

Exempting Circumstances
Art. 12. Circumstances the following are exempt from criminal
which exempt from liability:
criminal liability.
1. An imbecile or an 1. An imbecile or an insane person, When the imbecile or an insane
insane unless the latter has acted during a lucid person has committed an act which
interval. the law defines as a felony (delito),
the court shall order his confinement
in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus
afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first
 obtaining the permission of the
same court.

2. under nine years of 2. A person under nine years of age. R.A 9344 Juvenile Justice and
age Welfare Act :15 yrs old
3. A person over nine 3. A person over nine years of age and R.A 9344 Juvenile Justice and
years of age and under under fifteen, unless he has acted with Welfare Act : above 15 but below 18
fifteen, unless he has discernment, in which case, such minor yrs old
acted with discernment shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 When such minor is adjudged to be
of this Code. criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of
this and the preceding paragraph,
shall commit him to the care and
custody of his family who shall be
charged with his surveillance and
education otherwise, he shall be
committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in
said Art. 80.

4. Accident 4. Any person who, while performing a 1. Person is performing a lawful

lawful act with due care, causes an act
injury by mere accident without fault or 2. With due care
intention of causing it. 3. E causes injury to another by
mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of
causing it

5. Any person who act under the
compulsion of irresistible force.
6. impulse of an 6. Any person who acts under the
uncontrollable fear impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
7. insuperable cause. 7. Any person who fails to perform an
act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful insuperable cause.
1. compulsion of irresistible
force.
1. that the compulsion is by
means of physical force
2. that the physical force must be
irresistable
3. that the physical force must
come from a third person
1. That the threat which causes
the fearis of an evil greater
than, or at least equal to, that
which h is required to commit
2. That it promises an evil of
such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would
have succumbed to it
1. That an act is required by law
to be done
2. That a person fails to perform
such act
3. That his failure to perform
such act is due to some lawful
or insuperable cause
A. Justifying Circumstances- These are the defenses in which the accused is deemed to have acted
in accordance with the law and therefore the act is lawful. Since the act is lawful, it follows that
there is no criminal, no criminal liability and no civil liability, save in paragraph 4.
1. There is no mens rea or criminal intent
2. The circumstances pertain to the act and not to the actor. Hence all who participated in the act will be
benefited. Thus if the principal is acquitted there will be no accomplices and accessories.
3. These apply only to intentional felonies, not to acts by omissions or to culpable felonies or to violations
of special laws
4. They are limited to the 6 enumerated in Article 11.
B. Exempting Circumstances- These are defenses where the accused committed a crime but is not
criminally liable. There is a crime, and there is civil liability but no criminal.
1. The basis is the lack of any of the elements which makes the act/omission voluntary, i.e. freedom,
intelligence, intent or due care.
2. These defenses pertain to the actor and not the act. They are personal to the accused in whom they
are present and the effects do not extend to the other participants. Thus if a principal is acquitted,
the other principals, accessories and accomplices are still liable.
3. They apply to both intentional and culpable felonies and they may be available in violations of special
laws.
4. They are limited to the 7 enumerated in Article 12.
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are exempt from criminal
liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
 When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission
of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which
case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this
Code.
4. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his
family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to
the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
5. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.
6. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
7. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
8. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
cause.
C. Absolutory Causes- These are defenses which have the same effects as the exempting
circumstances but they are not among those enumerated in Article 12. They are found in certain
Articles of the Revised Penal Code or are developed by jurisprudence.
1. They are based on public policy
2. Examples of those in the RPC include: non-liability for an attempted felony due to voluntary
desistance; Death/Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances
3. Those recognized and developed by jurisprudence include: mistake of fact, set-up/frame up,
instigation
D. Mitigating Circumstances- Those which when present results either to: (i) the penalty being
reduced by at least one degree or (ii) the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period. They are
those enumerated in Article 13.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that
he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
E. Extenuating Circumstances- .Those which have the same effect as mitigating circumstances
but are not among those enumerated in Article 13 but are provided for in certain articles of the
RPC and apply only to certain felonies. They are called “Special Mitigating Circumstances”
Examples: Abandonment in case of adultery; Release of the victim within 3 days with the purpose not
attained, in the felony of Slight Illegal Detention
F. Aggravating Circumstances- Those which when present will result either to: (i) a change in the nature
of the offense as to make it more serious and result to the imposition of a higher penalty (ii) the penalty
being imposed in its maximum period. They are provide for by the Revised Penal Code as well as by
special laws.

G. Alternative Circumstances- those which may either be appreciated as mitigating or aggravating.

They are enumerated in Article 15 of the RPC.

Alternative Circumstances apply Entrapment and Instigation.

Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order
to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the
purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker
F. Persons Criminal liable

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
felonies:

1. Principals.

2. Accomplices.

3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals

2. Accomplices.

Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.

Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order
to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.

G. Complex Crime
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - 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 shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
1. That at least 2 offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be Necessary to commit the other
3. Does not need to be “indispensable means” that both or all the offenses must be punished under
the Same Statute.

H. Application of Penalties

Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.

Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Article 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. - A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest
of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.

Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. - The following shall
not be considered as penalties:

1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of
insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes
specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary
powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.

I. ISLAW .. computation of prescribe Penalties under Indeterminate sentence law

Act No. 4103,[1] otherwise known as Indeterminate Sentence Law [ISLAW] is a Statute which generally
favors persons convicted for the commission of a crime. The ISLAW applies to individuals convicted of
crimes under the Revised Penal Code [RPC] and Special Law
it clearly appears that, even though ISLAW considers that convict may reform and later become a better
person for the society, it does not forsake the gravity of the crime committed and some other factors which
show that a person is not capable of reformation.
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (IS Law) provides:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code,
or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term
of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same.
J. Application of indemnity from criminal liability and extinction of civil liability
An action for each can proceed independently of the others.81 In a criminal action, the accused is
prosecuted for a wrong committed against society itself or the State whose law he or she violated.82 In a
civil action, a defendant is sued by the plaintiff in an effort to correct a private wrong.83 The purpose of an
administrative action, on the other hand, is to protect the public service by imposing administrative
sanctions to an erring public officer.
Nullum Crimen Sine FACTS RULING
Lege, Mala In Se, Mala
Prohibita
1. Evangelista v. People, Tanduay Distillery, Inc, filed with
GR Nos. 108135-36 the Bureau of Internal Revenue The petitioner did not cause any undue
August 14, 2000 (BIR) an application for tax injury to the Government, give
credits for allegedly erroneous unwarranted benefits or preference to
payments of taxes based on Tanduay, display manifest partiality to
value of property. Tanduay, and act with evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence.

2. Causing v. COMELEC, On January 1, 1993, Causing
September 9, 2014 assumed office as the Municipal
Civil Registrar of Barotac
Nuevo, Iloilo.
3. Benito Gili v. People, GR PAL gave the police operatives
No. 212942, June 17, 2020 a sample of Skydrol, the
manufacturer's lot number, and
a report of its delivery to Air
Philippines.
They received an information
that the subject item was to be
Furthermore, the acts her conviction was
based on were different from those
described in the Information under which
she was charged. It is a well-settled rule
that an accused cannot be convicted of
an offence unless it is clearly charged in
the complaint of information.
Finally, petitioner’s act of issuing the
certification did not constitute corrupt
practices as defined in Section 3(e) of
RA 3019; thus, the maxim nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege (there is no crime
where there is no law punishing it) is
applicable.
Considering that reassignment was not
prohibited by the Omnibus Election
Code, there was no probable cause to
criminally charge Mayor Biron with the
violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
The Supreme court ruling says that the
RTC and the CA committed no error in
finding the petitioner's intent to gain.
There is no question that the pails of
Skydrol Hydraulic Fluid were found in
possession of petitioner. The positive
identification by PO3 Bolido and Yao
that the petitioner was caught in
delivered in the premises of the possession of the subject pails of
Air Philippines. skydrol, and the pieces of evidence
pointing to PAL as the owner of these
On June 19, 1999, the team pails of hydraulic fluid gave rise to a
spotted an owner type jeep at presumption of Fencing under the law.
Villamor Airbase. PO3 Bolido
took photographs of the jeep
and its driver, who turned out to
be petitioner.

The police operatives

apprehended petitioner, who
was about to deliver three pails
of Skydrol to Air Philippines.

When asked to present

documents for the merchandise
he was carrying, petitioner could
not produce any. He pointed to
a certain Jupel as having
custody of the documents, but
the latter did not appear.Later,
the police officers brought him to
Camp Crame. The petitioner
failed to produce Jupel, so the
PNP-CIDG recommended the
filing of the crime of Fencing
against him.
4. Martel, et. al. v. People, The instant case revolves
GR No. 224720-23, around the procurement of five
February 2, 2021 motor vehicles for the use of the
Governor and Vice Governor of
Davao del Sur in a manner
violative of procurement laws
5. Patulot vs. People, G.R. As she was about to enter the
No. 235071, January 7, house, CCC, after gathering
2019 clothes from the clothesline
outside her house, was
surprised to see Patulot who
was holding a casserole.
Without warning, Patulot poured
the contents of the casserole –
hot cooking oil – on her. AAA
and BBB, both minors, who
were nearby, suddenly cried
because they were likewise hit
by the hot cooking oil. CCC
hurriedly brought AAA and BBB
to her three neighbors who
volunteered to bring the children
NO. it nonetheless failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the elements
for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019. Evident bad faith and manifest
partiality are absent, owing to the
prosecution's failure to prove fraudulent
and malicious intent on the part of the
petitioners. Gross inexcusable
negligence was likewise not proven as
the prosecution could not show that
petitioners acted with want of even slight
care and conscious indifference as to
compliance with their duties.
There are distinct acts punishable under
R.A. No. 7610, to wit: (a) child abuse, (b)
child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d)
being responsible for conditions
prejudicial to the child’s development.
“When the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed
mala in se, even if they are punished by
a special law. Accordingly, criminal
intent must be clearly established with
the other elements of the crime;
otherwise, no crime is
committed.”
 to the hospital for treatment. She The petitioner was convicted of violation
then went to the barangay hall of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No.
also at South Signal, Taguig 7610, a special law. However, physical
City, to report the incident. abuse of a child is inherently wrong,
rendering material the existence of a
The doctor, who examined and criminal intent on the part of the
treated CCC and her children, offender.
testified that the injuries suffered
by AAA and BBB would heal for
an average period of thirty (30)
days. Next, DDD testified that he
incurred P7,440.00 in medical
expenses for his wife and
children.

The Regional Trial Court found

Patulot guilty of child abuse
under R.A. 7610.
6. People vs. Mabunot, Inside one of the classrooms at The petitioner was convicted of violation
G.R. No. 204659, the Paracelis National High of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No.
September 19, 2016 School, Butigue, Paracelis, 7610, a special law. However, physical
Mountain Province, the abuse of a child is inherently wrong,
petitioner with intent to rendering material the existence of a
physically abuse and with criminal intent on the part of the
cruelty, did then and there, offender.
wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, box Shiva
Baguiwan, a minor who is 14
years and 5 months old, on the
 left side below her ribs which
caused the latter to lose
consciousness, to the damage
and prejudice of the said minor-
victim.
7. Ante v. People, GR No. That on or about the 7th day of The Court held that the crime committed
246231, January 20, 2021 July 2012 in Quezon City, under R.A. No. 7610 is mala prohibita.
Philippines the accused, with Any lascivious conduct that results in the
lewd designs, did then and there debasing, demeaning, and degrading of
willfully and unlawfully commit a child's intrinsic worth and dignity is
acts of lascivious conduct upon deemed to constitute the offense.
a minor student, 16 years of age
8. Dept. of Finance v. Respondent started as Clerk II What the DOF-RJPS mainly argues is
Enerio, GR No. 238630, at the Bureau of Customs (BOC) that malice or criminal intent is irrelevant
May 12, 2021 in 1990. Eventually, he was in offenses classified as mala prohibita.
promoted to Administrative Aide Without question, the violations imputed
IV at the BOC's Customs against respondent pertain to special
Intelligence and Investigation laws, as such, these belong to a class of
Service. offenses known as mala prohibita.
Unlike in acts mala in se where intent
Petitioner Department ofgoverns, in acts mala prohibita, the only
Finance-Revenue Integrityinquiry is, has the law been violated?
Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), When an act is illegal, the intent of the
through its Graft Prevention and offender is immaterial.
Control Officers initiated a
lifestyle check on respondent by Respondent's failure to disclose the
examining his Financials and GSIS loan does not necessarily equate
financial connections. to concealment since the such a loan is
 contracted with the government and is,
The petitioner found out that the therefore, an official record accessible to
respondent falsely answered his the public.
Personal Data Sheet (PDS)
dated May 9, 2014, specifically,
the question of whether he had
been formally charged with an
offense or found guilty of any
administrative
complaint.They’ve also
discovered that the the
respondent failed to file his
SALN for the years 2005 and
2009.
9. Escandor v. People, GR Escandor, the Regional Director Republic Act No. 7877, otherwise known
No. 211962, July 6, 2020 of the National Economic and as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of
Development Authority (NEDA) 1995, was the first criminal statute
Region 7, Cebu City, was enacted in the Philippines to penalize
charged with violating Republic sexual harassment. It was adopted
Act (R.A.) No. 7877 otherwise pursuant to the declared policy that "the
known as the Anti-Sexual State shall value the dignity of every
Harassment Act of 1995. individual
10. Reagan v. CIR, GR No. William C. Reagan, petitioner, a Yes. The decision of the Court of Tax
L-26379, December 27, citizen of the United States and Appeals denying the refund of
1969 an employee of Bendix Radio, P2,979.00 as the income tax paid by
Division of Bendix Aviation petitioner is affirmed. That the petitioner
Corporation, which provides was liable for the income tax arising from
technical assistance to the a sale of his automobile in the Clark Field
 United States Air Force, was Air Base, which clearly is and cannot
assigned at Clark Air Base, otherwise be other than, within our
Philippines. territorial jurisdiction to tax.

Petitioner, imported a tax-free

Cadillac car including freight,
insurance and other
charges."Then came the
following more than two (2)
months after the 1960 Cadillac
car was imported into the
Philippines, petitioner requested
the Base Commander Clark Air
Base, for a permit to sell the car,
which was granted provided that
the sale was made to a member
of the United States Armed
Forces or a citizen of the United
States employed in the U. S.
military bases in the Philippines.
(Criminal Intent, Mens Rea, Actus Rea, Motive)
11. People v. Jose Moreno Accused-appellant Jose Art. 335. When and how rape is
y Castor, G.R. No. 126921 Moreno, a carpenter, and committed. - Rape is committed by
August 28, 1998 complainant Jocelyn having carnal knowledge of a woman
Bansagales, a mental retardate, under any of the following
were neighbors in Pasig City. circumstances.
Jocelyn was twenty-six (26)
years old. She fondly calls 1. By using force or intimidation;
 appellant Kuya Joe. In the
afternoon of September 29, 2. When the woman deprived of
1993, while Jocelyn was reason or otherwise unconscious; and
laundering clothes, appellant
approached and held her hand. 3. When the woman is under twelve
He led her to a tricycle and years of age, even though neither of the
drove off to a rented house circumstances mentioned in the two next
somewhere in Rotonda, Pasig preceding paragraphs shall be present.
12. Hinupas and Aceveda Aceveda and their co-accused With respect to those of a contrary view,
v. People, G.R. No. Masanglay was accused in it is difficult to think of a more accurate
224469, January 05, 2021 violation of Section 77 of statement than that which defines
Presidential Decree 705 (PD reasonable doubt as a doubt for which
705) or the Revised Forestry one can give a reason, so long as the
Code of the Philippines: reason given is logically connected to
the evidence. An inability to give such a
That on or about the 15th day of reason for the doubt one entertains is
March 2005, at Barangay the first and most obvious indication that
Calangatan, Municipality of San the doubt held may not be reasonable.
Teodoro, Province of Oriental
Mindoro, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named
accused, without any authority
as required under existing forest
laws and regulations and for
unlawful purpose, conspiring,
confederating and mutually
helping one another did and
then and there willfully,
 unlawfully, feloniously and
knowingly cut with the use of
unregistered power
chainsaw, a Dita tree, a forest
product.
13. Natividad v. People, Petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela The petition is DENIED on the basis of
GR No. 160188, June 21, and Jovy Calderon were Article 6 defines those three stages,
2007 charged with the crime of theft. namely the consummated, frustrated
and attempted felonies.
Petitioner and Calderon were A felony is consummated "when all the
apprehended at the scene, and elements necessary for its execution
the stolen merchandise and accomplishment are present."
recovered. It is frustrated "when the offender
performs all the acts of execution...
which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the
perpetrator."
Finally, it is attempted "when the
offender commences the commission of
a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not... perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
14. Malabanan v. During post-audit, discrepancies
Sandiganbayan, GR No. in the supporting documents
186329, August 2, 2017 were found and investigated.
Thereafter, the Office of the
Special Prosecutor charged Alid
and Malabanan before the
Sandiganbayan with falsification
of public documents.
15. People v. Bacares, GR Florence Esmero,
No. 243024, June 23, 2020 granddaughter of the victim,
arrived at the latter’s house. Due
to the unresponsiveness of the
victim, she proceeded to the
back door and when she
entered the room, she saw her
grandmother unconscious and
lying flat on the floor in her own
blood. The victim was brought to
the hospital but was declared
dead on arrival, with the cause
of death as shown in the
medico-legal report, was due to
"blunt traumatic injuries of the
head and chest and stab
wounds at the back”.
Consequently, an Information
was filed against appellant for
the crime of murder.
It cannot be overlooked that there is a
variance between the felony as charged
in the Information and as found in the
judgment of conviction.
This Court, however, finds that the
conviction of appellant for murder was
flawed due to the erroneous
appreciation of abuse of superior
strength as a qualifying circumstance.
To take advantage of superior strength
means to purposely use excessive force
out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person
attacked. However, as none of the
prosecution witnesses saw how the
killing was perpetrated, abuse of
superior strength cannot be appreciated
in this case.
 During his arraignment, the
appellant entered his plea of
"not guilty." Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.
16. People v. Ducabo 560 The appellant], without
Phil. 709, 723-724 (2007) justifiable motive with intent to
kill and by means of treachery
and evident premeditation, did
then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault, and shoot with a
gun the head of one ROGELIO
GONZALES Y FACTOR
thereby inflicting mortal gunshot
wound to the said victim which
directly caused his death
17. People v. Castro, GR SPO3 Jesus Lucilo an off- duty
No. 112235, November 29, policeman was walking along
1995 Burgos Street when a man
suddenly walked beside him
and fired a .45 caliber on his
right ear.
Appellant is guilty of murder, qualified by
treachery, for the wrongful death of the
victim.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, the penalty imposed
for the crime of murder is reclusion
perpetua to death. There being no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
the penalty imposed on appellant is
reclusion perpetua, pursuant to
The SC ruled that the crime committed
was murder and not rebellion. Under
Article 134 of the RPC, as amended by
R.A. 6968, rebellion is committed in the
following manner: The graveman of the
crime of rebellion is an armed public
uprising against the government. By its
very nature, rebellion is essentially a
crime of masses or multitudes involving
crowd action, which cannot be confined
a priori within predetermined.
Felony
(Proximate Cause,
Mistakes in the identity of
the victim, Impossible
Crime)
18. Abrogar v. Cosmos The negligence of Intergames was the
Bottling Comp., GR No. proximate cause of the death of
164749 March 15, 2017 Rommel; and that the negligence of the
jeepney driver was not an efficient
intervening cause.
First of all, Intergames' negligence in not
conducting the race in a road blocked off
from vehicular traffic, and in not properly
coordinating the volunteer personnel
manning the marathon route effectively
set the stage for the injury complained
of.
Secondly, injury to the participants
arising from an unfortunate vehicular
accident on the route was an event
known to and foreseeable by
Intergames, which could then have been
avoided if only Intergames had acted
with due diligence.
Thirdly, the negligence of the jeepney
driver, albeit an intervening cause, was
not efficient enough to break the chain of
connection between the negligence of

19. UCPB Insurance v.
Pascual Liner, GR No.
242328, April 26, 2021
20. People vs. Gona, 54 On the evening of October 26,
Phil. 605 [1930] 1928, a number of Mansacas
celebrated a reunion in the
house of the Mansaca Gabriel.
There seems to have been a
liberal supply of alcoholic drinks
and some of the men present
became intoxicated, with the
result that a quarrel took place
21. Wacoy v. People, GR Ambongdolan, Municipality of
No. 213792, June 22, 2015 Tublay, Province of Benguet,
Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable
Intergames and the injurious
consequence suffered by Rommel.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is an
exception to the rule that hearsay
evidence is devoid of probative value.
This is because the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor establishes a rule on
negligence, whether the evidence is
subjected to cross-examination or not. It
is a rule that can stand on its own
independently of the character of the
evidence presented as hearsay.
Article 49 applies only when there is a
mistake in the identity of the victim of the
crime, and the penalty for the crime
committed is different from that for the
crime intended to be committed.
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 covers: (1)
aberration ictus (mistake in the blow), (2)
error in personae (mistake in the identity
of the victim), (3) praeter intentionem
(where a more serious consequence not
intended by the offender befalls the
same person).
Petitioners Guillermo Wacoy y Bitol and
James Quibac y Rafael are found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide defined and penalized
 Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually
aiding each other, with intent to
kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault, maul and kick
the stomach of one ELNER
ARO y LARUAN, thereby
inflicting upon him blunt
traumatic injuries which directly
caused his death thereafter.
22. People v. Samson, GR Adriano was charged with two
No. 205228, July 15, 2015 (2) counts of Murder. While they
were at Barangay Malapit, a
speeding blue Toyota Corollo
(Corollo) heading towards the
same direction, overtook them
and the car in front of them.
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code with the mitigating circumstance of
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
under Article 13 (3).
Bulanan, who was merely a bystander,
was killed by a stray bullet. He was at the
wrong place at the wrong time. Stray
bullets, obviously, kill indiscriminately
and often without warning, precluding
the unknowing victim from repelling the
attack or defending himself. Adriano is
responsible for the consequences of his
act of shooting Cabiedes. This is the
import of Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code... accused-appellants should be
convicted not of a complex crime but of
separate crimes of two counts of murder
and seven counts of... attempted murder
as the killing and wounding of the victims
were not the result of a single act but of
several acts.
23. PO2 Bernardino Cruz v. City Schools Division
People, GR No. 216642, Superintendent Beloso
September 8, 2020 appointed respondent Basallote
to the position of Administrative
Officer II. Subsequently, the
new City Schools Division
Superintendent, Oyardo,
advised School Principal
Gonzales that the papers of the
applicants for the position of
Administrative Officer II of the
school, including those of
Basallote, were being returned
and that a school ranking should
be accomplished and submitted
to her office for review. In
addition, Gonzales was advised
that only qualified applicants
should be endorsed.
24. People v. Gemoya, GR Ronilo beat him with a cylindrical
No. 132633, October 4, wood, Rolly with a pipe while
2000 Aliazar held his arms behind
him. Once Gemoya had aimed
his “indian pana,” they stepped
aside to ensure that they would
not be hit. Wilfredo was hit
directly on his left chest. His
daughter Rosalie, who had just
come from school, tried to pull
NO. When the law is clear, there is no
other recourse but to apply it regardless
of its perceived harshness. Dura lex sed
lex. Nonetheless, the law should never
be applied or interpreted to oppress one
in order to favor another. As a court of
law and of justice, this Court has the duty
to adjudicate conflicting claims based
not only on the cold provision of the law
but also according to the higher
principles of right and justice.
Conspiracy need not be proved by direct
evidence of a prior agreement to commit
the crime. It may be deduced either from
the mode and manner in which the
offense was committed or from the
accused themselves pointing to a
community of interest or concerted
action
 him away. Irene Lantapon yelled
at her to run as Gemoya was
about to shoot his “indian pana”
again. Before she could do so,
she was hit in her left ear. Then
the four scampered away.
25. People v. Centeno, GR Rolando Santos was having a Yes. The lower court is correct in holding
No. 33284, April 20, 1989 drinking spree with his Centeno liable for murder as there was
companions Eulogio Villanueva the presence of the qualifying
and Violago Dionisio at the store circumstance of treachery. There was
of Aleng Goreng. Due to his treachery because there was no means
drunkenness, he uttered available to Santos to defend himself as
remarks toward patrolman his arm was held by Reyes and at the
Valeriano Reyes and Police same time he was also intoxicated.
Chief Rolando Centeno saying,
“Tang inang mga pulis iyan,
walang kwenta ang mga iyan”.
As a result, Reyes forced
Santos to come with him to the
station despite the latter’s
protest. At the station, Santos
continued to protest his
detention saying he has done
nothing wrong. Centeno was
angered but later on relented
and allowed Santos to go home.
However, Centeno changed his
mind and asked Reyes to bring
Santos back to the station.
 While Reyes was holding one
arm of Santos, Centeno
administered his first karate
blow at the nape of Santos’
neck.
26. People v. Gervero The accused conspiring, and
confederating with one another,
with deliberate intent and
decided purse to kill, armed with
firearms, they were then
provided, through treachery,
evident premeditation and
superior strength, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously attack, assault,
shoot and hit the 3 victims
Mistake of Facts finds no application in
this case. In People v. Oanis and
Galanta, the court has ruled that mistake
of fact applies only when mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness.
In the case of United State v. Ah Chong,
wherein the appellants rely with to
support the defense of non- liability by
reasons of honest mistake of fact, the
court explain that the maxim ignorantia
facti excusat, is only to apply when the
mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness.
2. No justifying circumstances in
fulfillment of duty. The court set forth two
requisites in People v. Oanis that in
order the fulfillment of duty and exercise
of a right maybe considered as justifying
circumstance (a) that the offender acts in
the performance of duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right and (b) that the injury
or offense committed necessary
consequence of the due performance of
such duty or in the lawful exercise of

27. United States v. Ah In the darkness and confusion
Chong, GR No. 206725, the defendant thought that the
July 11, 2018 blow had been inflicted by the
person who had forced the door
open, whom he supposed to be
a burglar. Seizing a common
kitchen knife which he kept
under his pillow, the defendant
struck out wildly at the intruder
who, it afterwards turned out,
was his roommate, Pascual.
such right or office. If one is absent,
accused is entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete or
lawful exercise of right or office
contradicted for what happened that
fateful night which disproved their
defense of fulfillment of duty as shown
by the way they have viciously attacked
their helpless victims. Accused-
Appellants are guilty of murder qualified
by treachery. The essence of treachery
is that the attack comes without a
warning and in a swift , deliberate and
unexpected manner, affording the
hapless, unanned, and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape.
The Supreme Court ruled that the
elements of self-defense were not
present because there was no "unlawful
aggression" on the part of the victim.
However, the accused was acquitted for
mistake of fact. The crime of homicide
requires existence of criminal intent. The
fact that the accused believed that the
victim is a robber, and tried to attack the
robber to avoid injury or loss on his part,
negates the existence of criminal intent
on the part of the accused.
28. Jacinto v. People, GR Petitioner had been convicted of
No. 162540, July 13, 2009 qualified theft.
Jacinto along with Valencia and
Capitle was charged with
qualified theft for having stole
and deposited check with an
amount of 10,000 php. Such
check was issued by Baby
Aquino for payment of her
purchases from Mega Foam,
but the check bounced.
Dyhengco found out about the
theft and filed a complaint with
the NBI. An entrapment
operation was conducted, with
the use of marked bills. The
entrapment was a success and
the petitioner along with her co-
accused was arrested.
29. Obiasca v. Basallote, In its decision, the Ombudsman the appointment of petitioner was
GR No. 176707, February found Oyardo and Gonzales inconsistent with the law and well-
17, 2010 administratively liable for established jurisprudence.
withholding information from
respondent on the status of her
appointment, and suspended
them from the service for three
months. Diaz was absolved of
any wrongdoing.
30. People v. Marcelino, et. While in the market, Hesson and Hesson is liable for Murder, not for an
al. GR No. 228945, March Junello discussed a plan to kill impossible crime.
14, 2018 the victim, Fernando Adlawan Thus, the requisites of an impossible
crime are: (1) that the act performed
would be an offense against persons or
property; (2) that the act was done with
evil intent; and (3) that its
accomplishment was inherently
impossible, or the means employed was
either inadequate or ineffectual.[67]The
third element, the inherent impossibility
of accomplishing the crime, was
explained more clearly by the Court in
the case of Intod v. Court of Appeals[68]
in this wise: Under this article, the act
performed by the offender cannot
produce an offense against persons or
property because: (1) the commission of
the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment; or (2) the means
employed is either (a) inadequate or (b)
ineffectual.
(Stages of Crime, Fatal
Wound)
31. People v. Enoja, GR While victim Siegfred Insular After shooting Siegfred Insular, Armada
No. 102596, December 17, and his wife, Paterna, were on attempted to shoot Paterna but refrained
1999 their way home from the market from doing so because Teodoro
walking along the ricefield they Salamanca who was then and there
 saw accused-appellant Yolly
Armada with a long firearm in
hand, walking on the other side
of the field towards the same
direction where the couple were
going.
32. People v. Viejo, GR No. Appellant was charged with
235016, September 8, complex crime of attempted
2020 murder with homicide.
Around midnight of December
24, 2011 a friend invited the
victim Gerry Marasigan to a
drinking spree at the latter’s
home, the victim obliged and
joined the drinking session and
present shouted to the accused: "do not
include the girl."
The Court ruled that appellants acted
concertedly to kill Siegfred.
First, after appellant Armada fired at the
victim incapacitating the latter, the other
accused arrived "almost simultaneously"
and took turns in shooting the victim.
Second, appellant Jose Enoja thereafter
fired a shot at the thigh of his brother
Antonio to make it appear that the
shooting was in self-defense.
Third, Jose planted a short firearm near
the body of the victim and placed bullets
in the pocket of the victim.
According to the SC, the qualifying
circumstance of treachery attended the
attempted killing of Gerry that the
qualifying circumstance of treachery
does not require that the perpetrator
attack his or her victim from behind.
 later on his wife came to fetch
him. On their way out, he
bumped into appellant whom he
recognized as his mother's
neighbor. Appellant asked him
"Anong problema?" He replied:
"Kuya Nestor, asawa ko 'to,
hindi mo na ba ako
nakikilala?"Appellant rebuffed
"Hindi, bastos
33. Manalo v. People, GR The petitioner, on or about May
No. 243805, September 5, 2011 at San Fernando City,
16, 2020 Pampanga Philippines, the said
petitioner conspired with other
co-accused with intent to kill,
unlawfully, willfully and
feloniously assault, attack, and
use personal violence upon the
santoses family by using steel
pipe.
34. Canceran v. People, Canceran vehemently denied
GR No. 206442, July 1, the charges against him. He
2015 claimed that he was a promo
merchandiser
In the present case, the Court said that
there are two distinct group of individuals
in the quarrel which are Santoses and
Lacsons. Aside from that Eduardo was
sufficiently identified as the person who
first hit Arnold on the head using a steel
pipe then continued to inflict injuries to
the other members of the Santoses
family.
As stated earlier, there is no crime of
Frustrated Theft. The Information can
never be read to charge Canceran of
consummated Theft because the
indictment itself stated that the crime
was never produced. Instead, the
Information should be construed to
mean that Canceran was... being
 charged with theft in its attempted stage
only. Necessarily, Canceran may only
be convicted of the lesser crime of
Attempted Theft.
35. Shariff Uddin Y Sali v. the above-named accused, did, Section 5(b ), Article III of RA 7610
People, GR No. 249588, then and there, willfully, should be Lascivious Conduct. This is in
November 23, 2020 unlawfully and feloniously grab light of the fact that AAA was only 13
[AAA],9 a 13 year old minor years old at the time of the incident.
(DOB 23 Feb. 2002) to a grassy
portion and once thereat [held]Lascivious conduct" means the
her private parts, and then intentional touching, eitheR,· directly or
inserted his hand into her panty
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
and [caressed] her vagina, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
committing sexual abuse the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex,
with an intenT to abuse, humiliate,
harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person,
bestiality,masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
a person
36. Lutap v. People, GR A six years old girl who belongs The accused is convicted and is
No. 204061, February 5, to the sector of Girl-Children sentenced
2018 was forced, threatened and
intimated by her father's best
friend who frequently visits their
house by means of touching the
 victim's private part while
playing text cards in the latter's
house in Quezon City.
37. Manalo v. People, Gr That on or about 5 May 2011, at
No. 243805, September around 9:00 P.M., Gary, Arnold,
16, 2020. Eliza and Joyce Ann arrived in
their house at San Fernando,
Pampanga. The group told
Romeo, Rommel, Richard, and
Albert Santos (Albert;
collectively, Santoses) that they
were being chased and stoned
by the Lacsons.
Arnold then left but while he
was running towards the
Lacsons' house and had a
heated discussion with Hernani
and Elizer. Moments later, Rudy
Santos, who resides at the back
of the Lacsons' house, arrived.
38. People V. Dagman, GR On May 2, 1924, Elias Magbual,
No. L-23133, Augsut 20, an employee of hacienda La
1925 Esperanza, was attacked by
about 40 people, whom 7
persons were identified.
Allegedly, the motive of the
attack was when the defendants
Later on, Arnold died. A separate
criminal case for Attempted Homicide
was filed against Eduardo.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of
a less serious nature and the person
responsible cannot be identified, all
those who appear to have used any
violence upon the person of the offended
party shall be punished by arresto mayor
from five to fifteen days.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
In this case, the crime committed is
frustrated murder because the
perpetrators believed that the crime was
consummated when the victim feigned
death. Also, the crime committed was
murder because the victim was unable
to defend himself due to the planned
attack. These acts are qualifying

39. De Guzman v. People,
GR No. 178512, November
26, 2014
40. People v. Paulino Delos
Santos, GR NO. 248929,
November 9, 2020
were deprived of portions of the circumstances of treachery and
land by judicial order premeditation in the crime of murder and
the non-accomplishment for reasons
independent from the perpetrators’ will
constitutes the crime of frustrated
murder.
while Alexander Flojo YES. The wounds sustained by
(Alexander) is fetching water, Alexander were not mere scuff-marks
Alfredo de Guzman (Alfredo) inflicted in the heat of anger or as the
suddenly appeared and stab result of a fistfight between them. The
Alexander in the left part of his petitioner wielded and used a knife in his
body causing him to sustain two assault on Alexander. There is also to be
stab wounds. no doubt about the wound on
Alexander’s chest being sufficient to
result into his death were it not for the
timely medical intervention.
The accused, being the son of Parricide is committed when (1) a
PAULINO DELOS SANTOS person is killed; (2) the accused is the
SR., with intent to kill, with killer; and (3) the deceased is either the
treachery and evident legitimate spouse of the accused, or any
premeditation, did then and legitimate or illegitimate parent, child,
there, willfully, unlawfully and ascendant or descendant of the accused
feloniously attack, assault and
stab his father, PAULINO
DELOS SANTOS SR., using a
bladed weapon,
41. Mondragon v. People, On July 11, 1954, at about 5pm Intent of the element to kill not having
GR No. L-17666, june 30, in the afternoon, the been duly established, considering that
1966 complainant Serapion the injuries suffered by the offended
Nacionales, he was at his rice party were not necessary fatal. We hold
field situated in Antandan, that the offense that was committed by
Miagao, Iloilo. While he opening the petitioner is only that of less serious
the dike, he heard a shout from physical injuries, as defined in Article
afar telling that ‘Don’t you dare 265 of the Revised Penal Code, is
open the dike.’ And Mondragon punished by arresto mayor or
coming towards him. Then, imprisonment of from 1 month and 1 day
Mondragon tried to hit the to 6 months.
complaint who dodged the blow.
Complaint backed out,
unsheathed his own bolo, and
hacked appellant on the head
and forearm and between the
middle and ring fingers in order
to defend himself. The
complaint did not pursue him but
went home instead. And the
compliant was treated in the
following day.
42. People v. Francisco, appellants Florentino Labuguen Whether or not Romeo Zuniga and
GR No. 223103, February y Francisco alias "Tinong" Florentino "Tinong" Labuguen "GUILTY
24, 2020 (Labuguen) and Romeo Zuniga of the crime charged and may avail
y Pilarta (Zuniga) guilty beyond exempting circumstance.
reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide and RULING:
Frustrated Homicide

43. People v. Briones, GR Three (3) Informations were
No. 226486, January 22, filed against Pitulan for direct
2020 assault with murder of police
Officer 1 Aldy Monteroso (PO1
Monteroso), direct assault with
attempted murder of police
Officer 1 Alberto Cirilo Dionisio
(PO1 Dionisio), and direct
assault with frustrated murder of
PO1 Benito De Vera (PO1 De
Vera).
As correctly found by the RTC and the
CA, Zuñiga is not entitled to avail of this
exempting circumstance.
To avail of this exempting circumstance,
the evidence must establish:
1. the existence of an uncontrollable
fear;
2. that the fear must be real and
imminent; and
3. the fear of an injury is greater than
or at least equal to that committed.
A threat of future injury is
insufficient. The compulsion must be
of such a character as to leave no
opportunity for the accused to
escape.
Appellants committed the second form
of assault, the elements of which are:
1. that there must be an attack, use
of force, or serious intimidation or
resistance upon a person in authority or
his agent;
2. the assault was made when the
said person was performing his duties or
on the occasion of such performance;
and

44. Edenetino v. People, Petitioner was charged with the
GR No. 206632, February crime of frustrated homicide.
7, 2018
45. Bartolome v. People,
GR No. 166441, October 8,
2014
46. US v. Eduave, GR No. Defendant Protasio Eduave,
L-12155, February 2, 1917 who was the querido of the
victim’s mother, attacked the
victim from behind using a bolo
3. the accused knew that the victim is
a person in authority or his agent, that is,
that the accused must have the intention
to offend, injure or assault the offended
party as a person in authority or an agent
of a person in authority.
with said unlicensed firearm he was then
provided at the time, hitting and inflicting
upon the victim gunshot wounds on the
different parts of his body, thus
performing all the acts of execution
which would produce the crime of
homicide as a consequence but which
nevertheless did not produce it by
reason of some cause or causes
independent of the will of the accused,
that is, by the timely medical attendance
rendered to the said Jessierel Leyble
which prevented his death.
The intent to kill was not sufficiently
established. Petitioner Eden Etino is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES
The Accused is guilty of frustrated
murder. The fact that Eduave attacked
the victim from behind, in a vital portion
of the body, shows treachery qualifying
 creating a gash of and a half
inches long and 2 inches deep
because the latter accused the
defendant of raping her.
Knowing that he has already
killed the victim, he threw the
body into the bushes and left.
Then, he gave himself up and
declared that he had killed the
complainant.
47. Natividad v. People, In May 1994, petitioner and Jovy
GR No. 160188, June 21, Calderon were sighted outside
2007 SM North EDSA by security
guard Lorenzo Lago, unloading
cases of detergent Tide
Ultramatic on an open parking
space. Minutes later, the
petitioner loaded the detergent
cartons while Calderon looked
into a taxi and proceeded to
leave the parking area. Lago
stopped the cab, checked the
cartons, and asked for a receipt
but Valenzuela and Calderon
fled on foot. The same was
apprehended on the scene, and
the stolen merchandise
recovered was worth P12,090.
it as murder. In case of frustrated crimes,
the subjective phased is completely
passed making the crime subjectively
complete.
The crime, however, is not
consummated by reason of the
intervention of causes independent of
the will of the offender.
YES. Article 6 defines those three
stages, namely the consummated,
frustrated and attempted felonies. A
felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present. It is
frustrated when the offender performs all
the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator. Finally, it is
attempted when the offender
commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts and does not
perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony because of
some cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance.
48. Palaganas v. People On January 16, 1998, around YES. An aggravating circumstance was
533 Phil. 169, 193 (2006) 8:00 in the evening, brothers provided If homicide or murder is
Servillano, Melton, and Michael committed with the use of an unlicensed
Ferrer were having their drinking firearm, such use of an unlicensed
spree at their house but later firearm shall be considered as an
decided to proceed to Tidbits aggravating circumstance. This special
Videoke Bar to continue their aggravating circumstance cannot be
drinking spree and to sing. offset by an ordinary mitigating
Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas circumstance.
arrived together with Ferdinand
Palaganas (nephew) and
Virgilio Bautista. Later, when
Jaime was singing, Melton
Ferrer sang along with him as he
was familiar with the song “My
Way”. Jaime got irritated and
insulted. He felt he was being
mocked by Melton Ferrer that
caused him to go to Ferrer’s
table and utter statements which
began the fight.
49. Bartolome v. People, In December 1993, Norberto RTC found Norberto guilty beyond
GR No. 166441, October 8, Cruz (Norberto) and his wife reasonable doubt of the crimes of
2014 went to La Union to sell plastic ATTEMPTED RAPE and ACTS OF
and glass wares. Along with LASCIVIOUSNESS.
them is AAA and BBB. Upon
reaching their destination, they NO. There is an attempt, according to
set up a tent in order that they Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code,
will have a place to sleep. when the offender commences the

At around 1 AM, AAA was
awakened when she felt that
somebody was on top of her.
The person was Norberto who
was mashing her breast and
touching her private parts. He
fought back and kicked Norberto
twice. He was not able to pursue
his lustful desires;
50. People v. Gaspar, GR Private complainant AAA,[a
No. 239892, June 10, 2020 thirteen (13)-year-old girl, went
out to urinate in the restroom
with no light located at the back
of a three (3)-storey house
where she lived with her father,
brother, grandmother, and
uncles.
While inside the restroom, she
could not lift the makeshift door
of the cubicle to cover herself.
After urinating, she was about to
pull up her underwear when
appellant Mendoza, her
neighbor, suddenly went inside
the cubicle where she was in
and prevented her from raising
commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
In reviewing rape cases, (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with
facility: it is difficult to prove, but more
difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution, and (3) the evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits, and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. carnal
knowledge, the other essential element
in consummated statutory rape, does
not require full penile penetration of the
female.
her underwear and pants.
Appellant told her that he will
give her One Hundred Pesos
(P100.00).

Appellant then proceeded to

remove his shorts, inserted the
tip of his penis into AAA’s
vagina, and kissed her neck,
breasts, and lips. AAA tried to
push appellant away, but failed
to do so. The entire incident
lasted about ten (10) minutes,
and thereafter, appellant gave
AAA One Hundred Pesos
(P100.00) and left. AAA went
back to the house and did not
tell anyone about what
happened.