CRIMINAL

LAW
2022 BAR EXAMINATION REVIEWER

This reviewer was created to serve as my study material for the 2022 Bar Examination. This is not intended
to be a secret reviewer; anyone is free to utilize it. Please use at your own risk.

In God’s Perfect Time

© ATTY. ESGUERRA NOTES | PROSEC. GARCIA NOTES

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in

I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.
(Revised Penal Code – Book 1)
Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the
A. General principles act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same
1. Mala in se and mala prohibita is malum in se, and therefore, good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product
of criminal negligence or culpa (Arsenia Garcia v. CA)
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
(Evil in itself) (Prohibited Evil) Plunder is mala in se which requires proof of criminal
intent. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan)
A crime or an act that is An act that is considered
inherently immoral, such a crime because it is Q: Can an act mala in se absorb an act mala
as murder, arson, or prohibited by statute, prohibita? And vice versa?
rape. although the act itself is
not necessarily immoral A: NO. Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala
prohibita. What makes an act malum in se is the
Good faith is a valid Good faith is not a presence of intent, deceit or dolo or fault or culpa. On
defense, unless the defense. the other hand, what makes an act malum prohibitum is
crime is the result of the fact that it’s in violation of a special penal law.
culpa. Therefore, one cannot absorb the other.
Criminal intent is Criminal intent is not
2. Applicability and effectivity of the RPC
necessary. necessary.
a. Generality
The degree of The act gives rise to a
accomplishment of the crime only when Article 14, Civil Code. Penal laws and those of public
crime is taken into consummated. security and safety shall be obligatory upon all those
account in punishing the who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to
offender. the principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
Mitigating and Mitigating and
aggravating aggravating GENERAL RULE: The criminal law of the country
circumstances are taken circumstances are not governs and applies to all persons in Philippine Territory,
into account in taken into account in regardless of nationality, age, gender or other personal
determining the determining the circumstances.
imposable penalty. imposable penalty,
unless provided for Therefore, whoever you are, if you are in the Philippines,
by special law. you have to comply with Philippine penal laws. You are
obligated, bound to comply, to follow Philippine penal
Penalty is determined on Degree of participation law. Otherwise, you can be arrested, you can be
the basis of the degree of each offender is not prosecuted, you can be punished.
of participation of the taken into account and
offender. all who participated in This characteristic is not absolute. It admits exceptions.
the act are punished to
the same extent. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF
CRIMINAL LAW:
There are three stages: No stages of execution
attempted, frustrated &
1) Treaty Stipulations
consummated
2) Laws of Preferential Application
Penalties may be divided There is no division of
into degrees and penalties. ■ Parliamentary Immunity under Section 11,
periods. Article VI of the Constitution — Members of
Congress are immune from arrest for all
NOTE: Not all violations of special laws are mala offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 2

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
imprisonment while Congress is in session.
So if, in a privileged speech, Sen. Lacson made
defamatory remarks against a well-known
successful and influential businessman, that
businessman cannot file against of libel, oral
defamation, or slander against him because it is
a law of preferential application, the Constitution
itself provides, said Senator cannot be
prosecuted.
NOTE: Doctrine of State Immunity from suit will
not apply and may not be invoked where the
public official is being sued in his private and
personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.
■ An example of a law of preferential application
would be R.A. No. 75, which penalizes acts
which would impair the proper observance by
the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines
of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in
the Philippines. R.A. No. 75 exempts from arrest
and imprisonment, as well as from distrain,
seizure or attachment of property, Public
Ministers, Ambassadors and Domestic Servants
of Ambassadors and Public Ministers except (a)
when such person is a citizen or an inhabitant of
the Philippines and the writ issued against him
is founded upon a debt contracted before he
entered such service; or (b) when said domestic
servant is not registered with the DFA.
3) Principles of Public International Law
■ Persons exempt from the operation of our
criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public
international law:
1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
2) Ambassadors, ministers,
plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and
charges d’affaires.
While they are in the host country, they cannot
be arrested, prosecuted, nor punished for
having violated the laws of the said country
because they enjoy diplomatic immunity from
suit.
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister.
Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial
representatives of foreign nations are NOT
diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the
penal laws of the country where they are
assigned. (Minucher v. CA)
Therefore, a consul can be prosecuted before
the courts of the host country the moment he
commits a violation of the penal laws of said
host country. EXCEPT: (1) when the act
committed by said consul is in the performance
of his functions, and (2) if there is a treaty
stipulation between the mother country of the
consul and the host country saying that this
particular consul is immune from suit.
4) Warship Rule
■ a foreign country’s warship is considered an
extension of the territory of the country that it
represents. Similar to an embassy, it cannot be
subject to the laws of another country.
b. Territoriality
GENERAL RULE: The law is applicable to all crimes
committed within the limits of the Philippine territory,
which includes its atmosphere, interior waters and
maritime zone.
EXCEPTION: Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides
situations where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the
Revised Penal Code may be applied:
Article 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
1. Crimes committed aboard merchant vessels
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 3
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
(Article 2[1])
REQUISITES:
1) Crime is committed while the ship is treading in:
a) Philippine waters (intra-territorial), 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
There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard merchant vessels while in the
territorial waters of another country:
a) French Rule – It is the flag or nationality of the
vessel which determines jurisdiction unless the
crime violates the peace and order of the host
country.
b) English Rule – The location or situs of the crime
determines jurisdiction unless the crime merely
relates to the internal management of the
vessel.
The Philippines adheres to the English Rule.
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships in territorial
waters. Warships are always reputed to be the territory
of the country to which they belong and cannot be
subjected to the laws of another state. (US v. Fowler)
2. When public officers or employees commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions (Article
2[4])
Offense committed by a public officer abroad must refer
to the discharge of one’s functions.
A crime committed within the grounds of a Philippine
embassy on foreign soil shall be subject to Philippine
penal laws, although it may or may not have been
committed by a public officer in relation to one’s official
duties. Embassy grounds are considered as extensions
of the sovereignty of the country occupying them.
: X and Y, X is a Filipina who went to the Netherlands.
Q with a fellow employee who was also undergoing
While she was there, she met a Dutch man Y. They fell in training. They fell so in love that they cohabited in
love and they decided to get married. After, X gave birth Japan. They are living together under the same room.
to a baby boy. When the said child was 6 months old, X And, the other concerned employees who were friends
and Y decided to go separate ways. They iled for of Y would take photos of X and that other woman Z and
divorce. Because of some cultural differences, which, to would send it to Y in the Philippines. Y was so mad,
t hem, could not be reconciled, they decided to divorce.
This was granted by the Dutch court. Thereafter X told
Y that she is going back to the Philippines. Y said, he
will be giving support to their son. Y promised X that he
will send support. X left, and went back to the
Philippines. However, no support ever came from Y. 4
years later, Y went to the Philippines. While visiting, he
fell in love with a Filipina. And decided to marry the
said Filipina and began settling in the Philippines now
that he is married with the Filipina, Z. They put up a
successful business. This came to the knowledge of X
and so X iled sent a demand letter asking for support
to their son. But Y wouldn’t receive the said demand
letter. So X was forced to ile a case before the of ice of
the public prosecutor for the violation of R.A. 9262 for
failure to give support. The Investigating Public
Prosecutor sent a subpoena to Y to ile his
counter-af idavit. In his counter-af idavit, Y said that he
is not liable due to these grounds: (1) he is a foreigner
therefore Philippine laws do not apply to him; (2) the
act of failing to give support happens in a foreign
country. Therefore, based on these two grounds, he
moved for the dismissal of the complaint. If you were
the prosecutor, how would you resolve the case based
on the arguments raised by Y?
: Both arguments have no merit, the prosecutor must
A
resolve the case in favor of the complainant and should ile a
case of violation of R.A. 9262 against Y.
The irst argument has no merit. Even if he is a foreigner,
since he is in the Philippine territory, based on the generality
characteristic of criminal law, R.A. 9262 would apply.
The second argument has no merit. The said act of failure to
give support may have started in the Netherlands, but it was
continuing in the Philippines. While he was in the
Philippines, still, he failed to give support to the son. Based
on the territoriality characteristic, our penal laws would
apply to him because the failure to give support was
committed in the Philippines. Therefore, the case should be
iled against him.
: What if X and Y are happily married in the
Q
Philippines? They have been married for 5 years. X the
husband, needed to go to Japan to undergo a 1 year
training together with other employees in the
corporation. And so X left Y in the Philippines, X left for
training together with the other employees. While X
was undergoing such training in Japan, X fell in love
hurt. And so after 1 year, X arrived in the Philippines,
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 4
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

t he said woman Z arrived in the Philippines, Y A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
immediately iled a complaint for concubinage under punishment without judicial trial (Montenegro v.
Art. 334 against the husband and the mistress. Will the Castaneda). It is essentially a usurpation of judicial
case prosper? power by a legislative body.

: NO. If you were the public prosecutor, you would have to

A : Public of icer X was charged with malversation.
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Reason is, the act of
cohabitation took place not in the Philippines but in Japan.
Since the act was committed outside of the Philippine
territory, therefore, our penal laws cannot apply, the said
accused cannot be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.
Territoriality characteristic of criminal law.
: What if in the very same problem the case iled by Y
Q imposed based on damages and injuries caused on the
against X is not concubinage but a violation of R.A. offended party. Can the said judge consider and apply
9262. Will the case prosper? this new law in imposing the penalty on X whom the
: YES. Reason is, under R.A. 9262, in case of psychological
A
violence, even if the husband or even if a spouse committed
the act of cohabitation in a foreign country, the psychological
violence being felt by the other spouse in this case is in the
Philippines. The Supreme Court said, psychological violence
under R.A. 9262 is a continuing offense. Therefore, since it is
a continuing offense, the offender can be prosecuted before
the courts of the place where any of the elements of the
crime happened. Although the cohabitation happened in
Japan, the psychological violence felt by the wife happened
in the Philippines. Therefore, X can be prosecuted for
violation of R.A. 9262. This time, the case will prosper.
c. Prospectivity
GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will only be subject
to a penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law
had already taken effect.
An act or omission which has been committed before
the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by
such penal law because penal laws operate only
prospectively.
Ex post facto law is prohibited
Ex post facto law is one that is specifically made to
retroact to cover acts before it became effective to the
prejudice of the accused; or to make a certain crime
graver or prescribe a heavier penalty for it (The Matter
Of The Petition For The Declaration Of The Petitioner's
Rights And Duties Under Section 8 Of R.A. No. 6132).
The law does not have any retroactive effect EXCEPT if
it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent
or the law otherwise provides.
Bill of Attainder is prohibited
Q
Based on the evidence established in Court, he
appropriated 11,000 from his collections. And so as a
result, the incident happened in 2015. The judgment is
now to be promulgated and the judge found him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Malversation. However,
before the promulgation of judgment, a new law was
passed by Congress, which lowers the penalty to be
judge found guilty?
: YES. The said new law is favorable to X. It will lower the
A
imposable penalty. It is favorable to him therefore it can be
applied by the court. The penalty should be based on this
new law and not on the RPC.
: What if the judge has already rendered his decision
Q
against X, convicting him of malversation, imposing
upon him the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period. The judgment is already inal and
executory. When suddenly, here comes R.A. 10951
taking into effect. Can the judge still consider R.A.
10951 despite the fact that his judgment on the
malversation case has already become inal and
executory?
: YES. Although there is this so-called immutability of
A
judgment, since it is for the bene it of the accused, since the
penalty would be lowered, the case can still be opened.
NOTE: Only insofar as changing the penalty is
concerned and not regarding the merits of the accused.
DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW
1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new
law, the new law shall be applied, except when the
offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending action or
existing causes of action.
2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in
force at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be applied.
3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that
the act which was penalized under the old law is no
longer punishable or fails to penalize the offense
under the old law , the crime is obliterated and the

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 5

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
accused cannot be convicted under the new law.
■ People v. Sindiong - if a law repeals a previous
law and decriminalizes the act published by the
latter, the court loses jurisdiction to punish
persons charged with the decriminalized act.
Hence, criminal cases for decriminalized act
should be dismissed without precondition.
○ The applicable principle is nullum
crimen nulla poena sine lege. Since
the intention of the new law is to
decriminalize an act punishable by the
repealed law, the accused should be
acquitted or released if already
convicted, even if the accused is a
habitual delinquent.
4) A person erroneously accused and convicted under
a repealed statute may be punished under the
repealing statute.
3. Interpretation of penal laws
EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE
When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense
are equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor
of the accused, according to the constitutional
presumption of innocence. (Tin v. People)
RULES ON CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
a) Criminal statutes are liberally construed in favor of
the offender. This means that no person shall be
brought within their terms of the law who is not
clearly within them, nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so
by statute.
b) The original text in which a penal law is approved
will govern in case of a conflict with an official
translation. Hence, the RPC, which was approved in
Spanish text, is controlling over its English
translation.
c) No interpretation by analogy.
4. Retroactive effect of penal laws
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal
laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor
the person 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.
B. Felonies
1. Criminal liabilities and felonies
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
1) There must be an act or omission;
■ Act – It must be at least an overt act of
that felony, that is, an external act which
has direct connection with the felony
intended to be committed (mere
criminal thought or intent is not
punishable)
■ Omission – The failure to perform a
positive duty which one is bound to do
under the law. There must be a law
requiring the performance of an act,
without such law, there is no liability.
2) That the act or omission must be punishable by
the RPC; and
3) That the act is performed by means of dolo or
the omission incurred by means of culpa.
DOLO (deceit) CULPA (fault)
Involves malice or Results from negligence,
deliberate intent imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill
Intentional Intent is replaced by
fault.
INTENTIONAL FELONIES (DOLO)
The act or omission of the offender is malicious. The act
is performed with deliberate intent. The offender, in
performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the
intention to cause an injury to another.
An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is
committed by means of deliberate intent.
REQUISITES:
1) Freedom – that the act or omission was
voluntary and without external compulsion.
2) Intelligence – knowledge needed to determine
the morality and consequences of an act. The
imbecile, insane and minors have no criminal
liability.
3) Intent – Intent to commit the act with malice is
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 6
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

a purely mental process, and is presumed from
the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and
the use of intelligence.
■ Presumption of Criminal Intent —
Criminal intent is presumed from the
commission of an unlawful act BUT the
presumption of criminal intent does not
arise from the proof of the commission
of an act, which is not unlawful.
injury caused by the offender to another person is
“unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.”
Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one
wherein the offender, although without malice or
deliberate intent, caused an injury to another by the
means of negligence or imprudence. Therefore, even a
culpable felony is a voluntary act.
REQUISITES:

Since dolo or criminal intent is an element of intentional 1) Freedom;

felonies, they are mala in se. However, there is an 2) Intelligence; and
exception; technical malversation is an intentional 3) Imprudence, negligence or lack of foresight and
felony, and yet, the Supreme Court declared it as malum lack of skill
prohibitum.

NEGLIGENCE IMPRUDENCE
INTENT MOTIVE
failure to foresee lack of precaution to
The purpose is to use a The reason which impels impending danger, avoid injury, usually
particular means to one to commit an act for usually involves lack of involves lack of skill.
effect such result. a definite result. foresight.
Generally, it is an It is NOT an essential
essential element of a element of a crime. Voluntariness is actually the concurrence of the 3
crime. Hence, it need NOT be elements of intentional felony and the concurrence of
proved for purposes of the 3 elements of culpable felony. Therefore, without
conviction. voluntariness, there can neither be an intentional felony
nor a culpable felony.
Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and hence
Q: Can the judge convict a person of a culpable
need not be proved for purposes of conviction. (People
felony in an information that charges him of
v. Aposaga)
intentional felony?
Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the
A: Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is
identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the
necessarily included in an intentional felony because a
accused has been positively identified. (People v.
culpable felony is of lesser offense than that of
Gadiana)
intentional felony.
Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a
MISTAKE OF FACT
conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in showing
the innocence of the accused (People v. Corput)
It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is not, however,
Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal
criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal
intent?
intent.
A: YES. There are 2 instances wherein intent is not an
REQUISITES:
essential element of a crime:
1) That the act done would have been lawful had
1. Culpable Felony
the facts been as the accused believed them to
2. When the crime is in violation of special penal
be;
laws (Acts Mala prohibita)
2) That the intention of the accused in performing
CULPABLE FELONIES (CULPA)
the act should be lawful; and
The act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The
3) That the mistake must be without fault or

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 7

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
carelessness on the part of the accused
A mistake of fact will exempt a person from criminal
liability so long as the alleged ignorance or mistake of
fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. (Baxinela v.
People)
While an honest mistake of fact could be used to
excuse a person from the legal consequences of his
acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law
cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its
consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis
neminem excusat. (In Re: Petition to sign in the roll of
Attorneys Michael M. Medado)
Q: Can a mistake of fact be used as a defense
against culpable felony?
A: NO. One of the elements of Mistake of Fact is that
the intent must be lawful. Since intent is not an element
in culpable felonies, then mistake of fact cannot be used
as a defense.
Article 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall
be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. (Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina)
As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the
consequences of his felonious act, although not
intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of
the felony.
REQUISITES:
1. The intended act is a felonious act;
2. The resulting act is a felony;
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felonious act of the
offender.
Instances when the felony committed is not the
proximate cause of the resulting injury:
1. When there is an efficient intervening cause
between the felony committed and the resulting
injury; or
2. When the resulting injury or damage is due to
the intentional act of the victim.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
It is an intervening active force which is a distinct act or
fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
accused.
In order that an act is considered an Efficient
Intervening Cause, it is necessary that it is totally foreign
from the felonious act that is performed by the offender.
: On January 23, 2002, there was a stabbing incident.
Q
Cruz was stabbed by Villacorta on the left side of his
body with a sharpened bamboo stick. He was brought to
the Tondo Medical Center. He was released on the very
same day as an out-patient because his wound was not
fatal. On February 14, 2002, he was brought to San
Lazaro Hospital. He was already suffering from tetanus
infection. A day after or on February 15, he died. The
cause of his death was tetanus infection. Villacorta was
prosecuted for the crime of homicide for the death of
Cruz. What is the proximate cause for the death of Cruz?
: The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus
A
infection, and not the stab wound. There had been an interval
of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date
when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting
symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired
severe tetanus infection from the stabbing, then the
symptoms would have appeared a lot sooner than 22 days
later. Cruz’s stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its
subsequent infection with tetanus might have been the
proximate cause of Cruz’s death. The infection of Cruz’s stab
wound by tetanus was an ef icient intervening cause later or
between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his death.
(People v. Villacorta)
: Javier was hacked by Urbano on his right palm. Javier
Q
suffered an incised wound and was brought to the
hospital. There was a settlement. Thereafter he was
released. However, after 22 days he was brought to the
hospital, he was already suffering from tetanus
poisoning. The next day he died. Is the accused liable
for homicide?
A: NO. Taking into account the incubation period of tetanus
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 8
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
bacteria, medical evidence was presented that tetanus
bacteria is good for only two weeks. That if, indeed, the
victim had incurred tetanus infection out of the wound
in licted by A, he would not have lasted two months. What
brought about tetanus to infect the body of B was his
working in his farm using his bare hands. Because of this,
the SC ruled that the act of B of working in his farm where the
soil is ilthy, using his own hands, is an ef icient supervening
cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of B. A, if
at all, is only liable for physical injuries in licted upon B.
(Urbano v. IAC)
a. Classification of felonies (grave, less grave
and light felonies)
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light
felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Article 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional in accordance with above mentioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law or the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) or
both is provided.
GRAVE FELONIES
Those to which the law attaches the capital punishment
or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. It
includes those punishable by:
1. Reclusion perpetua
2. Reclusion temporal
3. Perpetual or Absolute Disqualification
4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification
5. Prision mayor
6. Fine more than ₱1,200,000.00
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional. It includes those punishable by:
1. Prisión correccional
2. Arresto mayor
3. Suspension
4. Destierro
5. Fine not exceeding ₱1,200,000 but is not less
than ₱40,000
LIGHT FELONIES
Those infractions of law in which the penalty is arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding ₱40,000 or both.
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed
against person or property.
b. Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and
praeter intentionem
ABERRATIO ICTUS (Mistake in blow)
Aberratio Ictus is a situation wherein the offender
directed a blow at his intended victim but because of
poor aim, the blow landed on another victim.
A person is criminally responsible for committing an
intentional felony although the actual victim is different
from the intended victim due to a mistake of blow.
The crimes committed against the target victim and the
3rd person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus,
were produced by a single act, the accused is therefore
liable for a compound crime. (People v. Talampas)
HOWEVER, the accused is liable for separate crimes
despite the application of the aberratio ictus rule, and
not a compound crime if the bullet that killed the target
victim is different from the bullet that killed the 3rd
person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus.
(People v. Flora)
ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in identity)
A felony is intended, but there is a mistake in the identity
of the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another.
The effect of error in personae depends on the variance
between the intended crime and the actual crime
committed:
a) Mitigating - If there is variance between the
penalty of the intended crime and the penalty of
the actual crime committed, the lesser penalty
between the two shall apply;
b) If there is no variance between the penalty of
the intended crime and the crime actually
committed, then it will not affect the criminal
liability of the offender.
Q: A and B were ighting. A punched B so hard, he fell on
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 9
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

t he ground, his face facing the ground. A left the scene

of the crime. At that precise moment when A left, here An act which would have been an offense against
comes the father of B who saw his poor son boxed by A person or property, were it not for the inherent
so he came to the rescue of his son and went near him. impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
To retaliate, B took out his balisong and stabbed the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
person next to him thinking that it was still his
opponent A but in truth it was already his father. Let's Impossible crime is not a real crime since the accused
say the father died. Of what crime will you prosecute B? did not commit the crime against person or property for
What penalty as a Judge would you impose on him? it is impossible to do so. The offender is being punished
because of his criminality and dangerousness. So
: B should be prosecuted for Parricide because that is the
A although objectively, no crime is committed, still the
crime he actually committed. However, the judge should offender shall be punished that is why he is convicted
impose the penalty for homicide. The penalty for parricide only of Impossible Crime.
under Art. 246 is reclusion perpetua to death whereas the
penalty for homicide under Art. 249 is reclusion temporal. REQUISITES:
Although he committed parricide, you have to impose upon
him the penalty which is lesser and that is reclusion 1) Act performed would be an offense against
temporal but in its maximum period. persons or property;

PRAETER INTENTIONEM Felonies Against Persons are:

Praeter intentionem occurs when the consequence went a. Murder

beyond the intention or when the injurious result is b. Homicide
greater than that intended. It is a situation wherein the c. Infanticide
offender directed the blow at his actual victim, the d. Abortion
victim received the blow. However, the injurious result is e. Duel
far greater than what is intended by the victim. f. Physical Injuries
g. Rape
For Praeter intentionem to be considered as a mitigating
circumstance, the prime element or requisite is that Felonies Against Property:
there must be a notable disparity between the means
employed by the offender and the resulting felony. This a. Robbery
means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from b. Brigandage
the acts of the offender. c. Theft
d. Usurpation
: Accused Garcia was having a karaoke with his friends
Q e. Culpable Insolvency
late at night when deceased Chy requested the accused f. Swindling and other deceits
to quiet down. Thereafter, the accused vowed to kill Chy g. Chattel Mortgage
one day. In one instance, the accused saw the deceased h. Arson and other crimes involving
in a sari-sari store. Suddenly, the accused hit the victim destruction
in the nape with a bottle of beer and thereafter mauled i. Malicious Mischief
him. The deceased was able to escape and called his
2) Act was done with evil intent;
wife to call for police. When his wife returned, Chy was
already lying on the loor lifeless. Autopsy report 3) Accomplishment is inherently impossible or
concludes that Chy died from a heart attack brought means employed is either inadequate or
about by emotional stress. The accused was charged ineffectual; and
with the crime of homicide. Should the accused be
convicted for the crime of homicide? 4) Act performed should not constitute a violation
of another provision of the RPC.
: YES. His act of mauling him was the proximate cause of
A
his heart attack. However, he was given the bene it of Praeter NOTE: It is necessary that the act done must not
intentionem. Who would have anticipated that the mere act constitute any other violation of the Revised Penal
of mauling or boxing him, death would result. Therefore, Code, otherwise, that person would be held liable of
there was Praeter intentionem. that crime and not of an Impossible crime.

c. Impossible crime

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 10

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY other than this own spontaneous desistance.

According to jurisprudence, there are two kinds of PHASES IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
inherent impossibility:
1. Subjective phase
1. Legal Impossibility – when all the intended 2. Objective phase
acts even if committed would not have
amounted to a crime.
SUBJECTIVE PHASE OBJECTIVE PHASE
Example: X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench.
the portion in the The result of the acts of
He went to Y and stabbed Y 10 times not
commission of the act execution, that is, the
knowing that Y had already long been dead for
wherein the offender accomplishment of the
2 hours due to a heart attack. Even if X
commences the crime.
performed all the acts amounting to murder, still
commission of the crime
murder would not arise which is a crime against
after the time that he still
persons because the victim is already
has control over his
deceased. He is no longer a person in the eyes
acts.
of criminal law. Therefore there is an Impossible
Crime and what we have is legal impossibility.
If the offender reaches From the moment the
the point where he has offender loses control
2. Physical Impossibility – when an extraneous
no more control over his over his acts, it is
circumstance unknown to the offender
acts, the subjective already in the objective
prevented the consignation of the crime. Here,
phase is passed. phase of the
there are circumstances unknown to the
commission of the
offender, the inadequate control of the offender
crime.
which prevented the consignation of the crime.
If it is already passed
Example: A person placed his hands inside the but the felony is not
pocket of another's polo, intended to get the produced, it is
wallet of the said person but the pocket was frustrated.
empty. It is an Impossible Crime. Extraneous
Circumstances unknown to the offender
prevented the consignation of the crime. DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
Unknown to him the wallet was not inside his
pocket. It is an IC because it would have a) Internal acts – such as mere ideas in the mind of a
amounted to theft, a crime against property. person; they are not punishable. Mere criminal
thoughts will never give rise to criminal liability.
There must be an external act.
d. Stages of execution
b) External acts – cover a) preparatory and b) acts of
Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted execution.
felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted are punishable. 1. Preparatory – acts tending toward the crime;
ordinarily not punishable unless specifically
A felony is consummated when all the elements provided for; these acts do not yet constitute
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are even the first stage of the acts of execution;
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs intent not yet disclosed.
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not 2. Acts of execution – acts directly connected to
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the intended crime; varies with the crime and is
the perpetrator. punishable under the code; usually overt acts
with a logical relation to a particular concrete
There is an attempt when the offender commences the offense.
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should STAGES OF EXECUTION
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
1. Attempted;

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 11

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
2. Frustrated; and
3. Consummated
ATTEMPTED STAGE
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by over 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.
The offender is still in the subjective phase, the offender
has still control over his acts, he may proceed in the
commission of the crime or he may desist.
The moment he desists on his own spontaneous
desistance then he will no longer be held criminally
liable.
ELEMENTS:
1) The offender commences the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts;
2) He does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony;
3) The offender’s act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance;
4) The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
The commission of the felony is deemed commenced
directly by overt acts when 1) there be external acts; 2)
such external acts have direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed.
Overt Act refers to any external act which if allowed to
continue will naturally and logically ripen into a crime.
: A person intending to rob a store made an opening
Q
on the wall of the store suf icient for his body to enter. 1) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
His intention was to rob. Before he could enter he was
already apprehended. Can he be liable for attempted 2) All the acts performed would produce the felony
robbery?? as a consequence;
: NO. Because his overt act of making an opening on the
A 3) But the felony is not produced;
wall of the store is not an overt act directly connected to
robbery. It is only an overt act directly connected to
trespassing. Hence, he can only be held liable for attempted
trespassing.
Although his intention was to commit robbery, once inside
he may rob, he may rape, he may kill, he may injure the
owner of the store. Therefore, it is not an act directly
connected to robbery. (People v. Lamahang)
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE
It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing
an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective
is ambiguous. The intention of the accused must be
viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and
not from his admission.
People v. Jugueta – If one inflicts physical injuries on
another but the latter survives, the crime committed is
either consummated physical injuries, if the offender
had no intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or
attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted
murder if the offender intends to kill the victim.
Colinares v. People – The main element of attempted
or frustrated homicide is the accused’s intent to take his
victim’s life; The intent to kill is often inferred from,
among other things, the means the offender used and
the nature, location and number of wounds he inflicted
on his victims.
When the accused intended to kill his victim, as shown
by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he
inflicted, but the victim did not die because of timely
medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or
frustrated homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal,
the crime is only attempted murder or attempted
homicide.
FRUSTRATED STAGE
There is frustrated felony 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.
ELEMENTS: (People v. Badriago)
4) By reason or causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
No Frustrated Theft
In the case of People vs. Valenzuela, the Supreme Court
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 12
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
held that there is no such thing as frustrated theft.
Under Art. 308, theft is committed when the person
takes the personal property of another with intent to
gain without violence, force or intimidation upon
persons or things without the consent of the owner.
Theft can admit only either an attempted and
consummated stage because the moment the offender
gains possession of the personal property of another,
unlawful taking is already committed.
Even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the property
and the moment the unlawful taking is complete, theft is
already consummated. Hence, there can be no instance
of frustrated theft.
No Frustrated Rape
In the case of People v. Pareja, the Supreme Court held
that rape is consummated by the slightest penile
penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the
female organ. Without any showing of such penetration,
there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only
be attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.
Frustrated Felony v. Attempted Felony
➔ In both, the offender has not accomplished his
criminal purpose.
➔ While in frustrated felony, the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence, in
attempted felony, the offender merely
commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts and does not perform all the acts
of execution.
CONSUMMATED STAGE
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.
ELEMENTS:
1) All the acts of execution are present; and
2) The result is achieved.
e. Continuing crimes
CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSE.
There are crimes which are called transitory or
continuing offenses because some acts material and
essential to the crime occur in one province and some
in another, in which case, the rule is settled that the
court of either province where any of the essential
ingredients of the crime took place has — jurisdiction to
try the case. (Parulan v. Director of Prisons, 1968)
CONTINUED CRIME OR DELITO CONTINUADO
A continued crime is a single crime consisting of a
series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.
It is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on
foot by a single impulse and operated by an
unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy.
Although there are series of acts, there is only one crime
committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.
(Mallari v. People, 1988)
f. Complex crimes and composite crimes
COMPLEX CRIMES
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.
In complex crimes, although two or more crimes are
actually committed, they constitute only one crime in
the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the
offender. The offender has only one criminal intent. Even
in the case where an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is
only one.
2 Kinds of Complex Crime
1. Compound Crime;
2. Complex Crime Proper
In both kinds, only one (1) information is filed and the
accused shall suffer the penalty for the most serious
crime in its maximum period.
COMPOUND CRIME
Compound Crime is present when the offender
performs a single act which constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies.
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender performs single act;
2) That the single act produces (a) 2 or more grave
felonies, or (b) one or more grave and one or
more less grave felonies, or (c) two or more less
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 13
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
grave felonies.
Light felonies produced by the same act should be
treated and punished as separate offenses or may be
absorbed by the grave felony.
Example of compound crime: Aberratio ictus
■ If the crimes committed against the target victim
and third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio
ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is
liable for a complex crime.
■ Thus, single act of throwing a grenade killing one
and injuring another constitutes a complex crime of
murder and attempted murder. (People v. Julio
Guillen)
■ The accused is liable for separate crimes despite
the application of the aberratio ictus rule, and
not a complex crime in the following cases:
1) If the bullet that killed the target victim is
different from the bullet that killed the third
person, who was hit by reason of aberratio
ictus
2) If the crime committed against the third
person, who was hit by reason of aberratio
ictus, is merely a light felony such as slight
physical injuries
3) If the components of a complex crime are
alleged in two different informations.
4) If the crime committed against the third
person, who was hit by reason of aberratio
ictus, is child abuse, which is an offense
punishable under special law. Components
of complex crime must be felonies.
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
Complex crime proper is present when the offense is a
necessary means to commit another offense.
ELEMENTS:
1) That at least two offenses are committed;
2) That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other;
3) That both or all the offenses must be punished
under the same statute.
■ No complex crime where one of the
offenses is penalized by a special law.
The following are examples of complex crime
proper:
1. Rape with forcible abduction
2. Estafa thru falsification of public document
Article 48 does not apply if:
1) One of the offenses is a light offense;
2) One of the offenses is punishable under a
special penal law;
3) The Revised Penal Code provides one single
penalty for special complex crimes (e.g. robbery
with homicide);
4) The doctrine of common elements applies
■ There are two crimes but both of them
have a common element. This is best
exemplified in estafa through
falsification of private documents, the
common element involved in these
offenses is damage or prejudice, that if
you use damage or prejudice in estafa,
you cannot use it anymore for
falsification of private documents or
vice versa.
■ NOTE: there is estafa through
falsification of public documents.
5) The doctrine of absorption applies
■ The best illustration is rebellion which
absorbs common crimes like robbery,
homicide, and even arson. Rebellion
absorbs common crimes for as long as
the common crimes mentioned are
committed to attain the purposes of
rebellion. If there is no nexus in the
commission of the rebellion, and the
common crimes are not committed for
purposes of achieving the goals of
rebellion, then the absorption does not
apply.
People v. Hernandez (1956)
Amado V. Hernandez, et. al., were accused of the crime
of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies.
The prosecution maintained that Hernandez is charged
with rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and
robberies, for which the capital punishment may be
imposed. The defense contends, among other things,
that rebellion can not be complexed with murder, arson,
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 14
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
or robbery.
HELD: Under the allegations of the amended
information, the murders, arsons and robberies
described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of
rebellion allegedly committed by HERNANDEZ, as
means “necessary” for the perpetration of said offense
of rebellion and that the crime charged in the amended
information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons
and robberies. Under Article 134 and 135, these five (5)
classes of acts constitute only one offense, and no
more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty.
Inasmuch as the acts specified in Article 135 constitute
one single crime, it follows that said acts offer no
occasion for the application of Article 48 which requires
therefore the commission of at least 2 crimes.
Enrile v. Salazar (1990)
The Hernandez doctrine remains binding and operates
to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with another
offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a
means necessary to its commission or as an unintended
effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.
The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the
most serious crime, the same to be applied in its
maximum.
One information should be filed when a complex crime
is committed.
When a complex crime is charged and one offense is
not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.
COMPOSITE CRIMES
Also known as SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES. Special
complex crimes are those which are treated as single
indivisible offenses, although comprising more than one
specific crime and with specific penalty.
It is the law which provides what crimes would be
complexed and what crimes go together.
Examples:
1. Robbery with Homicide (Article 294 (1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Article 294 (2))
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Article
267 (3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Article 335)
2. Circumstances affecting criminal liability
The following circumstances affects the criminal liability
of the offender:
1. Justifying circumstances; (Art. 11)
2. Exempting circumstances; (Art. 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances; (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances; (Art. 14)
a. Justifying circumstances
Justifying circumstances are those where the acts of the
actor are in accordance with the law, thus he incurs no
criminal liability. Since there is no crime, there is no
criminal and civil liability.
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following
do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur;
First, Unlawful aggression
Second, Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
Third, Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of
his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in
case the provocation was given by the person attacked,
that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of
a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are
present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage, provided that the
following requisites are present:
First, That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
Second, That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
Third, That there be no other practical and less harmful
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 15
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in fulfillment of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful purpose.
The moment the offender or the accused invokes any of
the acts amounting to justifying circumstance, he is in
effect admitting the commission of the crime. But he
wanted to evade criminal liability by invoking justifying
circumstances.
Inverted Trial
As a rule it is the prosecution that must first present
evidence, it is only after the prosecution has presented
evidence that the defense would present evidence.
If however the defense invokes any of the justifying
circumstances, the trial will be inverted. It is the defense
that must first present evidence. Therefore the burden of
evidence is upon the defense to prove all the elements,
all the requisites of the justifying circumstance that he is
invoking.
If the defense failed to prove the evidence or requisites
of justifying circumstance that he is invoking, that will
amount to conviction because he already admitted to
the commission of the crime.
1. SELF DEFENSE
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the
person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his
rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is
protected by law, i.e. Right to Honor and Defense of
Property Rights.
ELEMENTS:
A) There must be unlawful aggression.
■ Unlawful aggression is the primordial requisite
which must at all times be present. When
unlawful aggression is absent, there is no self
defense whether complete or incomplete.
■ Unlawful aggression is an actual physical
assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict
physical injury upon a person. A mere
threatening or intimidating attitude is not
considered unlawful aggression, unless the
threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly
showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.
There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected
attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts
the defendant’s life in real peril.
■ Retaliation is different from an act of self
defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was
begun by the injured party already ceased to
exist when the accused attacked him. In self
defense, the aggression was still existing when
the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense.
■ A slap on the face constitutes unlawful
aggression since the face represents a person
and his dignity. Slapping it is a serious personal
attack. (People v. Sabio)
: X was walking along the street. Suddenly, Y
Q
went up to him. Y pointed a gun towards X. Y
commanded X to give him his wallet, watch, and
cellphone otherwise he will stab him. X gave his
cellphone and his wallet. When X was about to
give his watch, he suddenly grabbed the gun
from Y. Now with the possession of the gun, X
ordered Y to give him back his cellphone and
wallet. Instead of giving X back his belongings,
Y ran away. Thereafter, X ired a shot against Y,
hitting Y in his knee. Unable to run, X
approached Y and thereafter took his
belongings. X left. Thereafter, X was charged
with physical injury. X argued self-defense. Is X
liable for physical injury?
: NO. Although X already gained possession of the
A
gun, the unlawful aggression did not cease. The
unlawful aggression continued because Y still had
the property of X. Had X not shot Y in the knee, Y
would have gotten away with the property of X.
B) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
■ The means employed by the person making a
defense must be rationally necessary to prevent
or repel an unlawful aggression.
■ The reasonableness of the means used will
depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the
weapon used by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL
CONDITION, SIZE and other circumstances,
and those of the person defending himself, and
also the PLACE and LOCATION of the assault.
C) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
■ The following circumstances show that there is
no sufficient provocation on the part of the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 16
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
person defending himself:
◆ When no provocation at all was given;
◆ When although provocation was given,
it was not sufficient;
◆ When although the provocation was
sufficient, it did come from the person
defending himself; and
◆ Although provocation came from the
person defending himself, it is not
immediate or imminent to the
aggression.
BATTERED WOMAN DEFENSE
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self defense under the RPC. (People v.
Genosa)
2. DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Relatives that can be defended:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree.
ELEMENTS:
1) Unlawful aggression;
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it;
3) In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part therein.
Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender,
was the one provoked by the offended party, the
offender should take no part in the provocation in said
situation so as to justify the defense of a relative.
3. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
ELEMENTS:
1) Unlawful aggression.
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it.
3) The person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Unlike in self-defense where the motive of the person
defending himself is immaterial, in defense of strangers,
the person defending must not be motivated by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. STATE OF NECESSITY
As a rule, it is noted that justifying circumstances are
exempt from criminal as well as civil liability. However,
this paragraph of Article 11 is an exception when it
comes to civil liability. Although he is not criminally
liable, he is civilly liable.
Civil liability is born not only by the accused, but all
those people who benefitted in this state of emergence.
ELEMENTS:
1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
2) That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
3) That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
: In a taxi, a family was on board. Said taxi was
Q
traversing ESDA during night time. Suddenly, without
any warning, a truck appeared in front of him. If he
would go forward, he would be hitting the buses. If he
swerved to the right, he would be hitting bystanders. If
he swerved to the left, he would hit a store. So the taxi
driver chose to swerve to the left, hit the store thereby
causing damage. Prosecuted for reckless imprudence
resulting to damage to property, the taxi driver invoked
the 4th justifying circumstances. Is the taxi criminally
liable for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property?
: NO. The elements are all present. 1st, the evil sought to be
A
avoided actually exists because there was a collision. 2nd,
the injury feared (death) was greater than that done. Lastly,
there was no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it. Aside from these 3 requisites stated by the law,
it should be added that the necessity must not be due to the
negligence or violation of the law by the actor. In this case,
there was a warning to the taxi driver not to enter the street,
yet he proceeded. It is through his negligence that caused the
state of necessity, therefore he is criminally and civilly
liable.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 17
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
5. FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE
OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
ELEMENTS:
1) Accused acted in the performance of a duty or
in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2) Injury caused or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME
LAWFUL PURPOSE
ELEMENTS:
1) That an order has been issued by a superior.
2) That such order must be for some lawful
purpose.
3) That the means used by the subordinate to
carry out said order is lawful.
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the
subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable. However,
the subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal
order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of
the order and he is not negligent.
b. Exempting circumstances
Exempting circumstances are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is wanting in
the agent of the crime any of the conditions which
makes the act voluntary or negligent.
While the act is criminal, the actor is not liable. There is,
however, civil liability.
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 9 years of age.
3. A person over 9 years of age and under 15, unless he
has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
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 Article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of
irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by
law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting
circumstances commits a crime, although by the
complete absence of any of the conditions which
constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no
criminal liability arises.
1. INSANITY AND IMBECILITY
Imbecility is exempting under any circumstance.
Whereas, insanity is not exempting under any
circumstance. If it can be shown that he committed the
crime in lucid interval, he is liable.
When the person is sane at the time of the commission
of the crime but he becomes insane at the time of the
trial, he is liable criminally. The trial, however, shall be
suspended until the mental capacity of the accused be
restored to afford him a fair trial. Evidence of insanity
must refer to the time preceding the act under
prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. If
the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the
commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted.
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because a
feeble-minded person can distinguish right from wrong.
Q: A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the killing, he
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 18
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

c ould not sleep and there was a voice that kept nagging Under Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344, once the child who is under
him, “Kill B, kill B.” And so he killed B, so he followed the 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
voice. He pleaded guilty but his defense was insanity. crime was found guilty of the offense charged the court
Will A be acquitted due to insanity? shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which
may have resulted from the offense committed.
: NO. In the case of People v. Antonio (G.R. No. 14426,
A However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
November 27, 2002), the Supreme Court held that mere conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with
mental disturbance, mere craziness is not the insanity the law under suspended sentence, without need of
contemplated by the law. It is the insanity which would application. Provided however, that the suspension of
deprive the offender the capacity to distinguish right from the sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
wrong and the consequences of his act. already 18 years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his guilt. Therefore, as long as he is
2. & 3. MINORITY 18 years and below at the time of the commission of the
crime, even if he is above 18 at the promulgation of the
judgment, he can still benefit from the suspended
The second and third circumstance was already sentence.
amended by R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006. This refers to a child in conflict with Under Section 40 of R.A. 9344, if a child is under
the law. A child in conflict with the law is a child who is suspended sentence, the court shall decide to
alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having discharge or to extend the sentence for a specific period
committed an offense under Philippine laws. of time or until the child attains the maximum age of 21.
Although there is automatic suspension, it is tempered
R.A. No. 9344, Section 6 (Juvenile Justice and by Section 40. Therefore, the maximum limit is 21 years
Welfare Act of 2006) old.

15 or below exempted from criminal liability; 4. ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A
LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY
shall be subjected to an BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR
intervention program. INTENTION OF CAUSING IT.

over 15 but exempted from criminal liability;

ELEMENTS:
below 18 (did
not act with shall be subjected to an
1) A person performing a lawful act;
discernment) intervention program.
2) With due care;
over 15 but not exempted from criminal 3) He causes an injury to another by mere
below 18 (acted liability and he will be accident;
with prosecuted just like any other 4) Without fault or intention of causing it.
discernment) criminal
Note that although exempting, as a rule, there is no
criminal liability but there is civil liability. However,
NOTE: A child 15 years of age or under at the time of paragraph 4 (accident) is an exception. There are no
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and civil liability. Accident is akin to
criminal liability. A child is deemed to be 15 years of age justifying circumstance because the offender was
on the day of the 15th anniversary of his/her birthdate. performing a lawful act with due care.

In the case of Madali v. People (G.R. No. 180380,

5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
August 4, 2009), there is an act of discernment when
COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
the minor knows the consequences and circumstances
of his act. Discernment is that mental capacity of a
minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his ELEMENTS:
unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should
be determined by taking into consideration all the facts 1) There must be Compulsion is by means of
and circumstances. physical force;
2) Physical force must be irresistible;
Suspension of Sentence 3) Physical force must come from a third person.

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 19

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Before force can be considered to be an irresistible one,
it must produce such an effect upon the individual that,
in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument, that he is not acting in his will and, as such,
incapable of committing a crime.
6. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE
OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR
GREATER INJURY
ELEMENTS:
1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2) Fear must be real and imminent;
3) Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that
committed.
A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion
must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
It is necessary that such fear must be of imminence that
an ordinary man cannot stand. When there is an
existence of uncontrollable force or fear there is lack of
freedom of action—an element of voluntariness.
Therefore, the person totally has no free will.
Even if there was force employed but the person has a
choice to do the act or not, this exempting provision will
not lie.
7. ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT
REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME
LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
ELEMENTS:
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 was due to
some lawful or insuperable cause.
Note that it is one of the instances in exempting
circumstances that the actor is exempt from both
criminal and civil liability. It is akin to a justifying
circumstance because what prevented the offender
from performing a lawful act is a lawful cause.
c. Mitigating circumstances
Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances
which if present or attendant in the commission of a
felony would reduce the imposable penalty because it
shows lesser perversity or criminality of the offender.
Mitigating circumstances need not be alleged in the
information in order to be appreciated by the court
provided that such circumstance is shown and proven
during the trial.
There is a lesser criminality on the part of the offender
because the offender acted with the diminution of any of
the elements of voluntariness.
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.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 20
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Not considered in the Always considered
determination of the regardless of the penalty
1. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance
proper penalty when the imposed
penalty prescribed by
■ one which may be offset by a generic
law for the single crime
aggravating circumstance. If an ordinary
is a single indivisible
mitigating circumstance is not offset by
penalty
a generic aggravating circumstance, it
would reduce the imposable penalty to
its minimum period.
1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING
2. Privilege Mitigating Circumstance CIRCUMSTANCE

■ One that mitigates criminal liability of

the crime being modified to one or two Incomplete Justifying or exempting circumstances are
degrees lower. These circumstances those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
cannot be off-set by aggravating requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
circumstances. liability in the respective cases are not attendant.

The following are the privilege mitigating Privilege Mitigating or Ordinary Mitigating?
circumstances:
a) If majority of the elements necessary to justify
i. Incomplete justification or the act or to exempt from liability are present,
exemption (when majority of the the privileged mitigating circumstance of
conditions are present) incomplete justification or exemption shall be
appreciated.
ii. Minority (if the child above 15
years of age acted with People v. Oanis and Galanta - if a
discernment) circumstance has:

■ The presence of privilege mitigating ■ 3 elements: presence of 2 elements is

circumstances takes preference over all majority;
other things. ■ 2 elements: presence of 1 is tantamount
to majority
★ Special Mitigating Circumstance — When there are
b) If less than the majority is present, the
two or more mitigating circumstances and no
ordinary mitigating circumstance of
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
incomplete justification or exemption shall be
impose the penalty next lower in degree to that
appreciated.
prescribed by law. This is called as special mitigating
circumstance.
Incomplete Self-Defense

ORDINARY PRIVILEGE In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense

MITIGATING MITIGATING of a relative, incomplete defense of a stranger, there
must always be unlawful aggression in order for the
Can be offset by generic Cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance to mitigate.
aggravating kind of aggravating
circumstance; circumstance Incomplete self-defense is only ordinary mitigating if
only the element of unlawful aggression is present. If
Lowers the penalty to Lowers the penalty by another element is present aside from unlawful
the minimum period one or two degrees; aggression, it will be treated as a privilege mitigating
except when there are circumstance.
two ordinary mitigating
circumstance in which 2. MINORITY/SENILITY
case the penalty is
lowered by one degree
only; That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 21

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80.
Minority — Remember that if minority is not exempting,
it is always and always a privilege mitigating
circumstance. Never an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. So if the offender is over 15 but below
18, and he acted with discernment, it is not exempting
but it is a privilege mitigating circumstance .
Senility — Senility (a person over age 70) is generally an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.
■ People v. Reyes - seniority as a mitigating
circumstance can only be considered if the
offender is over 70 years of age at the time of
the commission of the crime and not at the time
of the promulgation of the decision.
■ People v. Reantillo and Ruiz - but even though
the accused at the time of the commission of
the crime is not over 70 years of age, if his
condition by reason of his age affects his
discernment in committing the crime, analogous
circumstances of seniority can be considered.
3. THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO
COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AS THAT
COMMITTED.
This circumstance can be taken into account only when
the facts proven show that there is a notable and
evident disproportion between the means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences—that is,
out of the means employed by the offender, no one
could have anticipated that the resulting felony would
come.
The intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by
the proportion of the means employed by him to the evil
produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow
was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body.
Intention must be judged by considering the weapon
used, the injury inflicted and the attitude of the mind
when the accused attacked the deceased.
This mitigating circumstance is not applicable when the
offender employed brute force.
: A and B were ighting, A boxed B, B boxed A, A
Q
retaliated and boxed B again. When A boxed B, B’s head ■
hit a cemented wall and so he suffered cerebral the provocation and the commission of
hemorrhage and thereafter caused his death. Is A the crime.
criminally liable for the death of B? If yes, can he be
iven the bene it of praeter intentionem that he has no
g
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed?
: YES. When A boxed B, he was committing a felonious act.
A
Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting felony
although it is different from which he intended. Nonetheless,
he can be given the bene it of praeter intentionem. There was
a notable disparity between the means employed by the
offender and the resulting felony. Who could have anticipated
that by the mere act of boxing death would result. Therefore,
he should be given the bene it of praeter intentionem.
: In the same problem A and B were ighting by means
Q
of ist, then suddenly, A who was losing pulled out a
balisong or a fan knife and stabbed B on the neck, a
fatal wound. B died. A was prosecuted for homicide. He
said he had no intention to commit a wrong so grave as
that committed, no intention to kill B. Can A bene it
from praeter intentionem that he has no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed?
: No, because there was no notable disparity in the between
A
means employed – stabbing on the neck using a balisong or
fan knife resulting to death. In fact, the act of the victim of
stabbing would produce, and did produce the death of the
victim. Therefore, praeter intentionem would not lie in favor
of the accused.
4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
There must be a sufficient provocation or threat on the
part of the offended party and it must immediately
precede the commission of the crime.
Provocation - any unjust or improper conduct or act of
the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
irritating anyone.
Requisites to be considered as a mitigating
circumstance:
1) The provocation must be sufficient;
■ Provocation is sufficient if it is adequate
to stir a person to commit a wrongful
act, and it is proportionate to the gravity
of the crime.
2) It must be immediate to the commission of the
crime;
There must be no lapse of time between
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 22
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

3) It must originate from the offended party.

The vindication of the It is necessary that the
grave offense may be provocation or threat
: There was this long line of evacuees, victims of Pablo
Q
proximate which admits immediately preceded
who are to be given reliefs. A was 5th on the line,
of interval of time the act. There must be
suddenly, X inserted himself in front of A. This angered
between the grave no interval of time
A, A told X to place himself at the end of the line but X
offense committed by between the
didn’t want to because he was so hungry. This angered
the offended party and provocation and the
A, and so A pulled out his bolo and hacked X at the back.
the commission of the commission of the crime
A was prosecuted for homicide. Is the mitigating
crime of the accused
circumstance of suf icient provocation on the part of the
offended party justi ied?

: NO. Although the act of X in inserting himself to the line is

A : While having a drinking spree in a cottage, Anthony
an act adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act, the
2nd element is absent – it is not proportionate to the gravity
of the act. The act of killing is not proportionate to the act of
X of placing himself in front of A in a long line. Therefore,
suf icient provocation as a mitigating circumstance is not
present so as to reduce the imposable penalty.
5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
ELEMENTS:
1) That there be a grave offense to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brothers or sister, or relatives by affinity within
the same degree;
2) It requires that the said act or grave offense
must be the proximate cause of the commission
of the crime.
Q: Is it necessary that the grave offense need be a
punishable act?
A: NO. It suffices that it be any unjust act or immoral act
which causes the offender sleepless nights and moves
him to vindicate himself.
Vindication of grave Sufficient threat or
offense provocation
Q
tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin and as the latter
refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with gin and mauled
him several times. Dennis crawled beneath the table
and Anthony tried to stab him with a 29 fan knife but
did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran towards their
home. Upon reaching home, he got a knife. He went
back to the cottage by another route and upon arrival
Anthony was still there. Upon seeing Dennis, Anthony
avoided Dennis and ran by passing the shore towards
the creek but Dennis met him, blocked him and
stabbed him. When he was hit, Anthony ran but got
entangled with a ishing net beside the creek and fell
on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
continued stabbing him resulting in the latter's death.
Thereafter, Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow
near a Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a
police of icer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
: The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the
A
immediate vindication of a grave offense is properly
appreciated. Dennis was humiliated, mauled and almost
stabbed by Anthony. Although the unlawful aggression had
ceased when Dennis stabbed Anthony, it was nonetheless a
grave offense for which Dennis may be given the bene it of a
mitigating circumstance. However, the mitigating
circumstance of suf icient provocation cannot be considered
apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense.
These two circumstances arose from one and the same
incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony, so that
they should be considered as only one mitigating
circumstance. (People v. Torpio)

The grave offense may It is made directly only 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

be committed also to the person
against the offender’s committing the felony
ELEMENTS:
relatives mentioned in
the law
a) There was an act that was both unlawful and
The offended party must The cause that brought sufficient to produce such condition (passion or
have done a grave about the provocation obfuscation) of the mind.
offense to the offender need not be a grave
b) Such act was not far removed from the
or his relatives offense.
commission of the crime by a considerable
mentioned in the law.
length of time, during which the perpetrator

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 23

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

might have recovered his normal equanimity; If both are present, you have to consider always two
and mitigating circumstances. They have different elements
and would always arise from different sets of facts and
c) Passion must arise from lawful sentiment of the circumstances. Therefore, they are always separate and
offender and not from spirit of lawlessness or distinct from each other.
revenge.
Voluntary Surrender
People v. Lopez — passion or obfuscation to be
properly appreciated must arise from lawful sentiments. Elements of voluntary surrender:
The act of the victim, of demanding that they vacate her
land and transfer elsewhere and discontinue their 1. The offender had not actually arrested;
excavation thereat was not unlawful and unjust as she 2. The offender had voluntarily surrendered himself
was exercising her right to her land. The exercise of a to a person in authority or his agent;
lawful right cannot be the proper source of obfuscation 3. Such surrender must be voluntary.
that may be considered a mitigating circumstance.
So it is necessary that the offender has not yet been
People v. Lobino — There is passion and obfuscation arrested. It is necessary that he surrender to a person in
when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable authority or his agent. The surrender must be voluntary.
burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper
acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to Surrender is considered voluntary when it is
overcome reason. spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit himself
unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent.
The crime committed must be the result of a sudden Whether a warrant of arrest had been issued against
impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. Mere filing
of an information and/or the issuance of a warrant of
: What if A attempted on the virtue of the wife of B, B
Q arrest will not automatically make the surrender
learned about this from a neighbor. When B learned involuntary. The accused may still be entitled to the
about this, 4 days later, he went to A and hacked A to mitigating circumstance in case he surrenders,
death. Is the mitigating circumstance of sudden depending on the actual facts surrounding the very fact
impulse of passion and obfuscation and immediate of giving himself up.
vindication of grave offense present?
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender
: NO. 4 days had already lapsed. According to the SC, 4 days
A must be spontaneous, made in such a manner that it
is already a long time for the said offender to have recovered shows the interest of the accused to surrender
from his normal equanimity. unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the
TAKE NOTE! trouble and expenses that would be necessarily incurred
in his search and capture. (Andrada v. People)
As a GR, if the offender is given the benefit of
provocation, vindication, and passion or obfuscation, : After the accused-appellant Malinis had been
Q
only one of the 3 mitigating circumstances should be informed that the accused-appellant Lita was a suspect
given in favor of the offender. in Hipolito’s killing, both appeared at the municipal
hall and were later detained. Upon arraignment, they
As an XPN, if the mitigating circumstances of both pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and
provocation, vindication, and passion or obfuscation continued to maintain their innocence. Will the
arise from different sets of facts, they may be mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender apply
appreciated together, although they may have arisen in this case?
from one and the same case.
: No. It cannot be said that they surrendered themselves as
A
an acknowledgement of guilt. Without this element, the
7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND VOLUNTARY surrender cannot be deemed spontaneous to be appreciated
PLEA OF GUILT as a mitigating circumstance. (People v. Lita and Malinis)

There are 2 mitigating circumstances here: (1) Voluntary Voluntary Plea of Guilt
surrender; and (2) Voluntary plea of guilt.
Elements of voluntary plea of guilt:

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 24

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

1. That guilt tendered is confessed spontaneously as thereafter arrested. Will his physical defect of
w
and unconditionally; being crippled, a man with no legs, be mitigating?
2. That he confesses guilt in open court that is
before the court tried his case; : NO. His physical defect has no relation at all to the crime
A
3. The confession that was made before the he has committed.
presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution. 9. ILLNESS

: A was charged with the crime of frustrated murder.

Q
During the plea bargaining, with the consent of the It is necessary that the said illness must diminish the
judge, the iscal and the offended party, he said that he exercise of the will-power of the offender. But it must
had plead guilty to attempted murder. And so he not deprive him of his consciousness of his act because
pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The judge if it will deprive him of consciousness of his act, then it
rendered judgment without considering voluntary plea is exempting, not merely mitigating.
of guilt so as to reduce his penalty. Is the judge correct?
: A is a kleptomaniac, he has this urge to steal. Now, his
Q
: YES. For said plea of guilty to be considered voluntary, it
A urge is to steal diamonds. So one time he was at a party,
must be done spontaneously. Spontaneously, it must be the he was talking to a lady with diamond earrings,
original crime charged. diamond necklace, diamond watch, diamond bracelet.
Then after the conversation, the lady went to the
: May the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of
Q restroom. Upon looking at the mirror, she shouted, she
guilt be appreciated in confessions before the media? was shocked, the diamond earring, necklace, watch and
bracelet were all gone. It was already taken by the said
: NO. Confessions before the media are considered
A accused. A was prosecuted for theft. Will his illness
extra-judicial confessions. For voluntary plea of guilt to be mitigate his criminal liability?
appreciated, the confession must be made before the court.
: Yes. It diminishes his exercise of his will-power without
A
: If the offender voluntarily confessed his guilt to a
Q however depriving him of consciousness. He knew that he
court which has no jurisdiction and later on pleaded was committing theft, he knew that he was taking the
guilty before the proper court, will the voluntary plea of personal property of another but he cannot control, he has a
guilt still be appreciated? diminished self-control to prevent the commission of the
crime. It will only mitigate, reduce the imposable penalty but
: YES. Since the proceedings before the former court was
A it will not exempt from criminal liability.
void, the voluntary plea of guilt may still be appreciated in
the court with proper jurisdiction. 10. ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE

8. PHYSICAL DEFECT Any other circumstance which is similar in nature from

the 1st to the 9th paragraph is also considered as a
That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise mitigating circumstance.
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communications with his Examples of analogous circumstances
fellow beings.
■ The act of the offender of leading the law
For this mitigating circumstance to lie in favor of the enforcers to the place where he buried the
accused, it is necessary that there must be a instrument of the crime has been considered as
connection, a relation between the physical defect and equivalent to voluntary surrender;
the crime committed. It is necessary that the said
■ People v. Macbul - stealing by a person who is
physical defect must have restricted his use of action,
driven to do so out of extreme poverty is
defense or communication with his fellow being.
considered as analogous to incomplete state of
necessity, unless he became impoverished
; A is a cripple, he has no legs, he always positions
Q
because of his own way of living his life.
himself near the Quiapo church. He was on board a
skateboard. He often stayed there, and his work was to ■ People v. Reantillo and Ruiz - defendant who
snatch the handbags of any churchgoers. And so one is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to
time, he snatched the handbag of a churchgoer and a case of a person over 70 years of age.
thereafter, he sped away on board his skateboard. He

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 25

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
■ Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion
and obfuscation.
■ Emilio Cimafranca v. Sandiganbayan -
Voluntary restitution of the property stolen by
the accused or immediately reimbursing the
amount malversed.
■ Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken
for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave
offense.
■ Esprit de corps is similar to passion and
obfuscation.
○ Esprit de corps - a feeling of pride,
fellowship, and common loyalty shared
by the members of a particular group.
■ People v. Quemuel - wartime state of
confusion resulting in illegal possession of
firearms after the liberation, as being similar to
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
■ People v. Narvasca - testifying for the
prosecution without being discharged from the
information, as being like a plea of guilt.
■ People v. Ong - acting out of embarrassment
and fear caused by the victim because of
gambling debts of the accused, as akin to
passion or obfuscation.
■ People v. Libria - retaliating for having been
assaulted during a public dance where the
accused was well known and respected, as
similar to vindication
d. Aggravating circumstances
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating Circumstances. — The
following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard
of the respect due to the offended party on account of
his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission of an offense it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed
men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a
price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel
or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving
great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident
premeditation.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods,
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 26
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

party might make. 2. Specific Aggravating — Those that apply only

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the
act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
to particular crimes;
3. Inherent Aggravating — Those which of
necessity follow the commission of the crime
because they are considered as elements in the
commission of the crime;

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected
by a way not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall,
roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
4. Qualifying Aggravating — Those which either
change the nature of the crime to bring about a
more serious for a higher penalty or even
without changing the nature of the crime it
would impose a higher penalty;

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons
under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
airships, or other similar means.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission.
5. Special Aggravating — Those which arise
under special conditions to increase the penalty
for the offense to its maximum period, but the
same cannot increase the penalty to the next
higher degree. (People v. De Leon, 2009) Note
that this CANNOT be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE Generic Aggravating Qualifying Aggravating

Aggravating Circumstances are those which, if Can be offset by an Cannot be offset by an

attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to ordinary mitigating. ordinary mitigating.
increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense. It can be offset by a
privileged mitigating
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender circumstance.
manifested in the commission of the felony as shown
Affects only the Affects the nature of the
by:
imposition of the penalty crime or brings about a
prescribed, but not the penalty higher in degree
a. motivating power itself;
nature of the crime than that ordinarily
b. the place of commission;
committed prescribed
c. the means and ways employed;
d. the time; or
The effect is to increase The effect is not only to
e. the personal circumstances of the offender, or
the penalty which should give the crime its proper
of the offended party.
be imposed upon the and exclusive name but
accused to the also to place the author
Remember: In order for aggravating circumstances to
maximum period. thereof in such a situation
be appreciated, all the aggravating circumstances must
as to deserve no other
be alleged in the information and must be proven during
penalty than that
the trial. Even if they are proven in trial but they are not
prescribed by law for said
alleged in the information, they cannot be considered
crime.
against the person. They must be both alleged and
likewise proven during trial, so as not to deprive the
accused of the right to know the nature of the
GENERIC/ORDINARY AGGRAVATING
accusation against him.
CIRCUMSTANCES
Kinds of aggravating Circumstances: 1. Taking Advantage of public position

1. Generic Aggravating — Those that can 2. Contempt of or with insult to the public authorities
generally apply to all crimes. It can be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance. 3. Disrespect of rank, age or sex, or dwelling of the

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 27

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation
4. Abuse of confidence
5. Crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band
7. Recidivist
8. Reiteracion
9. Craft, fraud or disguise be employed
10. Unlawful entry
11. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or window
12. Crime committed with aid of minors and use of motor
vehicles
SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Treachery
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
In Art. 248 of the RPC, the circumstances therein present
would qualify the killing of a person from homicide to
murder:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a streetcar or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Taking Advantage of public position
2. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160
3. Complex Crimes under Article 48
4. When homicide or murder is committed with the use of
an unlicensed firearm under P.D. 1866 as amended by
R.A. 8294
5. When in the omission of the crime, advantage was taken
by the offender of his public position under Article 62
Effect of more than one Qualifying Circumstance
If there are more than one qualifying aggravating
circumstance as for example, homicide qualified to
murder, only one will qualify the felony to murder and
the others shall be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
Example: In case of qualifying aggravating
circumstances, for example, A killed B there was
treachery, it was done in consideration of a price,
reward or promise, there was also cruelty, so there are
three qualifying aggravating circumstances present.
Only one of them will qualify the killing to murder. So if
treachery is already proven, the crime committed is
already murder. Cruelty and the other circumstance of in
consideration of a price, reward or promise shall only be
considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
1. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER
OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
Taking advantage of public position means that the
offender [public officer] uses the prestige, influence or
ascendency of his office in the commission of the crime
or to facilitate the commission of the crime.
When a public officer commits a common crime
independent of his official functions and does acts that
are not connected with the duties of his office, he
should be punished as a private individual without this
aggravating circumstance.
Even if the defendant did not abuse his office, if it is
proven that he has failed in his duties as such public
officer, this circumstance would warrant the aggravation
of his penalty.
Taking advantage of public position, cannot be taken
into consideration in offenses where it is made by law
an integral element of the crime such as in malversation
or in falsification of documents committed by public
officers.
: Police of icer A was having a drinking spree with his
Q
friends outside his house. In the course thereof, they
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 28
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

ere discussing the alleged shootout in Quezon.

w whether an individual or some members
According to the police of icer, since he was a police of court or governmental commissioner.
of icer, it was a shootout. But according to his friend it It is necessary that he has the duty to
was a rub-out. They were arguing, exchanging views govern and execute the laws.
until the police of icer got mad. At that time, he had
with him his pistol. He used his service pistol and shot ■ Example: Mayors, barangay chairman.
his friend who thereafter died. Is the said act of killing
done by taking advantage of his public position? ■ Police officer is merely an agent of a
person in authority. Agents of public
: NO. The said offender, public of icer, did not use or
A authority are not included.
misuse his public of ice. He did not use the in luence, the
ascendency or the prestige of his of ice in order to commit 2) That the public authority is not the person
the crime. Even not being a public of icer he could have against whom the crime is committed;
killed his friend in the same situation . He could even have
used another weapon, not necessarily his service pistol. ■ If the offender is the person against
whom the crime is committed, such fact
Taking advantage of public position as Special that the crime was committed in
Aggravating contempt of the public authority is an
element because the crime committed
Under Art. 14, taking advantage of his public position is would be direct assault. In direct
a generic aggravating circumstance. However, under assault, in contempt of or with insult to
Art. 62 (as amended by RA 7659), the fact the crime public authority is an element, no longer
was committed by taking advantage of his public an aggravating circumstance.
position is a special aggravating circumstance because
the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one 3) That the offender knows him to be a public
imposed. authority;

■ There must be knowledge on the part of

: Police of icer X was assigned as a traf ic enforcer. X
Q
the offender that the said person is a
was always demanding a toll in the amount of ifty
public authority. Otherwise, it cannot be
pesos from jeepney drivers, otherwise he would not let
said that he disrespected the said
them enter a certain street. One day, jeepney driver Y
person as a public authority if he has no
got mad at X for extorting toll on him because Y had no
knowledge that he is a public authority.
earning that day. He iled a case for robbery against X.
the information alleged that in order to perpetrate the
4) That the presence of the public authority did not
crime of robbery, X took advantage of his public
prevent the offender from the commission of the
position. How do we appreciate the aggravating
crime.
circumstance of taking advantage of public position in
this case?
: The barangay chairman was in a restaurant having
Q
dinner with his wife because it was their wedding
: Taking advantage of public position should be appreciated
A
anniversary. Suddenly here comes A, B and C who are
as a special aggravating circumstance. Article 62 of the RPC
constituents of the barangay chairman. Upon seeing the
states that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
chairman, they greeted him and even congratulated
offender took advantage of his public position as a means to
him and his wife upon learning that they were
facilitate the commission of the crime.
celebrating their wedding anniversary. They sat next to
the table of the chairman and ordered food. In the
2. CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC giving of the food, there was an argument between A
AUTHORITIES. and the waiter. The argument immediately became a
heated one. A took the table knife and stabbed the
ELEMENTS: waiter. The waiter suffered serious physical injuries.
Prosecuted for frustrated homicide. In the prosecution
1) That the public officer or public authority is for said crime, is the aggravating circumstance of in
engaged in the exercise of his function; contempt of or with insult to public authority present?

■ Public authority refers to Justice of the : NO. The irst element is absent. The irst element is that
A
peace, persons in authority, or any the public of icer or public authority is engaged in the
person directly vested with jurisdiction exercise of his function. At the time of the commission of the

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 29

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

crime, yes he was there but he was in a private act. He was of the said professor. An employee
not engaged in the exercise of his function, hence it cannot be attacking his employer. There was a
said that the said offender insulted the said public authority. disregard of rank of the said employer.

: The public authority was the city mayor who was

Q 2. Disregard of age
inside his of ice. Suddenly he heard commotion on the
ground loor. He looked out his window, he saw his two ■ Age here refers to both minority and
supporters having an argument. A and B were having seniority.
an argument over a parking space. The mayor went
■ Example 1: The offended party is 95
down the building and talked to both A and B. He told
years old. A killed him by hitting his
them to shake hands and forget everything. Then he
head for 25 times with a lead pipe.
told A to just allow B to park his car anyway there was
Obviously, there was disregard of his
another parking space available. This angered A
age. Considering his age, whereas even
because he thought that the mayor was siding with B. A
one hit of the lead pipe could have
took out his balisong and stabbed the mayor. Is the
already killed the said old man but he
aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with
was hit 25 times showing disregard of
insult to public authority present?
the age of the old man.
: YES. It is present but it is not an aggravating circumstance
A ■ Example 2: A child is 4 years old. He
but an element of the crime because the crime committed is was stabbed 25 times, thereafter his
direct assault. It is direct assault because the public body was placed inside a dram filled
authority at the time of the attack was engaged in the with water and then the dram was
performance of his functions. Since the crime committed covered. There was disregard of age.
was against the public authority himself, the fact that it was The victim was a minor and therefore
committed in contempt of or with insult to the said public any attack, just 1 stab, could have killed
authority is an ingredient of the crime. the minor.

: If in the same problem instead of stabbing the said

Q 3. Disregard of sex
mayor, A felt insulted with the mayor’s words that he is
giving the parking space to B so this angered A. A ■ This refers to the female sex. This is
stabbed B. B died. Is the aggravating circumstance of in inherent in the crime of rape and in
contempt of or with insult to public authority present? certain crimes involving chastity.

: YES. The mayor’s act of pacifying A and B was engaged in

A ■ Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery.
his of icial functions. He was not the person against whom
the crime was committed. A was a supporter, therefore he 4. Crimes committed in dwelling of the
knew the mayor was a person in authority. Yet, the presence offended party
of the mayor did not prevent A from committing the crime
against B. Hence, the aggravating circumstance is present. ■ Dwelling is considered as aggravating
circumstance if the crime is committed
inside the dwelling of the offended
3. DISRESPECT OF RANK, AGE OR SEX, OR party, that is, the offended party was
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE inside his dwelling at the time of the
LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION. commission of the crime and he has not
given any provocation.
There are four aggravating circumstances under this
paragraph: ■ The dwelling need not be owned by the
offended party. It suffices that the
1. Disregard of rank offended party uses it for rest and
comfort.
■ For this to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance, it is ■ People v. Magnaye - the store, which
necessary that the offender be of lower is used as a house, where the crime
rank than that of the offended party. was committed cannot be considered
as dwelling within the meaning of Art.
■ Example: A student attacking a 14(3). This building, although being
professor. There was a disregard of rank used for rest and comfort, is imbued

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 30

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
with public character, and thus, the law
does not accord it the sanctity of
privacy.
■ People v. Perreras - for the
circumstance of dwelling to be
considered, it is not necessary that the
accused should have actually entered
the dwelling of the victim to commit the
offense; it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house, although
the assailant might have devised means
to perpetrate the assault from the
outside.
■ Treachery does not absorb dwelling.
■ Even if a crime is committed inside
dwelling, it cannot be considered as
aggravating if the following
circumstances are present:
i. offended has given provocation;
ii. If the offender and the offended
party are living in the same
dwelling;
iii. Dwelling is inherent in the
commission of the crime.
These four aggravating circumstances can be
appreciated singly or collectively if present in the
commission of the crime. There must be deliberate
intent on the part of the offender to disrespect the
offended party on account of the latter’s age, sex, or
rank.
Note: Disregard of rank, disregard of age and disregard
of sex can only be considered in crimes against persons
and crimes against chastity. You do not consider these
in crimes against property; you do not consider these in
crimes against public interest.
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS.
Abuse of Confidence — this circumstance exists only
when the offended party has trusted the offender who
later abuses such trust by committing the crime.
Elements:
1) That the offended party had trusted the
offender;
2) That the offender abuse such trust by
committing a crime against the offended party;
3) That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.
Obvious ungratefulness — must be clear and manifest
ingratitude on the part of the accused.
Elements:
1) That the offended party had trusted the
offender;
2) That the offender abuse such trust by
committing a crime against the offended party;
3) That the act be committed with obvious
ungratefulness.
5. THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN
HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
DUTIES OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.
If the crime is committed in any of these places it is
considered as an aggravating circumstance because it
shows on the part of the offender lack of respect in
these places:
1. Malacañang Palace or any place whenever
the President was present;
■ It is not necessary that the Chief
Executive is engaged in his official
functions. The presence of the Chief
Executive alone in any place where the
crime is committed is enough to
constitute the aggravating
circumstance, but the offender must be
aware of the presence of the president.
2. Public authorities engaged in the discharge
of their duties;
■ It is not only necessary that the said
places are where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties,
it is also necessary that at the time of
the commission of the crime, the public
authorities are actually engaged in the
performance of their duties.
3. Place dedicated to religious worship;
■ Applies even if there is no religious
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 31
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
ceremony going on.
■ Cemeteries are not places dedicated for
religious worship.
■ The place must be permanently
dedicated to public religious worship.
Private chapels are not included.
People v. Jaurigue — to be considered aggravating,
the accused must have purposely sought the place for
the commission of the crime and that he committed it
there notwithstanding the respect to which it was
entitled, and not where it was only an accidental or
incidental circumstance.
6. NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, OR BY A
BAND
There are three aggravating circumstances in this case:
1. Nighttime
■ Period from after sunset to sunrise. The
commission of the crime must begin
and be accomplished in the nighttime.
■ It is necessary that the offender
deliberately sought the darkness of the
night either to facilitate the commission
of the crime or to insure or afford
impunity.
■ When the place is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating.
■ Nighttime is absorbed in treachery
2. Uninhabited place
■ It is not determined by the distance of
the nearest house to the scene of the
crime but whether or not in the place of
the commission of the offense, there
was a reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help.
■ Requisites:
i. That in the place where the
crime was committed there was
a remote possibility for the
victim to receive some help;
ii. That the offender deliberately
sought the uninhabited place in
order to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
■ Uninhabited place is a special
aggravating circumstance in cases of
robbery by means of violence or
intimidation.
3. Band
■ There are at least 4 armed malefactors
acting together in the commission of the
offense.
■ At least 4 of them took part or acted
together in the commission of the crime
as principals by direct participation.
These 3 circumstances may be considered separately
when their elements are distinctly perceived and can
subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.
: A induced B, C, and D wanted to kill W. A, B, C, and D
Q
planned to commit the crime at 11pm so that the
community was fast asleep. At 11pm, B, C, and D
entered the house of W. They directly proceeded to his
room. W’s room was fully lighted. Thereafter, B, C, and D
stabbed W. W died. A, B, C, and D was charged murder
quali ied by treachery with the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited place, and by a
band.
Is the aggravating circumstance of nighttime present?
: YES. Although the room of W was fully lighted, the
A
accused deliberately sought the darkness and silence of the
night in order to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Is the aggravating circumstance of ‘by a band’ present?
: NO. A band is present whenever more than three armed
A
malefactors come together in the commission of the crime.
All of the armed malefactors must be a principal by direct
participation. In this case, A is a principal by inducement.
I s the aggravating circumstance of ‘uninhabited place’
present?
: NO. In order for an uninhabited place to be present, the
A
offender deliberately sought a place isolated from the others
or located far from others so that there is a remote
possibility that the victim may receive help.
7. ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION,
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other
calamity or misfortune is a generic ordinary
circumstance.
It is a qualifying circumstance in murder and theft.
8. AID OF ARMED MEN
The aid given by the armed men may be a direct or
indirect participation in the commission of the crime.
This aggravating circumstance shall not be considered
when both the attacking party and the party attacked
were equally armed.
People v. Enoja — in aid of armed men, the men act as
accomplices only. They must not be acting in the
commission of the crime under the same purpose as the
principal accused, otherwise, they are to be regarded as
co-principals or co-conspirators.
BY A BAND AID OF ARMED MEN
Must have acted together The armed men may
in the actual commission have direct or indirect
of the crime; (conspiracy) participation. They are
mere accomplices of the
offender.
If there are 4 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed
in the employment of a band. If there are 3 armed men
or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating
circumstance.
9. RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one who at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have previously been convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2) He was previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime;
3) Both the first and second offense are embraced
in the same title of the RPC; and
4) Offender is convicted of the new offense.
➔ Recidivism is imprescriptible. There is no time limit
between the first crime for which he has been
convicted by final judgment and the second crime
for which he is also convicted.
➔ Recidivism can still be appreciated despite pardon
in the prior conviction because pardon does not
erase the effects of the prior conviction of the crime
[like murder].
➔ Recidivism will not be appreciated if the accused
was granted amnesty in the prior conviction.
Amnesty erases the effects of the crime as if no
crime happened and no crime was committed by
the accused. It totally obliterates and erases the
former conviction.
10. REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
The offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
ELEMENTS:
1) The offender must have been previously
punished or has served his sentence previously.
2) The first offense was punished with an equal or
greater penalty; or he committed two or more
crimes previously where he was meted a lighter
penalty.
3) That he is convicted of the new offense.
: A has been convicted of the crime of homicide.
Q
Convicted by inal judgment, he was placed behind
bars. He served out his sentence. Once out of prison, he
committed forcible abduction. Homicide is punished by
reclusion temporal. Forcible abduction is now on trial.
The penalty prescribed by law for forcible abduction is
also reclusion temporal. The judge found him guilty for
forcible abduction. Can the judge consider reiteracion
as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty
for forcible abduction?
: YES. The penalty for the crime of homicide where he has
A
already served out his sentence is equal to the penalty for
forcible abduction, both reclusion temporal. Therefore,
reiteracion can be considered.
: B committed falsi ication of public document.
Q
Convicted, served out the sentence. After service of
sentence, he was released from prison He engaged in a
ight and killed his opponent. He is now on trial for
homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 33
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

r easonable doubt. Can the judge consider reiteracion as consideration in the commission of a crime or felony.
an aggravating circumstance?
US v. Flores — circumstance of price, reward or
: NO. The crime for which he has served out his sentence
A consideration shall not be appreciated if there was no
carries a penalty lighter than that of the second crime. The offer prior to the killing and the money was given
law requires that if it is only one crime, it must carry a voluntarily by the accused after the crime had been
penalty equal to or greater than the second crime he committed as a sort of expression of his appreciation of
committed. their sympathy and aid.

: X was convicted of homicide with the privilege

Q 12. BY MEANS OF GREAT WASTE AND RUIN
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The
judge imposed upon him the penalty of Prision
correccional (6 years). X applied for probation and it The offender must make use of inundation, fire or
was granted. While under probation, X forcibly explosion in order to commit the crime. It is a means to
abducted his neighbor. As a result, an information for commit the crime.
forcible abduction was charged against X with the
aggravating circumstance of reiteracion. Is the If these means are used in killing a person, it is not a
aggravating circumstance of reiteracion present in this generic aggravating circumstance, it is a qualifying
case? aggravating circumstance under Article 248. It qualifies
the killing to murder.
: NO. In order for reiteracion to be appreciated as an
A
aggravating circumstance, the offender must have previously 13. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
served his sentence. By applying for probation, the accused
admitted to the commission of the crime, however, he Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of
avoided serving sentence. The Supreme Court held that the act before executing it.
probation is not the same as serving one sentence. In this
case, there was no reiteracion. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of
the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
11. IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
PROMISE. intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment. (People v. Alinao)
Circumstance of price, reward or consideration is an
ordinary aggravating circumstance. However, it is a ELEMENTS:
qualifying circumstance in murder.
1) The time when the offender determined to
This aggravating circumstance should be considered commit the crime;
both against the person who made the offer and the
2) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
person who accepted the price, reward or promise.
clung to his determination;
Therefore, it is to be considered both against the
principal by inducement and the principal by direct
3) Sufficient lapse time between the determination
participation.
and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his acts.
To be considered against the principal by inducement, it
is necessary that the price, reward or promise must be
■ The offender must have an opportunity
the prime reason for the principal by direct participation
to coolly and serenely think and
to commit the crime; without the price, reward or
deliberate on the meaning and the
promise, the principal by direct participation would not
consequences of what he planned to
have committed the crime.
do, an interval long enough for his
conscience and better judgment to
People v. Paredes — if the accused were already
overcome his evil desire and scheme.
decided in the commission of the crime, and the
promised reward is just an additional inducement, the
People v. Racaza — evident premeditation is inherent
aggravating circumstance of reward shall not be
in treason because adherence and the giving of aid and
appreciated. For the aggravating circumstance of
comfort to the enemy is a long-continued process
reward to be considered, reward must be the primary
requiring persistent determination and planning for the

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 34

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

successful consummation of the traitor’s purpose. the offender do the crime easily.

People v. Trinidad — to appreciate evident ■ Example: To enter the house, one of the
premeditation, it is important that the victim is the object accused shouted from the outside that they
of premeditation. In sum, the victim killed must be the wanted to buy cigarettes.
person who the accused premeditated to kill.
Disguise are ways and means resorted to by the
: A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so
Q accused to conceal his identity.
humiliated so he told A “the next time I see you, I will
kill you!” B went home and searched for his gun. He ■ Example: Wearing of masks or bonnet so that
found the same and kept it under his pillow, waiting for one could not be recognized.
the time to kill A. One month has lapsed. B while
walking saw A. Upon seeing A, he immediately ran to his ■ People v. Pingol — if despite the mask, the
house, went to his bedroom and took the gun under his identity of the offender was recognizable,
pillow. He raised back to A and shot him. Is the disguise will not be appreciated. The fact that
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation the identity of the offender is recognizable
present? negates the existence of intent to hide his
identity to afford impunity.
: YES. First, the time when the offender is determined to
A
commit the crime, that is the time when B told A “the next 15. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND
time I see you, I will kill you!” Second, an overt act EMPLOYMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE
manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination.
He brought a gun. It is an overt act showing that he has clung
a) Abuse of superior strength — is intentionally
to his determination. Third, a suf icient lapse time between
employing excessive force out of proportion to
the determination and execution. One month has passed.
the means of defense available to the offended
That is suf icient for him to cool off, to re lect upon the
party.
consequences of his acts. Therefore, evident premeditation
was present in the commission of the crime.
Elements:

14. THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE
EMPLOYED.
Craft means intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to
by the accused.
■ Example 1: Where the defendants pretended to
be constabulary soldiers to gain entry into the
place of the victims.
■ Example 2: The act of the accused in
pretending to be bona fide passengers of the
taxicab driven by the deceased, when they were
not so in fact, in order not to arouse his
suspicion, and then killing him, constituted craft.
■ People v. Lab-eo — craft may be absorbed in
treachery if it is deliberately adopted as the
means, method or form for the treacherous
strategy. It may co-exist independently from
treachery only when both circumstances are
adopted for different purposes in the
commission of the crime.
Fraud or deceit is manifested by the use of insidious
words or machinations resorted to by the accused so
that the offended party will perform an act that will make
1) That there be a notorious inequality of
forces between the offender and the
offended party in terms of their age, size
and strength;
2) That the offender took advantage of this
inequality of forces to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
The mere fact that there was numerical
superiority does not automatically mean that
there is abuse of superior strength. Under the
second element, evidence must show that the
offender deliberately took advantage of their
strength to facilitate the commission of the
crime.
People v. Dadao — when the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength concurs with
treachery, the former is absorbed by the latter.
b) Employment of means to weaken defense —
is applicable only to crimes against persons and
sometimes against person and property, such
as robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
Example: One who, while fighting with another,
suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter’s

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 35

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
eyes and then wounds or kills him, evidently
employs means which weaken the defense of
his opponent.
16. TREACHERY
There is treachery or alevosia when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
ELEMENTS:
1) That the offender deliberately adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
2) That at the time of the attack, the victim was not
in a position to defend himself.
The essence of treachery is the suddenness and
unexpectedness of the act to an unexpecting and
unarmed victim who has not even the slightest
provocation. The victim must be totally without defense.
There is no treachery when the attack is preceded by a
warning or the accused gave the deceased a chance to
prepare.
If the victim was able to put out any defense, no matter
how minor, treachery is not present.
A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was
not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist
the attack. The existence of treachery is not solely
determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears
that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the
execution of the crime, and to render the victim
defenseless, then treachery may be properly
appreciated against the accused (People v. Labiaga)
Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning.
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation.
Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk:
a. Victim asleep.
b. Victim half-awake or just awakened.
c. Victim grappling or being held.
d. Attacked from behind.
○ A frontal attack does not necessarily
rule out treachery. The qualifying
circumstance may still be appreciated if
the attack was so sudden and so
unexpected that the deceased had no
time to prepare for his or her defense.
(People v. Matibag)
When Victim is a Minor
Whenever the offended party is a minor, there is always
treachery because a minor is always defenseless.
■ Minority here does not refer to the statutory
definition of minority, that is, being below 18
years of age. Minority here is with reference to
the sense of helplessness of the victim. So it is
necessary that the victim is helpless.
■ Example: If the victim is 17 years old with a
masculine physique and was able to put up a
defense, there is no treachery. But if the victim
is 6 years old, then there is treachery.
Treachery must be present at the commencement of
the attack
For treachery to arise, it is necessary that he must be
present at the commencement of the attack in order to
know whether the offended party was totally
defenseless.
: The witness saw the deceased Pasion enter the room
Q
of Bokingco. The witness peeped through the window of
Bokingco who was seen hitting something on the loor.
Bokingco was charged with murder quali ied by
treachery. Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery
present?
: NO. For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must
A
prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself, and that the offender consciously
adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him. Nobody witnessed the commencement
and the manner of the attack. While the witness Vitalicio
managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the loor, he
failed to see the victim at that time. (People v. Bokingco)
There is treachery in Robbery with Homicide
People v. Escote (2003)
FACTS: At around midnight, a bus going to
Pangasinan was boarded by the accused in
Balintawak. A few minutes after, the suspects
declared a holdup and fired shots at the roof of the
bus to wake up the passengers. They began taking
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 36
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
the passenger’s valuables. SPO1 Mario was among
the passengers. He was disarmed and was shot dead
by one of the robbers even after he pled for his life.
The suspects were arrested at a checkpoint when
they presented the dead officer’s identification card.
They were convicted of robbery with homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery can be used to
qualify the robbery with homicide committed.
HELD: No. Treachery is not an element of robbery
with homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime
specially punishable by law nor is it included by the
law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide
and prescribing the penalty therefore. Treachery is
likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with
homicide. Hence, treachery should be considered as
a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
homicide for the imposition of the proper penalty for
the crime.
In the application of treachery as a generic
aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide,
the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide
which is a crime against persons and not at the
constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against
property. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime
of homicide and not to the constituent crime of
robbery of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its
classification as a crime against property or as a
special complex and single and indivisible crime
simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely
increases the penalty for the crime conformably with
Article 63 of the RPC absent any generic mitigating
circumstance.
In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide when the
victim of homicide is killed by treachery.
Circumstances that may be absorbed by treachery:
● Abuse of superior strength;
● Aid or armed men;
● By a band;
● Means to weaken the defense;
● Nighttime and craft are absorbed in treachery
except if treachery rests upon an independent
factual basis.
17. IGNOMINY
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral
order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material
injury caused by the crime.
This is only applicable to crimes against chastity and
persons.
The means employed or the circumstances brought
about must tend to make the effects of the crime MORE
HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO
SHAME.
: Accused Bumidang went into the house of Melencio
Q
Imbat in the middle of the night. Accused threatened to
kill Melencio and her unmarried daughter Gloria if the
door was not opened. When Melencio opened the door,
the accused asked where Gloria's room is. Melencio
thereafter pointed to the room of Gloria. The accused
went inside the room of Gloria. The accused threatened
to kill her with a spear if she resisted. The accused
removed the garments of Gloria, inspected her genitals
with a lashlight and proceeded to have carnal
knowledge in front of Melencio. Was there ignominy in
this case?
: YES. The Supreme Court held that it was established that
A
Bumidang used the lashlight and examined the genitals of
Gloria before he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed
in the presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly
show that Bumidang deliberately wanted to further humiliate
Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral
sufferings. (People v. Bumidang, 2000)
: Accused Saylan raped Eutropia Agno ive times. In
Q
one of those times, Saylan gained entry to the genitals
of the Eutropia from behind in dog-style position.
Eutropia iled a complaint for rape against Saylan. Does
the dog-style position adds ignominy to rape?
: YES. The entry of the penis was from behind. Although
A
this position was not novel and in fact normal in case of two
consenting partners, such act adds ignominy in rape cases.
(People v. Saylan, 1984)
: Rebecca Soriano is employed as a house helper.
Q
Rebecca had just taken a shower in the house of her
master when suddenly, accused went inside the house
and raped her. She added that after the ape, the
accused grabbed a handful of mud and smeared it on
her vagina. Is there ignominy in this case?
: YES. The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina
A
right after she was raped, is adequately and properly
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 37
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

described as "ignominy". (People v. Fernandez, 1990) in killing a person, it is a qualifying aggravating

circumstance under Article 248. If the motor vehicle is
18. UNLAWFUL ENTRY used in the commission of any other crime, it is a mere
generic aggravating circumstance.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected : X was walking along the road. Suddenly two men
Q
by a way not intended for the purpose. riding in tandem in a motorcycle snatched the handbag
of X. X was able to identify the plate number of the
Unlawful entry is inherent in robbery with force upon motorcycle and reported the matter to the police. The
things. police made an investigation which resulted to the
arrest of the two men. Is the use of motor vehicle an
: A was passing by the house of B. Suddenly he saw
Q aggravating circumstance?
through the window, two cellphones being charged.
Interested in the cellphones, he broke the window, : YES. The two men used the motor vehicle to snatch the
A
entered his hand and took the cellphones. Is the handbag of X. Thereafter, the two men utilized the motor
aggravating circumstance that as a means to the vehicle to facilitate their escape. Thus, the aggravating
commission of the crime the window was broken circumstance of use of motor vehicle is present because it
present? facilitated the commission of the crime.
: YES. The crime committed is theft only and not robbery
A
because the offender did not enter the house. In the case of 21. CRUELTY
People v. Jaranilla (1974), it was held that one essential
requisite of robbery with force upon things is that the There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in
malefactor should enter the building or dependency, where making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
the object to be taken is found. If the culprit did not enter the him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of
building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. the criminal act.
The crime committed is only theft. In this case, the offender
only broke the window, entered his hand and took the ELEMENTS:
cellphones. Therefore, the crime committed is theft. In theft,
the fact that a window was broken is not inherent, it is an 1) That at the time of the infliction of the physical
aggravating circumstance. pain, the offended party is still alive;

19. AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION OF A 2) That the offender enjoys and delights in seeing
CRIME, A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the
WINDOW BE BROKEN physical pain.

Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty. It is

It is only aggravating in cases where the offender
resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the house. If
the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it
is not aggravating.
20. CRIME COMMITTED WITH AID OF MINORS AND
USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Aid of persons under 15 years
If the crime committed makes use of minors under 15
years of age, it shows the greater perversity of the
offender because he knows that minors cannot be
arrested. Persons below 15 years of age cannot be
prosecuted, it is among the exempting circumstances.
Therefore, it shows greater perversity.
By means of motor vehicle
necessary to determine, whether first, he was still alive
at the time the physical pain was inflicted; second, did
the offender enjoy and delight in seeing his victim suffer
gradually by the infliction of the physical pain. If there
were defense wounds, cruelty cannot be appreciated.
People v. Lacao — The numerousness of wounds is
not the criterion for appreciating cruelty. The test is
whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not
necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased
the victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his
person or corpse.
IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Moral suffering Physical suffering

If the crime is committed with the use of a motor vehicle e. Alternative circumstances

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 38

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are
those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and
effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and
the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be
taken into consideration when the offended party in the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the
same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into
consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the
offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to
the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication
is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
Alternative circumstances are those circumstances
which can either be aggravating or mitigating,
depending on their effect in commission of the crime.
1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication;
3. Degree of Instruction or Education
RELATIONSHIP AS AN ALTERNATIVE CAUSE
This is taken into consideration when the offended party
is the:
a) spouse
b) ascendant
c) descendant
d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
e) relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender
In certain crimes against property, the relationship of the
offender with the offended party is exempting.
Example:
1. Theft;
2. Estafa or swindling; and
3. Malicious mischief;
Under Article 332, if the crime committed is theft, estafa
or swindling, and malicious mischief, relationship
exempts the offender from criminal liability. Intent is to
ensure harmony within the family.
Relationship as aggravating → it is aggravating in
crimes against persons in cases where the offended
party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender,
or when the offender and the offended party are
relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, a
brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted brother. When
the crime committed is serious physical injuries or less
serious physical injuries, relationship is aggravating.
Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide and
qualified seduction to a sister.
INTOXICATION AS ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
There is intoxication when the offender has taken such
amount of liquor of sufficient quantity as to affect his
mental capacity to determine the consequences of his
act.
Intoxication as mitigating → Intoxication is considered
as a mitigating circumstance if it is not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
Intoxication as aggravating → if intoxication is
habitual; or if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony). It is intentional when the offender
drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the liquor
a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate
any remorse.
People v. Renejane (1988)
The accused was convicted for the crime of murder of 1
policeman and his companion. It was found that
Renejane was with these 2 persons and some other
people and they were having a drinking session when
the incident took place. It was also found that the
policeman apprehended Renejane a month before the
incident for illegal possession of marijuana.
HELD: Drunkenness is not necessarily an aggravating
circumstance. The fact that the accused drank liquor
prior to the commission of the crime did not necessarily
qualify such action as an aggravating circumstance.
Intoxication is aggravating if it is habitual or intentional.
There is no finding of either by the lower court. The
affair was an ordinary drinking party. Neither can this be
considered as a mitigating circumstance in the absence
of proof that the intake of alcoholic drinks was of such
quantity as to blur the appellant’s reason and deprive
him of a certain degree of control.
DEGREE OF EDUCATION AS ALTERNATIVE
CIRCUMSTANCE
The mere lack of instruction or illiteracy of the appellant
cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 39
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

One does not have to be educated or intelligent to be exceptional circumstances

able to know that it is unlawful to take the life of another
person even if it is to redress a wrong committed Instigation
against him.
In instigation, the mens rea originated from the mind of
As a rule, a low degree of education or instruction is the public officer who only lured the offender to commit
considered as a mitigating circumstance unless the the crime. By public policy, the officer is criminally liable
crime committed is inherently evil or wrong. (principal by inducement) and not the supposed
accused, who is exempted.
Example: Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking
the personal property of another. Such is as wrong as to Entrapment
a learned man as it is to an ignorant man.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because
Low degree or lack of instruction is not mitigating in entrapment refers to ways and means resorted to by the
the following cases: public officer in order to trap and capture a criminal in
flagrante delicto.
1) crimes against property such as estafa, theft,
robbery, arson except theft of large cattle and Here, the mens rea originated from the mind of the
robbery with homicide. offender
2) crimes against chastity
3) treason : X was charged with illegal possession of dangerous
Q
4) murder drugs. The judge acquitted X of illegal possession. He
was released after spending 2 years in jail. Police
High degree of education is considered as an of icers went to him and asked for help to catch W for
aggravating circumstance → if the offender makes drugs through a buy bust operation. The police chief
use of his high degree of education in facilitating the also begged for his help. X will act as a poser-buyer. Buy
commission of the crime. bust ensued. However, the moment X “bought” the
shabu, he was arrested. and once again X was charged
: A lawyer was driving on the way home. His neighbor
Q with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. X defense is
invited him to a party. He obliged. He hardly drinks, but that he was instigated.
because of many glasses, he became drunk. The waiter,
because of the lawyer shouting, lost his grip and the : He is instigated, in this case because were it not for the
A
glass fell and broken glasses hit Atty. Atty became mad convincing of Y, through that trickery, he will not be able to
and stabbed the waiter who died. He was prosecuted for do the overt act.
homicide, and a high degree of education was attendant
to the crime. Is it mitigating? People v. Doria (1999)

: Yes. Intoxication is a mitigating circumstance in a person

A Entrapment refers to the ways and means resorted to
not a habitual drinker. No plan to kill the waiter. High degree for trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the
of education will not aggravate the crime because his law execution of a criminal plan. The perpetrator is caught in
degree has nothing to do with the stabbing of the waiter. the act or in flagrante delicto. On the other hand, there
is instigation when the officer induces the would-be
f. Absolutory causes accused into the commission of the crime. As a result,
the officer becomes a co-principal. The arrest is illegal
Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is and contrary to public policy and the suspect is deemed
a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment innocent.
there is no penalty imposed. Absolutory causes
exempts a person from criminal liability but not from civil
3. Persons liable and degree of participation
liability.
a. Principals, accomplices, and accessories
Examples:
ARTICLE 16. Who are Criminally Liable. — The
1. Mistake of fact; following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
2. Instigation; felonies:
3. Accessories in Light felonies;
4. Death or serious physical injuries under 1. Principals.

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 40

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

2. Accomplices. ■ When there is no conspiracy, each of

the offenders is liable only for the act
3. Accessories.
performed by him.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
2) They carried out the plan and personally took
part in the execution by acts, which directly
1. Principals.
tend to the same end.
2. Accomplices.
■ The principals by direct participation
must be at the scene of the crime,
PRINCIPALS
personally taking part in its execution.

ARTICLE 17. Principals. — The following are ■ One serving as guard pursuant to the
considered principals: conspiracy is a principal by direct
participation.
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the
act;
■ When the second requisite is lacking,
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit there is only conspiracy.
it;
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense
by another act without which it would not have been
Principal by inducement is that who directly force or
accomplished.
induce others to commit it.

Kinds of Principals The principal by induction becomes liable only when the
principal by direct participation committed the act
1. Principal by direct participation induced.
2. Principal by inducement
3. Principal by indispensable cooperation Ways of becoming principal by induction

PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION 1) by directly forcing another to commit a crime.

The principal by direct participation PERSONALLY a) by using irresistible force

TAKES PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT
constituting the crime. b) by causing uncontrollable fear

The principal by direct participation must necessarily be 2) by directly inducing another to commit a crime.
present in the scene of the crime because he is the one
who actually executed the crime. Without him, the crime a) by giving a price, or offering reward or
will not be committed. promise.

Two or more persons who took part in the ■ Requisites:

commission of the crime are principals by direct
participation, when the following requisites are i. Inducement must be made directly
present: with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and
1) They participated in the criminal resolution.
ii. Such inducement be the
■ Two or more persons are said to have determining cause of the
participated in the criminal resolution commission of the crime by the
when they were in conspiracy at the material executor.
time of the commission of the crime.
■ A person, who gave, offered or
■ The conspiracy contemplated in the first promised to the chief actor a valuable
requisite is not a felony, but only a consideration, which was the
manner of incurring criminal liability. determining cause of the commission of
the crime, is liable as principal by

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 41

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
inducement, because without such offer
or promise, the criminal act would never
have been committed. The person, who
actually commits the crime by reason of
such promise, remuneration, or reward,
is liable as principal by direct
participation. The liability of both the
induced and the inducer is aggravated
by circumstance of reward, promise or
consideration. This circumstance is
qualifying in murder.
b) by using words of command.
i. The one uttering the words of command
must have the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime;
ii. He must have an ascendancy or
influence over the person who acted
iii. Words of command must be uttered
prior to the commission of the crime
Effect of the acquittal of the principal by direct
participation on the liability of the principal by
inducement:
■ Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of the
co-defendant; and
■ One cannot be held guilty of having instigated
the commission of a crime without first being
shown that the crime has been actually
committed by another.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
Principal by indispensable cooperation are those who
cooperate in the commission of the offense by another
act without which it would not have been accomplished.
The principal by indispensable cooperation must be at
the scene of the crime because he must perform
another act without the crime would not have been.
People v. Abina - to be a principal by indispensable
cooperation, one must participate in the criminal
resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and
cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act without which it would not have
been accomplished.
Requisites:
1) The accused participated in the criminal
resolution;
2) Performance by him of another act
indispensable to the accomplishment of the
crime.
ACCOMPLICE
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.
The accomplice merely cooperates in the commission of
the crime by previous or simultaneous acts. The
participation is only minor in character. It only provides
material and moral aid in an efficacious manner but not
in an indispensable manner.
If the act performed by the offender facilitated the
commission of the crime, but it is not indispensable in
the commission of the crime, with or without said act
nevertheless, the crime had been committed, the
offender is merely an accomplice.
The participation of an accomplice presupposes the
commission of the crime by the principal by direct
participation.
An accomplice does not have a previous agreement or
understanding or is not in conspiracy with the principal
by direct participation.
Requisites to be an accomplice:
1) There must be a community of design; that is,
knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in
his purpose;
2) The performance by the accomplice of previous
or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable
to the commission of the crime; and
3) That there be a relation between the acts done
by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as an accomplice.
Community of design
The accomplice had been informed of the criminal
design of the offender and having been informed, he
concurs with the said criminal design. He is not part of
the conspiracy but he knows and concurs with the
design because he was informed of the same only after
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 42
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

the principal had come up with agreement. oor to the dorm allowing X to enter. Upon entering, X
d
immediately went to the room of Y. Thereafter, X
Accomplices come to know about the criminal stabbed Y. Y died. What is the liability of X? What is the
resolution of the principal by direct participation after liability of W?
the principal has reached the decision to commit the
felony and only then does the accomplice agree to : X is liable as a principal by direct participation in the
A
cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide crime of homicide regarding the death of Y. X is the one who
whether the crime should be committed; they merely performed all the acts of execution by stabbing Y resulting to
assent to the plan of the principal by direct the death of the latter.
participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.
However, where one cooperates in the commission of W is liable as an accomplice. Although W knew of the plan to
the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves kill X, he did not participate in the criminal resolution
are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct thereof. X merely informed W of the plan, and W merely
participation, and not merely an accomplice. (People v. concurred. Likewise, the acts of W in opening the gate for X
Pilola) is not an indispensable act in order to consummate the
homicide of Y. X could have easily asked another person to
: A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their
Q open the gate of the dorm for him.
agreement, A, B, and C will be the ones to enter the
bank. D will serve as a lookout. E will serve as the driver : Lucia Chan was abducted and brought to a resort in
Q
of the vehicle. They committed the crime on the date Laguna. The abductors demanded P20 million as
agreed upon. What are the liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E? ransom. The police eventually rescued Chan and
arrested the perpetrators. Among those arrested was
: All of them are liable as principals by direct participation
A Perpenian, who was 17 years old at the time of the
because all of them are authors of the criminal design. commission of the crime. She chatted with the
abductors and claimed that she thought that there was
; What if, A, B and C decided to rob the bank. At the
Q only a swimming party.
agreed time and place, they were already about to go to
the bank, but suddenly they realized they had no : An accomplice cooperates in the execution by supplying
A
vehicle. So they lagged down a taxi. They informed the material and moral aid in relation to the acts done by the
taxi driver of their criminal design, to which the taxi principal. In this case, her presence gave moral support to
driver agreed for his car to be used as a getaway the abductors as she kept quiet and didn’t tell the police even
vehicle. While on their way to the bank, they realized when there was obviously a crime being committed. She is
that they needed a lookout. They saw a balut vendor an accomplice to the kidnapping. (People v. Gambao, 2013)
and asked him, “Can you be our lookout? The moment
you see a police coming, shout baluuuuut!” The said ACCESSORY
vendor agreed to the said criminal design. After
robbing the bank, A B C and the balut vendor boarded
the taxi. What is the criminal liability of each? ARTICLE 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who,
having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
: A, B, and C, are liable as principal by direct participation,
A without having participated therein, either as principals
while the taxi driver and the balut vendor are liable as or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission
accomplices. They are accomplices since A, B, and C already in any of the following manners:
agreed on the criminal design before they informed the two
of the same and the latter concurred by performing 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
simultaneous acts or subsequent to the commission of the profit by the effects of the crime.
crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
So no matter how minor the participation is of an the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
offender, if he is an author of the criminal design, even if discovery.
he only acted as a lookout, still he is liable as a principal
by direct participation 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts
: X wanted to kill Y. X knows that Y is living in a dorm.
Q with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
In order to execute his plan, X contacted W who is also author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
living in the same dorm as Y. X told W of his plan to kill murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Y. X asked W to open the gate of the dorm at exactly 1 Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
am so that X could enter. At exactly 1am, W opened the

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 43

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

other crime. W.

Remember: The accessory does not know the What is the liability of X?
criminal design. What he knows is the commission of
the crime. Despite knowledge that the crime has been : X is a principal by direct participation in the crime of
A
committed, he takes part subsequent to its commission. homicide of Y, because it was X who executed the acts of
execution which lead to the death of Y. Likewise, X, is a
1. BY PROFITING FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE principal by inducement in the crime of arson. Were it not
CRIME. for the consideration given by X to W, the latter would not
have burned the house of Y with the body of Y inside for the
The accomplice profited themselves or assisted the purpose of concealing the crime of homicide.
offender to profit from the effects of the crime.
What is the liability of W?
The accessory must receive the property from the
principal. He should not take it without the consent of : W is an accessory of the crime of homicide of Y. W
A
the principal, or else, he is not an accessory but a assisted in the concealing and destroying the corpse of Y by
principal in the crime of theft. burning it in Y’s own house. However, W is a principal by
direct participation in the crime of arson. W executed the
: A, by means of deceit, was able to take the diamond
Q acts of execution of arson in burning the house of Y with the
ring of his friend. So A swindled his friend by means of body of Y inside.
deceit. After taking the ring, she went to B. A told B “B, I
have here a diamond ring, I swindled it from my friend : X and Y were ighting. Y kicked and punched X. X lost
Q
and I’m selling it to you for only 10k. B bought the said the ight and fell down. W, who saw the ight, gave X a
ring and displayed it to his shop to have it sold. Later B gun and ordered to shoot Y. S, another bystander, also
was found in possession of the said ring. Is B liable as an told X to shoot Y. X shot Y who died immediately. X went
accessory? home. Feeling guilty of the crime that he committed,
confessed to his father what he had done. X gave the
: YES. B assisted A, the principal of the crime of swindling,
A gun that he used to his father. The father hid the gun to
in pro iting from the effects of the crime by buying the stolen prevent its discovery by the police.
diamond ring. Furthermore, B later sold the diamond ring for
pro it. Thus, B is considered as an accomplice. What is the liability of X?

2. DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO : X is guilty of homicide as a principal by direct

A
PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY participation. X completed all the acts of execution for
homicide by pulling the trigger of the gun which
Body of the crime immediately resulted to the death of Y.

The body of the crime does not mean the corpse of a What is the liability of W?
deceased person in murder, or the item stolen in case of
robbery or theft. It means that a fact has been : W is considered as a principal by indispensable
A
committed by someone. It is the “corpus delicti”. cooperation in the crime of homicide. W gave a gun to X
which the latter used to shoot and kill Y. Were it not for the
Misleading the investigating police officer to prevent the gun which W gave, X would not have used said gun to kill Y
discovery of the crime or to help the offender escape is thereby committing homicide.
also to destroy the corpus delicti.
What is the liability of S?
: X and Y were engaged in a ight. In the course of the
Q
said ight, X killed Y. Thereafter, X told his friend W to : S is not criminally liable. Even though S also told X to
A
bring the body of Y to the house of Y and burn it to shoot Y, he did not provide the gun to complete the acts of
conceal and destroy the body of Y in exchange for 100k. the execution. Likewise, absence of any inding of
Needing the money, W took the body of Y and brought it conspiracy, or that S participated in the criminal resolution
in the house Y. Thereafter, W burned down the house of of homicide, such words of encouragement does not make
Y. Thereafter, the relatives of Y reported to the police him criminally liable.
that he has been missing for a long time. The police
made an investigation which led to the arrest of X and What is the liability of the father?

A: The father is liable as an accessory. By concealing the gun

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 44

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
which X, his son, used to commit the crime of homicide, he
assisted by concealing the effects or the instrument of the
crime of homicide in order to prevent its discovery.
However, by virtue of Article 20, the father is exempted from
the criminal liability because X was his son. However, he is
liable for obstruction of justice because he assisted in
preventing the discovery of the crime of homicide.
3. HARBORING, CONCEALING OR ASSISTING
THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL
The third act of the accessory is by harboring,
concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals
of the crime, provided that he either:
1) Acts with abuse of his public functions; (the
accessory here is a public officer and the crime
committed by the principal is any crime,
provided it is not a light felony according to
RSE)
2) 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 offense. (the
accessory here is a private individual according
to RSE)
If the accessory who harbored and concealed or
assisted in the escape of the principal is a private
individual, the law specifies the crime committed, which
is P.D. 1829, otherwise known as Obstruction of Justice.
(Prosec Garcia Notes)
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Obstruction of Justice is committed by any person who
willfully and lawfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
ARTICLE 20. Accessories Who are Exempt from
Criminal Liability. — The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling
within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article.
An ACCESSORY is exempt from criminal liability, when
the crime committed is a light felony and when the
principal is his:
1. spouse,
2. ascendant,
3. descendant,
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
○ a nephew or niece is not included.
An accessory is NOT EXEMPT from criminal liability
even if the principal is related to him, if such accessory
(1) PROFITED by the effects of the crime, or (2) assisted
the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
b. Conspiracy and proposal
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. -
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred
from the acts of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime which indubitably point to,
and are indicative of, a joint purpose, concert of action
and community of interest.
For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the malefactors had the
same purpose and were united in its execution. (People
v. Dillatan, 2018)
In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not
necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit
and killed the victim. The presence of conspiracy among
the accused can be proven by their conduct before,
during or after the commission of the crime showing
that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a
common purpose or design. There must be a showing
that appellant cooperated in the commission of the
offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement
or agreement or materially through external acts
indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the
perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way. In such a
case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of
the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 45
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

crime committed. (People v. Ramos, 2004) When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal
liability, there must be an overt act done before the
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY: co-conspirators become criminally liable.

1) That 2 or more persons came to an agreement; In order to hold an accused guilty as co-principal by
2) That the agreement concerned the commission reason of conspiracy, it must be established that he
of a felony; and performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,
3) That the execution of the felony be decided either by actively participating in the actual commission
upon. of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to his
co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the
General rule: As a rule, conspiracy and proposal to crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of
commit a felony are not punishable acts. They are mere the conspirators as to move them to executing the
preparatory acts. In Article 6, to commit a crime, there conspiracy.
must at least be the commencement of an overt act to
amount to at least an attempted felony. Here, there is no Ways of committing conspiracy:
overt act yet. There is only a conspiracy, a proposal.
1) Direct or Express conspiracy
Exception: When the law specially provides a penalty
for merely conspiring or proposing to commit a felony, There is direct or express conspiracy when the
they become crimes by themselves. offenders or conspirators met, planned, agreed, decided
to commit a crime. There is a preconceived plan prior to
the commission of the crime.
CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
Elements:
If conspiracy or proposal to commit a crime are
provided in penalties by law, it is not necessary that
i. There is a prior agreement or preconceived
there be an overt act committed. The mere act of
plan;
conspiring or proposing will already give rise to a crime.
ii. Presence at the time of the commission of the
crime.
The following are conspiracies as a crime:
Even if he is part of the agreement if at the time of the
1. Conspiracy to commit treason;
commission of the crime he failed to appear, such
2. Conspiracy to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or
failure on his part to appear at the scene of the crime
insurrection;
would be construed by law as a desistance. Therefore,
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition;
even if he is part of the agreement he will not be liable
4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism;
as a conspirator.
5. Conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade;
6. Conspiracy to commit arson;
: A, B and C decided to kill X on a particular date and
Q
7. Conspiracy to commit importation, sale, trading,
time. On the said date and time, A and B arrived and
administration, dispensation, delivery,
killed X. However, C failed to appear. Is C liable for the
distribution, transportation, manufacture,
death of X?
cultivation of dangerous drugs and maintenance
of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous
: NO. Although C was part of the agreement, he cannot be
A
drug is used in any form.
held criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of
murder because he failed to appear at the scene of the crime.
: A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to kidnap X
Q
His failure to appear is construed by law as a desistance on
and thereafter exchange him for ransom. However,
his part.
before they could execute their plan, all of them were
arrested. Did A, B, C, D, and E incur criminal liability?
General Rule: Conspirators are liable only for the crime
agreed upon. They are not liable for any crime which is
: NO. There is no crime of conspiracy to commit
A
not agreed upon.
kidnapping for ransom. A, B, C, D, and E did not incur
criminal liability.
Exceptions:
CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A
a. When the other crime was committed in the
CRIME
presence of the other conspirators and they did

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 46

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

not perform acts to prevent its commission; manner, their acts complementing one another towards
a common criminal objective or design.
b. When the other crime committed was the
natural consequence of the crime agreed upon; It may happen that the conspirators do not know each
and other. Since the offenders acted in a synchronized and
coordinated manner, a conspiracy was established
c. When the resulting crime is a composite crime instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the moment.
or a special complex crime or a single indivisible
complex crime. : X was trying to stab Y. Y evaded all the blows. Z saw
Q
that X was having a hard time stabbing Y. Z was an
: A, B and C decided to kill X. They went to the place
Q
enemy of Y. So Z went to the back of Y and held both
where X will be passing at night time. When they saw X,
hands of Y at the back and told X to stab Y which X did.
A B and C surrounded X and they all stabbed X. When X
Was there a conspiracy between Z and X?
was lying on the ground, A and B left. C remained and
took the valuables of X. What is or are the criminal
: YES. An implied conspiracy was established, instantly,
A
liabilities of A, B and C?
impulsively, at the spur of the moment. There was no
: A, B and C are all liable for the crime of murder as
A preconceived plan but the act of Z of holding the hands of Y
conspirators because it is the crime agreed upon. However, is a direct and positive overt act showing that he has the
only C will be liable for the crime of theft. A and B cannot be same criminal design as That of X which is to kill Y.
held liable for the crime of theft because theft was not a
crime agreed upon by all of them. Also, theft was committed In case of implied conspiracy, for one to be considered
in the absence of A and B. There was no opportunity for A as a conspirator, it is necessary that the offender have
and B to stop C in theft. Therefore, only C will be held liable an active participation in the commission of the crime.
for theft.
Mere presence at the scene of the crime, mere
I n the same problem, C took the valuables of X in the approval, mere acquiescence, mere knowledge of the
presence of A and B. While he was taking them, A said commission of the crime will not make one a
what about the cellphone, B said what about the ring, conspirator absent any active participation. Because the
here take it also. What is or are the criminal liabilities basis is the acts performed by the offender. Unlike a
of A, B and C? preconceived plan there was a prior agreement,
therefore mere presence or exercise of moral
: Although theft was not a crime agreed upon, all of them
A ascendancy will make one a conspirator. In implied the
will be held liable for the crime of theft because although conspiracy is established based on the acts performed.
theft was not agreed upon, it was committed in the presence Therefore, if you do not perform an act, if you are merely
of A and B and they did not perform acts to prevent C from present then you cannot be held a conspirator.
committing theft.
: X was trying to stab Y. When Z saw that X was
Q
: A, B and C decided to injure X to teach him a lesson.
Q stabbing Y he shouted "sige tirahin mo pa, sa kaliwa sa
When X arrived, they surrounded him, boxed, punched, kanan..." X kept on stabbing Y. Was there a conspiracy
hit X. While X was lying on the ground, seriously between Z and X?
wounded, A in licted a fatal wound by kicking the neck
of X. X died. Who is liable for the death of X? : NO. Absent any active participation, mere approval, mere
A
acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the
: All of them are criminally liable for the death of X. They
A
crime will not make one a conspirator in case of implied or
all agreed to injure X. That was their agreement. The death of
inferred conspiracy.
X however was the natural consequence of their agreement to
injure X. Therefore, even if it is not their intended act, since it
PENALTY BETWEEN CONSPIRATORS
is the natural consequence of the crime, they are all
criminally liable for the death of X.
When conspiracy is established whether direct or
express, implied or inferred, the act of one is the act of
2) Implied or Inferred conspiracy all. Therefore, all the perpetrators in the crime will have
one and the same penalty. The same penalty will be
Implied or inferred conspiracy is deduced from the imposed regardless of the quantity and quality of the
mode and manner of committing the crime, there is no participation. The moment conspiracy is established, it
preconceived plan but the offenders acted is immaterial to determine who inflicted because all of
simultaneously in a synchronized and coordinated them will have the same penalty.

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 47

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

If however, conspiracy is not established, the penalty There is no proposal to commit sedition; but there is a
will be individual in nature depending on the act that proposal to commit treason, rebellion or coup d’etat.
they performed.
There is no criminal proposal when:
People v. Peralta (1968)
a. The person who proposes is not determined to
Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of commit the felony.
the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of b. There is no decided, concrete and formal
the extent and character of their respective active proposal.
participation in the commission of the crime or crimes c. It is not the execution of a felony that is
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in proposed
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
c. Multiple offenders
: Bokingco killed Pasyon inside the apartment. At the
Q [Forms of criminal repetition]
time that he was killing, Reynante was inside the main i. Recidivism
house, he was asking the wife to open the vault of the
pawnshop. After killing the husband, Bokingco called RECIDIVISM
Reynante and said "tara na, patay na siya!" They led at
the same time. They were both charged and convicted A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
for the crime of murder. Was there a conspiracy crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
between Bokingco and Reynante? judgment of another crime embraced in the same Title
of the RPC.
: NO. The Supreme Court held that there was no conspiracy
A
between Bokingco and Reynante in killing the husband. ELEMENTS:
While one is killing the victim the other was trying to
commit another crime. They did not act in a synchronized 1) That the offender is on trial for an offense;
and coordinated manner. There was no evidence that there
was a preconceived plan because one was committing 2) He was previously convicted by final judgment
another crime different from the other. of another crime;
They are one in escaping but not in the commission of the 3) Both the first and second offense are embraced
crime. Since conspiracy was not established, the most that is in the same title of the RPC; and
established is that they planned to commit 2 crimes
simultaneously at the same time. But the charge was only 4) Offender is convicted of the new offense.
murder, there was no charge for robbery. Therefore, Bokingco
was convicted, Reynante was acquitted of the crime of In recidivism, the number of intervening years between
murder. So absent any evidence of conspiracy, the liability is that conviction and his subsequent convictions is
individual. (People vs. Bokingco, 2011) immaterial, provided that the accused was convicted by
final judgment.
CONSPIRACY IN SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Even if the accused was granted pardon for the first
Conspiracy may be appreciated in Special Penal Laws if offense, but he commits another felony embraced in the
the law specifically provides therein. same title of the Code, the first conviction is still
counted to make him a recidivist since pardon does not
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY obliterate the fact of his prior conviction.
1) That a person has decided to commit a felony; Is a habitual delinquent necessarily a recidivist?
and
2) That he proposes its execution to some other A: Not necessarily. There are crimes in habitual
person or persons. delinquency that will require the commission of three or
more crimes although not embraced in the same title of
Proposal per se is not punishable within the the Code which is the essence of recidivism. (Possible
contemplation of Article 8. It is because the proposal prelim qs - RSE)
was not followed by any overt act that will tend to
accomplish the purpose of the utterance.
ii. Habituality

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 48

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

REITERACION OR HABITUALITY HABITUAL DELINQUENCY

The offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
ELEMENTS:
1) The offender must have been previously
punished or has served his sentence previously.
2) The first offense was punished with an equal or
greater penalty; or he committed two or more
crimes previously where he was meted a lighter
penalty.
3) That he is convicted of the new offense.
iii. Quasi-recidivism
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent if
within a period of ten years from the date of his release
or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
ELEMENTS:
1) The offender must have been convicted of any
of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification;
2) There should be at least three convictions;
3) Each conviction must come within ten years
from the date of release or last conviction of the
previous crime.
Article 62 (5). Habitual delinquency shall have
the following effects:

Any person who shall commit a felony after having been Third Conviction The culprit is sentenced to
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve the penalty for the crime
such sentence or while serving the same, shall be committed and to the
punished by the maximum period of the penalty additional penalty of
prescribed by law for the new felony. prision correccional in its
medium and maximum
The first crime may be any crime. The second crime period.
must be a felony.
Fourth Conviction The penalty is that
ELEMENTS: provided by law for the
last crime and the
1) The offender must have been previously additional penalty of
convicted by final judgment; and prision mayor in its
minimum and medium
2) Before beginning to serve such sentence or periods.
while serving the same he committed a felony.
Fifth Conviction or The penalty is that
: A, while serving a inal judgment, he was found in
Q additional conviction provided by law for the
possession of illegal drugs. Is A a quasi-recidivist? last crime and the
additional penalty of
A: NO. The second crime is not a felony, it is a special law. prision mayor in its
maximum period to
: If A was serving sentence for possession of illegal
Q reclusion temporal in its
drugs and then inside a crime he killed a co-inmate. Is minimum period.
A a quasi-recidivist?
● In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties
: YES. Maximum period prescribed by law shall be
A imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years.
imposed.
● The imposition of such additional penalties is
iv. Habitual delinquency mandatory and is not discretionary.

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 49

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency Delinquency. X is a habitual delinquent, within 10 years from
the date of his last release or conviction of the crime of theft,
Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency may be he committed another theft. He has been found guilty three
simultaneously considered because they have different times of the crime of theft. Therefore, he is a Habitual
effects on criminal liability of the offender. Delinquent.

: X committed robbery and he was convicted by inal

Q He is also a Recidivist because he has been previously
judgment. He served out sentence and was released. convicted by inal judgment of the crime of Theft, and
Within six years from the date of his release he another crime of robbery which is embraced in the same title
committed theft, prosecuted and convicted by inal of the code. Therefore, he is also a recidivist.
judgment, served out the sentence and was released.
Within six months he committed another crime of Both aggravating circumstances may be considered by the
Theft, convicted by inal judgment, served out his court because they have different effects on the criminal
sentence and released. Within two months from the liability of the offender. The fact that he is a recidivist,
date of his release, he again committed a crime of Theft, recidivism will be considered. If recidivism is not offset by a
so the judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt mitigating circumstance it would mean the imposition of the
of this Theft. In imposing the penalty for this Theft, maximum period of penalty for the crime of theft. But for
which of the four forms of habituality as aggravating being a Habitual delinquent an additional penalty will be
circumstances may be considered by the court? imposed. So both may be considered by the court in the
imposition of penalty.
A: The court may consider both Recidivism and Habitual

HABITUAL DELINQUENCY REITERACION RECIDIVISM QUASI- RECIDIVISM

A person shall be deemed The offender has been When a person, who, while Any person who shall
to be habitual delinquent if previously punished for an on trial for one offense, has commit a felony after
within a period of ten offense to which the law been previously convicted having been convicted by
years from the date of his attaches an EQUAL OR by final judgment of final judgment, before
release or last conviction of GREATER PENALTY another crime embraced beginning to serve such
the crimes of SERIOUS OR or within the SAME TITLE OF sentence or while serving
LESS SERIOUS for 2 OR MORE CRIMES THE PENAL CODE. the same, shall be
PHYSICAL INJURIES, TO WHICH IT ATTACHES punished by the maximum
ROBO, HURTO, ESTAFA A LIGHTER PENALTY. period of the penalty
OR FALSIFICATION, he is prescribed by law for the
found guilty of any of said new felony.
crimes a third time or
oftener.

At least 3 convictions.
Within a period of 10 years
from the date of release or
last conviction of the
crimes a third time or
oftener.
Two convictions.
It is necessary that the
offender shall have served
out his sentence for the
first offense.
At least two convictions. Offender must have been
previously convicted by
Final judgment rendered in final judgment and before
the first offense is beginning to serve such
sufficient. sentence or while serving
the same, he committed a
felony.

Both crimes should only be Previous and subsequent The two offenses must be First and subsequent
serious or less serious offenses must not be embraced in the same title conviction may or may not
physical injuries, robo, embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. be embraced in the same
hurto, estafa or falsification. of the RPC. title.

May include offenses under The first crime may be any

SPL. crime. The second crime
must be a felony.

Extraordinary Aggravating Generic Aggravating Generic Aggravating Special Aggravating

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 50

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

Circumstance. Circumstance. Circumstance. Circumstance.

Cannot be offset by a May only be offset by

mitigating circumstance. special privileged mitigating
circumstances.

Imposes additional penalty. Not always an aggravating Increases penalty to Maximum period of the
circumstance. Discretionary maximum period. penalty prescribed by the
upon the court. new felony.

4. Penalties Afflictive penalties:

a. Imposable penalties Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Kinds of penalties; Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
1. Principal; and Prision mayor.
2. Accessory
Correctional penalties:
Principal penalties
Prisión correccional,
■ Principal penalties are penalties prescribed by Arresto mayor,
law or prescribed by the court. Suspension,
Destierro.
Accessory penalties Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
■ Accessory penalties are those which are Public censure.
necessarily included in the imposition of
principal penalties. Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and
Penalties that may be imposed Bond to keep the peace.

Only that penalty prescribed by law prior to the ACCESSORY PENALTIES

commission of the felony may be imposed. No
person shall be subject to criminal prosecution for any
act of his until after the State has defined the crime and
has fixed a penalty therefore. It is a guaranty to the
citizens that no act of his will be considered criminal
until the government has made it so by law and has
provided a penalty.
b. Classification
Article. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The
penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:
SCALE
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Capital punishment:
Death.
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of
the offense,
Payment of costs.
ARTICLE 26. When Afflictive, Correctional or Light
Penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an
alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive
penalty, if it exceeds One million two hundred thousand
(₱1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed
One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000)
but is not less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000); and a
light penalty, if it be less than Forty thousand pesos

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 51

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

(₱40,000). duration of the penalties of prisión mayor and

c. Duration and effects
DURATION OF EACH PENALTY
1) Reclusion perpetua — 20 years and 1 day to 40
years.
2) Reclusion temporal — 12 years and 1 day to 20
years.
3) Prisión mayor and temporary disqualification —
6 years and 1 day to 12 years except when
disqualification is accessory penalty; in which case
its duration is that of the principal penalty.
4) Prision correccional, suspension and destierro
— 6 months and 1 day to 6 years except when
suspension is an accessory penalty, in which case
its duration is that of the principal penalty.
5) Arresto Mayor — 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
6) Arresto Menor — 1 day to 30 days.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
temporary disqualification shall be from six years and
one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty. xxx
ARTICLE 41. Reclusión Perpetua and Reclusión
Temporal — Their accessory penalties. — The penalties
of reclusión perpetua and reclusión temporal shall carry
with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of
perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender
shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
ARTICLE 42. Prisión Mayor — Its Accessory Penalties.
— The penalty of prisión mayor shall carry with it that
of temporary absolute disqualification and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of
suffrage which the offender shall suffer although
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Reclusion perpetua is not synonymous with Life
imprisonment

Under RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed. Reclusion perpetua Life imprisonment

In lieu of death penalty, it shall be reclusion perpetua in Penalty is imposed in Penalty is imposed in
case of violation of the RPC and life imprisonment in case of violation of the case of violation of
case of violation of Special Penal Laws. (Sec. 2 of RA Revised Penal Code special penal laws
9346)
Carries a duration of 20 No fixed duration
Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion to 40 years
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be For purposes of pardon:
eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known Entails an imprisonment
as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (Sec. 3 of RA 9346) of at least 30 years after
which the convict
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES becomes eligible for
pardon although the
maximum period shall in
ARTICLE 27. Reclusión Perpetua. — Any person
no case exceed 40 years.
sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be
pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years,
Carries with it an Does not carry an
unless such person by reason of his conduct or some
accessory penalty accessory penalty
other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief
Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Is Reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty?
Reclusión temporal. — The penalty of reclusión
temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to A: NO. In People v. Lucas (1995), had the Congress
twenty years. intended that Reclusion perpetua be a divisible penalty,
the application of two indivisible penalties under Article
Prisión mayor and temporary disqualification. — The 63 of the Revised Penal Code will be meaningless and

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 52

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
there would be no statutory rules for determining when
either reclusion perpetua or death should be the
imposable penalty.
If reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, then
what is the reason for fixing the duration of reclusion
perpetua?
A: In the same case as mentioned above, the Supreme
Court held that the duration of thirty (30) years for
reclusion perpetua is necessary to serve as the basis for
determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the
application of the three-fold rule in the service of
multiple penalties.
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
Accessory Penalties:
1. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of
the sentence as the case may be;
2. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as
to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Accessory Penalties:
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of the
sentence as the case may be;
b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to
the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
PRISION MAYOR
Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
Accessory Penalties:
a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification;
b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from the right to
suffrage which the offender shall suffer although
pardoned as to the principal penalty unless the
same shall have been expressly remitted in the
pardon.
CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
ARTICLE 27. xxx Prisión correccional, suspensión, and
destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision
correccional, suspensión and destierro shall be from six
months and one day to six years, except when
suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty or arresto
mayor shall be from one month and one day to six
months. xxx
ARTICLE 43. Prisión Correccional — Its Accessory
Penalties. — The penalty of prisión correccional shall
carry with it that of suspension from public office, from
the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of
suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall
exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the
disqualification provided in this article although
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
ARTICLE 44. Arresto — Its Accessory Penalties. — The
penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension
of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.
PRISIÓN CORRECCIONAL
Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension from public office;
b. Suspension from the right to follow a profession
or calling;
c. Perpetual Special Disqualification for the right of
suffrage, if the duration of the imprisonment shall
exceed 18 months..
ARRESTO MAYOR
Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office;
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence..
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 53
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
LIGHT PENALTIES
ARTICLE 27. xxx Arresto menor. — The duration of the
penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty
days.
ARTICLE 44. Arresto — Its Accessory Penalties. — The
penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension
of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.
ARRESTO MENOR
Duration: 1 day to 30 days
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office;
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence..
Public Censure — A principal and indivisible penalty
that has no fixed duration.
d. Application and graduation of penalties
SUMMARY OF ARTS. 50-57
CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
PRINCIPALS 0 1 2
ACCOMPLICES 1 2 3 composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the
ACCESSORY 2 3 4 penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
“0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining
a crime, which is to be imposed on the PRINCIPAL in a
CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 46. The other figures represent the
degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet
the different situation anticipated by law.
EXCEPTION: Articles 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases
where the law expressly prescribes the penalty for
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed on
accomplices or accessories.
➔ A DEGREE is one entire penalty, one whole penalty
or one unit of the penalties enumerated in the
graduated scales provided for in Article 71. Each of
the penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, etc., enumerated in the
graduated scales of Article 71 is a degree.
➔ When there is a mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the penalty is lowered or increased
by PERIOD only, except when the penalty is
divisible and there are two or more mitigating and
without aggravating circumstances, in which case
the penalty is lowered by degree.
➔ A PERIOD is one of the three equal portions called
the minimum, medium and maximum of a divisible
penalty.
ARTICLE 61. Rules for Graduating Penalties. — For
the purpose of graduating the penalties which,
according to the provisions of articles 50 to 57, inclusive,
of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as
principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as
accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single
and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
that immediately following that indivisible penalty in
the scale prescribed in article 71 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more
divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the
above mentioned scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
maximum period of another divisible penalty, the
medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that immediately
following in said scale.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of several periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be composed of the period immediately following the
minimum prescribed and of the two next following,
which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if
possible; otherwise, from the penalty immediately
following in the above mentioned scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some
manner not specially provided for in the four preceding
rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose
corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals
of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 54
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
Rule No. 1:
● When the penalty is single and indivisible (ex.
RP), the penalty next lower shall be reclusion
temporal.
Rule No. 2:
● When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
penalties
Example: penalty for parricide is reclusion
perpetua to death, the next lower penalty is
reclusion temporal
● Penalty prescribed consists of only one divisible
penalty to be imposed in its full extent.
Example: Penalty prescribed for simple
homicide is Reclusion temporal. Penalty next
lower in degree is prision mayor.
● When the penalty is composed of two or more
divisible penalties to be imposed to their full
extent
Example: Penalty prescribed for the crime is
prision correccional to prision mayor. Penalty
next lower in degree is arresto mayor.
Rule No. 3:
● When the penalty is composed of one indivisible
penalty and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty
Example: penalty for the crime is reclusion
temporal in its maximum to reclusion perpetua.
Penalty next lower in degree is Prision mayor in
maximum to Reclusion temporal in medium.
● When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
penalties and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty
Example: penalty for the crime is reclusion
temporal in maximum to [RP and] Death.
Penalty next lower in degree is Prision mayor in
maximum to Reclusion temporal in medium.
Rule No. 4:
● When the penalty is composed of several
periods.
The “several” periods contemplated in this rule
correspond to different divisible penalties.
Example: penalty for the crime is arresto mayor
in medium to prision correccional in minimum.
Penalty next lower in degree is arresto menor in
medium to arresto mayor in minimum because
this is the penalty immediately following the
minimum prescribed and arresto menor in
medium and maximum are the two periods
immediately following.
Rule No. 5:
● When the penalty has only 2 periods.
Example: Abduction punishable by prision
correccional in its medium and minimum. The
penalty next lower in degree following prision
correccional in its medium and minimum shall
be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum.
● When penalty has one period
Example: penalty for the crime is reclusion
temporal in medium, the next lower penalty is
reclusion temporal in minimum.
The rules provided for in Article 61 should also apply in
determining the MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The MINIMUM
of the indeterminate penalty is within the range of the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by the RPC for
the offense.
Those rules also apply in lowering the penalty by one or
two degrees by reason of the presence of privileged
mitigating circumstances (Articles 68 and 69), or when
the penalty is divisible and there are 2 or more
mitigating circumstances (generic) and no aggravating
circumstance (Article 64).
The lower penalty shall be taken from the graduated
scale in Article 71.
ARTICLE 71. Graduated scales. - In the case in which
the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or
more degrees than another given penalty, the rules
prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating
such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 55
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the
shall observe the following graduated scales: court shall observe for the application of the penalty the
following rules, according to whether there are or are
SCALE NO. 1 not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. Death, 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating

2. Reclusion perpetua, circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed
3. Reclusion temporal, by law in its medium period.
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prisión correccional, 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in
6. Arresto mayor, the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty
7. Destierro, in its minimum period.
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure, 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the
10. Fine. commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in
its maximum period.
SCALE NO. 2
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one
2. Temporal absolute disqualification class against the other according to their relative weight.
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
4. Public censure, and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
5. Fine. shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
law, in the period that it may deem applicable,
Article 71 is important. In the computation of penalty according to the number and nature of such
you have to remember the scale. This is how penalties circumstances.
are increased by degrees or decreased by degrees. If
we talk about the penalty on a lower degree, look at the 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the
scale. One degree lower of reclusion perpetua is aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a
reclusion temporal. Yan yung by degrees. Hindi ito by greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its
periods which we have taken up under Art. 64. maximum period.

The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are: 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall
determine the extent of the penalty according to the
1. death number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating
2. reclusion perpetua circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the
3. public censure evil produced by the crime.

The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are: Computation to determine the legal duration of the
minimum, medium, and maxim periods of each
1. reclusion temporal penalty
2. prision mayor
3. prisión correccional Illustration:
4. arresto mayor
5. destierro Prision mayor = 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
6. arresto menor
● Subtract the minimum - 6 years (disregard the 1
The divisible penalties are divided into three periods: day) from the maximum - 12 years.
MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND THE MAXIMUM.
Thus: 12 - 6 = 6 years
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties ● Divide the difference of 6 years by 3 periods
prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a
single divisible penalty or composed of three different Thus: 6 ÷ 3 = 2 years
penalties, each one of which forms a period in

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 56

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
● To get the minimum period: Add 2 years to the
start of the minimum period of 6 years.
2 + 6 = 8 years [this is the last day of the
minimum period]
Thus: minimum period of Prision mayor is 6
years and 1 day to 8 years.
● To get the medium period: Add 2 years to the
end of the minimum period which is 8 years.
2 + 8 = 10 years [this is the last day of the
medium period]
1 day is added to the start of the medium period
to distinguish it from the last day of the
minimum period.
Thus: medium period of Prision mayor is 8 years
and 1 day to 10 years.
● To get the maximum period: Add 2 years to
the end of the medium period which is 10 years.
2 + 10 = 12 years [this is the last day of the
maximum period]
1 day is added to the start of the maximum
period to distinguish it from the last day of the
medium period.
Thus: maximum period of Prision mayor is 10
years and 1 day to 12 years.
i. Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. 4103)
Indeterminate Sentence Law modifies the imposition of
penalty. It is applied both to the Revised Penal Code
and Special Penal Laws. It provides for a minimum and
maximum term, such that the moment the offender
serves the minimum of the sentence, he shall be eligible
for parole. If granted, he will serve the remainder of the
sentence out of prison, but subject to the supervision of
the parole officer.
The indeterminate sentence is composed of:
1. a MAXIMUM taken from the penalty imposable
under the penal code
2. a MINIMUM taken from the penalty next lower
to that fixed in the code.
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE ISL
The general rule is that everyone is entitled to the
Indeterminate Sentence law. However, this act shall not
apply to the following persons:
1) Persons convicted of offense punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment. (Reclusion
perpetua as held by the Supreme Court in
People v. Enriquez, 2005)
2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3) Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4) Those convicted of piracy.
5) Those who are habitual delinquents.
6) Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence.
7) Those who violated the terms of conditional
pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive.
8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed 1 year.
9) Those who, upon the approval of the law, had
been sentenced by final judgment.
10) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
suspension.
Reclusion perpetua cannot avail Indeterminate
Sentence Law
Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible
penalties. Under Section 5 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, it is after 'any prisoner shall have served
the minimum penalty imposed on him, that the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such
prisoner may be granted parole. There being no
'minimum penalty imposable on those convicted to
reclusion perpetua, it follows that persons sentenced by
final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have
availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
(People v. Tubongbanua)
Effect of disqualification
If the offender is disqualified for the application of the
indeterminate sentence law, he shall be given a straight
penalty. The offender must serve the entire term of his
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 57
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

sentence and he is not eligible for parole. - Medium Period

b. One Mitigating
: A inal judgment was rendered against X. He was
Q
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. He - Minimum Period
violated the terms and conditions of the said pardon.
c. One Aggravating
He was charged with evasion of service of sentence. He
was found guilty by the court. Can the court impose - Maximum Period
upon him an indeterminate sentence?
d. Mitigating and Aggravating Present
: NO. X is among those disquali ied under the law. By
A - Offset Each Other According To Relative Weight
violating the condition of his pardon he cannot avail of an
e. 2 or more Mitigating, No Aggravating
indeterminate sentence law.
- One degree lower
: X has been convicted of inal judgment of serious
Q
physical injuries, thereafter he committed homicide
and the judge found him guilty of homicide. Can the People v. Saley
judge impose upon him an indeterminate sentence?
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum
: YES. X is a recidivist. Under the Indeterminate Sentence
A term of the penalty shall be "that which, in view of the
Law, only habitual delinquents are disquali ied from availing attending circumstances, could be properly imposed"
indeterminate sentence. A recidivist is quali ied under the under the RPC, and the minimum shall be "within the
law from availing the Indeterminate Sentence Law. range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for
the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on
: X is a minor who was charged and convicted for
Q the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense,
kidnapping with ransom, the penalty of which is without first considering any modifying circumstance
reclusion perpetua to death. Since minority is a attendant to the commission of the crime. The
privilege mitigating circumstance, we will lower the determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to
imposable penalty by one degree. Is X quali ied for the sound discretion of the court and it can be
indeterminate sentence? anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower
without any reference to the periods into which it might
: YES. In applying the indeterminate sentence law, we
A be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are
should consider the imposable penalty rather than the considered only in the imposition of the maximum term
penalty prescribed by law. In this case, since the penalty of of the indeterminate sentence.
reclusion perpetua was lowered to reclusion temporal, then
X is quali ied for indeterminate sentence. The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case
exceed P22,000 should not be considered in the initial
Computation for Indeterminate Sentence Law determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the
matter should be taken as analogous to modifying
1) Get first the maximum term of sentence with all circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of
the attendant circumstances in accordance with the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the
Article 64 of the RPC; Apply first the effect of law accords with the rule that penal laws should be
privileged mitigating circumstances then construed in favor of the accused. Since the penalty
consider the effects of aggravating and ordinary prescribed by law for the estafa charge against
mitigating circumstances. accused-appellant is prision correccional maximum to
prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would
2) The minimum depends upon the court’s then be prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus,
discretion with the limitation that it must be the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should
within the range of the penalty next lower in be anywhere within 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and
degree to that prescribed by the Code for the 2 months.
offense committed.
People v. Temporada (2008)
ARTICLE 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties
Which Contain Three Periods. (SIMPLIFIED) The RPC provides for an initial penalty as a general
prescription for the felonies defined therein which
a. No Aggravating, No Mitigating consists of a range of period of time. This is what is
referred to as the "prescribed penalty." For instance,
under Article 249 of the RPC, the prescribed penalty for

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 58

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

homicide is reclusión temporal which ranges from 12
years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. Further,
the Code provides for attending or modifying
circumstances which when present in the commission
of a felony affects the computation of the penalty to be
imposed on a convict. This penalty, as thus modified, is
referred to as the "imposable penalty." In the case of
homicide which is committed with one ordinary
aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstances, the imposable penalty under the RPC
shall be the prescribed penalty in its maximum period.
From this imposable penalty, the court chooses a single
fixed penalty (also called a straight penalty) which is the
"penalty actually imposed" on a convict, i.e., the prison
term he has to serve.
With the passage of the ISL, the law created a prison
term which consists of a minimum and maximum term
called the indeterminate sentence. Thus, the maximum
term is that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
RPC. In other words, the penalty actually imposed
under the pre-ISL regime became the maximum term
under the ISL regime. Upon the other hand, the
minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty
next lower to the prescribed penalty.
: NO. The Indeterminate sentence law states that in case of
A
violation of special penal law and when the said special
penal law does not use the enumeration of penalties in the
RPC, the maximum term of the sentence shall not exceed the
maximum penalty prescribed by law and the minimum term
of sentence shall not be less than the minimum penalty
prescribed by law. In this case, since the penalty prescribed
by law is 20 years to life imprisonment, it means that the
penalty to be imposed upon the convict must be an
indeterminate sentence. SC said the penalty must be 20 years
(minimum term) to 25 years (maximum term) (Argoncillo v.
CA, 1998)
Article 64 and Indeterminate Sentence law
The indeterminate sentence law did not repeal Article 34
of the Revised Penal Code. On the contrary, they are
related.
: A abducted B with lewd design. His intention was
Q
rape. But before A raped B, A was arrested. A was
charged with the crime of forcible abduction
punishable by reclusion temporal.
hat is the penalty imposed if there is no mitigating or
W
aggravating circumstance?

Violation of Special Penal Laws : The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in the
A
medium period since there are no mitigating or aggravating
If the offense is punished by special laws, the court shall circumstances. The minimum term is 1 degree lower in any
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the of its periods according to the sound discretion of the court.
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum Thus, the imposable penalty is prison mayor in any of its
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less period to reclusion temporal.
than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
hat if there is only one ordinary mitigating
W
: X was charged and convicted of the anti-carnapping
Q circumstance present?
law. Section 14 of R.A. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping law)
provides a penalty for 17 years and 4 months to 30 : Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in minimum
A
years if a person committed carnapping by means of period and the minimum term is Prision mayor in any of its
violence against or intimidation of any person, or force period according to the sound discretion of the court.
upon things. Under the indeterminate sentence law,
what is the duration of the penalty for the violation of hat if there is only one aggravating circumstance
W
the anti-carnapping law? present?

: Under the indeterminate sentence law, if a special law is

A : The maximum term will be reclusion temporal in its
A
violated, the courts may sentence the accused to an maximum period and the minimum term is Prision mayor in
indeterminate sentence provided that it shall not be less than any of its period according to the sound discretion of the
the minimum or more than the maximum according to the court.
sound discretion of the judge. Thus, anywhere from 17 years
and 4 months to 30 years may be imposed upon X. hat if both aggravating and mitigating circumstances
W
are present?
: The crime committed is illegal ishing with the use of
Q
explosives. The penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to : The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its
A
life imprisonment. The judge imposed the penalty of medium period because under article 64 you should offset
straight 30 years. Is the judge correct? the circumstances. The minimum term will be one degree
lower than reclusion temporal which is Prision mayor in any

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 59

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

of its period according to the sound discretion of the court. one degree?

hat if there are 2 aggravating circumstances and 1

W : NO. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. Under
A
ordinary mitigating circumstance present? Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty
prescribed by law is a single invisible penalty you shall
: The maximum term shall be reclusion temporal in its
A impose it as it is regardless of any aggravating or mitigating
maximum period applying the last aggravating circumstance circumstance.
after offsetting the aggravating circumstance and mitigating
circumstance. The minimum term is Prision mayor in any of hat is the penalty of A if, in addition to the 2
W
its period according to the sound discretion of the court. mitigating circumstances above mentioned, A is a
minor at the time of the offense?
hat if there are two mitigating circumstances and no
W
aggravating circumstances present? : privilege mitigating circumstance must irst be applied
A
prior to the ordinary mitigating circumstance. Since minority
: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its medium
A is a privilege mitigating circumstance which lowers the
period. Since there are two ordinary mitigating penalty by one degree, the maximum term is prision mayor
circumstances, we lower the imposable penalty by one in its medium period and the minimum term prision
degree. The minimum term is prision correccional in any of correccional in any of its range according to the sound
its periods according to the sound discretion of the court. discretion of the court.

hat if there are three mitigating circumstances with

W The only circumstance that can defeat an indivisible
no aggravating circumstance present? penalty is a privilege mitigating circumstance.

: The maximum term shall be prision mayor in its

A : X was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide.
Q
minimum period. The two ordinary mitigating X voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. In the
circumstances shall operate to lower the imposable penalty trial, the mitigating circumstance of immediate
by one degree, the remaining ordinary mitigating vindication to a grave offense was attendant. What
circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its should be the penalty imposed on X?
minimum period. The minimum term is prision correccional
in any of its periods according to the sound discretion of the : Since the penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor
A
court. and there are two other ordinary mitigating circumstances
present, the maximum term of sentence is Prision
hat if there are four mitigating circumstances and no
W correccional in its medium period while the minimum term
aggravating circumstance? of sentence is within the range of Arresto mayor.

: The maximum term shall still be prision mayor in its

A hat is the penalty if, in addition to the facts above
minimum period. In case of ordinary mitigating
circumstances, you can only lower the penalty by one
degree. You cannot lower the penalty by two degrees. The
two ordinary mitigating circumstances shall operate to make
the penalty in its minimum period. The minimum term is
prision correccional in any of its periods according to the
sound discretion of the court.
Note: In order that the penalty will be lowered by one
degree, it is necessary that there is NO aggravating
circumstance. Even if there are many mitigating
circumstances, for as long as there is one aggravating
circumstance, you cannot lower the penalty by degrees.
Only by periods.
W
mentioned, X is a minor committing with discernment?
: Since the penalty already imposed upon X is prision
A
correccional, we lower it by one degree more because
minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance. Thus,
according to Article 64, the maximum term is Arresto mayor
in its medium period. Indeterminate sentence law is not
applicable if the penalty imposed upon the offender does not
exceed one year. In this instance we cannot give him an
indeterminate sentence because the duration of arresto
mayor is 1 month to 6 months.
If the maximum term of sentence does not exceed one
year, a straight penalty shall be imposed upon him.

: A was charged with the information of rape with

Q
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, e. Accessory penalties
against B. thereafter, A voluntarily surrendered. A
convicted of rape and was punished with the penalty of 1. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE
reclusion perpetua. Since there are two mitigating DISQUALIFICATION
circumstances, should the judge lower his penalty by

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 60

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Effects:
a. The deprivation of the public officers and
employments which the offender may have
held even if conferred by popular election;
b. The deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular elective office, or to
be elected to such office;
c. The disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of any of
the rights mentioned; and
d. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or
other pension for any office formerly held.
All these effects last during the lifetime of the convict
and even after the service of the sentence except as
regards paragraphs b and c above in connection with
temporary absolute disqualification.
2. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
DISQUALIFICATION
Effects:
For public office, profession or calling:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected;
b. Disqualification holding similar offices
employments during the period
disqualification;
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected
in an office.
b. Cannot hold any public office during the period
of disqualification
The penalty for disqualification if imposed as an
accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION and
NOT for the withholding of a privilege.
Temporary disqualification or suspension if imposed as
an accessory penalty, the duration is the same as that
of the principal penalty.
3. SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE
RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE
RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR
CALLING
Effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office or the
exercise of such profession or right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence;
b. Cannot hold another office having similar
functions during the period of suspension.
4. CIVIL INTERDICTION
Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the
time of his sentence the following rights;
a. Rights of parental authority;
b. Guardianship, either as to the person or
property of any ward;
c. Marital authority,
d. The right to manage his property; and
e. The right to dispose of such property by any act
or any conveyance inter vivos.
The offender sentenced to civil interdiction may make a
last will and testament because the prohibition to
dispose of property extends only to inter vivos and not
to mortis causa.
Donation may also be made by the offender provided
that it shall take effect after death or mortis causa.
Civil Interdiction is always an accessory penalty in case
of the following principal penalties:
or
of a. Death;
b. Reclusion perpetua;
c. Reclusion temporal
5. FORFEITURE AND CONFISCATION
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony
shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the
crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
unless they are property of a third person not liable for
the offense, but those articles which are not subject of
lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
6. PAYMENT OF COST
Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of
the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or
unalterable amounts previously determined by law or
regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
If an accused is convicted of a crime, cost shall be
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 61
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
adjudged against him. However, in case of acquittal,
each party must bear his own loss.
f. Subsidiary Imprisonment
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one
day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under
confinement until his fine referred in the preceding
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment
shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence,
and in no case shall it continue for more than one year,
and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed by only a fine,
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six
months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a
grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen
days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than
prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed
by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is
of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
established in the preceding rules, shall continue to
suffer the same deprivations as those of which the
principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not
relieve him from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Subsidiary Penalty is a substitute penalty for fine in case
of insolvency by the accused.
If the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine,
may he be imposed a subsidiary penalty of
imprisonment?
A: NO. Absent any express statement of subsidiary
penalty by the court, subsidiary penalty cannot be
imposed even if the accused is insolvent and cannot
pay the fine.
Why must there be an express statement by the
court imposing subsidiary penalty?
A: Because it is only a substitute penalty. A subsidiary
penalty is not a principal penalty nor an accessory
penalty, but only a substitute penalty for fine.
Limitations of Subsidiary Penalty
Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed on the following
instances:
1) If the judgment of the court did not impose fine
as a penalty;
2) If the judgment of the court did not expressly
state that in case of nonpayment of fine, the
convict shall suffer subsidiary penalty;
3) If the principal penalty that goes with fine
exceeds prision correccional or higher than 6
years;
4) If the principal penalty that goes with fine does
not have fixed duration;
5) If what the convict thinks to pay is not fine but
damages and cost;
was convicted of reckless imprudence causing
X
damage to property. Penalty imposed on him is ine and
public censure. Lower portion of the decision “in case of
insolvency to pay the ine, he shall suffer subsidiary
penalty”. Is the court correct?
: NO. The principal penalty that goes with ine is public
A
censure is not to be executed in a penal institution and is an
indivisible penalty.
ccused was convicted of prision mayor and ine. The
A
decision of the court includes a statement that in case
of insolvency to pay the ine, he shall suffer subsidiary
penalty. Q: Is the court correct?
: NO. Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed if the principal
A
penalty is higher than the prision correccional. Since prision
mayor is more than 6 years, subsidiary penalty cannot be
imposed.
was convicted of a felony. The penalty imposed on him
X
is ine alone. The judgment became inal and executory.
A writ of execution was issued by the court, however
such writ was unsatis ied. The judge ordered for his
arrest to suffer subsidiary penalty. Is the court correct?
A: NO. Failure to state that in case of insolvency to pay the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 62
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

ine, convict cannot be made to suffer subsidiary penalty. out.

was convicted of a ine with a subsidiary penalty.

X For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next
However, X was insolvent so he was imprisoned. When preceding paragraph the respective severity of the
he was released he bought lottery tickets and won the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the
lottery. X is now a multimillionaire. Thereafter, the following scale:
court issued a writ of execution against him. X argues
that his ine is now satis ied because he was 1. Death,
subsidiarily imprisoned in lieu thereof. Can the court 2. Reclusion perpetua,
issue a writ of execution against X despite serving the 3. Reclusion temporal,
subsidiary penalty of imprisonment? 4. Prision mayor,
5. Prisión correccional,
: YES. Even if X already served the prison term for
A 6. Arresto mayor,
subsidiary imprisonment, the court may still hold him 7. Arresto menor,
liable for the fine unsatisfied. 8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
People v. Alapan (January 2018) 10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and
FACTS: In an Information dated 26 May 2006, be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
respondent Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan and
(Myrna) were charged with eight (8) counts of violation 12. Public censure.
of B.P. Blg. 22. They were convicted. They filed a
petition seeking the imposition of subsidiary Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
imprisonment for non-payment of fine in eight (8) cases preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's
of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of
time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
ISSUE: Whether Alapan may undergo subsidiary imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may
imprisonment for failure to pay the fine. be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period.
HELD: No. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 provides
that "should only a fine be imposed and the accused be Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty
unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the years.
application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on
subsidiary imprisonment." However, the Circular does In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
not sanction indiscriminate imposition of subsidiary perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed
imprisonment for the same must still comply with the at thirty years.
law. Here, the judgment of conviction did not provide
subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE OF SENTENCE
penalty of fine. Thus, subsidiary imprisonment may not
be imposed without violating the RPC and the Under Article 70, as a rule, when the convict has to
constitutional provision on due process. serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so
5. Execution and service of sentence permit.

The penalties which can be simultaneously served

ARTICLE 70. Successive service of sentence. - When are:
the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be 2. Perpetual special disqualification
observed: 3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their 5. Suspension
respective severity shall be followed so that they may be 6. Destierro
executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, 7. Public Censure
should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or 8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace
penalties first imposed, or should they have been served 9. Civil interdiction

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 63

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
10. Confiscation and payment of costs.
The above penalties, except destierro, can be served
simultaneously with imprisonment.
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty cannot be
served simultaneously by reason of the nature of such
penalties.
xample : X was convicted of two counts of homicide. A
E times the most severe of these penalties, the maximum
penalty of reclusion temporal was imposed upon him for
each count of homicide. Reclusion temporal has a duration
of 12-20 years. X will satisfy the irst 12-20 years of
imprisonment. Thereafter, he shall serve another 12-20 years
of reclusion temporal for the second count of homicide.
Order of Severity
In the imposition of penalties, the convict shall first
serve the most severe penalty imposed upon him in
accordance with the scale provided for in Article 70.
a. Three-fold rule
THREE-FOLD RULE
The three-fold rule provides that when multiple
successive penalties are imposed upon the offender, the
maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not
be more than three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. However, such maximum period
shall in no case exceed forty years.
The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to
serve at least four sentences.
All the penalties, even if by different courts at different
times, cannot exceed three-fold the most severe.
Court must impose all the penalties for all the crimes of
which the accused is found guilty, but in the service of
the same, they shall not exceed three times the most
severe and shall not exceed 40 years.
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987)
FACTS: The petitioner was convicted of violating
Section 3(E) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
One of the issues raised by the petitioner concerns the
penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which totals 56
years and 8 days of imprisonment. He impugns this as
contrary to the three-fold rule and insists that the
duration of the aggregate penalties should not exceed
40 years.
HELD: Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the
3-fold rule as set forth in Article 70 of the RPC. This
article is to be taken into account not in the imposition
of the penalty but in connection with the service of the
sentence imposed. Article 70 speaks of “service” of
sentence, “duration” of penalty and penalty “to be
inflicted”. Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned
about the “imposition of penalty”. It merely provides that
the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three
which is 40 years.
: X raped her daughter 5 times. He was charged and
Q
convicted of 5 counts of rape. The penalty for 1 count of
rape is reclusion perpetua. What penalty shall the court
impose on him?
A: 5 counts of reclusion perpetua.
ince reclusion perpetua is 20-40 years, does that
S
mean X will serve 200 years in prison?
: NO. Under the three-fold rule, when the offender is serving
A
multiple successive sentences, the maximum duration of the
offender’s sentence shall not exceed three folds of the length
of the most severe penalty, provided that such penalty will
not be more than 40 years. In this case, since the penalty
imposed upon X is 5 reclusion perpetua, his service of
sentence will not be more than three-folds of the length of
reclusion perpetua which is the most severe penalty
imposed upon him. However, since three counts of reclusion
perpetua is 120 years which exceeds the maximum penalty
of 40 years, X will serve the maximum sentence of 40 years.
: X was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape
Q
punishable by reclusion perpetua and a civil liability of
P50,000.00. The judge, applying the three-fold rule,
sentenced X of 40 years of imprisonment and a civil
liability of P50,000.00. Is the judge correct?
: NO. The three-fold rule is not for the judge to impose. The
A
40 years imprisonment in accordance to three-fold rule
refers to service of sentence, NOT to the imposition of
penalties.
I f the judge will not impose the three-fold rule? Who
will impose it?
: The three-fold rule is for the Director of Prisons to apply
A
and compute, and not for the judge to impose.
How should the judge impose 5 counts of rape?
A: The judge shall impose upon him a penalty of reclusion
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 64
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
perpetua for each count of rape, the penalty prescribed by
law for the crime of rape. Likewise, the judge shall impose
upon the convict the civil liability of P50,000.00 for each
count of rape.
oes the three-fold rule also apply to civil liabilities of
D imposed upon the offender is only a fine?
the offender?
: NO. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the
A R.A. 10707, Probation may be granted whether the
victim therefore, civil indemnity is separate and distinct
from the criminal offense of rape. The civil indemnity shall
be the number of times the victim was raped.
b. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968 as Amended by R.A.
10707)
Probation is a disposition by which a convict after
conviction and sentence is released subject to the
conditions imposed by the court under the supervision
of a probation officer.
Probation is not a right but a privilege. Thus, even if a
convict is not among those disqualified of probation, the
judge can still deny the application. This denial is not
appealable. The grant or denial of application is
dependent solely on the sound discretion of the judge.
The following are disqualified to avail probation:
1) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment is
more than 6 years;
2) Those who have been convicted of subversion
and crimes against national security;
3) Those who have previously been convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six (6) months and
one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
4) Those who have already availed the benefit of
probation;
5) Those who have perfected an appeal from
judgment of conviction;
6) Those convicted of an election offense under
the Omnibus Election Code;
7) Those convicted of drug trafficking or drug
pushing;
8) Those who filed a malicious report that a person
is committing a violation of Anti-money
laundering law and was convicted because of
such malicious filing.
May probation be availed even if the penalty
A: YES. Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as Amended by
sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only.
Appeal and Probation
Generally, under P.D 968, appeal and probation are
mutually exclusive remedies. This is because the reason
behind appeal and the reason behind probation are
diametrically opposed.
If a person appeals, it means that he is questioning the
decision of the court. He is insisting on his innocence.
On the other hand, if a person applies for probation, it
means that he is accepting the judgment of the court.
He, however, does not want to serve his sentence
behind bars.
Exceptions:
1. However, Section 4 of R.A. 10707 which
amended the probation law, states that when a
judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgment is modified
through the imposition of a probationable
penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply
for probation based on the modified decision
before such decision becomes final. The
application for probation based on the modified
decision shall be filed in the trial court where the
judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in
the trial court where such case has since been
re-raffled. This notwithstanding, the accused
shall lose the benefit of probation should he
seek a review of the modified decision which
already imposes a probationable penalty.
2. Section 42 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
act provides that the court may, after it shall
have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict
with the law, and upon application at any time,
place the child on probation in lieu of service of
his/her sentence taking into account the best
interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4
of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise
known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is
hereby amended accordingly.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 65
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

: Colinares hit Ru ino twice in the head with a stone.

Q The only limitation on the discretionary conditions is that
Thereafter, Colinares was charged and convicted for they must not be so restrictive to the rights of the
frustrated homicide in the regional trial court. He was accused such that they will no longer be in consonance
sentenced to 2 years and 4 months of prision with his freedom.
correccional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor.
Colinares appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Example: In the case of Baclayon v. Mutia
purpose of modifying his conviction from frustrated (1984) the trial court prohibited the offender,
homicide to attempted homicide thereby lowering the who is a teacher by profession, to teach as a
penalty so that he can avail probation. The Court of condition during the period of probation. This is
Appeals af irmed the decision of the RTC. Thus, a restrictive condition. It deprives the offender
Colinares elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The his means of livelihood.
Supreme Court held that Colinares is only liable for
attempted homicide because the prosecution failed to Period of Probation
prove that the wound of Ru ino was fatal. Thus the
penalty imposed on him should be lowered to SENTENCE PERIOD OF PROBATION
imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years and four months of prision Imprisonment of not Will not exceed two years
correccional, as maximum. Can Colinares avail more than 1 year
probation after the perfection of appeal to modify his
conviction? All other cases of Will not exceed 6 years
imprisonment
: YES. Colinares did not appeal from a judgment that would
A
have allowed him to apply for probation. He did not have a Fine subsidiary Not less than nor more
choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a imprisonment in case than twice the total
position to say, "By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply of insolvency number of days of
for probation." The stiff penalty that the trial court imposed subsidiary imprisonment,
on him denied him that choice. Besides, in appealing his taking into account the
case, Colinares raised the issue of correctness of the penalty highest minimum wage
imposed on him. He claimed that the evidence at best rate at the time of the
warranted his conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, rendition of the judgment.
homicide, which crime called for a probationable penalty. In
a way, therefore, Colinares sought from the beginning to
bring down the penalty to the level where the law would Effect of Probation
allow him to apply for probation. (Colinares v. People, 2011)
Probation will suspend the execution of the sentence.
When and where do you apply for probation However, it will not extinguish civil liability.

A grant of probation is applied before the Trial Court
which heard the case within the period of perfecting an
appeal or within 15 days from promulgation of
judgment.
Conditions imposed upon offender under probation
Under Section 16 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A.
10707, the final discharge of the probationer shall
operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or
suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally
extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for
which probation was granted.

The following are mandatory conditions imposed by the
Q
court to the probationer:
1. Appear before the probationary officer within 72
hours from the receipt of the order;
2. Report once a month.
Discretionary or special conditions are dependent upon
the sound discretion of the court. It usually involves
engaging in a vocation, not drinking alcohol, not going
to the house of ill-reputes.
: Moreno ran for the public of ice of punong barangay.
However, a petition for disquali ication was iled against
him because he was convicted by inal judgment of the
crime of Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One (1)
Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months. Moreno
argues that the disquali ication under the Local
Government Code is for those who have served sentence
for more than 1 year. Since Moreno applied and was
granted probation, he did not serve his sentence
because probation suspends the service of the offender.
Can a person who was convicted by inal judgment but

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 66

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

was granted probation run for public of ice? SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A
child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
: YES. The phrase service of sentence, understood in its
A commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
general and common sense, means the con inement of a liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
convicted person in a penal facility for the period adjudged intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
by the court. During the period of probation, the probationer
does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the court A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the
but is merely required to comply with all the conditions day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
prescribed in the probation order. Furthermore, he accessory
penalties of suspension from public of ice, from the right to A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
disquali ication from the right of suffrage, attendant to the liability and be subjected to an intervention program,
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which
correccional in its minimum period imposed upon Moreno case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
were similarly suspended upon the grant of probation. proceedings in accordance with this Act.

: Lindsay Lohan, after conviction, applied for

Q The exemption from criminal liability herein established
probation and was granted the same. Thereafter, she does not include exemption from civil liability, which
iled an appeal questioning the civil indemnity imposed shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
upon her. The judge denied the appeal on the ground
that Lindsay already applied for probation. Therefore,
Simply put, a minor nine (9) years and above but under
the appeal cannot be granted. Is the judge correct?
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be committed to the care of his father
: NO. The only effect of probation is to suspend the
A
or mother, or nearest relative or family friend, in the
execution of the sentence. It has nothing to do with the civil
sound discretion of the court and subject to its
aspect of the case. Insofar as the civil aspect is concerned,
supervision.
the convict can still appeal it.
However, if the minor is 15 years old and 1 day to 18
: D, under probation for two years, was imposed the
Q
years old and if the he has acted with discernment in
condition that he could not change his residence. For
the commission of a particular offense, he shall be
two years, he complied with this condition. After the
proceeded against in accordance with Sections 24 to
lapse of two years, D now changed his residence. The
28, or 36 to 40 of the aforesaid Rule, as the case may
probation of icer learned about this and iled for a
be, and subjected to a delinquency prevention program
Motion to Revoke the probation. D contended that the
as determined by the court.
period of probation (2 years) has already been
completed, so he is already allowed to change
Exemption from criminal liability does not include
residence. The trial court granted the revocation. Is the
exemption from civil liability which shall be enforced in
trial court correct?
accordance with the provisions of Article 221 of the
Family Code in relation to Article 101 of the Revised
: YES. The expiration of the period of probation does not
A
Penal Code and Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
ipso facto mean the termination of probation. Probation is
Criminal Procedure.
only terminated upon the issuance of the court of a inal
discharge of probation. This happens when after the lapse of
Is a child liable for a crime committed by him?
the period of probation, the probation of icer will ile a
Motion before the court with a recommendation stating that
As a rule, when a child has committed a crime, the
the convict has complied with the conditions imposed and
following shall be observed in accordance with Section
therefore, he should be discharged. The court will then issue
6 [as amended by Section 6 of RA 10630], and Section
a inal discharge of probation. Only then will probation be
7 of the Republic Act No. 9344.
terminated.

c. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. SEC. 7. Determination of Age. – The child in conflict
with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
9344, as amended)
He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict
with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18)
Can you file a case against a minor in the
years old or older. The age of a child may be determined
Philippines?
from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or
any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 67

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
documents, age may be based on information from the
child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
physical appearance of the child and other relevant
evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
shall be resolved in his/her favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict
with the law prior to the filing of the information in any
appropriate court may file a case in a summary
proceeding for the determination of age before the
Family Court which shall decide the case within
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate
pleadings of all interested parties.
If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with
the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the
person shall file a motion to determine the age of the
child in the same court where the case is pending.
Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the
main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, judges and other government officials
concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of
the child in conflict with the law.
e. Community Service Act (R.A. No. 11362; A.M.
No. 20-06-14-SC)
Republic Act 11362 or the Community Service Act
(CSA) allows courts, in the exercise of their discretion, to
require community service and rehabilitative counseling
in lieu of jail time were the penalties imposed are arresto
mayor (imprisonment from one (1) month and one (1)
day to six (6) months) and arresto menor (imprisonment
from one (1) to thirty (30) days).
Community service is "any actual physical activity
which inculcates civic consciousness and is intended
towards the improvement of a public work or promotion
of a public service." This privilege may be availed of
only once.
The Community Service must observe the following
guidelines:
1) It must be served in the place where the crime
was committed;
2) The number of hours ordered by the courts
must be completed within the period likewise
prescribed by the courts;
3) The person sentenced must undergo
rehabilitative counseling under the Social
Welfare and Development Officer of the city or
municipality where the crime was committed;
and
The person rendering community service must be under
the supervision of a probation officer.
The courts must consider the following in the
discretionary exercise of imposing Community
Service:
1) The terms must be commensurate to the gravity
of the offense and the circumstances of the
case;
2) The welfare that the service will bring to society;
and
3) The reasonable probability that the person
sentenced shall not violate the law while
rendering the service.
If the convict violates the terms of the community
service, he shall serve the full term of his penalty in jail,
or be placed on house arrest if the penalty is arresto
menor. Conversely, if he completes the terms of the
community service, the court shall order his release,
unless detained for another offense.
6. Extinction of criminal liability (as amended by
R.A. No. 10592)
How is criminal liability extinguished?
1. Total
2. Partial
TOTAL EXTINCTION
ARTICLE 89. How Criminal Liability is Totally
Extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. 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.
2. By service of the sentence.
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
penalty and all its effects.
4. By absolute pardon.
5. By prescription of the crime.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 68
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

6. By prescription of the penalty.

conviction by final proceedings, before
judgment during or after final
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided
judgment
in article 344 of this Code.
May be given to all kinds Generally granted to a
DEATH of offenders class or group of persons
who have committed
Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the political offenses
proceedings, be it before or after conviction. This is
because the moment the offender dies, there is no one Private act of the Public act of President.
to serve the personal penalty. President.
Granted with the
Extinguishment of Civil liability through Death As such, the person concurrence of the
pardoned must plead and Congress. Courts may
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction prove it before the courts. take judicial notice of it.
extinguished his criminal liability as well as the civil No judicial notice of
liability based solely on the offense committed. Pardon.

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives Does not extinguish civil liability
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
VALID MARRIAGE
than delict such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts.
A valid marriage between the offender and the offended
party extinguishes criminal liability only in relation to
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
private crimes, i.e. seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and one public crime which is rape.
Service of sentence means satisfaction of the penalty
imposed. If it is imprisonment, it means that he has
Marriage must be made in good faith.
served his sentence behind bars. If it is fine, it means
that he has paid the amount. Service of sentence does
: Jack raped Rose. Rose iled a case of rape against
Q
not extinguish civil liability.
Jack. Trial on the merits ensued. During trial, Jack and
Rose would often see each other and because of this,
AMNESTY
they fell in love with each other. Later on, they got
married. Will the criminal liability be extinguished if
Amnesty is an act of grace from the power entrusted
the marriage took place after the offender was
with the execution of the law which does not only
convicted by inal judgment?
exempt the offender from the service of penalty for the
crime committed, but also obliterates the effects of the
: YES. Even if there is already a inal and executory
A
crime.
judgment, such as when the offender is already behind bars,
a valid marriage between the offender and the offended will
ABSOLUTE PARDON
still extinguish criminal liability and the penalty imposed.
Absolute Pardon is an act of grace received from the
power entrusted with the execution of the law which ARTICLE 90. Prescription of Crimes. — Crimes
exempts the offender from the penalty prescribed by punishable by death, reclusión perpetua or reclusión
law for the crime committed. temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall

PARDON AMNESTY prescribe in fifteen years.
Merely suspends the Obliterates all effects of Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall
execution of the crime as if no crime was prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
sentence. It erases the committed. punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in
penalty to be imposed. five years.
Granted only after Granted at any stage of
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 69

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

prescribe in two years.
The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed
shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender
is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one the
highest penalty shall be made the basis of the
application of the rules contained in the first, second and
third paragraphs of this article.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
The running of the prescriptive period shall be from the
time of the commission of the crime, if known. If not
known, from discovery by the offended party,
authorities and agents.

Prescription of Crime is the loss or forfeiture of the right If the offender is a fugitive, the prescription of offense
of State to prosecute an act prohibited by law. The will not run.
moment that a crime has already prescribed, the court
has to dismiss the case even if the accused has not : X and Y had a quarrel. In the course thereof, X killed
Q
moved for its dismissal. The courts lose their jurisdiction Y. Thereafter, X buried the body of Y in his backyard.
to try the case. Unknown to X, neighbor A witnesses A bury the body in
his backyard. After 25 years from the commission of the
In computing the period of prescription, the first day is crime, the neighbor became old and sickly. He then told
to be excluded and the last day included. the police what he witnessed 25 years ago. The police
then went to the backyard, dug the ground and saw the
Where the last day of the prescriptive period for filing an bones of Y. Can the State still prosecute H for parricide?
information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the
information can no longer be filed on the next day as the : YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The authorities and
A
crime has already prescribed. their agents only came to know the crime 25 years from its
commission. This is the only time when the prescriptive
period for the crime shall commence to run. Also, the
SUMMARY OF PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
neighbor who knew the commission of the crime is not the
person required by law to discover the crime in order to start
Death, Reclusion perpetua, 20 years
the running of the prescriptive period. Therefore, the State
reclusion temporal;
can still ile the case of parricide.
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SUSPENDED
Correctional penalties 10 years
The Prescriptive period shall be suspended upon filing
Arresto mayor 5 years of complaint or info before the fiscal’s office or before
the court/public prosecutor for purposes of preliminary
Libel and other similar 1 year investigation. It remains suspended until the accused is
offenses convicted or acquitted or the case is terminated without
the fault of the accused.
Oral defamation and slander 6 months
by deed RSE: The period is not interrupted by the mere act of
reporting the case to the fiscal. The preliminary
Light felonies 2 months investigation conducted by the municipal mayor in the
absence of the justice of peace partakes of the nature of
a judicial proceeding and it does not interrupt the
running of the period of prescription.
ARTICLE 91. Computation of Prescription of Offenses.
— The period of prescription shall commence to run ■ In continuing crimes — prescriptive period will
from the day on which the crime is discovered by the start to run only at the termination of the intended
offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall result;
be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when ■ In crimes against false testimony — prescriptive

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 70

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

period is reckoned from the day final judgment is 3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception
rendered in the proceeding where such false of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five
testimony is utilized, not when the false testimony is years;
made.
4. Light penalties, in one year.
■ In Election offenses:
ARTICLE 93. Computation of the Prescription of
○ If discovery of the offense is incidental to
Penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties shall
judicial proceedings, prescription begins
commence to run from the date when the culprit should
when such proceedings terminate; or
evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be
interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be
○ From the date of the commission of the
captured, should go to some foreign country with which
offense.
this Government has no extradition treaty, or should
commit another crime before the expiration of the period
PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES PUNISHED BY of prescription.
SPECIAL LAWS
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
punished by a fine or 1 year
imprisonment not more
Prescription of penalty is the loss of the right of the
than 1 month or both
State to execute the sentence.
punished by imprisonment 4 years
of more than 1 month but SUMMARY OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
less than 2 years
Death, Reclusion perpetua 20 years
punished by imprisonment 8 years
for 2 years but less than 6 Afflictive penalties 15 years
years
Correctional penalties 10 years
punished by imprisonment 12 years
for 6 years or more Arresto mayor 5 years

Internal Revenue offenses 5 years Light penalties 1 year

Municipal ordinances 2 months COMMENCEMENT PERIOD

Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same
be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof
and the institution of judicial proceeding for its
investigation and punishment.
The running of the period shall commence from the time
the convict evaded the service of his sentence. It is
necessary therefore that the convict is serving his
sentence and while serving, he escaped. It is from the
time of escape that the prescriptive period runs.\

: Garcia was convicted of homicide. The judgment

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings
are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for
reasons not constituting jeopardy. (Section 2, Act No.
3326)
ARTICLE 92. When and How Penalties Prescribe. —
The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as
follows:
1. Death and reclusión perpetua, in twenty years;
Q
became inal and executory. He was brought to
Muntinlupa to serve sentence. While serving sentence,
he escaped. Police failed to capture and ind him. It was
only after 20 years that Garcia was located and brought
behind bars. Garcia’s counsel iled a Petition for Habeas
Corpus contending that the penalty prescribed and
therefore, Garcia could not be imprisoned. Is the
counsel correct?
: YES. The penalty has prescribed. Homicide prescribes in
A
15 years. Here, Garcia was captured 20 years from escape.

2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; : Cuenca was charged with homicide. Being a bailable
Q
offense, Cuenca posted bail. During the arraignment

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 71

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

nd pre-trial, Cuenca appeared before the court.

a CONDITIONAL PARDON
However, during the trial proper, he did not appear.
Trial in absentia ensued. Judgment was for conviction. Conditional Pardon is an act of grace received from a
Warrant of arrest was issued against Cuenca. It was only power entrusted with the authority to execute the law,
20 years thereafter that the police were able to arrest but the pardon herein is subject to strict conditions.
Cuenca and bring him behind bars. Cuenca’s counsel
iled a petition for habeas corpus contending that the Because of these strict conditions, there must be
penalty has prescribed. Is the counsel correct? acceptance on the part of the offender. The moment he
accepts, it becomes incumbent upon him to comply
: NO. The penalty has not prescribed. In fact, prescription
A with the strict terms and conditions of the pardon.
has not even commenced to run. For the period to run, it is
necessary that the offender is serving sentence and while Failure to comply with any of the strict conditions, the
serving sentence, he escaped. The running of prescriptive State can file a criminal case under Art 159 - evasion of
period only starts from the escape of offender. In this case, service of sentence. In addition, the Chief Executive can
the offender has not even served his sentence. order the immediate incarceration of the offender under
the Administrative Code.
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF
PENALTY COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

The following are the grounds when the prescriptive In commutation of sentence, a new sentence imposed
period of penalty is suspended: shall be in lieu of the original sentence.

1. When offender surrenders; a. reduce degree of penalty

b. decrease the length of imprisonment
2. When offender went to a country which has no c. decrease the amount of fine
extradition treaty with the Philippines;
Example: Death penalty commuted to Reclusion
3. When convict commits a crime before the perpetua.
expiration of period of prescription;
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE
4. When the offender is captured.
Good conduct allowance is awarded to the offender if
PARTIAL EXTINCTION he has been behaving properly in prison. The Director of
Prisons shall compute the good conduct allowance in
ARTICLE 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – favor of the offender so that he will be immediately
Criminal liability is extinguished partially: released.

1. By conditional pardon; PERIOD OF DEDUCTION

IMPRISONMENT
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
first two years 20 days for each month
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may
of good behavior during
earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or
detention
serving his sentence..
Third to fifth year 23 days for each month
Modes for partially extinguishing criminal liability
of good behavior during
The following are the modes for extinguishing criminal detention
liability:
Sixth until the tenth year 25 days for each month
1. Conditional Pardon; of good behavior during
2. Commutation of sentence; detention
3. Good conduct of allowance;
4. Special Time Allowance for Loyalty; Eleventh and successive 30 days for each month
5. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law; years of good behavior during
6. Implied repeal or amendment of penal law detention
lowering the penalty
At any time during the period of imprisonment, he
shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days,

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 72

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each
month of study, teaching or mentoring service time
rendered.
Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district,
municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good
conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be
revoked. (Article 99)
SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY
ARTICLE 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A
deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall
be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his
preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence
under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this
Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours
following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the
passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to
in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of
his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose
to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding
the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in
Article 158 of this Code.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving
sentence.
This article does not apply to prisoners who did not
escape. The deduction is based on the original
sentence.
Example: During the time Bin Laden was serving his
sentence behind bars, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake
suddenly occurred prompting Bin Laden to escape. He
then went to the house of his mother. While Bin Laden
was watching TV in the house of his mother, he saw the
President announcing that the earthquake subsided.
Within 48 hours from announcement, Bin Laden
surrendered. Because of this surrender, Bin Laden is
entitled to the special allowance for loyalty for being so
loyal to the government.
If Bin Laden remained in prison despite the 8.9
magnitude earthquake, he is entitled to a deduction of
2/5 from the period of his sentence.
However, if Bin Laden did not return, there will be an
additional ⅕ to the term of his sentence.
If Bin Laden merely remained in prison, there would be
neither deduction nor addition to his sentence.
7. Civil liability in criminal cases
ARTICLE 100. Civil Liability of Person Guilty of
Felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.
As a general rule, every person criminally liable is also
civilly liable. For every criminal action filed in court, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability is deemed
impliedly instituted.
In crimes against persons, like the crime of physical
injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for
whatever he spent for the treatment of his wounds,
doctor’s fees etc. as well as for loss or impairment of
earning capacity.
Moral damages may be recovered as well.
Exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances.
But if there is no damage caused by the commission of
the crime, the offender is not civilly liable.
Exceptions to Implied Institution of Civil Action
The following are the exemption to the general that a
civil action is impliedly instituted in a criminal case:
1. When offended party waives the civil action;
2. When the offended party reserves the right to
file a separate civil action, which must be made
prior to the presentation of evidence of the
prosecution;
3. When the offended party files the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
Reservation of the right to file a separate civil action
A reservation of the right to file a separate civil action
only gives the party aggrieved the right to choose under
which body of laws he must bring the civil action, either
under the:
a) RPC – where the recovery may be defeated by
proof that the acts on which the action is based
do not exist, or
b) Civil Code – where the same proof is required to
preclude recovery, or proof of diligence in the
selection and employment of the employee.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 73
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
ACQUITTAL; EFFECT ON CIVIL LIABILITY
■ In the following cases, acquittal in a criminal
action bars recovery in a civil action:
1. If the judgment of acquittal states that
the alleged criminal acts of the offender
were not committed by him;
2. If the judgment of acquittal states that
the accused is not guilty of criminal or
civil damages.
■ In the following cases, the acquittal of the
accused in a criminal case is not a bar to
recover civil liability:
1. When judgment of acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt;
2. When judgment of acquittal states that
the liability of accused is not criminal
but civil in nature;
3. When the judgment of acquittal states
that the civil liability does not arise from
the crime but from other sources of
obligations.
ARTICLE 101. Rules Regarding Civil Liability in
Certain Cases. — The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of article 12
and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the
civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane
person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by
one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has
acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those
having such person under their legal authority or
control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile
or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or
control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane,
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own
property, excepting property exempt from execution, in
accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11,
the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares can not be equitably
determined, even approximately, or when the liability
also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the
inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the
damage has been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or
regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of
article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears
shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be
no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable,
saving always to the latter that part of their property
exempt from execution.
INSANE, IMBECILE, MINOR
In case the offender is insane, imbecile or minor, the
civil liability arising from their acts shall be shouldered
by the persons who have custody of the insane,
imbecile or minor.
Secondary liability falls on the property of the insane,
imbecile or minor, except those properties which are
prohibited from being attached.
STATE OF NECESSITY
All persons who have been benefited during the state of
necessity shall bear the civil liability. If there are many
persons benefited, the liability shall be divided by the
court proportionately.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR
Borne by the person who enforced the threats to the
offender. Secondary liability falls upon the principal by
direct participation, who is the one who acted under the
compulsion of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
ARTICLE 102. Subsidiary Civil Liability of
Innkeepers, Tavernkeepers and Proprietors of
Establishments. — In default of the persons criminally
liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons
or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases where a
violation of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulation shall have been committed by
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 74
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution
of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
representing him, of the deposit of such goods within
the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative
may have given them with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in
case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons unless committed by the innkeeper’s employees.
Elements of Par. 1:
1. That the INNKEEPER, TAVERNKEEPER OR
PROPRIETOR of establishment or his employee
committed a violation of municipal ordinance or
some general or special police regulation.
2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern or
establishment.
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
When all the above elements are present, the innkeeper,
tavernkeeper or any other person or corporation is civilly
liable for the crime committed in his establishment.
Elements of Par. 2:
1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper or
the person representing him of the deposit of
their goods within the inn or house.
2. The guest followed the directions of the
innkeeper or his representative with respect to
the care of the vigilance over such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were
taken by robbery with force upon things or theft
committed within the inn or house.
When all the above elements are present, the innkeeper
is subsidiarily liable.
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons, unless committed by
the innkeeper’s employees.
: Paris Hilton, a guest in a hotel, told the
Q
representative of the hotel that she carries valuables. 1. Restitution;
The representative of the hotel told Paris about the 2. Reparation of the damage caused;
rules regarding the care and vigilance of the valuables. 3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
owever, during nighttime, a robbery occurred inside
H
the hotel. Among those taken were the valuables of
Paris. The offender was arrested, convicted and civil
liability was imposed upon him. In case of insolvency of
the offender, does the proprietor of the hotel or
establishment have subsidiary civil liability?
: YES. The guest complied with the rules and regulations as
A
to the care and vigilance of the goods. He also informed the
representative of the hotel of the presence of his valuables.
ame situation as above. The guard of the hotel tried to
S
ight the robbers. One of the robbers shot the guard.
Prosecuted for robbery with homicide and was
convicted. In case of insolvency, is the proprietor of the
hotel subsidiarily liable?
: NO. The crime committed is robbery with homicide,
A
which is a crime under robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons. If the crime committed is robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons, the
proprietor is not liable, except if the offender is the employee
of the hotel or establishment.
ARTICLE 103. Subsidiary Civil Liability of Other
Persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the
next preceding article shall also apply to employers,
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind
of industry for felonies committed by their servants,
pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties.
ELEMENTS:
1. Employer, teacher, person or corporation is
engaged in some kind of industry;
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of his duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability.
The moment the employee was found insolvent, the
liability of the employer now becomes absolute.
Private persons without business or industry are not
subsidiarily liable.
ARTICLE 104. What is Included in Civil Liability. —
The civil liability established in articles 100, 101, 102, and
103, of this Code includes:
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 75
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
The first remedy granted by law is RESTITUTION of the
thing taken away by the offender; if restitution cannot be
made by the offender or by his heirs, the law allows the
offended party REPARATION. In either case, indemnity
for consequential damages may be required.
When property taken away is not recovered, the court
must order the accused to restore it to its owner or, as
an alternative, to pay its just value.
Where the crime committed is not against property, no
restitution nor reparation of the thing damaged can be
done, although the offended party is entitled to
indemnification under Article 107.
ARTICLE 105. Restitution — How Made. — The
restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever
possible, with allowance for any deterioration or
diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be
found in the possession of a third person who has
acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his
action against the proper person, who may be liable to
him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the
thing has been acquired by the third person in the
manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar
an action for its recovery.
ARTICLE 106. Reparation — How Made. — The court
shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible,
and its special sentimental value to the injured party,
and reparation shall be made accordingly.
ARTICLE 107. Indemnification — What is Included. —
Indemnification for consequential damages shall include
not only those caused to the injured party, but also those
suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of
the crime.
Indemnification includes moral damages, civil indemnity,
exemplary damages.
Generally, in criminal cases, there are three (3) kinds of
damages awarded by the Court:
1. Civil indemnity;
2. Moral damages; and
3. Exemplary damages
N.B.: Actual damages may be awarded or temperate
damages in some instances. Temperate or moderate
damages may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with
certainty.
First, civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity
authorized in our criminal law for the offended party, in
the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy
and apart from other proven actual damages, which
itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages
in civil law. This award stems from Article 100 of the
RPC which states, "Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.“
Civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine;
hence, it can be increased by the Court when
appropriate. (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5
April 2016)
Civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a
kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the
victim for the damage or infraction that was done to the
latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the
civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus, in a
crime where a person dies, in addition to the penalty of
imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is
also ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as
restitution. xxx Although the minimum amount imposed
under Article 2206 of the Civil Code for the award
cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as
civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased
when the present circumstance warrants it. (People v.
Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016)
Second, moral damages, which are also compensatory
in nature. They may be awarded to compensate one for
manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental
anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings and social humiliation. These
damages must be understood to be in the concept of
grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to
compensate the claimant for the injury suffered.
Although incapable of exactness and no proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages
may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to
the discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless,
that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant,
and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the
cases expressed in Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the
Civil Code. (People v. Jugueta, citing Del Mundo v. CA,
G.R. No. 104576, 20 January 1995)
Third, exemplary damages. Also known as "punitive"
or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective
damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious
wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings
and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 76
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded to account for injury
to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation
suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has
been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory
being that there should be compensation for the hurt
caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the
defendant – associated with such circumstances as
willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or
recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud
– that intensifies the injury. (People v. Jugueta, supra)
SUMMARY OF INDEMNITY & DAMAGES
People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016
I. or those crimes like, Murder, Parricide,
F
Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and 2.1. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
other crimes involving death of a victim where other than the above-mentioned:
the penalty consists of indivisible penalties: a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
1.1. Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to
reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
1.2. Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
ii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
2.1. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua ,
other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
2.2. Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
II. For Simple Rape/Quali ied Rape:
1.1. Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to
reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages– ₱100,000.00
1.2. Where the crime committed was not consummated
but merely attempted:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
2.2. Where the crime committed was not consummated,
but merely attempted:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
III. or complex crimes under Article 48 of the
F
Revised Penal Code where death, injuries, or
sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral
damages and exemplary damages will depend
on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual
abuse; and the number of victims where the
penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1. Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to
reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
1.2. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
The above Rules apply to every victim who
dies as a result of the crime committed. In other
complex crimes where death does not result, like in
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 77
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil indemnity,

moral and exemplary damages depend on the 2.2. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds
prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the and could have died if not for a timely medical
case may be. intervention, the following shall be awarded:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
IV. or Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with
F b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
Homicide, Robbery with Rape, Robbery with c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson,
Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, 2.3. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal
Carnapping with Homicide or Carnapping with injuries:
Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
Quali ied Piracy, Arson with Homicide, Hazing b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual
abuse as the composite crimes, where the In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the
penalty consists of indivisible penalties: amount of damages shall likewise be dependent on
the nature/severity of the wounds sustained,
1.1. Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to whether fatal or non-fatal.
reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346: The above Rules do not apply if in the
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00 crime of Robbery with Homicide, the robber/s or
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00 perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00 incident.
Where the component crime is rape, the
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that for every
amount of damages is the same as the above if the additional rape committed, whether against the
penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion same victim or other victims, the victims shall be
perpetua although death did not occur. entitled to the same damages unless the other
crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in
1.2. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds which case, the damages awarded to simple
and could have died if not for a timely medical rape/quali ied rape shall apply.
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 V. I n other crimes that result in the death of a
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 victim and the penalty consists of divisible
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under
Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to conceal the
1.3. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal dishonor of the offender, Reckless Imprudence
injuries: Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00 1.1. Where the crime was consummated:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
2.1. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 1.2. Where the crime committed was not consummated,
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 except those crimes where there are no stages, i.e .,
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous
affray:
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the a. Frustrated:
amount of damages is the same as the above if the i. Civil indemnity – ₱30,000.00
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua . ii. Moral damages – ₱30,000.00

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 78

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

b. Attempted: 3) third, against that of the accessories

i. Civil indemnity – ₱20,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱20,000.00 The person who made the payment when liability is in
solidum or subsidiary liability has been enforced, will
have a right of action against the others for the amount
If an aggravating circumstance was proven
of their respective shares. (Art. 110, RPC)
during the trial, even if not alleged in the
Information, in addition to the above-mentioned : X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery. They
Q
amounts as civil indemnity and moral damages, the were all charged as principals. But the judge ruled that
amount of ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages for X is a principal, Y is an accomplice and Z is a mere
consummated; ₱30,000.00 for frustrated; and accessory. The judge divided the civil liability
₱20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded. proportionately. Their liabilities among themselves are
in solidum. Against whom can the private complainant
recover said civil liability?
VI. . In the crime of Rebellion where the
A
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and : The private complainant can recover the entire civil
A
death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the liability from X, the principal but X now has a right of action
heirs of those who died are entitled to the against Y and Z insofar as their respective civil liabilities are
following: concerned. If X cannot pay, the private complainant can go
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00 against Y. Y can now go against X and Z because their
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00 liabilities are in solidum but subsidiary insofar as the
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00 private complainant is concerned.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY

. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal
B
wounds in the course of the rebellion and could Civil Liability shall be extinguished by the following acts:
have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded: 1. By pardon of the offended party;
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 2. Other modes for extinguishing civil liability
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 under Civil Code (payment, Condonation, etc)
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by
pardon, amnesty, probation, commutation of sentence,
.
C For the victims who suffered etc. Civil liability can only be extinguished in the same
non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: manner as in Civil Law, by the extinguishment of
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 obligations, i.e., payment, loss of the thing,
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 remuneration, compensation, etc.
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00

VII. In all of the above instances, when no

documentary evidence of burial or funeral
expenses is presented in court, the amount of
₱50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be
awarded.

LIABILITY OF PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND

ACCESSORIES

Each within their respective class is liable in solidum

among themselves for their quotas and subsidiarily for
those of the other persons liable.

Subsidiary liability is enforced:

1) first, against the property of the principals;

2) second, against that of the accomplices;

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 79

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
II. CRIMES UNDER THE RPC
(Revised Penal Code – Book 2)
🞶 I only included the crimes that are part of the top 50 FAQS by Atty.
Esguerra
A. Crimes against national security and laws of
nations
ARTICLE 123 – QUALIFIED PIRACY
ELEMENTS:
1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters;
2) Offenders may or may not be members of its
complement, or passengers of the vessel;
3) Offenders either: (a) attack or seize the vessel;
or (b) seize the whole or part of the cargo, its
equipment, or personal belongings of the
crew or passengers;
4) The preceding were committed under any of
the following circumstances: (a) whenever
they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing
upon the same; (b) whenever the pirates have
abandoned their victims without means of
saving themselves; or (c) whenever the crime
is accompanied by murder, homicide,
physical injuries or rape.
Under Article 122, the following circumstances will
qualify piracy:
1) Whenever the offender have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon; or
2) Whenever the offenders have abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves; or
■ There is intent to kill.
3) Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape.
■ Whenever these four crimes
accompanied the act of piracy, it will
not bring about a separate and distinct
crime or a separate and distinct charge
of murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape. These crimes are absorbed
because they are circumstances which
will qualify the penalty to death.
NOTE: These circumstances are separate and distinct
from each other. It is not necessary that all of them must
be present. The presence of one will qualify piracy.
Notice the conjunction OR. These are qualifying
circumstances which are prejudicial to the accused
therefore they must be strictly construed.
: What if the vessel is on Philippine waters, and there
Q
comes a second vessel. Four men from the second vessel
boarded the irst vessel and at gunpoint, they asked the
passengers to give to them all their valuables. One
woman didn’t want to give her wedding ring because it
was so precious to her and so one of the men forcibly
took the wedding ring from the inger such that the
inger was severed from it. What crime is committed?
: QUALIFIED PIRACY because piracy was accompanied by
A
physical injuries.
: What if in the same problem, the woman didn’t want
Q
to give the ring, one of the men slapped the woman on
the face three times and the face of the woman became
reddish. She suffered slight physical injuries. What
about the fact that the injury suffered was only slight?
: It will not make a difference although the injury suffered
A
was only slight. In the third circumstance which will qualify
piracy, the word “physical injuries” is used in its generic
sense. Therefore, whatever kind of physical injuries, whether
serious or slight for as long as it was accompanied by piracy,
it will be considered as quali ied piracy.
: What if in the same problem, the woman didn’t want
Q
to give the ring and one of the men touched the private
parts of the said woman and after touching the private
parts of the said woman with lust, he forcibly took the
ring. What crime is committed by the said men?
: All of them will be liable for piracy. However, the man
A
who touched the private part of the woman will be liable for
two crimes: piracy and acts of lasciviousness. Acts of
lasciviousness is not mentioned in Article 123. Therefore, its
presence will not qualify piracy. It will bring about a
separate and distinct charge of acts of lasciviousness.
B. Crimes against the fundamental law of the
State
ARTICLE 124 – ARBITRARY DETENTION
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 80
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
2) He detains a person; and
3) The detention is without legal grounds.
WHO IS THE OFFENDER IN ARTICLE 124?
The offender is a public officer or employee. But not all
public officers or employees can commit arbitrary
detention. The public officer or employee who can
commit arbitrary detention are only those who have
been vested with authority to effect arrest and detain a
person or at least to cause the detention of a person.
Public officers who have been vested with authority to
effect arrest and detain a person are POLICE
OFFICERS. On the other hand, public officers vested
with authority to cause the detention of a person are
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. They can order the
detention of a person who has been cited of contempt
for failing to accurate their proof, or we have JUDGES
they can order the summary detention of persons cited
in contempt of court.
WHEN IS THERE DETENTION?
There is detention when the offended party is placed in
incarceration. When the offended party is placed behind
bars or when the offended party is restrained of his
person or liberty.
In order to amount to arbitrary detention there must be
an act of restraint on the person or liberty of the
offended party. Absent that intent, absent the actual
restraint on the person or liberty of the offended party. It
can be any other crime but not arbitrary detention.
Therefore, the Supreme Court said that intent to detain
must be manifest, it must be evident. Absent that, it can
be any other crime but not arbitrary detention.
WHEN IS DETENTION WITHOUT LEGAL GROUNDS
UNDER ARTICLE 124?
1) When the said offended party was arrested
without a warrant of arrest.
2) When the said offended party was arrested and
his arrest and detention does not fall under any
of the circumstances or a valid warrantless
arrest.
3) When he is not suffering from violent insanity or
any other ailment which requires compulsory
confinement.
What are the valid grounds for detention?
a) If the person does not receive and is detained
by virtue of a warrant of arrest.
b) If a person was arrested and detained under any
of the circumstances for a valid warrantless
arrest
c) If a person was suffering violent insanity or any
illness which requires compulsory confinement.
: If a person, driving his vehicle entered a one way
Q
street and in violation of the LTO rules and regulation,
was stopped by a police of icer, his license was taken
and he was given a ticket and was brought to the
nearest PNP station and was placed behind bars. He
was detained. That was 8 o’clock in the morning then
the arresting of icer left. And in the afternoon, the
police of icer returned to the police station. Upon his
arrival, he immediately released the incarcerated
person whom he detained for entering a one way street.
Is the said police of icer liable for arbitrary detention
under Article 124?
: YES, he is liable for ARBITRARY DETENTION. He is a
A
public of icer vested with authority to effect arrest and
detain a person. If he detained the person, the detention was
without legal ground. It is without legal ground because
entering a one way street and violating the traf ic rules and
regulation is not a ground for incarceration. It is not a ground
for a person to be placed behind bars. If a person committed
a violation of traf ic rules and regulation like entering a one
way street or beating the red light, he should only be given a
ticket. There should not even be a con iscation of license.
After that, he should be allowed to leave but that is not a
ground for him to be placed under detention. Since the of icer
detained the person without any legal ground He is liable for
arbitrary detention.
: What if X is suspected to be a snatcher and many
Q
complaints were iled against him. One time, when the
police of icers were conducting a patrol they saw X who
was perhaps waiting for a ride. When the police of icers
saw X they immediately arrested X and brought him to
the nearest police station. They told X that he is to be
investigated for he is said to be a cellphone snatcher. So
he was brought to the investigation room however, the
investigation of icer was not around so the arresting
of icer told him that he needs to be investigated and
that he can leave but he must make sure to come back
for purposes of investigation otherwise if he does not
come back the next time they see him they will kill him.
So because of that, X would get out of the precinct but
would immediately return. Are the police of icers liable
for arbitrary detention?
A: NO, the police of icers are not liable for arbitrary
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 81
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
detention. There is no intent to restrain or detain the person
or liberty of X, the offended party. In order to amount to
arbitrary detention it is necessary that the intent of the
public of icer to restrain the person or liberty of the offended
party ust be manifest and it must be evident. In this case
however, it is not.
C. Crimes against public order
ARTICLE134 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
ELEMENTS:
1) That there must be public uprising, and
taking arms against the Government
2) That the purpose of the uprising or movement
is either –
a) to remove from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws the territory
of the Philippines or any part thereof;
or any body of land, naval or other
armed forces; or
b) to deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any
of their powers or prerogatives.
■ Rebellion is more frequently used where the
object of the movement is completely to
overthrow and supersede the existing
government.
■ Insurrection is more commonly employed in
reference to a movement which seeks merely to
effect some change of minor importance, or to
prevent the exercise of governmental authority
with respect to particular matters or subjects.
■ The essence or the gravamen of REBELLION is
the armed uprising against the Philippine
Government. It is a public uprising with the
taking up of arms. AN ARMED PUBLIC
UPRISING.
■ In case of Rebellion, it can be committed by any
person, or with the participation of the public.
■ It is not necessary that the purpose of the
rebellion be accomplished.
THEORY OF ABSORPTION IN REBELLION
Whenever in the course of committing rebellion, murder,
homicide, arson, physical injuries, other common crimes
are committed, and these common crimes are in
furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with
Rebellion is considered as absorbed in the crime of
Rebellion. Therefore, only one charge of Rebellion
should be charged against the said offender. (People v.
Hernandez)
A violation of a special penal law if it is committed in
furtherance of Rebellion, can still be absorbed in the
crime of Rebellion. (Enrile v. Salazar)
Exception: Killing, robbing etc. for private purposes or
profit, without any political motivation, would be
separately punished and would not be absorbed in
rebellion (People v. Geronimo)
: What if a police of icer was on his way to the of ice,
Q
suddenly here comes a member of the NPA, he saw the
police of icer and shot him. What crime is committed? is
it Rebellion or murder?
: In the case, the proper charged would be murder. It is
A
necessary that there must be evidence shown in what way
the said killing has promoted, fostered the idea of the Rebels.
Absent any connection with the commission of the common
crime and the furtherance of rebellion, the appropriate
charge is only murder, homicide, arson or physical injuries
as the case maybe.
Here, there was no evidence showing in what way the said
NPA has promoted the ideas of the Rebels in killing the said
police of icer. Absent of that evidence, it would be a charge of
murder and not rebellion. Rebellion is a continuing crime.
Therefore, these NPA who rebelled against the Government,
to overthrow the Government, that one time uprising is
suf icient, they are already considered as rebels because it is
a continuing offense.
ARTICLE 134-A – COUP D’ETAT
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender is a person or persons belonging to
the military or police or holding any public
office or employment;
2) It is committed by means of a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
3) The attack is directed against the duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks, public
utilities or other facilities needed for the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 82
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
exercise and continued possession of power;
and
4) The purpose of the attack is to seize or
diminish state power.
■ Committed by any person or persons belonging
to the military or police or holding any public
office or employment, with or without civilian
support, carried out singly or simultaneously
anywhere in the Philippines for the purpose of
seizing or diminishing state power.
■ The essence of coup d’etat is a swift attack
directed against the duly constituted authorities,
with or without civilians.
REBELLION COUP D’ETAT
Essence – an Armed Essence – swift attack
public Uprising against against the duly
the Government constituted
authorities
Crime of the Masses, it It can be committed with
involves a multitude of or without the
people participation of the public
because it says, with or
without civilian support,
provided it has been
committed by any
member of the military,
the police or those
holding public office or
employment.
Purpose – Overthrow the Purpose – only to
Government of the diminish state power, to
Philippines and replace it destabilize the
with the Government of government, not entirely
the Rebels to overthrow the
government
Can only be committed Can be committed not
by means of force and only by means of force
violence and violence but also by
means of intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth
ARTICLE 148 – DIRECT ASSAULT
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Without public uprising, by employing force
or intimidation for the attainment of any of
the purposes enumerated in defining the
crimes of rebellion and sedition; or
ELEMENTS:
a) Offender employs force or
intimidation;
b) The aim of the offender is to attain
any of the purposes of the crime of
rebellion or any of the objects of the
crime of sedition; and
c) There is no public uprising.
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
employing force or by seriously intimidating
or by seriously resisting any person in
authority or any of his agents, while engaged
in the performance of official duties, or on
occasion of such performance.
ELEMENTS:
a) Offender makes an attack, employs
force, makes a serious intimidation, or
makes a serious resistance;
b) The person assaulted is a person in
authority or his agent;
c) At the time of the assault, the person
in authority or his agent is engaged in
the actual performance of official
duties, or that he is assaulted by
reason of the past performance of
official duties;
d) Offender knows that the one he is
assaulting is a person in authority or
his agent in the exercise of his duties;
and
e) There is no public uprising.
First type of direct assault
■ The law says that there is no public uprising,
therefore whenever there is actual commission
of rebellion or sedition, direct assault can never
be committed because the element of direct
assault in whatever form is that there be no
public uprising, on the other hand, a necessary
element in the crime of sedition or rebellion is
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 83
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
there be public uprising.
■ In the first type of direct assault, it is not
necessary that the offended party is a person in
authority or his agent.
Second type of direct assault
■ If the offended party is a person in authority, the
attack or the employment of force need not be
serious because under Article 148, the mere act
of laying hands on the person in authority is
already qualified direct assault. Therefore, the
mere act of pushing a person in authority is
already qualified direct assault because the
offender already laid hands upon a person in
authority. Hence, it need not be serious.
However, if the offended party is a mere agent
of a person in authority, it is necessary that the
employment of force must be serious. The
reason is that in order to show defiance of law
against a mere agent of a person in authority, it
is necessary that the attack or force employed
must be serious in nature.
■ If what has been done is intimidation or
resistance, to amount to direct assault, it must
always be serious whether the offended party is
a person in authority or a mere agent of a
person in authority.
■ Who are these so-called persons in
authority?
1. Any person directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or
as a member of some court or
government-owned and controlled
corporation, board or commission
2. A barangay captain and a barangay
chairman
3. Teachers, professors, or persons
charged with the supervision of public
or duly recognized private schools,
colleges or institutions
4. Lawyers while engaged in their
professional duties or while in the act of
their professional duties
■ Who is an agent of a person in authority??
○ A person who, by direct provision of
law, by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with
the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and
property (e.g. police officer, councilors).
Likewise, it is stated that any person
who comes to the aid of a person in
authority is deemed an agent of person
in authority.
■ Knowledge of the accused that the victim is a
person in authority or his agent is essential. The
information must allege such knowledge.
■ It is not necessary that the person in authority or
his agent be in the actual performance of official
duty when attacked or seriously intimidated.
■ If a person in authority or his agent is engaged
in the performance of his official duty at the time
of the assault, regardless of the motive of the
offender, direct assault will always arise.
But if the person in authority or his agent is not
engaged in the performance of his official duty
at the time of the assault, motive on the part of
the offender becomes material.
If the motive on the part of the offender is a
personal vendetta, the crime committed is
murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or
less serious physical injuries, as the case may
be. But if the motive is by reason of the
authorities’ past performance of his official duty,
the crime committed is direct assault.
■ The crime of slight physical injuries is absorbed
in direct assault, because it is the necessary
consequence of the force or violence used.
Serious physical injuries, murder or homicide
may be complexed with direct assault.
QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
Direct assault of the second form is qualified when:
1. The assault is committed with a weapon, or
2. The offender is a public officer of employee, or
3. The offender lays hands upon a person in
authority.
The first two qualifying circumstances affect both a
person in authority and agent of a person in authority.
However, the third qualifying circumstance (laying hands
upon a person in authority) will only lie if the offended
party is a person in authority. Mere laying of hands to an
agent of a person in authority is not qualified. It will only
qualify if the laying of hands is upon a person in
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 84
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

authority. : X committed a crime of MURDER. Obviously, there was

A
treachery on the part of X. It is not direct assault because the
: The city mayor attended the lag ceremony. It was a
Q mayor was not engaged in the performance of his of icial
mandate. So there was this lag ceremony attended by duty and the reason behind the assault was personal
the city mayor. After the lag ceremony, the mayor went vendetta. Therefore it cannot be said that the attack was on
to the platform and was making an announcement to occasion of such performance of of icial duty.
the city hall employees. Suddenly here comes X. X went
near the mayor and shot the mayor on the head. The D. Crimes against public interest
mayor died. What crime is committed by X?
ARTICLE 171 – FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC
: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MURDER. The city
A OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
mayor was engaged in the performance of his of icial duty at ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
the time of the assault therefore it is direct assault. Because
the city mayor was engaged in the performance of his of icial
duty regardless of the motive of X, even if it is by mayor’s ELEMENTS:
past performance of of icial duty or by reason of personal
vendetta, regardless of the motive of X, the offender, since the 1) Offender is a public officer, employee, or
mayor is engaged in the performance of his of icial duty, it is notary public;
direct assault. Now, the mayor died. Therefore there is a
resulting felony of murder because obviously there was 2) He takes advantage of his official position;
treachery; therefore, it is direct assault with murder. Now, the
offender made use of a weapon, he made use of a pistol gun, 3) He falsifies a document by committing any of
a irearm which is a qualifying circumstance, therefore, the the following acts:
crime committed is quali ied direct assault with murder.
a) Counterfeiting or imitating any
: What if the city mayor has just attended a Sunday
Q handwriting, signature or rubric;
mass. He and his wife and children were getting out of
b) Causing it to appear that persons
the church when suddenly X came. X, onboard the
have participated in any act or
motorcycle went straight to the city mayor and ired at
proceeding when they did not in fact
the head of the city mayor. The city mayor died. It was
so participate;
found that X was a former employee of the city hall, who
was dismissed by the city mayor because he engaged in c) Attributing to persons who have
an anomalous transaction. What crime is committed by participated in an act or proceeding
X? statements other than those in fact
made by them;
: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MURDER. The city
A
mayor was not engaged in the performance of his of icial d) Making untruthful statements in a
duty. Since the city mayor was not engaged in the narration of facts;
performance of his of icial duty, he is a person in authority,
you have to know the motive of the offender. The offender e) Altering true dates;
was a city hall employee who was dismissed by the city
mayor, therefore the motive was by reason of the past f) Making any alteration or intercalation
performance of the said person in authority. So it is by in a genuine document which
reason of the past performance of his of icial duty, the attack, changes its meaning;
the iring was done on occasion of such performance of
of icial duty therefore the crime committed is direct assault. g) Issuing in an authenticated form a
The mayor died. Obviously there was treachery therefore it document purporting to be a copy of
is direct assault with murder. The offender made use of a an original document when no such
irearm, which is a qualifying circumstance in direct assault original exists, or including in such a
therefore it is quali ied direct assault with murder. copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine
: What if in the same problem, X happened to be a
Q original; or
former gardener who was dismissed from the service of
h) Intercalating any instrument or note
the household because he performed a wrongful act
relative to the issuance thereof in a
while gardening. Therefore his reason was a personal
protocol, registry, or official book.
vendetta. What crime is committed by X?

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 85

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
4) In case the offender is an ecclesiastical
minister who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated, with respect to any record or
document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
■ If the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, for
him to be liable under Article 171, it is
necessary that the document that he falsifies
must affect the civil status of a person.
If the document falsified by an ecclesiastical
minister will not affect the civil status of a
person, he is still liable for falsification, but not
under Art. 171, rather under Art. 172.
Example: If a priest falsified the communion
certificates of one of the students/pupils
receiving the first communion, the crime
committed is falsification under Art. 172, not
under Art. 171 because a certificate of
communion will not affect the civil status of the
said child.
■ Even if the offender is a public officer but the
falsification committed by him is upon a
document which does not pertain to his office, it
was committed without abuse of his office.
Thus, it will not fall under Article 171, but Article
172.
■ A private person who cooperates with a public
officer in the falsification of public documents is
guilty under Article 171 and incurs the same
liability and penalty as the public officer as there
is conspiracy.
■ It is required that the offender takes advantage
of his official position. The offender is said to
have taken advantage of his position or office
when he has the duty to make or prepare or to
otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
document; or he has the official custody of the
document which he falsifies.
■ Necessarily, the document being falsified in Art.
171 is a public official or official document.
■ In falsification of public or official documents, it
is not necessary that there be present the idea
of gain or the intent to injure a third person
because in the falsification of a public
document, what is punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth
as therein solemnly proclaimed. (Ong v. People,
2011)
■ The falsification of public document may be a
means to commit estafa because before the
falsified document is actually used to defraud
another, the crime of falsification is already
consummated and damage or intent to cause
damage is not an element of falsification. The
damage to another is caused by the
commission of estafa. (People v. Villalon)
■ Falsification of a public document is
consummated upon the execution of the false
document. Criminal intent is presumed since the
making such documents undermines public
faith and destroys the truth solemnly proclaimed
therein. (Goma v. CA)
a) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric;
■ The offender is said to have
counterfeited a signature, handwriting
or rubric if he has imitated an official
handwriting, signature or rubric.
So there is an original handwriting or
signature and the offender imitated or
copied the said original handwriting or
signature.
■ Counterfeiting is not the same as
feigning — When you say feigning, it
means “simulating” a handwriting,
signature or rubric. That is, making a
handwriting, signature or rubric out of
nothing which does not exist. It is an
imaginable, inexistent handwriting,
signature or rubric.
b) Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate;
■ : What if a notary public issued, he
Q
prepared or issued an extrajudicial
settlement of an estate. In the said
extrajudicial settlement of an estate, it
is stated that all the heirs of a certain
decedent can already agree by
themselves to partition the property. So
it is an extrajudicial settlement of an
estate and in it, the notary public made
it appear that all the 12 heirs of the
decedent had participated, but in truth
and in fact, two of the heirs where in
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 86
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

nother country and they did not

a in a narration of facts;
participate in the execution of this
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. Is ii) That he has legal obligation to
the notary public liable? disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him
: YES. The notary public is LIABLE under
A
the second act of falsi ication. He caused it iii) The facts narrated by the
to appear that A and B participated in the offender are absolutely false
execution of the extrajudicial settlement of
the estate, when they did not in fact so iv) The untruthful narration must be
participate. such as to effect the integrity of
the document and that the
c) Attributing to persons who have participated in offender does so with the intent
an act or proceeding statements other than to injure or prejudice another
those in fact made by them; person

■ Under the third act, persons ■ It is necessary that the intention of the
participated in an act or proceeding, intention of the offender must be to
they made statements therein, however, INJURE ANOTHER PERSON.
the offender in a document makes it
appear that these persons have made ■ The narration of facts must be
certain statements which were not in absolutely false and the person making
fact made by them. such narration must be aware of the
falsity of the facts narrated by him.
■ : An ordinance was being passed.
Q
There was a votation, the majority of ■ In case of making false statements in a
the councilors voted, two of the narration of facts, it is necessary that
councilors dissented and their vote was the offender must have the legal
NO. They just stated that they were obligation to disclose the truth in the
voting in the negative, but, they did not said narration of facts. Absent such
give any explanation for their dissent or legal obligation, then it cannot be said
the vote of NO. However, in the minutes that he is liable for falsification.
prepared by the Sangguniang
Secretary, the latter made it appear ■ When you say legal obligation, there is a
that the two councilors made law which requires him to state nothing
statements that they voted NO because but the truth in the said document.
the said ordinance is contrary to law. Is
the said secretary liable for ■ : What if the offender, a public of icer,
Q
falsi ication? falsi ied the statement in his residence
certi icate or community tax certi icate.
: YES. He is a public of icer. He is the one
A Although he stated his true name, he
who prepared the minutes for the did not state his address, citizenship,
Sangguniang Panglungsod and he made it etc. He makes false statement of facts in
appear that the 2 councilors stated that the his residence certi icate or community
said ordinance is contrary to law and in tax certi icate, otherwise known as
truth and fact, they did not make those cedula. So he was charged with
statements. So the said secretary is liable falsi ication. He contended that there is
for falsi ication. no law which requires him to state the
truth in his residence certi icate. Is his
d) Making untruthful statements in a narration of contention correct?
facts;
: His contention is wrong. According to a
A
■ The evidence of this act of falsification ruling in the Supreme Court, if it is a
requires: residence certi icate or community tax
certi icate, there need not be a law which
i) That the offender makes in a requires a person to state the truth in the
document untruthful statement said residence certi icate, it is inherent in

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 87

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

the kind of document. Since it is a : YES. He is liable under the second act of
A
residence certi icate or cedula, it is falsi ication in the seventh act of the 3rd
inherent that in this document, nothing but element in Art. 171. Because he included in
the truth must be stated – no falsity. the said copy a statement contrary to or
Because it requires identi ication. different from that of a genuine original.

e) Altering true dates; h) Intercalating any instrument or note relative to

the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
■ Date must be essential. official book.

■ It is necessary that what has been ★ So these acts, under ARTICLE 171, are also the very
altered must be a true date and in the same acts punished under Art. 172.
alteration of the said true date, the
document will no longer have any ARTICLE 172 – FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
effect. INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS

f) Making any alteration or intercalation in a

genuine document which changes its meaning; ACTS PUNISHABLE

■ Alteration which speaks the truth is not 1. Falsification of public, official or commercial
falsification. document by a private individual;

■ The alteration must affect the integrity ELEMENTS:

or change the effects of the documents.
a) Offender is a private individual or
g) Issuing in an authenticated form a document public officer or employee who did
purporting to be a copy of an original document not take advantage of his official
when no such original exists, or including in such position;
a copy a statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or b) He committed any act of falsification
under Article 171; and
■ : What if a notary public issued a deed
Q
of absolute sale and he said that it is an c) The falsification was committed in a
original copy of a deed of absolute sale public, official, or commercial
between A and B. A selling his property document or letter of exchange.
to B, but in truth and in fact, no such
deed of absolute sale was executed 2. Falsification of private document by any
between A and B. Is the notary public person; and
liable?
ELEMENTS:
: YES. He is liable under the irst act of
A
a) Offender committed any of the acts of
falsi ication in the seventh act of the 3rd
falsification except Article 171(7), that
element in Art. 171.
is, issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of
■ : What if a civil registrar issued a
Q
an original document when no such
certi icate of live birth. So here comes A.
original exists, or including in such a
A was asking that he should be given a
copy a statement contrary to, or
certi ied copy of a certi icate of live
different from, that of the genuine
birth. In the said certi icate of live birth
original;
issued by the said civil registrar, there
was a statement that A was an b) Falsification was committed in any
illegitimate child, but in the original private document; and
copy of the certi icate of live birth
submitted to the of ice of the Of ice of c) Falsification causes damage to a third
the Civil Registrar, there was no such party or at least the falsification was
statement. Is the civil registrar liable? committed with intent to cause such

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 88

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
damage.
3. Use of falsified document.
In introducing in a judicial proceeding —
ELEMENTS
a) Offender knew that the document
was falsified by another person;
b) The false document is in Articles 171
or 172 (1 or 2); and
c) He introduced said documents as
evidence in any judicial proceeding.
In use in any other transaction — a separate crime.
ELEMENTS
a) Offender knew that a document was
falsified by another person;
b) The false document is embraced in
Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2);
c) He used such document; and
d) The use caused damage to another or
at least used with intent to cause
damage.
First punishable act
■ The document falsified is a public, official or
commercial document, but, the offender is a
private individual even if the offender is a private
individual, since the document falsified is a
public, official or commercial document,
DAMAGE OR INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE IS
NOT AN ELEMENT.
Second punishable act
■ The document falsified is a PRIVATE
DOCUMENT. The offender is any person. He
can be a private individual, he can be a private
officer or employee for as long as the document
falsified is a private document, it is necessary
that there must be damage caused to a third
person or at least the intention of the offender is
to CAUSE DAMAGE.
■ Absence of damage or intent to cause damage,
then falsification of a private document will not
arise.
■ Falsification is consummated at the time and
place where the document was falsified. It is
when the document is falsified actually, with
intent to prejudice a third person regardless if it
was used as intended.
■ There is no complex crime of estafa through
falsification of a private document because the
immediate effect of falsification of a private
document is the same as that of estafa.
Third punishable act
■ If the one who used the falsified document is
the same person who falsified it, the crime is
only falsification and the use of the same is not
■ If the falsified document is used in a judicial
proceeding, again, damage or intent to cause
damage is not an element because it is a
judicial proceeding. but if the said falsified
document is used in any other transaction, this
time, damage or intent to cause damage is an
element.
E. Crimes against public morals
F. Crimes committed by public officers
ARTICLE 210 – DIRECT BRIBERY
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present — an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his
official duties;
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute
a crime, in connection with the performance
of his official duty; and
3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from
doing something which it is his official duty
to do, in consideration of gift or promise.
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender is a public officer within the scope of
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 89
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Article 203;
2) Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or
through another; and
3) Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or
present received by the public officer —
a) With a view to committing some
crime; or
b) In consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust; or
c) To refrain from doing something
which it is his official duty to do.
4) The act which the offender agrees to perform
or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties.
■ Under the first punishable act, if the thing
which the public officer is required to do is an
act which will constitute a crime, a mere
agreement to do so will already give rise to
direct bribery. It is not necessary that he
actually commits the crime, it is not necessary
that he actually receives the gift or present. A
MERE AGREEMENT WILL SUFFICE.
■ In the third punishable act, if the thing that a
public officer is required to do is to refrain from
doing an act which is his official duty to do, a
MERE AGREEMENT TO REFRAIN FROM
DOING AN ACT WILL ALREADY GIVE RISE TO
DIRECT BRIBERY. It is not necessary to refrain
from doing an act, it is not necessary to receive
the said gift.
■ Under the second punishable act, MERE
AGREEMENT WILL NOT SUFFICE. There must
be actual acceptance of the thing. There must
be acceptance of the gift, in consideration of
the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duty. This is because
the thing that he is being required to do is not a
criminal act. It is his official thing to do but he
does not want to do it without the bribe first to
be given to him. So it is only upon
ACCEPTANCE OF THE BRIBE that criminal
liability for direct bribery will arise
■ Whatever may be the act constituting direct
bribery, in order to amount to direct bribery, it
must always be in connection with the
performance of his official duty. If it is not in
connection with his official duty, it could other
crime like estafa or swindling, but NOT DIRECT
BRIBERY.
■ In Maniego v. People, the Supreme Court ruled
that for the purpose of punishing bribery, the
temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.
: What if a mother wanted her daughter to work in
Q
another country. The daughter was still a minor, 16
years old. So what the mother did was to ask the civil
registrar to alter the birth date or the date in the
certi icate of live birth with a promise that the irst 2
months of the salary of the daughter will be given to the
civil registrar. The civil registrar altered the date in the
birth certi icate. What crime/crimes is/are committed
by the civil registrar and by the mother?
: The civil registrar is liable for direct bribery because he
A
agreed to perform an act constituting a crime in
consideration of a promise that the 2 months salary will be
given to him. The said act is in connection with his
performance of his of icial duty. Therefore he is liable for
direct bribery. He actually performs the act, he actually
committed a crime, therefore he is also liable for the
falsi ication of a public document because he actually altered
the birth date which is a very important date in the birth
certi icate so he is also liable for the falsi ication of a public
document. Without the said bribe, the mother would not
have committed falsi ication.
Are you going to complex them?
No. Even if in reality, they should be complex because
direct bribery is a necessary means to commit
falsification, you cannot complex them because
ARTICLE 210 PROHIBITS SUCH COMPLEXITY OF
CRIMES.
Under Article 210, it is expressly provided that the
penalty for direct bribery shall be in addition to the
liability for the crime committed. Here, he actually
altered, actually committed the crime, therefore his
liability for falsification is in addition to his liability for
direct bribery. Therefore, 2 separate and distinct
charges have to be filed against the civil registrar, we
have direct bribery and the other one is falsification of
the public document.
DIRECT BRIBERY INDIRECT BRIBERY
There is an agreement No agreement between
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 90
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

between the officer and the officer and the 1) Offender is a public officer;
the gift-giver. gift-giver.
2) He had the custody or control of funds or
Offender agrees to It is enough that the property by reason of the duties of his office;
perform an act or refrains offender accepted the gift
from doing something by reason of his office; it 3) Those funds or property were public funds or
because of the gift or is unnecessary that he property for which he was accountable; and
promise. should do or promise
4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
said act.
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
ARTICLE 212 – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS
■ This crime is also known as embezzlement.

ELEMENTS: ■ The offender is an accountable public officer. An

1) Offender makes offers or promises or gives
gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2) The offers or promises are made or the gifts or
presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public
officer liable for direct bribery or indirect
bribery.
■ Malversation of Public Funds and Property can
■ The offender in Article 212 is the gift-giver or
offeror of promise, even if the gift was
demanded by the public officer and the offer
was not made voluntarily prior to said demand;
public officer is not liable unless he accepts the
gift or consents to the promise.
accountable public officer is an officer in the
course of the performance of his duties,
receiving funds or property from the
government which he has the obligation to
account for later. So he has in his custody,
public funds or public property and he has the
obligation to account these to the Government.
be committed either through a positive act, that
is, that the said public officer is the one who
misappropriates, takes or appropriates the
public funds and property, OR, through a
passive act, that is, through his abandonment or
negligence, he permitted others to
misappropriate the same.

ARTICLE 217 – MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS ■ Under Article 217, there arises prima facie
OR PROPERTY (PRESUMPTION OF presumption of malversation of public funds or
MALVERSATION) property when demand is made by a duly
authorized officer to an accountable public
officer to account for public funds or property,
ACTS PUNISHABLE and the same is not forthcoming.
1. Appropriating public funds or property; ■ Mere shortage in audit will not suffice. For the
Prima facie presumption to arise it is necessary
2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
that there must be complete, thorough and
3. Consenting, or through abandonment or reliable audit.
negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property; and ■ In the crime of malversation, all that is
necessary for conviction is proof that the
4. Being otherwise guilty of the accountable officer had received the public
misappropriation or malversation of such funds and that he did not have them in his
funds or property. possession when demand therefore was made
and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure
ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTS OF so to account. An accountable public officer
MALVERSATION UNDER ARTICLE 217 may be convicted for malversation even if there
is no direct evidence of personal
misappropriation, where he has not been able to

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 91

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

explain satisfactorily the absence of the public

ARTICLE 223 – CONNIVING WITH OR
funds involved. (Estepa v. Sandiganbayan)
CONSENTING TO EVASION
■ Malversation may be committed either through ELEMENTS:
a positive act of misappropriation of public
funds or property, or passively through 1) Offender is a public officer
negligence.To sustain a charge of malversation,
there must either be criminal intent or criminal 2) He has in his custody or charge a prisoner,
negligence, and while the prevailing facts of a either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
case may not show that deceit attended the judgment
commission of the offense, it will not preclude
the reception of evidence to prove the existence 3) Such prisoner escaped from his custody
of negligence because both are equally
4) That he was in connivance with the prisoner
punishable under Article 217 of the RPC. (Torres
in the latter’s escape, or is with his consent
v. People, 2011)
Classes of prisoners involved
■ The fact that petitioner did not personally use
the missing funds is not a valid defense and will a) If the fugitive has been sentenced by final
not exculpate him from his criminal liability. judgment to any penalty; and
(Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan)
b) If the fugitive is held only as a detention
: After the COA auditor found out that Php 2000 was
Q prisoner for any crime or violation of law or
missing, A was charged with Malversation of public municipal ordinance.
funds and property through dolo. So, in the
information, it was stated that he is the one who
misappropriates, appropriates or has taken the said ■ Whether it be under Art. 223, 224, 225, the
public funds, and so he was charged with Malversation offender is one who has been entrusted with the
through dolo, through deliberate intent. That was the custody and charge of the prisoner. He must be
case iled against him because they did not know that it in charge, he must be the custodian of the said
was B who took the money. So, the presumption is that prisoner because the essence of the crime is
he is the one who took the money, who appropriated it. the violation of the trust reposed on him
During the trial of the merits, during the presentation because prisoners are accountabilities of the
of the defense evidence, when it was already A’s term to Government.
testify, it was divulged or disclosed to the court that it
was in fact another cashier, B who misappropriated the ■ Release of a detention prisoner who could not
said funds through the negligence of A. And by reason of be delivered to the judicial authority within the
this evidence presented in court, the said judge, time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody
convicted A of Malversation through culpa, in an of the prisoner.
information of malversation through dolo. Is the judge
correct? Can he convict A? ■ Leniency or laxity is not infidelity.

: Yes, the judge is correct. The reason is that, according to

A ■ Relaxation of imprisonment is considered
the Supreme Court, whether Malversation is committed infidelity.
through deliberate intent or culpa, DOLO and CULPA are
merely modalities of committing the crime. Nevertheless, it ■ Can a private individual commit infidelity?
is still malversation, and if you look at Article 217, whether
malversation is committed through deliberate intent or Yes, under Art. 225. If he is entrusted with the
through negligence, they just have one and the same custody of this prisoner and the prisoner
penalties. Further, the Supreme Court said, Malversation escapes, either in connivance with him or
through negligence or culpa is NECESSARILY INCLUDED in through his negligence, then his liability is
Malversation through deliberate intent or dolo. Hence, even infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
if the information is Malversation through dolo, one can be
convicted of Malversation through Culpa or Negligence.
ARTICLE 224 – EVASION THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 92

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender is a public officer
2) He is charged with the conveyance or custody
of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment
3) Such prisoner escapes through his negligence
■ Only the positive carelessness that is short of
deliberate non-performance of his duties as a
guard that is the gravamen of the crime under
Article 224.
■ The fact that the public officer recaptured the
escaped prisoner does not afford complete
exculpation.
Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan (1988)
Rodillas was a Patrolman when he was directed by his
superior to escort prisoners to face trial. While waiting
for the arrival of the judge, Pat Andres, a relative of the
husband of detention prisoner Zenaida, approached the
accused and requested the latter if he could permit
Zenaida to talk to her husband. The accused consented
and Zenaida had a short talk with her husband. He
consented to the request that they eat at the canteen.
While eating, the husband of Zenaida asked accused if
he could accompany his wife to the comfort room as
she was not feeling well and felt like defecating. The
accused accompanied Zenaida and a lady companion
to the ladies' comfort room. Zenaida and her lady
companion entered the comfort room, while he stood
guard near the ladies' comfort room facing the door. Not
long after, the lady companion of Zenaida came out of
the comfort room and told him that she was going to
buy sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes
elapsed without the lady companion of Zenaida coming
back, the accused became suspicious and entered the
comfort room. To his surprise, he found Zenaida no
longer inside the comfort room. He immediately went
out to look for the escapee inside the building but they
were not able to see her. Accused was unable to
recapture Zenaida.
Ruling: The negligence referred to in the RPC is such
definite laxity as all but amounts to a deliberate
non-performance of duty on the part of the guard. It is
evident from the records that the petitioner acted
negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when
he permitted his charge to create the situation which led
to her escape. The petitioner contends that human
considerations compelled him to grant Zenaida Andres'
requests to take lunch and to go to the comfort room to
relieve herself. As a police officer who was charged with
the duty to return the prisoner directly to jail, the
deviation from his duty was clearly a violation of the
regulations. It is the duty of any police officer having
custody of a prisoner to take necessary precautions to
assure the absence of any means of escape. A failure to
undertake these precautions will make his act one of
definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate
non-performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements
whereby the prisoner and her companions could plan
and make good her escape should have aroused the
suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence.
G. Crimes against persons
ARTICLE 246 - PARRICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1) A person is killed;
2) The deceased is killed by the accused; and
3) The deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate; or a
legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the
accused.
■ Parricide is committed when a person kills his
father, mother, child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, legitimate other ascendant,
legitimate other descendant, or legitimate
spouse. Therefore the offended party or
deceased or the victim is specified, he must be
the father, mother, child whether legitimate or
illegitimate, legitimate other ascendant,
legitimate other descendant, or legitimate
spouse.
■ Parricide is a crime based on relationship: (1) It
must be a legitimate relationship except in the
case of parent and child; (2) The said
relationship must be in the direct line; (3) The
relationship must be by blood.
: A father killed an illegitimate son. What
Q
crime is committed?
: It is parricide. Although the crime is based on
A
legitimate relationship, the exception is in the case
of children, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Q: A brother killed another brother. Is the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 93
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
crime committed parricide? accused could still be held criminally liable since at the
: No, the crime committed is murder or homicide,
A married to complainant.
as the case may be and not parricide because the
relationship between a brother and another brother
is in the collateral line and not in the direct line.
Q: What if a stepfather killed his stepson? hired a high pro ile killer, he paid the man 100,000
: The stepfather is not liable for parricide. It can
A surveillance on the wife, checked the itinerary of the
either be murder or homicide, as the case may be,
because their relationship is not based on blood.
■ In Parricide, the circumstance which will qualify
is the relationship, therefore the relationship
between the offender and the offended party
must be stated in the information. Offender’s
relationship with the victim is an essential
element of this crime.
■ If a person wanted to kill a stranger but killed
his own father by mistake, is this parricide?
YES, but Article 49 applies as regards the
proper penalty to be imposed.
■ If a person killed another, not knowing that
the latter was his son, will he be guilty of
parricide? YES, because the law does not
require knowledge of the relationship between
them.
■ A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide is not
guilty of parricide, but only homicide or murder,
as the case may be.
Pimentel v. People (2010)
For allegedly trying to kill her, complainant filed
frustrated parricide charges against her husband, herein
accused, in 2004. In the following year, accused filed a
petition to have his marriage declared null and void due
to psychological incapacity. He also moved that the
criminal case be held in abeyance until the annulment
case has been resolved.
HELD: The Supreme Court disagreed with accused, and
opined that there was no prejudicial question in this
case. For one, the criminal case was instituted before
the annulment petition was filed. Second, at the time of
the commission of the alleged crime, complainant and
accused were married. The subsequent dissolution of
their marriage, in case the annulment petition is granted,
will have no effect on the alleged crime that was
committed at the time of the subsistence of the
marriage. In short, even if the marriage is annulled,
time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still
: A husband wanted to kill his wife. So he had a
Q
mistress, the husband wanted to dispose of his wife.
However, he cannot do it on his own and so the husband
pesos to kill the wife. And so the man conducted
wife and so when the wife was getting out of the
grocery, here comes the killer. The killer, on board a
motorcycle, went directly to the wife, shot her and off he
went. The wife died. What crime/crimes is/are
committed?
: The husband is liable for principal but said killer is liable
A
for murder. Conspiracy will not lie. Although they conspired
for the killing of the wife, the husband, being the principal by
inducement and the killer, being the principal by direct
participation, conspiracy will not lie. This is because the
circumstance which quali ies parricide, the relationship, is
personal to the husband and cannot be transferred to a
stranger. That is why there will two informations iled, one is
parricide as against the husband as a principal by
inducement and the other one is murder as against the killer.
ARTICLE 247 – DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
ELEMENTS:
1) That a legally married person or a parent
surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person.
2) That the said legally married spouse he or she
kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any
or both of them any serious physical injury in
the act or immediately thereafter
3) That he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse.
■ Under the first element, it is required that the
legally married spouse surprises the other
spouse while in the actual act of sexual
intercourse with another person. So note the
surprising must be in the actual act of sexual
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 94
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

intercourse and NOT before, NOT after. affair. So one time, he went home unannounced. Upon
his arrival, he saw his wife in sexual intercourse with
■ The second element requires that the said another man. The man jumped out the window. The
legally married spouse kills any or both of them husband wanted to kill the man but he had no weapon
or he inflicts serious physical injuries upon any at the time. The man went away. It took the husband an
or both of them. hour before he was able to find a weapon and upon
finding a weapon, he went directly to the whereabouts
■ The Supreme Court said, “immediately of the man, the lover of the wife and killed the man. It
thereafter” means there must not be a lapse of took him one hour. The killing took place an hour, not in
time between the surprising and the killing or the actual sexual intercourse, but is it immediately
infliction of serious physical injuries. Therefore, thereafter? Despite the fact that one hour had lapsed,
the surprising and the killing or infliction of would it be within the meaning of immediately
serious physical injuries must be a continuing thereafter?
process.
The Supreme Court, in this special case, said yes.
■ Article 247 of the RPC does not define and According to the Supreme Court, when the law uses the
provide for a specific crime but grants a phrase “immediately thereafter”; that the killing or the
privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing infliction of serious physical injuries must take place
of another or the infliction of serious physical immediately thereafter, the law did not say that the
injuries under the circumstances mentioned killing must be done instantly. According to the
therein. (People v. Araquel) Supreme Court, it suffices that the proximate cause for
the said killing is the said pain and the look on the said
: What if the husband arrived home and the wife
Q husband upon chancing his wife in the basest act of
arrived home from the market. She was about to go the infidelity.
kitchen when suddenly, she heard voices in the
master’s bedroom and so she opened the said master’s This is an exceptional case because henceforth, after
bedroom and saw her legal husband in actual sexual People v. Abarca, the Supreme Court has already
intercourse with another person. Notice that the law interpreted “immediately thereafter”, as there must be
says, “other person” which means it could be a man or a no lapse of time between the surprising and the killing.
woman. Upon seeing that, the wife, who still has a knife The surprising and the killing must be continuous.
in the basket, immediately went towards the husband
and stabbed him. The woman led. The husband died.
Of what crime would you prosecute the said wife? The
ARTICLE 248 — MURDER
wife is liable for parricide under Article 246 for having
killed her husband. If you are the counsel of the said
wife, what defense would you put up in order to free ELEMENTS
your client from criminal liability?
1) A person was killed;
: Article 247 or Death under exceptional circumstances.
A
The Supreme Court said that Article 247 is not a felony. 2) The accused killed him;
Article 247 is a privilege, in fact is it a defense. If Article 247
is invoked, the accused is free from criminal liability. It is an 3) The killing was attended by any of the
absolutory cause, an exempting circumstance. The Supreme qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
Court said that the penalty stated therein, destierro, is not 248 of the RPC; and
really a penalty on the legally married spouse who killed the
other spouse. It is not a penalty but it is more of a guard, a 4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
privilege for him so that he may be free from any retaliation
from any of the family of the victim. So destierro here is not
really a penalty. Again, Article 247 is not a felony. It is a QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
defense, a privilege; it is an exempting circumstance or an ARTICLE 248
absolutory cause.
a) With treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid or armed men, or
People v. Abarca (1987)
employing means to weaken the defense, or of
means or persons to insure or afford
In this case, there was this student reviewing for the bar.
impunity;
There were already rumors that his wife was having an

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 95

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
b) In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
c) By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of
an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
d) On occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of
an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
e) With evident premeditation;
f) With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
■ Murder is the unlawful killing of any person
which is neither parricide nor infanticide,
provided any of the qualifying circumstances
are present.
■ Murder will exist with only one of the
circumstances described in this article. When
more than one of the circumstances is present,
the others must be considered as generic
aggravating.
○ Example: If in the information, A killed B
and it was attended by treachery, in
consideration of a price, reward or
promise, by means of a motor vehicle,
so there are three qualifying
circumstances. Only one will suffice to
qualify the murder to killing, all the other
aggravating circumstances will be
considered not as qualifying
circumstances but as mere generic
aggravating circumstances.
■ However, when the other circumstances are
absorbed or included in one qualifying
circumstance, they cannot be considered as
generic aggravating. Example: abuse of superior
strength is absorbed by treachery.
■ The qualifying circumstance must be alleged, in
order to qualify the killing to murder. If not
alleged, it is only a generic aggravating
circumstance.
People v. Labiaga (2013)
If the evidence failed to convince the court that the
wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death
without timely medical attention, accused should be
convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated
murder.
In the instant case, since the victim’s gunshot wound
was not mortal, accused should be convicted of
attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
People v. Angeles (2019)
As to the crime of attempted murder:
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but latter
survives, the crime committed is either consummated
physical injuries if the offender had no intention to kill
the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or
frustrated or attempted murder if the offended party
intends to kill the victim.
Here, the attendant circumstances showed that
appellant and his companions intended to kill Eric and
his brothers. Eric was spared because he sustained a
non-fatal wound. But this does not dissolved appellant’s
liability for attempted murder.
As to the crime of frustrated murder:
As for Mark, the wounds that he sustained were fatal
and could have led to his death were it not for the timely
medical intervention. Killing becomes frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which
could have produced the felony but did not produce it
for reasons independent of his or her will.
People v. Oloverio (2015)
For treachery to be appreciated, the following elements
must be proven: (a) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. As a
rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally
or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was
coolly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose
of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or
retreat.
The mere suddenness of an attack should not be the
sole basis in finding treachery. There must be evidence
to show that the accused deliberately or consciously
adopted the means of execution to ensure its success.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 96
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Since treachery has not been proven, the crime is
merely homicide.
People v. Padal (2019)
Murder requires the following elements: 1) a person was
killed; 2) the accused killed him or her; 3) the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code;
and 4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
As regards the third element, although treachery cannot
be appreciated in this case because it was not alleged
in the Information, the use of motor vehicle qualified the
killing to murder. Records show that appellants on
board a motorcycle chased the victim while the latter
was running away for his life. Appellants later left the
scene of the crime together on board the same motor
vehicle. Clearly, therefore, the motorcycle was used as a
means to facilitate the commission of the crime and to
enable appellants' escape after they accomplished their
mission to kill the victim.
ARTICLE 249 — HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1) A person was killed;
2) The accused killed him without any justifying
circumstance;
3) The accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed; and
4) The killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
that of parricide or infanticide.
■ When a person kills another person, and it is not
attended by any qualifying circumstance under
Article 248, the killing is considered as
Homicide under Article 249.
■ When death resulted, intent is conclusively
presumed (crime is consummated).
■ Evidence of intent to kill is important only in
attempted or frustrated homicide (to
differentiate it from physical injuries). In such
cases, intent to kill must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
■ There is no offense of frustrated homicide
through imprudence because the element of
intent to kill in frustrated homicide is
incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
■ If homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. It is clear from the
foregoing that where murder or homicide results
from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime
is no longer qualified illegal possession, but
murder or homicide, as the case may be. In
such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is
not considered as a separate crime but shall be
appreciated as a mere aggravating
circumstance. (People v. Avecilla)
■ It is settled that "where there is nothing in the
evidence to show that the wound would be fatal
if not medically attended to, the character of the
wound is doubtful," and such doubt should be
resolved in favor of the accused. (Etino v.
People)
ARTICLE 257 – UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
ELEMENTS:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is used upon such pregnant woman
without intending an abortion;
(3) The violence is intentionally exerted; and
(4) As a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in
the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
■ Unintentional abortion is committed only by
violence, which must be intentionally exerted.
■ In unintentional abortion, the force employed
was physically exerted on a pregnant woman.
The intention of the offender is not against the
baby or the fetus but against the mother. His
intention is against the mother but in doing so,
since the mother is pregnant, the baby/fetus
was also aborted. So abortion was
unintentionally caused.
■ Unintentional abortion may be committed
through imprudence. Example: Negligent driver
gets into a car crash, causing a pregnant
passenger to get thrown off the car, killing the
fetus inside her.
■ Is the accused liable for abortion even if he
did not know that the woman was pregnant?
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 97
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

NO. For the crime of abortion, even if

TYPES OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
unintentional, to be held committed, the
accused must have known of the pregnancy. 1) When the injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of
■ Is there a crime of frustrated unintentional the physical injuries inflicted;
abortion? NO. There is no crime of frustrated
unintentional abortion because in unintentional 2) When the injured person —
abortion, the intention is against the woman and
abortion only happens unintentionally. a) Loses the use of speech or the power
to hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a
: The husband arrived home at 5 o’clock in the
Q hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg;
morning. He saw his wife looking at the children and
was making breakfast. Suddenly the cellphone of the b) Loses the use of any such member; or
wife rang, the pregnant wife answered the cellphone
c) Becomes incapacitated for the work in
and she began giggling. When she began giggling, the
which he was theretofore habitually
husband took the cellphone from the said wife and
engaged, in consequence of the
listened to the cellphone. He heard a voice of a man on
physical injuries inflicted;
the other line of the cellphone. Since he heard the voice
of the man and he just arrived from work, he became 3) When the person injured —
jealous and with the use of a knife he stabbed the wife.
The wife died and the fetus died. What crime/s is/are a) Becomes deformed;
committed?
b) Loses any other member of his body;
: In so far as the wife is concerned, the crime committed is
A
parricide. In so far as the baby is concerned, the crime c) Loses the use thereof; or
committed is unintentional abortion. The crimes resulted
from one single act of stabbing the wife therefore it will give d) Becomes ill or incapacitated for the
rise to a COMPLEX CRIME OF PARRICIDE WITH performance of the work in which he
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION. was habitually engaged for more than
90 days in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
People v. Salufrania (1988)
4) When the injured person becomes ill or
After quarreling with his pregnant wife, Salufrania incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
punched her on the stomach and strangled her to death. (but must not be more than 90 days), as a
He was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with result of the physical injuries inflicted.
INTENTIONAL ABORTION.

HELD: There is no evidence to show that the accused ■ In physical injuries, there must not be intent to
had the intention to commit an abortion. Mere punching kill, otherwise the crime is frustrated / attempted
on the stomach, taken together with the immediate murder or homicide as the case may be.
strangling of the victim is not sufficient to show an intent
to cause an abortion. Thus, Salufrania should be First category
convicted of the crime of parricide with
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION. ■ Impotence under first type means an inability to
copulate. It is used synonymously with ‘sterility’.

ARTICLE 263 – SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES ■ Penalty under the first type is one degree higher
when the victim is under 12 years of age.
HOW COMMITTED
■ Blindness requires loss of vision of both eyes by
1. By wounding; reason of the injury inflicted. Mere weakness in
2. By beating; vision is not contemplated.
3. By assaulting; or
4. By administering injurious substance. Second category

■ Blindness under the first type must be of two

eyes. If there is loss of one eye only, the serious

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 98

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

physical injuries is of the second type. process.

■ Loss of power to hear under the second type ○ : A poured muriatic acid on the face of
Q
must be of both ears. If hearing in only one ear another person whom he hates and so
is lost, it falls under the third type. because of that, the face of that person
became deformed, it became ugly.
■ Loss of the use of hand, or incapacity for work Later, she went on a plastic surgeon.
under the second type, must be permanent. When he got out of the plastic surgery
clinic, she now looks like Vilma Santos.
■ All the body parts mentioned in the second type Is the accused person liable for serious
are principal members of the body (eye, hand, physical injuries?
foot, etc.)
: Yes. Even if she became prettier than
A
Third category before, it is still a fact that by reason of the
said injury it cannot be healed through the
■ The third type covers any other part of the body natural healing process. It will require the
which is not a principal member of the body. attendance of a medical surgeon. Therefore,
it is considered as a deformity.
■ DEFORMITY — physical ugliness, permanent
and definite abnormality. It must be Fourth category
conspicuous and visible.
■ Under serious physical injuries of the fourth
○ Elements of deformity: (1) physical type, illness or incapacity is required, NOT
ugliness; (2) permanent and definite medical attendance.
abnormality; and (3) it must be
conspicuous and visible. All must ■ Injury requiring hospitalization for more than 30
concur. days is serious physical injuries under
paragraph 4.
○ : A hacked B with the use of a bolo on
Q
his stomach. So there was a big mark on ■ When the category of the offense of serious
his stomach despite the fact that it was physical injuries depends on the period of
already healed, there was a big scar on illness or incapacity for labor, there must be
the said stomach. The doctor said that evidence of the length of that period; otherwise,
the said injury requires medical the offense is only slight physical injuries.
treatment for 2 weeks. What crime is
committed? Is it serious physical injury When is serious physical injuries qualified?
or is it less serious physical injury?
1) If it is committed against any of the persons
: The crime committed is only LESS
A enumerated in Parricide.
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. There was no
deformity. Although there was a big scar on ■ That is when serious physical injuries is
the stomach, it would not amount to committed against the father, mother,
deformity. An injury in order to amount to child, whether legitimate or illegitimate;
deformity which would bring about serious legitimate other ascendant or other
physical injury must result to a physical descendant and legitimate spouse of
ugliness on a person. the accused.

○ : A boxed B. He lost his 2 front teeth

Q 2) If in the infliction of serious physical injuries, it is
permanently. What crime was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
committed? for murder.

: The crime committed was SERIOUS

A ■ That is, if it is done with treachery,
PHYSICAL INJURY. Because it is a deformity evident premeditation, the crime
even if the doctor says that he can still committed is qualified serious physical
replace it, the fact still remains that it injuries.
cannot be healed through a natural healing

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 99

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
ARTICLE 265 – LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
MATTERS TO BE NOTED IN THIS CRIME
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for
10 days or more (but not more than 30 days),
or needs medical attendance for the same
period of time; and
2. The physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.
CIRCUMSTANCES WILL QUALIFY LESS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
1) When there is manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person
2) When there are circumstances adding
ignominy to the offense
3) When the victim is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers
4) When the victim is a person of rank or person
in authority, provided the crime is not direct
assault.
■ Medical attendance OR incapacity for labor is
required in less serious physical injuries.
■ It is only slight physical injury when there is no
medical attendance or incapacity for labor.
ARTICLE 266 – SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1) Physical injuries incapacitated the offended
party for labor from 1 to 9 days, or required
medical attendance during the same period;
2) Physical injuries which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual
work or which did not require medical
attendance; and
3) Ill-treatment of another by deed without
causing any injury.
■ Article 266 of the RPC provides that "[t]he crime
of slight physical injuries shall be punished by
arresto menor when the offender has inflicted
physical injuries which shall incapacitate the
offended party for labor from 1 to 9 days, or
shall require medical attendance during the
same period." Indeed, although the charge in
the instant case is for attempted murder, a
finding of guilt for the lesser offense of slight
physical injuries is proper, considering that the
latter offense is necessarily included in the
former, as the essential ingredients of slight
physical injuries constitute and form part of
those constituting the offense of murder. (Garcia
Yap v. People)
■ When the offender shall ill-treat another by deed
without causing any injury, and without causing
dishonor, the offense is Maltreatment under
Article 266,98 par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
It was beyond reasonable doubt that by hitting
Piamonte, appellant ill-treated the latter, without
causing any injury. (People v. Mapalo)
ARTICLE 266-A – RAPE
RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE (paragraph 1)
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender is a man;
2) Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
3) Such act is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
a) By using force or intimidation;
b) When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority; or
d) When the woman is under 12 years of
age or demented.
■ The law is specific in this type of rape that the
offender is a man and the victim is a woman.
■ The offender has carnal knowledge of a woman
against her will and it is committed by using
force, threat, or intimidation. When the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious.
■ It is rape when the man had a carnal knowledge
of a woman who is sleeping or even if she was
half asleep.
■ Force employed against the victim of the rape
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 100
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
need not be of such character as could be
resisted. It is enough that the force used is
sufficient to consummate the purpose of
copulating with the offended woman.
■ When the offender in rape has an ascendancy
or influence over the girl, it is not necessary that
she put up a determined resistance.
Q: A is 11 years old. He is cohabiting with a man who
is 20 years old. They are living together as if they are
husband and wife. Of course, they had carnal
knowledge. Is the man liable for rape?
A: Yes. The man is liable for STATUTORY RAPE. The
number of times that he had carnal knowledge of the
said woman, that is the number of the counts of rape.
So if he had carnal knowledge of the woman 5 times
during the time that they were together – 5 counts of
statutory rape. That is because the child, the victim, is
below 12 years of age. Insofar as criminal law is
concerned, she does not have a mind of her own, she
cannot give a valid consent.
Q: A father raped his daughter. The daughter did not
put up a fight, the father did not use force, threat, or
intimidation in the said carnal knowledge of a
daughter. Is the crime committed rape?
A: Yes. The crime committed is rape. It is INCESTUOUS
RAPE. In case of incestuous rape, it is the overpowering
and overbearing moral influence or moral ascendency of
an ascendant over a descendant which takes place of
force, threat, or intimidation. That is why in case of
inceuous rape, force, threat, or intimidation is not
indispensable; it is not necessary. Because it is the
overpowering and overbearing moral influence or moral
ascendency which a father has over his daughter which
takes place of force, threat or intimidation.
THERE IS NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED RAPE
In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has
carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his
purpose and, from that moment also all the essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished. Any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ,
without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ
(People v. Orita)
RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT (paragraph 2)
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2) The act of sexual assault is committed by any
of the following means:
a) By inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice; or
b) By inserting any instrument or object
into the genital or anal orifice of
another person;
3) The act of sexual assault is accomplished
under any of the following circumstances:
a) By using force or intimidation; or
b) When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c) By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority; or
d) When the woman is under 12 years of
age or demented.
What if it was the finger which was inserted in the
genitalia of a person? Is it acts of lasciviousness or
rape by sexual assault?
Supreme Court said it is RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT.
According to the Supreme Court, it would be so weird if
what has been inserted is an instrument or object, it
would be rape by sexual assault, but if it was finger, it
would be rape by acts of lasciviousness. The finger is
within the mean of an instrument or object insofar as
rape by sexual assault is concerned.
Buado v. People (2013)
The presence or absence of injury or laceration in the
victim’s genitalia is not decisive of whether rape has
been committed. Such injury or laceration is material
only if force or intimidation were an element of the rape
charged. Otherwise, it is merely circumstantial evidence
of the commission of the rape.
People v. Vitero (2013)
In rape committed by close kin, such as the victim’s
father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of
her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or
intimidation be employed. Moral influence or
ascendancy takes the place of violence and
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 101
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
intimidation.
In the instant case, that the daughter did not shout for
help should not be taken against her. In the first place,
different people react differently to different situations
and there is no standard form of human behavioral
response when one is confronted with a frightful
experience.
People v. Quintos (2014)
The presence of lacerations is not an element of rape.
An accused may be found guilty of rape regardless of
the existence or inexistence of lacerations. The absence
of lacerations is not a sufficient defense. However, the
presence of lacerations may be used to sustain
conviction of an accused by corroborating testimonies
of abuse and documents showing trauma upon the
victim's genitals.
Resistance is also not an element of the crime of rape.
Neither is it necessary to convict an accused. The main
element of rape is “lack of consent.” Article 266-A
recognizes that rape can happen even in circumstances
when there is no resistance from the victim.
Resistance is not necessary to establish rape, especially
when the victim is unconscious, deprived of reason,
manipulated, demented, or young either in chronological
age or mental age.
The information charging accused of this crime lacked
the allegation of any mental disability on the part of
AAA. This is not necessary to convict accused of the
crime of rape provided that sexual congress and mental
incapacity and, therefore, the incapacity to give
consent, are proved by clear and convincing evidence.
However, to qualify the crime of rape and increase the
penalty of accused from reclusion perpetua to death
under Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-(A)(1) of the
Revised Penal Code, an allegation of the victim's
intellectual disability must be alleged in the information.
If not alleged in the information, such mental incapacity
may prove lack of consent but it cannot increase the
penalty to death. Neither can it be the basis of
conviction for statutory rape.
Ricalde v. people (2015)
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is
also known as “instrument or object rape,” “gender-free
rape,” or “homosexual rape.” The gravamen of rape
through sexual assault is the insertion of the penis into
another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into another person’s genital or
anal orifice.
People v. Batalla (2019)
The fact that AAA failed to shout for help and to
immediately report the rape incident does not affect her
case. Settled is the rule that delay in reporting the
incident does not weaken AAA's testimony especially in
view of the threats Batalla made to kill her. Furthermore,
the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations
asserted by Batalla does not negate the rape, and
although medical results may not indicate physical
abuse, rape can still be established since medical
findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential
elements in the prosecution for rape.
People v. Bay-od (2019)
Carnal knowledge, as an element of rape under Article
266-A(l) of the RPC, is not synonymous to sexual
intercourse in its ordinary sense; it implies neither the
complete penetration of the vagina nor the rupture of
the hymen. Indeed, jurisprudence has held that even the
slightest penetration of the victim's genitals -i.e., the
"touching" by the penis of the vagina's labia -is enough
to satisfy the element.
MARITAL RAPE
In the case of People vs. Jumawan, rape exists even in
case of marital relationship because rape is not about
sex. Rape a is violation of the human dignity of a
woman. Therefore, when the husband penetrates the
wife by means of violence, threats or intimidation, by
means of force, rape exists because it must be
consensual.
: The father arrived home from a drinking spree. The
Q
father went directly to the bedroom of his daughter. He
undressed his daughter and penetrated his own
daughter. The daughter did not put up any struggle but
the daughter was crying all along. She knew she could
not do anything, she just kept on crying. Thereafter, the
daughter informed her relatives, particularly the sister
of her mother. Together, they went to DSWD and a case
of rape was iled against the father. The defense of the
father was that the said act of carnal knowledge was
consensual. According to the father, his daughter
allowed it, his daughter didn't put up any struggle and
he did not employ force on his own daughter. Therefore,
according to the father it was consensual.
: The argument of the father is wrong. What is present here
A
is the so-called Incestuous Rape.
In case of Incestuous Rape, a father having carnal
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 102
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

knowledge of his own daughter, do not look for force,
threat or intimidation because in case of incestuous
rape, the overpowering and overbearing moral influence
and ascendancy of the father over the daughter takes
the place of force, threat and intimidation. Therefore,
there is no need to prove force, threat or intimidation.
c rime. Hence, the said act of carnal knowledge was
against the will of the accused”. During trial on the
merits, it was also proven by the prosecution that this
accused knew all along at the time of the carnal
knowledge that his victim was suffering from mental
retardation. What crime is committed by the accused?

Just by the mere fact that he is the father and the victim
is the daughter, there is rape because of the
overpowering and overbearing moral ascendancy and
moral influence that a father has over his owned
daughter.
: The accused is liable for quali ied rape. Under Article 266-
A
B, if the offender knows of the mental retardation, mental
disability, physical disability of the victim at the time of the
commission of the crime, the penalty is death. Therefore, it
is quali ied.

: X is a mental retardate. Based on the clinical

Q What will qualify the rape if the victim is a mental
diagnosis of the doctor, X is already 25 years old but she retardate, if the victim is suffering from mental
only has the mental capacity of a 10 year old child. X disability?
was raped by Y. In the information, it was alleged that
“X being a woman, 25 years old but has only the mental It is the fact that the said offender knows of the mental
age of 10 years old was raped by the above-stated disability of the victim at the time of the commission of
accused. Therefore, the said act of rape was deemed to the crime and such backup knowledge must be alleged
be against her will and by means of force, threat or in the information and proven during trial.
intimidation.” If the victim is already of age but has the
mental capacity of a child under 12 years of age, what Both must be alleged in the Information and it must be
crime is committed? Is it simple rape or is it statutory proven during trial. Absent that, it would be statutory
rape? rape.

A: The Supreme Court's decision varies. : X and Y are boyfriend and girlfriend. X was only 11
Q
years old and Y was 22 years old. Since they love each
First, according to the Supreme Court in the case of People other, they cohabited with each other. They cohabitated
vs. Baay, the determining factor is the chronological age of for two weeks until the mother of X discovered where
the victim. Therefore, in this case since the victim was 25, they were and the mother of X forcibly took her
the crime committed is simple rape. daughter from the said place. Based on the statement
given by X, during those two weeks of cohabitation,
However, in the case of People vs. Deniega, the Supreme they would always have carnal knowledge every night,
Court said that the basis is not the chronological age of the for two weeks. What crime if any has been committed
victim but the basis is the mental age of the victim. by the boyfriend Y?
Therefore, in the case of People vs. Deniega, the Supreme
Court said the crime committed is statutory rape under : The boyfriend, Y, is liable for 14 counts of statutory rape.
A
article 266-A(d). Each act of carnal knowledge, each act of sexual intercourse
is equals to one count of rape. Since in this case they
In the case of People vs. Castillo and People vs. Avina, the cohabited for 14 days, for two weeks and according to X, the
Supreme Court said that the determining factor is the mental 11 year old girl, they would have sexual intercourse every
age of the victim. The Supreme Court in People vs. Avina night for 14 days. Therefore, the said boyfriend would be
(2021) stated that it is the mental age that determines what is liable for 14 counts of statutory rape under article 266-B.
the crime committed if the victim is suffering from mental
retardation and is under 12 years of age because it is the ARTICLE 266-B — PENALTIES
mental age that gives the victim the capacity to give her
consent or not. Therefore, at present the basis would be the
mental age. In the case, the crime committed would be WHEN RAPE IS PUNISHED BY DEATH
statutory rape.
1) Where the victim is under 18 years of age and
: But what if in the same problem it was stated in the
Q the offender is her ascendant, stepfather,
Information that “the undersigned public prosecutor guardian, or relative by affinity or
hereby accuses the above named accused for having consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree, or
carnal knowledge of X, 25 years old and is suffering the common law husband of the victim’s
from mental retardation, whose mental retardation is
known to the accused at a time of the commission of the

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 103

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
mother; or
2) Where the victim was under the custody of
the police or military authorities, or other law
enforcement agency;
3) Where the rape is committed in full view of
the victim’s husband, the parents, any of the
children or relatives by consanguinity within
the 3rd civil degree;
4) Where the victim is a religious, that is, a
member of a legitimate religious vocation and
the offender knows the victim as such before
or at the time of the commission of the
offense;
5) Where the victim is a child under 7 years of
age;
6) Where the offender is a member of the AFP,
its paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any law
enforcement agency and the offender took
advantage of his position;
7) Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS or
other sexually transmissible diseases, and he
is aware thereof when he committed the rape,
and the disease was transmitted;
8) Where the victim has suffered permanent
physical mutilation;
9) Where the pregnancy of the offended party is
known to the rapist at the time of the rape; or
10) Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s
mental disability, emotional disturbance or
physical handicap.
Rape under the first type is punished by reclusion
perpetua. Rape under the second type is punished by
reclusion temporal.
Penalties are increased in these instances:
1) When it is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons.
2) When the victim becomes insane.
3) When there is attempted rape and homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof.
4) When homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion of rape.
5) When rape is committed with any of the
enumerated qualifying or aggravating
circumstances (death penalty is imposed).
People v. Vañas y Balderama
Appellant must be convicted of qualified rape under
Article 266-B of the RPC in Criminal Case No. 6072
since the Information alleged, and it was proved during
trial, that the victim was a 16-year old minor and
appellant was the live-in partner or common-law spouse
of her mother. Appellant also admitted that he and the
victim's mother were living as husband and wife.
People v. XXX (June 2019)
Appellant liable for qualified rape. Here, the prosecution
had established beyond moral certainty the element of
carnal knowledge. Complainant positively identified
appellant, her own flesh and blood, as the man who had
carnal knowledge of her against her will. The
Information properly alleged that complainant was only
thirteen years old at the time of rape and the offender
was her own father, herein appellant. Complainant's
minority and her relationship with appellant were
sufficiently proved by complainant's birth certificate on
record.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES INVOLVING RAPE
1. Attempted rape with homicide
■ When the rape is attempted and a
homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion thereof [RPC, art. 266-B]
2. Rape with homicide
■ When by reason or on the occasion of
the rape, homicide is committed, the
penalty shall be death. [RPC, art. 266-B]
■ In the special complex crime of rape
with homicide, the following elements
must concur:
1) the appellant had carnal
knowledge of a woman;
2) carnal knowledge of a woman
was achieved by means of
force, threat or intimidation; and
3) by reason or on occasion of
such carnal knowledge by
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 104
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

means of force, threat or provided that their marriage is not void ab initio.
intimidation, the appellant killed
a woman. (People v. Reyes, H. Crimes against personal liberty and security
2017)
ARTICLE 267 – KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
: X and Y were on their way to town when suddenly
Q
ILLEGAL DETENTION
they were waylaid by a man named Z. Z suddenly
appeared in front of X and Y. Z boxed both girls and
then thereafter personally brought them behind a tree, ELEMENTS:
in the grass, in the area where in there were tall
grasses. Z undressed X forcibly after slapping her 1) Offender is a private individual;
several times, pinned her down and because of this, Y
kept on crying and shouting. Z got mad at Y for 2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
repeatedly shouting and crying and so Z repeatedly hit manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
Y with a lead pipe until Y died. After Y died, Z went back
to X and placed himself on top of X and had carnal 3) The act of detention or kidnapping must be
knowledge of X. Thereafter, he told too hit X repeatedly illegal; and
with the lead pipe. Thinking that X was already dead, Z
4) In the commission of the offense, any of the
left. What crime/crimes are committed by Z?
following circumstances is present:
: What was Z’s original criminal intent? To rape. Since Z’s
A
a) The kidnapping lasts for more than 3
original criminal intent was to rape, the crime is rape. By
days;
reason or on the occasion of the said rape, homicide is
committed. Z has repeatedly hit Y with a lead pipe until Y b) It is committed by simulating public
died. Therefore, on the occasion of the said rape, homicide authority;
was committed. Therefore, the crime committed is Special
Complex Crime of Rape with Homicide. c) Any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped
In the case of People vs. Laoag and in the case of People vs. or detained or threats to kill him are
Villa lores, the Supreme Court said that the law used the made; or
phrase “by reason or on the occasion of rape, homicide is
committed”. d) The person kidnapped or detained is
a minor, female, or a public officer.
“ By reason of rape, homicide is committed” → it means
that the original criminal intent of the accused is to rape the
victim and in the course of the said rape, he has to kill the ■ The essential element of kidnapping is the
very victim of rape. deprivation of the offended party’s liberty under
any of the four instances enumerated. But when
" On occasion of rape, homicide is committed” → it the kidnapping was committed for the purpose
means that the original criminal intent of the offender is to of extorting ransom, it is not necessary that one
rape the victim and on the occasion of the said rape, he has or any of the circumstances enumerated be
to kill someone. That someone may be the rape victim present.
herself or another person. For as long as said act of killing
occurred on the occasion of the said act of rape. The law ■ The offended must be a private individual. —
does not require it to be the victim of rape, it could be any If the offender is a public officer, the crime is
person. arbitrary detention. The public officer must have
a duty under the law to detain a person to be
ARTICLE 266-C — EFFECT OF PARDON liable for arbitrary detention. If he has no such
duty, and he detains a person, he is liable under
this article.
Subsequent valid marriage between the offender and
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or
■ Can a public officer commit kidnapping and
the penalty imposed.
serious illegal detention? Yes if the said public
officer has not been vested by law with the
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
authority to effect arrest and to detain a person
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
then the said public officer is acting in his
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty,
private capacity. Although a public officer; since

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 105

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

he is acting in his private capacity, the crime confinement itself.

committed is kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under Art 267 and not arbitrary ■ People v. Mamantak — SC ruled that
detention under Art 124. the crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention for ransom.
■ There is detention if the offender restrains a Even if it is only 5 centavos; if it was
person or the liberty of another person. He must given in exchange for the liberty of a
be detained, incarcerated. There must be a person who has been detained, by
showing that there is a restraint on his person or whose liberty has been restricted; it is
liberty; otherwise, if there is no restraint on the already considered as ransom. There is
person or liberty on the part of the offended no such thing as a small amount in so
party, it could be any other crime but not far as ransom is concerned.
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. It is
essential in the crime of illegal detention that ■ : A is indebted to B; B was asking
Q
there be actual confinement or restriction of the payment from A, A however said that he
person of the offended party. has no money until B got fed up so what
B did is he kidnapped and detained the
minor child of A. He then called A telling
ILLEGAL DETENTION ARBITRARY
the same: “I will only release your
DETENTION
minor child the moment you give your
indebtedness in the amount of a million
Committed by a private Committed by a public
pesos”. Is the crime committed
individual, who unlawfully officer or employee, who
kidnapping and serious illegal
deprives a person of his detains a person
detention for ransom?
liberty. without legal ground.

Crime against personal Crime against the : Yes it is already kidnapping and serious
A
liberty. fundamental laws of the illegal detention for ransom even if the
state. amount being asked by the kidnapper is the
indebtedness of the father of the said child.
Any amount demanded in exchange for the
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WILL QUALIFY THE liberty of the person detained; that is
PENALTY already considered as ransom.

The presence of any of these circumstances will bring 2) When the victim is killed or dies as a
about the imposition of maximum penalty of death: consequence of the kidnapping or detention.

1) If the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort ■ Kidnapping and Serious Illegal

ransom from the victim or from any other
person.
■ Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom.
■ When the kidnapping is done for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the
victim or any other person, actual
demand for ransom is not necessary, as
long as it can be proven that the
kidnapping was done for the purpose of
extorting ransom.
■ Ransom is any money, price,
consideration paid or demanded for
redemption of a captured person. No
specific form of ransom is required. The
gist of the crime is the felonious act of
holding for ransom and not the
Detention with Homicide.
■ This is a special complex crime.
Therefore, since it is a special complex
crime; regardless of the number of
victims killed; it is still kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide.
■ Note however that it is required that the
victim himself is the one who has been
killed. If it is another person; it will result
to a separate and distinct crime
because the law is particular that the
person detained/ kidnapped must be
the one who is killed or died as a
consequence thereof.
■ : The father learned about t he
Q
kidnapping of his daughter so the
father informed the NBI agents. The

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 106

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

BI agents were able to track down the

N inducement without which the victim would not have
place where the said child was being done so.
hidden so the NBI agents together with
the said father went to the hideout. People v. Padica (1993)
There was an exchange of gun ires
between A (the kidnapper) and the NBI Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was to
agents. While there was an exchange of kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
gun ires, the father saw his child so the inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain
father rushed towards the son, carry or deprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing
the son and they were able to leave the of the victim constitute the crime of murder. Hence, the
said hideout. While they were leaving, A crime of kidnapping does not exist and cannot be
the kidnapper saw them and A the considered as a component felony to produce a
kidnapper shot the father. What complex crime of kidnapping with murder. Although the
crime/s is/are committed? accused had planned to kidnap the victim for ransom
but they first killed him and it was only later that they
: In so far as the minor is concerned; the
A demanded and obtained the money, such demand for
crime committed is Kidnapping and ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping since
serious illegal detention even if it did not no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved,
last for a period of more than 3 days, the hence the crime committed was only murder.
fact that the offended party is a minor, it is
already kidnapping and serious illegal Fenix v. People (2016)
detention.
The act of holding a person for an illegal purpose
In so far as the father who has been killed; necessarily implies an unlawful physical or mental
since he is not the victim of serious illegal restraint against the person's will, coupled with a willful
detention, it will constitute a separate and intent to confine the victim. The culprit must have taken
distinct crime of homicide. the victim away against the latter's will, as lack of
consent is a fundamental element of the offense, and
Therefore, there are 2 crimes committed by
the involuntariness of the seizure and detention is the
the said kidnapper. Kidnapping and serious
very essence of the crime.
illegal detention in so far as the child is
concerned and homicide in so far as the
People v. Mirandilla (2011)
father who has been killed is concerned.

3) When the victim is raped.
■ Kidnapping and Serious
Detention with Rape.
■ It is necessary that the victim is the one
who has been raped.
■ Again, since this is a special complex
crime, regardless of the times that the
victim has been raped, the crime
committed is only kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape. There
is no kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with multiple rape.
4) When the victim is subjected to torture or any
dehumanizing acts.
People v. Avancena (2017)
The fact that the victim voluntarily went with the
accused does not remove the element of deprivation of
liberty if the victim went with the accused on a false
Emphatically, the last paragraph of Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659,
Illegal states that when the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention or is raped, or is
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. This provision gives
rise to a special complex crime. As the Court explained
in People v. Larrañaga, this arises where the law
provides a single penalty for two or more component
offenses.
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been
committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping
with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping
with rape. This is because these composite acts are
regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A.
No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single
penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the
seriousness of rape because no matter how many times
the victim was raped, like in the present case, there is
only one crime committed – the special complex crime
of kidnapping with rape.
However, for the crime of kidnapping with rape, as in

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 107

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
this case, the offender should not have taken the victim
with lewd designs, otherwise, it would be complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape. In People v.
Garcia, we explained that if the taking was by forcible
abduction and the woman was raped several times, the
crimes committed is one complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape, in as much as the forcible
abduction was only necessary for the first rape; and
each of the other counts of rape constitutes distinct and
separate count of rape.
ARTICLE 280 – QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO
DWELLING
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender is a private person;
2) He enters the dwelling of another;
3) Such entrance is against the latter’s will.
■ The crime is committed by a private individual. If
the offender is a public officer or employee, the
entrance into the dwelling against the will of the
occupant is violation of domicile under Art. 128.
■ When the law says against the will, there must
be a prohibition or opposition from entering
whether express or implied.
■ Mere entry without consent will not bring about
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING.
■ If the door is open therefore it means that
anyone could enter even without the consent of
the owner and the moment he enters, he is not
liable for qualified trespass to dwelling because
there is no prohibition or opposition from
entering.
■ It is necessary that there is an opposition or
prohibition from entering. It can be expressed
prohibition (e.g. A note which states: “Do Not
Enter” or the door was closed and a person
knocked so the owner got up and opened the
door but upon seeing the person he immediately
closed the door) or implied prohibition (e.g.
Door is closed even if it is not locked)
■ Proof of express prohibition to enter is not
necessary when violence or intimidation is
employed by the offender.
Cases wherein the provisions of this article are not
applicable
1) When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent
serious harm to himself, the occupant or third
persons;
2) When the purpose of the offender in entering is
to render some service to humanity or justice;
3) Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and
other public houses while they are open.
ARTICLE 286 – GRAVE COERCIONS
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Preventing another, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, from doing something
not prohibited by law; (Preventive coercion)
and
2. Compelling another, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
(Compulsive coercion)
ELEMENTS:
1) A person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his
will; be it right or wrong;
2) The prevention or compulsion be effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and
3) The person that restrained the will and liberty
of another had not the authority of law or the
right to do so, or in other words, that the
restraint shall not be made under authority of
law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
Preventive coercion
■ In grave coercion, the act of preventing by force
must be made at the time the offended party
was doing or about to do the act to be
prevented. If the act was already done when
violence is exerted, the crime is unjust vexation.
■ Instances when the act of preventing another is
classified as another crime:
○ A public officer preventing by means of
violence or threats the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion is guilty of
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 108
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
interruption of religious worship (Article
132)
○ Any person who, by force, prevents the
meeting of a legislative body (Article
143)
○ Any person who shall use force or
intimidation to prevent any member of
Congress from attending the meetings
thereof, expressing his opinions, or
casting his vote (Article 145)
Compulsive coercion
■ Compelling another to do something includes
the offender’s act of doing it himself while
subjecting another to his will.
■ A person who is in actual possession of a thing,
even if he has no right to that possession,
cannot be compelled by means of violence to
give up the possession, even by the owner
himself. This will amount to grave coercion.
■ Instances when the act of compelling is another
offense:
○ A public officer not authorized by law
who compels a person to change his
residence (Article 127)
○ Kidnapping a debtor to compel him to
pay his debt (kidnapping for ransom
under Article 267)
Timoner v. People (1983)
Grave coercion is committed when “a person who,
without authority of law, shall by means of violence,
prevent another from doing something not prohibited by
law or compel to do something against his will, either it
be right or wrong.” In the case at bar, the Mayor is not
guilty of grave coercion as the element that the restraint
made by the Mayor upon complainant, the owner of the
barbershop considered as a public nuisance, was not
made under authority of law or in the exercise of a
lawful right, is absent.
Lee v. CA (1991)
There is nothing unlawful when petitioner demanded
that the private respondent return the proceeds of the
check accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges.
Her lengthy stay in the bank and return of money was
not due to petitioner’s threat but to show good faith.
The most telling proof of the absence of intimidation
was the fact that the complainant refused to sign the
promissory note in spite of the alleged threats of the
petitioner.
ARTICLE 287 – LIGHT COERCION
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender must be a creditor;
2) He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
3) The seizure of the thing be accomplished by
means of violence or a display of material
force producing intimidation;
4) The purpose of the offender is to apply the
same to the payment of the debt.
It is committed by a creditor who shall seize anything
belonging to his debtor by means of violence or
intimidation in order to apply the same to the
indebtedness.
UNJUST VEXATION (other light coercion, 2nd
paragraph of Art. 287)
■ Includes any human conduct which, although
not productive of some physical or material
harm, would, however, unjustly annoy or vex an
innocent person. The act must cause
annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress
or disturbance.
■ The paramount question to be considered in
determining whether the crime of unjust
vexation is committed is — whether the
offender’s act caused annoyance, irritation,
vexation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the
mind of the person to whom it is directed.
■ There is no violence or intimidation in unjust
vexation.
■ NOTE: Light coercion under the 1st paragraph
will be unjust vexation if the third element
(violence, threats or intimidation) is absent.
■ Kissing a girl, without acts of lasciviousness, is
unjust vexation.
I. Crimes against property
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 109
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
ARTICLE 293 — WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY IN GENERAL
1) There is personal property belonging to
another;
2) There is unlawful taking of that property;
3) The taking must be with intent to gain; and
4) There is violence against or intimidation of
any person, or force upon anything.
■ Robbery is committed by any person, who with
intent to gain shall take any personal property
belonging to another by means of violence
against, or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything.
■ The property taken must be personal property,
for if real property is occupied or real right is
usurped by means of violence against or
intimidation of person, the crime is
USURPATION.
■ The phrase “belonging to another” means that
the property taken does not belong to the
offender. The person from whom the property is
taken need not be the owner. Possession of
the property is sufficient.
■ The unlawful taking of personal property is an
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
essential part of the crime of robbery. “Taking”
as an element of robbery, means depriving the
offended party of ownership of the thing taken
with the character of permanency.
ARTICLE 294 — ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
ACTS PUNISHED
1) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery
(taking of personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain), the crime of
homicide is committed;
2) When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
3) When by reason of on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting
in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness
is inflicted;
4) When by reason or on occasion of robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in the
loss of the use of speech or the power to hear
or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of the use of
any such member or incapacity for the work
in which the injured person is theretofore
habitually engaged is inflicted;
5) If the violence or intimidation employed in
the commission of the robbery is carried to a
degree unnecessary for the commission of the
crime;
6) When in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the
robbery any of the physical injuries in
consequence of which the person injured
becomes deformed or loses any other member
of his body or loses the use thereof or
becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for more than 90 days or
the person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days;
7) If the violence employed by the offender does
not cause any of the serious physical injuries
defined in Article 263, or if the offender
employs intimidation only.
■ Robbery with homicide is a special complex
crime or a composite crime or a single
indivisible offense. In reality two or more crimes
have been committed, the robbery and the
homicide yet, in the eyes of the law only one
crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery
with homicide.
■ Where the original design comprehends
robbery, and homicide is perpetrated by reason
or on the occasion of the consummation of the
former, the crime committed is robbery with
homicide.
■ There is no such crime as robbery with
murder. The treachery which attended the
commission of the crime must be considered
not qualifying but merely as a generic
aggravating circumstance.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 110
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
■ There is still robbery with homicide even if the
person killed is another robber or an innocent
bystander. Thus, the person killed need not be
the person robbed.
■ It is immaterial that aside from the homicide,
rape, is committed by reason or on the occasion
of the crime. The felony would still be robbery
with homicide. Once a homicide is committed
by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony
committed is robbery with homicide. All the
felonies committed by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery are integrated into one
and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide
(People v. Diu, 2013)
■ When the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide is accompanied by another offense
like rape or intentional mutilation, such
additional offense is treated as an aggravating
circumstance which would result in the
imposition of the maximum penalty of death.
When should the killing or the homicide take place?
In case of robbery with homicide, for as long as the
original intent of the offender is to commit robbery or to
rob, the killing may take place before, during or after the
said robbery provided that the original intent/ original
criminal design is to commit robbery or to rob.
Since it is a special complex crime, regardless of the
number of the persons killed there is only a single
indivisible offense of robbery with homicide. Even if the
killing is an unintentional killing or accidental killing still,
it is a single indivisible offense of robbery with homicide.
Even if the victim of the said robbery is different from
the victim of the killing, it is still robbery with homicide.
People v. Quiñones (1990)
There is no such crime as robbery with multiple
homicide. There is only the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, regardless of the fact that 3
persons were killed in the commission of the crime. In
robbery, all homicides and murders are merged in the
composite. As such, the single indivisible penalty of
reclusion perpetua should be imposed only once even if
multiple killings accompanied the robbery.
People v. Aminola (2010)
The following elements must be established for a
conviction in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide:
(1) The taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) The property taken belongs to another;
(3) The taking is animo lucrandi; and
(4) By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
homicide is committed.
Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is
proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection
between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter
be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both
crimes are committed at the same time.
People v. Cachuela (2013)
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason of
or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was
committed:
(1) To facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit;
(2) To preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot;
(3) To prevent discovery of the commission of the
robbery; or
(4) To eliminate witnesses in the commission of the
crime.
People v. Espia (2016)
The Supreme Court held that homicide may precede the
robbery or may occur after the robbery, as what is
essential is that there is a direct relation, an intimate
connection between the robbery and the killing. A
conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the
main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the
killing is merely incidental to the robbery.
People v. Domasig (2018)
In charging robbery with homicide, the onus probandi is
to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the
use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the
property belongs to another; (c) the taking is
characterized with animus lucrandi or with intent to gain;
and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the
crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense,
was committed. A conviction requires that robbery is the
main purpose and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life, but the killing may occur before, during or
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 111
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
after the robbery.
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
■ Just like robbery with homicide, is also a special
complex crime or a single indivisible offense.
So, for as long as the intention of the offender is
to commit robbery, rape may be committed
before, during or after the commission of
robbery. Since it is a special complex crime,
regardless of the number of times the victim
was raped, the crimecommitted is only robbery
with rape. There is no such crime as robbery
with multiple rapes. There is only robbery with
rape.
■ There is no such crime as robbery with
attempted rape. It must be consummated.
Otherwise, they are separate offenses.
■ When the taking of personal property of a
woman is an independent act following
defendant’s failure to consummate the rape,
there are two distinct crimes committed:
attempted rape and theft.
■ When rape and homicide co-exist in the
commission of robbery, the crime is robbery
with homicide and rape under par 1 of Article
294, the rape to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance only.
People v. Dinola (1990)
Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had raped
her. She refused to give him the watch so he took it
forcibly from her and left. Dinola was convicted of
robbery with rape.
HELD: The crime of robbery and rape should be
punished as 2 separate offenses. If the original design
was to commit rape but the accused after committing
rape also committed robbery (more of an afterthought,
even accidental) because the opportunity presented
itself, the criminal act should be viewed as 2 distinct
offenses. If the intention of the accused was to commit
robbery but rape was also committed even before the
robbery, the crime of robbery with rape was committed.
People v. Moreno (2002)
The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined
in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of
the RPC, as amended, employs the clause "when the
robbery shall have been accompanied with rape." In
other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender
must have the intent to take the personal property of
another under circumstances that makes the taking one
of robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. If the
original plan was to commit rape, but the accused after
committing the rape also committed robbery when the
opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be
viewed as a separate and distinct crime.
People v. Verceles (2002)
Once conspiracy is established between two accused in
the commission of the crime of robbery, they would be
both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of
them on the occasion of the robbery, unless any of
them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other
from committing the rape. The rule in this jurisdiction is
that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence,
or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery
with rape, although not all of them took part in the rape.
ARTICLE 297 — ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED
ROBBERY COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES
■ “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense. It
includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide,
infanticide, etc.
■ The penalty is the same, whether the robbery is
attempted or frustrated.
■ “Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a
higher penalty under the Code” may be
illustrated as follows: In an attempted or
frustrated robbery, the killing of the victim is
qualified by treachery or relationship. The
proper penalty for murder or parricide shall be
imposed because it is more severe.
ARTICLE 308 — WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
PERSONS LIABLE
1. Those who with intent to gain, but without
violence against or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, take personal property
of another without the latter’s consent;
2. Those who having found lost property, fails to
deliver the same to the local authorities or to
its owner;
3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged
the property of another, remove or make use
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 112
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

and without consent of Tina. – This is THEFT.

of the fruits or objects of the damage caused
by them;
■ But if the accused received the thing from
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field
where trespass is forbidden or which belongs
to another and, without the consent of its
owner, hunt or fish upon the same or gather
fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products.
ELEMENTS:
1) There is taking of personal property;
another person in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under a quasi-contract or a
contract of bailment, and later misappropriated
or converted the thing to the prejudice of
another, the crime is ESTAFA, because under
those transactions, the juridical possession of
the thing is transferred to the offender. (note:
thus, the distinction between juridical and mere
physical possession is important.)

2) The property taken belongs to another; ■ For robbery to exist, it is necessary that there
should be a taking against the will of the owner;
3) The taking was done with intent to gain;
for theft, it suffices that consent on the part of
4) The taking was done without the consent of the owner is lacking.
the owner;
Del Rosario v. People (2019)
5) The taking is accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons of Petitioner should have been convicted of the crime of
force upon things. theft, not of robbery. The testimonies of the witnesses
reveal that the snatching of the personal property was
without violence or intimidation of persons or with force
■ Theft is consummated when the culprits were
upon things. For the requisite of violence to be satisfied
able to take possession of the thing taken by
in cases of simple robbery, the victim must have
them. It is not an indispensable element of theft
sustained less serious physical injuries or slight physical
that the thief carries, more or less far away, the
injuries in the occasion of the robbery. The fact that the
thing taken by him from its owner.
necklace was grabbed did not automatically mean that
force attended the taking.
■ The Supreme Court held that asportation is
complete from the moment the offender had full
NO FRUSTRATED THEFT
possession of the thing, even if he did not have
an opportunity to dispose of the same.
Valenzuela v. People (2007)
■ The taking in theft must have the character of
The RPC provisions on theft have not been designed in
permanency. Thus, the offender must have the
such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and
intention of making himself the owner of the
Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in Article
thing taken.
308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the “free
disposition of the items stolen” is in any way
■ The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after
determinative of whether the crime of theft has been
the transfer of physical possession (not juridical
produced. The Court thus concludes that under the
possession) of the thing to the offender. The
RPC, there is no crime of frustrated theft.
actual transfer of possession may not always
and by itself constitute the unlawful taking, but
ROBBERY V. THEFT
an act done soon thereafter by the offender
which may result in unlawful taking or
People v. Concepcion (2012)
asportation. In such case, the article is deemed
to have been taken also, although in the
Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime
beginning, it was in fact given to, and received
committed by “any person who, with intent to gain, shall
by, the offender.
take any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person,
Illustration: Tina gave Rey her Rolex watch for
or using force upon anything.” xxx
the purpose of having it examined since Rey
has a pawnshop. Rey subsequently
Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person
appropriated the Rolex watch with intent to gain
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 113

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take
the personal property of another without the latter’s
consent.
By definition in the RPC, robbery can be committed in
three ways, by using: (a) violence against any person; (b)
intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon
anything.
The main issue is whether the snatching of the shoulder
bag in this case is robbery or theft. Did Concepcion
employ violence or intimidation upon persons, or force
upon things, when he snatched Acampado’s shoulder
bag?
In People v. Dela Cruz, this Court found the accused
guilty of theft for snatching a basket containing jewelry,
money and clothing, and taking off with it, while the
owners had their backs turned.
In People v. Tapang, this Court affirmed the conviction
of the accused for frustrated theft because he stole a
white gold ring with diamond stones from the victim’s
pocket, which ring was immediately or subsequently
recovered from the accused at or about the same time it
was stolen.
In People v. Omambong, the Court distinguished
robbery from theft. The Court held:
Had the appellant then run away, he would undoubtedly
have been guilty of theft only, because the asportation
was not effected against the owner’s will, but only
without his consent; although, of course, there was
some sort of force used by the appellant in taking the
money away from the owner.
xxxx
What the record does show is that when the offended
party made an attempt to regain his money, the
appellant’s companions used violence to prevent his
succeeding.
xxxx
The crime committed is therefore robbery and not theft,
because personal violence was brought to bear upon
the offended party before he was definitely deprived of
his money.
The prosecution failed to establish that Concepcion
used violence, intimidation or force in snatching
Acampado’s shoulder bag. Acampado herself merely
testified that Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag
which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did
not say that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or
force in snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts,
Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado’s shoulder bag
constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.
ARTICLE 310 — QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is QUALIFIED if —
1) Committed by a domestic servant;
2) Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3) The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter, or large cattle;
4) The property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a plantation;
5) The property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; or
6) If property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
■ Penalties for qualified theft are now next
HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES.
■ Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. It
is not necessary to prove grave abuse of
confidence.
■ The abuse of confidence must be grave. There
must be allegations in the information and proof
of a relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship or vigilance, between the accused
and the offended party, that has created a high
degree of confidence between them, which the
accused abused.
■ The grave abuse of confidence need not be
premeditated. Its presence in the commission of
theft is sufficient.
■ The confidence gravely abused must be that
existing between the offended party and the
offender.
: A is a domestic servant. When his master was out of
Q
the house, A went to the masters’ bedroom and took the
jewelry. The information cited that he was a domestic
servant but the information did not state that A took
the jewelry with grave abuse of con idence. Is A liable
for quali ied theft?
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 114
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the law uses the

A and maximum periods.
conjunction OR. The fact that the accused is a domestic
servant, it will suf ice. The law does not require that abuse of Igdalino v. People (2018)
con idence to be established. It will suf ice that the accused
is a domestic servant. For the crime of theft to prosper, it must be established
beyond doubt that the accused had the intent to steal
: A was a security guard. The owner of the house left
Q personal property. This animus furandi pertains to the
his key to the security guard. However, the security intent to deprive another of his or her ownership or
guard used the key to open the house of the owner and possession of personal property, apart from but
took the valuables. What crime is committed? concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an
essential element of dolo malus. The intent to steal is
: The Security Guard is liable for quali ied theft because of
A presumed from the taking of personal property without
grave abuse of con idence. the consent of the owner or its lawful possessor. As in
all presumptions, this may be rebutted by evidence
Empelis v. IAC (1984) showing that the accused took the personal property
under a bona fide belief that he owns the property.
Four accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts Clearly, jurisprudence has carved out an instance when
from a plantation. They dropped the coconuts after the act of taking of personal property defeats the
being seen by the owner. They were convicted of presumption that there is intent to steal -when the
qualified theft. SC held that they are guilty only of taking is open and notorious, under an honest and in
FRUSTRATED qualified theft as they were not able to good faith belief of the accused of his ownership over
carry away the coconuts from the plantation that is the the property.
gravamen of the offense under Article 310.
ARTICLE 315 – SWINDLING/ESTAFA
People v. Mejaras (2018)

This Court has been consistent in holding that “intent to THREE WAYS OF COMMITTING ESTAFA
gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is
presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of 1. Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of
the thing subject of asportation. [Thus,] [a]ctual gain is authority (Art. 315 [1])
irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to
gain.” 2. Estafa by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or
It is established that Mejares opened the drawer in the simultaneously with the commission of the
masters' bedroom and took away the cash and crime (Art. 315 [2])
valuables it contained. Therefore, the burden is on the
3. Estafa through fraudulent means (Art. 315 [3])
defense to prove that intent to gain was absent despite
actual taking of her employer's valuables. This ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA IN GENERAL:
conclusion has the following bases: (1) the surreptitious
way accused handled the incoming calls; (2) her failure 1) The offender defrauded another by reason of
to heed the warnings of persons around her; (3) her abuse of confidence or by means of deceit.
inability to make use of the opportunities available to
verify the alleged vehicular accident where her mistress 2) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
figured in. estimation is caused to the offended party or
to a third person.
Accused-appellant was a domestic helper working for
the Spouses Gavino when she committed the crime, by ■ It does not necessarily mean that there must
this fact alone, the offense committed is qualified. always be deceit. DECEIT is NOT an essential
requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence.
Since the penalty in theft is dependent on the value of
stolen personal properties, the valuation should be ■ It is necessary that there must be damage or
based on the value proven during trial, and not merely prejudice caused to the offended party or to a
on the Information or uncorroborated testimonies third person.
presented by the prosecution. However, since this is
qualified theft, Mejares must be meted a penalty two (2) ■ The law requires that this damage or prejudice
degrees higher, i.e., prision correccional in its medium must be capable of pecuniary estimation

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 115

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

because the penalty in estafa is dependent on
the damage caused to the offended party.
Hence, it is necessary that the said damage or
prejudice must be capable of pecuniary
estimation. You can estimate its value because
the penalty is dependent on the value of the
damage caused.
personal property received by the offender in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the same, even
though such obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having
received such money, goods, or other property.

■ No estafa through negligence. ■ Article 314, paragraph 1(b) is the ONLY kind
of estafa where demand is necessary.
ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR ABUSE OF Although it is not required by law, it is
CONFIDENCE (paragraph 1) necessary because failure to account upon
demand, is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.
Three punishable acts:
■ It is necessary that the offender received
a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or from the offended party money, goods or
anything of value which the offender shall other personal property. When the said
deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even offender receives from the offended party
though such obligation be based on an immoral money, goods or personal property, what
or illegal consideration. has been transferred to the offender was
JURIDICAL POSSESSION of the said
■ There must be an onerous obligation. property.
■ If the thing delivered had not yet been fully ■ If only material possession has been
paid or just partially paid, NO ESTAFA even transferred to the offender, and the offender
if there was alteration. misappropriated or converted the same, the
crime committed is only theft or qualified
■ When there is no agreement as to the
theft but not estafa. So in order for the
quality of the thing to be delivered, delivery
crime of estafa to arise, it is necessary that
of a thing unacceptable to the complainant
the offender has juridical possession of
is NOT estafa.
the money, goods or personal property.
■ It can either be based on legal or illegal
■ Juridical Possession is a possession in the
consideration. The law does not take into
concept of an owner; it is a real right over
consideration that it must always be legal.
the property during the time that the
Even if the consideration is immoral or
property is in his possession, he has better
illegal, still, estafa is committed if there is an
right even than that of the owner of the said
alteration or substitution.
property.
: A and B entered into an agreement, A has to deliver
Q
: What if A rented a bicycle from B. A will use the
Q
to B premium quality of marijuana. B paid. A delivered
bicycle for three hours and shall pay B 500 pesos for
two boxes of marijuana to B. When B reviewed the said
the use of the said bicycle. Upon payment, A is now
boxes of marijuana, B discovered that on the uppermost
using the bicycle. Three hours had lapsed, A failed to
portion, they were premium quality marijuana but on
deliver the bicycle to B. B demanded the return of the
the lower portion, they were of poor quality marijuana.
bicycle. A did not return the bicycle. Can B ile a case of
Can B ile a case of estafa against A?
estafa against A?
: Yes, B can ile a case of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse
A
: B can ile a case of estafa against A. Estafa is the crime
A
of con idence against A. This is because the law says that
committed by A because when B gave the bicycle to A, it was
even if it is based on an illegal or immoral consideration,
based on a contract of lease (a contract of rent), hence,
there must be a substitution of the quality or quantity, in this
juridical possession had been transferred from B to A. A,
case, of the said dangerous drugs which have been delivered
during the threehour period has juridical possession over the
by A to B.
said bicycle and during this period, A has better right to the
property than B, the owner thereof. When A failed to return
b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
the said bicycle to B after three hours, then he committed
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 116

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

estafa. liable with Agbulos. There can be no ex post facto

conspiracy to do that which has already been done and
: What if A told B to obtain a loan in his favor in a bank
Q consummated.
and then he gave B his diamond ring as collateral for
the said loan. However, B, instead of using the ring as Gamaro v. People (2017)
collateral for the loan, B sold the ring and
misappropriated the proceeds of sale. What case, if any, In proving the element of conversion or
may A ile against B? Is B liable for estafa? misappropriation, a legal presumption of
misappropriation arises when the accused fails to
: B is not liable for Estafa. When A gave the ring to B, what
A deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to
has been transferred to B is only material possession of the be sold and fails to give an account of their
ring. It is not juridical possession because B is merely an whereabouts.
agent of A so that B will be the one to use the said ring as
collateral in order to obtain a loan in favor of A. Juridical The failure to account upon demand, for funds or
possession remains with the owner, A, hence the crime property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of
committed is only quali ied theft. misappropriation.

: What if A is an employee in a company, XYZ

Q Here, Norma Gamaro failed to account for, upon
corporation. He was a ield worker and whenever he demand, the jewelry which was received by her in trust.
goes to the ield to work, he has this cash advance given This already constitutes circumstantial evidence of
by the company. One time, he went to work with a cash misappropriation or conversion to petitioner's own
advance, however, upon returning to work, he failed to personal use. The failure to return upon demand the
liquidate the cash advance. A, despite notices by the properties which one has the duty to return is
company, failed to liquidate the cash advance. So the tantamount to appropriating the same for his own
corporation iled a case against A. Will the case personal use. In fact, in this case, Fineza, herself
prosper? redeemed the pieces of jewelry using her own money.

: The case will not prosper. The Supreme Court said that a
A Ibañez v. People (2019)
cash advance is equivalent to a loan, therefore when the
company gave cash advance to the employee, there is not
only transfer of the said money to the employee but transfer
of ownership of the said money. The employee is now the
owner of the said money. When you say liquidate, it means
that he is paying his indebtedness to the company, therefore
their relationship as employer and employee, insofar as the
cash advance is concerned, is that of a creditor-debtor and
not that of entrustor-entrustee. Hence, there is no estafa
committed, there is no theft committed. The liability of the
employee is only civil in nature. The company can only ile a
case of sum of money against the employee for failing to pay
his indebtedness in the form of cash advance to the company.
Benito v. People (2015)
Generally, demand for the return of the thing delivered in
trust is necessary before an accused is convicted of
estafa. However, if there is an agreed period for the
accused to return the thing received in trust and the
accused fails to return it within the agreed period,
demand is unnecessary. Failure to return the thing within
the agreed period consummates the crime of estafa, i.e,
the misappropriation of the thing received in trust.
The Estafa had already been consummated when
“Linda Chua” allegedly pawned the jewelry. Benito, who
was allegedly “Linda Chua,” cannot be held criminally
The crime of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence requires the following elements to concur,
namely: (1) receipt of items in trust or under an
obligation to return them or the proceeds of an
authorized transaction; (2) misappropriation, conversion
for personal benefit or denial of such receipt; (3)
entrustor or owner was prejudiced; and (4) demand was
made by the offended party.
Legaspi v. People (2018)
Article 315, paragraph 1(b) requires proof of receipt by
the offender of the money, goods, or other personal
property in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same. In other words, mere
receipt of the money, goods, or personal property does
not satisfy the first element, it must be demonstrated
that the character of such receipt must either be in trust,
on commission or for administration or that the accused
has the obligation to deliver or return the same money,
goods or personal property received. It is therefore
essential to prove that the accused acquired both
material or physical possession and juridical possession
of the thing received. he Information itself is bereft of
any indication that petitioners received private
complainant's money in such manner as to create a

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 117

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

fiduciary relationship between them. ELEMENT, and one and the same damage cannot give rise to
two crimes therefore you can never complex estafa and
falsi ication of a private document. It is either estafa or
falsi ication of a private document.
c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of
the offended party in blank, and by writing any When is it estafa?
document above such signature in blank, to the
prejudice of the offended party or of any third ■ If estafa can be committed without falsifying the
person. private document but the falsification of a
private document merely facilitated the
■ The paper with the signature in blank MUST commission of the crime, then the appropriate
BE DELIVERED by the offended party to the charge is estafa because the falsification of a
offender. Otherwise crime is falsification of private document is merely incidental.
instrument.
■ If estafa cannot be committed without falsifying
: The manager of a company has a blank document
Q the private document, the crime committed is
which contains only the signature. The manager gave it falsification of a private document because
to the secretary and told the secretary to use the estafa is a mere consequence.
document for emergency purposes. When the manager
left, the secretary wrote in the document stating that ■ There is no such crime as estafa through
the manager will shoulder or pay his entire loan in a falsification of a private document. But there is
lending irm. What crime is committed by the said such a thing as estafa through falsification of a
secretary? Is the said secretary liable for estafa or public document because in falsification of a
estafa through falsi ication of a private document or public document, damage is not an element.
falsi ication of a private document. Which of the three
crimes is committed by the secretary? ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSES OR
FRAUDULENT ACTS EXECUTED PRIOR TO OR
: The crime committed is Estafa. This is because the
A SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMMISSION OF THE
manager entrusted to the secretary the document in blank FRAUD (paragraph 2)
which contains his signature.
Five punishable acts:
: What if the secretary placed the blank document on
Q
top of his table. Here comes B, a customer of the said a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
company. B while talking to the secretary saw the possess power, influence, qualifications,
document with the signature of the manager and so he property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
surreptitiously took one of those documents, brought it transactions, or by means of other similar
home and wrote in the document above the signature deceits.
that the manager shall be the one to pay all his
indebtedness in a lending irm. What crime is ■ Fictitious name: when a person found a
committed by the said customer? Is the customer liable pawnshop ticket in the name of another
for estafa or estafa through falsi ication of a private and, using the name of that person,
document. redeemed the jewelry.

: The customer is liable for Falsi ication of a Private

A ■ Pretending to possess power: "pretend to
Document under Art 172. This is because he caused that the be a magician who can find gold, but pay
manager participated in an act or proceeding when he did not me to find the gold under your house" trick.
so participate, one of the acts of falsi ication punished in
Article 171 and 172. ■ Pretending to possess influence: I have
connections in Malacañang so pay me if
hy not estafa through falsi ication of a private
W you want to get your documents approved"
document? trick.

Because there is no such crime as estafa through falsi ication : What if there were four licensed nurses who all want
Q
of a private document. You cannot complex estafa with to work in Canada. Here comes X. X learned that A, B, C
falsi ication of a private document because both estafa and and D passed the board so he went to their house and
falsi ication of a private document HAVE DAMAGE AS told them that X has a placement agency that has all

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 118

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

t he quali ications to help them ind work in Canada. A, pretenses, upon which the complainant relied when he
B, C and D believed X, and X demanded that they give X paid the premium.
100k for processing fees. They gave the money to X. A,
B, C and D never saw X again. Later X was arrested. b) By altering the quality, fitness, or weight of
What are the crimes committed by X? anything pertaining to his art or business.

: A, B, C and D can ile two cases against X. Estafa under

A ■
article 315 (2)(a) and Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
under the Labor Code. These two cases are cumulative and
not exclusive to each other, hence, the offender can be
charged with these two crimes at the same time.
Estafa under 315 (2) (a) is committed because X
misrepresented to them that he has the quali ication and the
agency to bring them to work in another country when in
fact, he does not have such quali ication and agency. Where it
not for the said misrepresentation by X, the offended parties
A, B, C and D would not have parted with the said 100
Thousand pesos in cash.
The other crime committed by X is Illegal Recruitment in
Large Scale. In Labor Code, if Illegal Recruitment is
committed against three or more persons, individually or as
a whole, it is considered as Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale. On the other hand, if it is committed by ive or more
persons, it is considered as Syndicated Illegal Recruitment.
Both crimes are considered crimes involving economic
sabotage under the Labor Code and is the reason why it is a
non-bailable offense.
Salcedo v. CA (1985)
Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guarantee. When he signed and issued the policy and
collected the premium thereof, he had knowledge that
his company was no longer authorized to conduct
insurance business. This knowledge makes him liable
under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the RPC.
To secure a conviction for estafa under paragraph 2(a) of
Article 315 of the RPC, the following requisites must
concur: (1) that the accused made false pretenses or
fraudulent representations as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary; and (2) that such false premises or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which induced
the offended party to part with his money or property,
and that as result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.
All these requisites are present in this case. The
deliberate concealment by Salcedo of the fact that his
company was no longer authorized to engage in the
business of insurance when he signed and issued the
fire insurance policy and collected the premium
payment constitutes false representations or false
A gives B, a jeweler, a diamond to be made
into a ring. B changed the stone with one of
lower quality.
■ The vendor put on the scale one apple
which is already one kilo. The crime
committed estafa by altering the quality,
fitness or weight of anything pertaining to
his art or business. He alters the weight of
the apple which pertains to his business
and therefore he can be held liable for
estafa under 315 (2)(b).
c) By pretending to have bribed a Government
employee
d) By postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had
no funds in the bank OR his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to cover the amount
of the check.
■ For this kind of estafa to arise, it is
necessary that the issuance of the check
must be in concomitance with the
defraudation (act of defrauding) because
note that Art 315 says that estafa by means
of false pretenses or fraudulent acts exerted
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud. Therefore, it is
necessary that the issuance of the check is
in concomitance with the defraudation, that
is, the offender would not have parted with
his property were it not for the promise that
the check would be funded.
■ The issuance of a check is NOT for a
preexisting obligation. It MUST be for an
obligation contracted at the time of the
issuance or delivery of the check.
■ The offender is given a period of three days
to make good of the check. If the offender
failed to make good the check, it is said to
be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting the fraudulent act or false
pretenses.
■ Estafa and BP 22 are separate crimes —
Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 119

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

Penal Code and violation of BP 22 are ake arrangement with the bank in order to cover the
m
separate and distinct from each other amount of the check. What case, if any, can B ile against
because they pertain to different causes of A? May B ile a case of estafa under Art 315 (2)(d)
action. against A or can B ile a case of violation of BP 22 against
A?
The Supreme Court has held that, among
other differences, damage and deceit are : B can only ile a case of violation of BP 22 against A. B
A
essential elements for estafa under Article cannot ile a case of estafa under Art 315 (2) (d) because B
315 2(d) of the RPC, but are not for a has already boarded the construction materials and A has
violation of BP 22. Under the latter law, already taken the construction materials. A week later, B
mere issuance of a check that is dishonored went to A asking for the payment and it was only at the time
gives rise to the presumption of knowledge that A gave the check that bounced. Therefore the issuance of
on the part of the drawer that he issued the the check was in payment of an obligation which already
same without sufficient funds and hence exists at the time. Estafa under 315 (2)(d) cannot be
punishable unlike the RPC. committed if the check was issued in payment of a
pre-existing obligation because for estafa under Art 315
(2)(d) to arise, it is necessary that the issuance of the check
ESTAFA BP 22
is in concomitance with the defraudation.
Damage and deceit are Damage and deceit
: A is in need of construction materials, he went to B. A
Q
necessary elements are not necessary
said he needed construction materials. B said he can
elements
get it if he had money. A said he didn’t have any money
at the moment but was issuing a postdated check
The circumstance of A drawer of a instead dated on the thirtieth day of the month. He
the check being issued dishonored check may guaranteed B that the check will be funded on the
for a pre-existing be convicted under BP thirtieth day of the month. B received the check and
obligation negates 22 even if he had boarded the construction materials needed by A inside
criminal liability issued the same for a the truck of A. On the thirtieth day of the month, B
preexisting obligation deposited the check but the check was dishonored by
the bank for insuf iciency of funds. Notice of dishonor
Crime against property Principally a crime was sent to A. However, despite a lapse of three days, A
against public interest failed to make good of the check or at least made
as it does injury to the arrangement with the bank in order to cover the full
entire banking system amount of the check. May B ile a case of estafa under
Art 315 (2) (d) against A? May B ile a case of violation of
Mala in se Mala prohibita BP 22 against A?

: B can ile both Estafa under Art 315 (2) (d) and violation
A
of BP 22 against A. Estafa was committed by A because the
: A was constructing his vacation house. He suddenly
Q check was issued, it was only received by B at the time of the
run out of materials so A went to B. A told B that he is in construction of materials was delivered. The check was
need of the construction materials. B said, “okay, you received by B upon guarantee given by A that on the thirtieth
can get your construction materials.” A said “I don’t day of the month, the check will be funded. Therefore, the
have money at the moment. I will pay next week.” So B issuance of the check was in concomitance with the
gave the needed construction materials, boarded them defraudation. Estafa under Art 315(2)(d) is committed.
in A’s truck and A went. A week after, B went to A, asking
for the payment of the construction materials. A said “B, Likewise, violation against BP 22 is committed because
I have no money at the moment. B, I am issuing you a violation of BP 22 will arise whenever a check had been
check, post-dated, on the thirtieth day of the month. B, I issued and the said check was dishonored upon presentment
guarantee you, on the thirtieth day of the month, this to the drawee bank. There immediately arises violation of BP
check will be funded. I will have money deposited here 22. (The essence of the crime of BP 22 is the issuance of a
because it is my payday.” B received the check. On the worthless check)
thirtieth day of the month, the date stated on the check,
B deposited the check, however the check was A can be prosecuted for two crimes – Estafa under Article
dishonored due to insuf iciency of funds. B sent a notice 315 (2)(d) and violation of BP 22 – at the same time. These
of dishonor to A. However, A, despite receipt of the said remedies are committed not exclusively of each other
notice of dishonor, failed to make good of the check or

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 120

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
therefore A can be prosecuted at the same time of both cases.
Juaquico v. People (2018)
The Supreme Court held that to be guilty of Estafa
under paragraph (2)(d) of the RPC, there must be
knowledge that the drawer had no funds.
The elements of the offense are: (i) postdating or
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; (ii) lack of
or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (iii) the
payee was not informed by the offender and the payee
did not know that the offender had no funds or
insufficient funds.
As to the third element, the Court held in Ilagan v.
People that the prosecution must prove that the
accused had guilty knowledge of the fact that the
drawer of the check had no funds in the bank at the
time the accused indorsed the same.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the
same. There is no showing whatsoever that petitioner
had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds of the check
he endorsed to private complainant. Admittedly, the
checks received by private complainant were checks
issued and paid to petitioner by a certain Ham. Upon
notice that the subject checks were dishonored,
petitioner immediately searched for Ham but the same
proved to be futile considering that the latter already left
the country.
Moreover, in Lim v. People, the Court reiterated that in
the crime of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad
check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the
offense and have to be established with satisfactory
proof to warrant conviction.
Batac v. People (2018)
It has been settled in jurisprudence that in the
above-defined form of estafa (Art. 315, par. 2[d]), it is
not the nonpayment of a debt which is made
punishable, but the criminal fraud or deceit in the
issuance of a check. Deceit has been defined as "the
false representation of a matter of fact, whether by
words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or
by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive
another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”
The prosecution sufficiently demonstrated Batac's
deceit when it established that the latter induced Frias
into buying the checks at a rediscounted rate by
representing to him that she had enough funds in her
account to cover them.
Also, there is no merit to Batac's contention that, at
most, she can only be held liable for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22. While sourced from the same act, i.e., the
issuance of a check subsequently dishonored, estafa
and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are separate and distinct
from each other because they pertain to different
causes of action.20 The Court has held that, among
other differences, damage and deceit are essential
elements for estafa under Article 315 2(d) of the RPC,
but are not so for violation under B.P. Blg. 22, which
punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check.
Nierras v. Dacuycuy (1990)
No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.
Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-existing
obligations, crime against property and is mala in se. In
B.P. Blg. 22, deceit and damage not required because
mere issuance gives presumption of guilt, can be for a
pre-existing debt, crime against public order and is mala
prohibitum.
e) by obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel,
etc.
■ The offender went to a hotel or inn to obtain
food, refreshment or accommodation, he
did not pay. Or he obtained credit, he did
not pay. Or his goods are inside the hotel,
he abandons his goods, he abandons his
valuables, he surreptitiously removes parts
of his baggage therein.
■ R.A. 10951 decriminalized the former Article
315 par 2(e).
■ It is no longer a crime by virtue of the new
law.
ESTAFA THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEANS
(paragraph 3)
Three punishable acts:
a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign
any document.
■ There must be inducement:
○ If the offended party was willing to
sign although there was deceit as to
the character or contents of the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 121
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
document (because the contents
are different from those which the
offended party told the accused to
state in the document) → crime is
falsification
■ Accused should make statements tending
to mislead the complainant as to the
character of the document executed by him.
■ Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales
Vda. De Carungcong v. People — In this
case, the Japanese son-in-law asks the
mother-in-law to sign a document. He
induced her to sign a document saying that
it was about taxes but in truth and in fact, it
is a SPA for the sale of the property in
Tagaytay and by reason thereof, the
mother-in-law, who was already blind, signs
the document therefore Sato, the Japanese
son-in-law, was able to sell the said
property. This is the kind of Estafa by
inducing another by means of deceit to sign
a document.
b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game.
c) By removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole
or in part, any court record, office files,
document, or any other papers.
■ If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying
a court record will be malicious mischief.
■ Examples:
Concealing document: A person who
concealed a document evidencing a deposit
of P2,600 which came into his possession
when he offered to collect the deposit is
guilty of estafa.
Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN
given back to the maker to be replaced with
a new one to renew the loan, without
making a new promissory note is estafa
because by destroying the old one, the
offended party was dispossessed of the
evidence of a debt.
Final notes on estafa:
➢ The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa
with abuse of confidence under an information
alleging estafa by means of deceit.
➢ If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence,
there is no estafa, even if there is damage.
There is only civil liability.
➢ There CAN be a complex crime of theft and
estafa, when the former is a necessary means
to commit the latter. Example: C, with intent to
gain, took the pawnshop tickets without the
consent of A (Theft). By redeeming the jewels by
means of the tickets, C also committed estafa,
using a fictitious name.
➢ The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount
or value of the property misappropriated
BEFORE the institution of the criminal action.
Hence, partial payment made subsequent to the
commission of estafa does not reduce the
amount misappropriated which is the basis of
the penalty.
➢ A private person who procures a loan by means
of deceit through a falsified public document of
mortgage, but who effects full settlement of the
loan within the period agreed upon, does not
commit the crime of Estafa, there being no
disturbance of proprietary rights and no person
defrauded thereby. The crime committed is only
falsification of public document.
➢ The demand need not be formal; it can be an
oral demand. Merely asking where the money
was is tantamount to a demand. It should be
noted that demand is not an element of estafa
and not a condition precedent for filing a
complaint. (Lee v. People)
➢ Novation not a mode of extinguishing criminal
liability for estafa; Criminal liability for estafa not
affected by compromise or novation of contract.
(Metrobank v. Reynado)
ARTICLE 320 – DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
HOW COMMITTED:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of burning, or as
result of simultaneous burnings, or
committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership,
devoted to the use of the public in general, or
where people usually gather or congregate for
a definite purpose such as but not limited to
official governmental function or business,
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 122
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
private transaction, commerce, trade,
worship, meetings and conferences, or merely
incidental to a definite purpose such as but
not limited to hotels, motels, transient
dwellings, public conveyance or stops or
terminals, regardless of whether the offender
had knowledge that there are persons in said
building or edifice at the time it is set on fire,
and regardless also of whether the building is
actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
airship or airplane, devoted to transportation
or convenience, or public use, entertainment
or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation
and any appurtenances thereto, which are
devoted to the service of public utilities.
5. Any building, the burning of which is for the
purpose of concealing or destroying evidence
of another violation of law, or for the purpose
of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding
creditors or to collect from insurance.
6. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military
powder or fireworks factory, ordnance
storehouse, archives or general museum of
the government.
7. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or
factory of inflammable or explosive materials.
What if in the course of the commission of
Destructive Arson, someone died. The airplane was
burned. The purpose was to burn the said airplane.
Unknown to the offender, someone was inside the
said airplane and the said person died. What crime is
committed by the offender?
The offender is liable for Destructive Arson under Article
320. The fact that someone died will not give rise to a
complex crime. The crime committed is only Arson.
There is no such thing as Arson with Homicide.
People v. Sota (2017)
In cases where both burning and death occur, in order
to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated
whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it
is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the
building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the
resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand,
the main objective is to kill a particular person who may
be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the
means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is
murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill
a particular person, and in fact the offender has already
done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up
the killing, then there are two separate and distinct
crimes committed -homicide/murder and arson.
ARTICLE 332 — PERSONS EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
CRIMES INVOLVED IN THE EXEMPTION
1. Theft
2. Swindling (estafa)
3. Malicious mischief
PERSONS EXEMPTED FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY (ONLY LIABLE CIVILLY)
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property
which belonged to the deceased spouse before
the same passed into the possession of
another.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers and
sister-in-law IF LIVING TOGETHER.
■ Article 332 only applies when BOTH the
offender and offended party are relatives as
enumerated in the provision.
■ The exemption established by this article shall
not be applicable to strangers participating in
the commission of the crime. This exempting
circumstance will not apply to strangers. If the
strangers connived with any of the persons
mentioned in Article 332, so in that case, the
stranger is liable, only the enumerated persons
are not criminally liable.
■ Stepfather, adopted child, paramours, common
law spouses are INCLUDED.
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
Carungcong v. People
This absolutory cause or exempting circumstance under
Article 332 applies exclusively to simple crimes of theft,
swindling (or estafa) and malicious mischief. The
exemption under Article 332 will not arise and will not
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 123
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
absorb the offender if the crime committed is already a
complex crime.
Carungcong v. People
Carungcong, administratrix of the estate of her mother
filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her
brother-in-law, Sato, for executing a fictitious SPA and
selling the properties of her mother. The RTC dismissed
the case because Sato is covered by the exemption
under Article 332 of the RPC.
HELD: Sato is covered by the exemption from criminal
liability provided under Article 332. The death of Sato’s
wife did not dissolve the relationship by affinity between
Sato and Carungcong. However, a complex crime
would negate the exemption under Article 332 because
said provision addresses specific crimes. Thus, all other
crimes are not affected by the absolutory cause. Thus,
for falsifying a public document and unlawfully selling
properties, Sato committed a complex crime which
takes him out of the absolutory clause under Article 332
of the RPC.
J. Crimes against chastity
ARTICLE 334 – CONCUBINAGE
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances;
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
ELEMENTS:
1) The man is married;
2) He is either —
a) Keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling;
b) Having sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances with a
woman who is not his wife; or
c) Cohabiting with a woman who is not
his wife in any other place;
3) As regards the woman, she knows that the
man is married.
■ Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the
conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances,
with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods.
The concubine shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
■ Concubinage is a private crime.
○ The wife must initiate the filing of the
complaint because it is a private crime.
○ Without the complaint, the state cannot,
on its own, file the case of concubinage.
○ The wife must file the case against both
the husband and the concubine and is
married.
■ A married man is NOT liable for concubinage for
mere sexual relations with a woman not his wife.
■ What if the concubine does not know that
the husband is married? It is a matter of
defense on the part of the concubine that she
was also deceived. She did not know that the
man was married. But she also must be
prosecuted.
■ “Conjugal dwelling” – the home of the husband
and wife even if the wife happens to be
temporarily absent on any account.
■ The people in the vicinity are the best witnesses
to prove scandalous circumstances. (The best
witnesses are the neighbors. It must be in such
a manner that the neighbors are shocked.)
■ What if a married man who had sexual
intercourse with a woman inside a motel. Is
the man liable for concubinage? NO, because
it was done in secrecy. In order for the husband
to be liable for concubinage by having sexual
intercourse with a woman who is not his wife, it
is necessary that the sexual intercourse was
committed under scandalous circumstances.
Their sexual congress must set a bad example,
misconduct among the people in the
neighborhood.
■ Cohabitation means that the husband and the
concubine were living together as if they were
husband and wife without the benefit of
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 124
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

marriage. rape.

ARTICLE 336 — ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS : In a school, the woman after unbuttoning the pants
Q
of the said man, the woman forcibly entered the penis
of the man inside her mouth. Is the crime committed
ELEMENTS: rape by sexual assault?

1) Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
2) The act is committed against a person of
either sex;
3) It is done under any of the following
circumstances:
a) By using force or intimidation; or
b) When the offended party is deprived
or reason of otherwise unconscious;
or
c) By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority; or
: No, but it is acts of lasciviousness. If you look at rape by
A
sexual assault, it is committed by “the man inserting his
penis into another persons’ mouth or ori ice.” It is the
offender who must insert his penis into the mouth or ori ice.
In the problem, it is not the man who inserted his penis. It
was the woman who forcibly inserted the penis of the man
inside her mouth. Therefore, crime committed is only acts of
lasciviousness, because in rape by sexual assault, it is the
offender who has the penis and inserted it forcibly to
another.
ACTS OF ATTEMPTED RAPE
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Means of committing the crime are the same.

d) When the offended party is under 12 The offended party in both crimes is a person of
years of age or is demented. either sex.

The performance of acts of lascivious character is

■ Motive of lascivious acts is not important common to both crimes.
because the essence of lewdness is in the very
act itself. Acts performed do NOT Acts performed clearly
indicate that the accused indicate that the
■ Embracing, kissing and holding a girl’s breast is was to lie with the accused’s purpose was
an act of lasciviousness, if the act was done offended party. to lie with the offended
with lewd designs. woman.

Example: if the kissing etc. was done inside Lascivious acts are Lascivious acts are
church, absence of lewd designs may be themselves the final preparatory to the
proven, and the crime is unjust vexation only. objective sought by the commission of rape.
But if the kissing was done in the house of a offender.
woman when she was alone, the circumstances
may prove the accused’s lewd designs.

■ There is no frustrated crime of acts of People v. Famularcano (1962)

lasciviousness.
The accused cannot be convicted of frustrated acts of
: Offender is the woman while the offended party is a
Q lasciviousness for under the very terms of the law such
man. The man was being held by 2 other men when the frustration can never take place. In cases of acts of
woman undressed the man, touched the private parts lasciviousness, as in all cases of crimes against chastity
of the man. What crime is committed? like adultery and rape, from the moment the offender
performs all the elements necessary for the existence of
: Acts of Lasciviousness under circumstances of rape under
A the felony, he actually attains his purpose, and from that
Art. 336. Under Art. 336, the offender and the offended party moment, all the essential elements of the offense have
may be any person. The man was held by two other men and also been accomplished. Motive of revenge is of no
the act of the woman was prompted by lust or lewd design. consequence since the essence of lewdness is in the
Therefore it is acts of lasciviousness under circumstances of very act itself. He was convicted of consummated acts
of lasciviousness.

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 125

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Cruz v. People (2014)
The intent of the offender to lie with the female defines
the distinction between attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness. The felony of attempted rape requires
such intent; the felony of acts of lasciviousness does
not. Only the direct overt acts of the offender establish
the intent to lie with the female. However, merely
climbing on top of a naked female does not constitute
attempted rape without proof of his erectile penis being
in a position to penetrate the female's vagina.
ARTICLE 337 – QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under
18 years of age by certain persons, such as a
person in authority, priest, teacher; and
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
her age or reputation.
ELEMENTS:
1) Offended party is a virgin, which is presumed
if she is unmarried and of good reputation;
2) She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3) Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
4) There is abuse of authority, confidence or
relationship on the part of the offender.
PERSONS LIABLE
1. Those who abused their authority —
a. Person in public authority;
b. Guardian;
c. Teacher;
d. Person who, in any capacity, is
entrusted with the education or
custody of the woman seduced;
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in
them —
a. Priest;
b. House servant;
c. Domestic;
3. Those who abused their relationship —
a. Brother who seduced his sister;
b. Ascendant who seduced his
descendant.
■ Deceit is not an element of qualified seduction.
Abuse of confidence is the necessary element.
■ The fact that the girl gave her consent to the
sexual intercourse is not a defense, because
lack of consent is not an element of the offense.
■ Distinguished from rape: if any of the
circumstances in the crime of rape is present,
the crime is not to be punished under this
article.
■ In case of a teacher, it is not necessary that he
be the teacher of the offended party, as long as
he is a teacher in the same school.
■ Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant is
punished by a penalty next higher in degree.
The age or reputation of the sister or
descendant is irrelevant.
■ An accused charged with rape cannot be
convicted of qualified seduction under the same
information.
People v. Fontanilla (1968)
It was qualified seduction. Anent the said marital
promise, Fontanilla also claims that there is no evidence
on record supporting its veracity. Granting this to be
correct, it is nevertheless settled that deceit, although
an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction,
does not need to be proved or established in a charge
of qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of
confidence. When the offender is a public officer, a
priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or
under any title is in charge of the education or keeping
of the offended woman, as in the present case, the act
is punishable although fraud or deceit may not have
been used or, if employed, has not been proved. The
seduction of a virgin over twelve and under 18 years of
age, committed by any of the persons enumerated in
Article 337 "is constitutive of the crime of qualified
seduction . . . even though no deceit intervenes or even
when such carnal knowledge were voluntary on the part
of the virgin, because in such a case, the law takes for
granted the existence of the deceit as an integral
element of the said crime and punishes it with greater
severity than it does the simple seduction . . . taking into
account the abuse of confidence on the part of the
agent (culprit), an abuse of confidence which implies
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 126
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
deceit or fraud."
Babanto v. Zosa (1983)
The complaint alleged that the accused abused his
position as policeman by having carnal knowledge of a
13 year old girl. However, there is no allegation that the
complainant was a virgin. Though it is true that virginity
is presumed if the girl is over 12 but under 18,
unmarried and of good reputation, virginity is still an
essential element of the crime of qualified seduction and
must be alleged in the complaint. A conviction of the
crime of qualified seduction without the allegation of
virginity would violate the petitioner’s right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
Perez v. CA (1988)
There are similar elements between Consented
Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) the
offended party is a virgin, and (2) over 12 but under 18
years of age. However, there are other elements which
differentiate the two crimes. For example, consented
abduction requires the taking away of the victim with
her consent, while qualified seduction requires that
there be abuse of authority, confidence or relationship.
Thus, an acquittal for Consented Abduction will not
preclude the filing of a charge for Qualified Seduction,
because the elements of the two crimes are different.
ARTICLE 338 – SIMPLE SEDUCTION
ELEMENTS:
1) Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years
of age;
2) She is of good reputation, single or widow;
3) Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
4) It is committed by means of deceit.
■ In case of simple seduction, the offended party
must be a WOMAN who is single or a widow of
good reputation, over 12 but must be under 18
years of age.
■ Virginity of the offended party is not required,
good reputation is sufficient.
■ DECEIT — the offended party gave herself to
the man because of the latter’s promise. It may
come in the form of inducement, a false
promise.
■ The woman committed sexual congress with
a married man because the man promised
that he will marry the woman. — The SC said
that there is no seduction. The fact that the
woman knows that the man is married, the man
cannot marry her. There is no deceit.
ARTICLE 342 – FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS:
1) The person abducted is any woman,
regardless or her age, civil status, or
reputation;
2) The abduction is against her will;
3) The abduction is with lewd designs.
■ Abduction — the taking away of a woman from
her house or the place where she may be for the
purpose of carrying her to another place with
intent to marry or corrupt her (People v.
Crisostomo)
■ The taking away of the woman may be
accomplished by means of deceit first and then
by means of violence and intimidation.
■ If the female abducted is under 12 years of age,
the crime is forcible abduction, even if she
voluntarily goes with her abductor.
■ Sexual intercourse is NOT an element.
○ If by reason of or on the occasion of
forcible abduction, the man had sexual
intercourse with the woman, it may
result in a COMPLEX CRIME OF RAPE
WITH FORCIBLE ABDUCTION.
○ Only 1 rape is necessary to bring about
complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape.
○ Attempt to rape is absorbed in the
crime of forcible abduction, thus there is
no complex crime of forcible abduction
with attempted rape (the attempt is
evidence of the lewd designs).
■ When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd
designs, the crime is kidnapping and serious
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 127
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
illegal detention.
People v. Alburo (1990)
They are guilty of the complex crime of FORCIBLE
ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. In reviewing the evidence
adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape, we
have likewise been guided by three well-known
principles, namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be
made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
(2) that 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) that the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weaknesses of the evidence for the defense.
K. Crimes against the civil status of persons
ARTICLE 349 – BIGAMY
ELEMENTS:
1) Offender has been legally married;
2) The marriage has not been legally dissolved
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed
dead by means of a judgment rendered in a
proper proceedings, according to the Civil
Code;
3) He contracts a second or subsequent
marriage; and
4) The second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
■ Bigamy shall be committed by any person who
shall contracts a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has been
legally dissolved, or who shall contract a
subsequent or second marriage before the
absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead, meaning in a decision
made in an appropriate proceedings.
■ The offender is a married person, but he
contracted a second or subsequent marriage,
his previous marriage has not yet been declared
null and void by the court, or her spouse is
absent and he or she contracts a second or
subsequent marriage before the court has
declared that the said spouse is presumptively
dead.
■ Nullity of the first marriage is not a defense in a
bigamy charge. There must be a judicial
declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage
before contracting the second marriage.
■ The second marriage must have all the
requisites for validity were it not for the
existence of the first marriage.
■ The second spouse is not necessarily liable for
the bigamy. If the second husband or wife knew
of the first marriage, he/she is an accomplice in
the crime of bigamy.
■ Bigamy is not a private crime. It is an offense
against the State, not against the second wife.
■ A person convicted of bigamy may still be
prosecuted for concubinage.
People v. Aragon (1957)
Aragon contracted a 2nd marriage while the first
marriage was still subsisting. Eventually the first wife
died. He contracted a third marriage. Aragon was
charged of bigamy.
A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during
the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void from its
performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to
establish its invalidity as distinguished from mere
annullable marriages. The second marriage is void,
hence the third marriage is valid.
Capili v. People (2013)
All the elements of the crime of bigamy were present in
this case when the Information was filed on 28 June
2004. It is undisputed that a second marriage between
petitioner and private respondent was contracted on 8
December 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first
marriage between petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili
contracted on 3 September 1999. Notably, the RTC of
Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the
second marriage between petitioner and private
respondent. Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of
the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does
not bar the prosecution of petitioner for the crime of
bigamy.
Capili may still be charged with the crime of bigamy,
even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of
the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 128
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
still subsisting when the second marriage was
celebrated.
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is
when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of a valid first arriage. Parties to
the marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted
to the judgment of competent courts and only when the
nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as
void, and so long as there is no such declaration the
presumption that the marriage exists.
Santiago v. People (2015)
A person who knowingly consents or agrees to be
married to another already bound in lawful wedlock is
guilty as an accomplice in the crime of bigamy. In this
case, the affidavit they executed was falsified.
Therefore, the marriage between Leonila and Nicanor is
null and void. However, their conduct which is
inequitable, unfair, dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful
will not avail them of the defense.
Vitangcol v. People (2016)
Norberto should be held liable for bigamy. For an
accused to be convicted of Bigamy, the prosecution
must prove that: (1) the offender has been legally
married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead
according to the Civil Code; (3) he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage; and (4) the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
The Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of
Imus, Cavite, which states that “no record could be
found on the alleged issuance of this office of Marriage
License No. 8683519 in favor of MR. NORBERTO A.
VITANGCOL and MS. GINA M. GAERLAN dated July 17,
1987,” does not prove that Norberto’s first marriage was
solemnized without a marriage license. It does not
categorically state that Marriage License No. 8683519
does not exist.
Assuming that Norberto’s first marriage was solemnized
without a marriage license, petitioner remains liable for
bigamy. Norberto’s first marriage was not judicially
declared void. Nor was his first wife Gina judicially
declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code.
Norberto was still legally married to Gina when he
married Alice.
De Guzman v. People (2019)
The law provides that a judicial declaration of nullity is
indispensable for the purposes of remarriage. Prudencio
cannot claim to have been in good faith in assuming
that there was no legal impediment for him to remarry
based merely on the National Statistics Office's
issuance of a Certificate of No Marriage Record.
Based on Prudencio and Arlene's Marriage Certificate,
along with the photos of the wedding ceremony, they
were married on April 8, 1994. Consequently, the
Certificate of No Marriage Record is not enough for
Prudencio to assume that his previous marriage with
Arlene has been voided. Thus, his subsequent
remarriage to Basan rendered him liable for Bigamy.
L. Crimes against honor
ARTICLE 353 — LIBEL
ELEMENTS:
1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
(imputation)
2) The imputation must be made publicly;
(publication)
3) It must be malicious; (malice)
4) The imputation must be directed at a natural
or juridical person, or one who is dead;
(identification)
5) The imputation must tend to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed.
■ Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstances tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
■ The meaning of the writer is immaterial. It is not
the intention of the writer or speaker, or the
understanding of the plaintiff or of any hearer or
reader by which the actionable quality of the
words is to be determined, but the meaning that
the words in fact conveyed on the minds of
persons of reasonable understanding, discretion
and candor, taking into consideration the
surrounding circumstances which were known
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 129
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
to the hearer or reader.
■ There are as many offenses as there are
persons defamed. When the alleged slanderous
utterances were committed on the same date
and at the same place, but against two different
persons, the situation has given rise to two
separate and individual causes for prosecution,
with respect to each of the persons defamed.
Second element: Publication
■ Publication is the communication of the
defamatory matter to some third person or
persons. Hence, sending a letter in a sealed
envelope through a messenger is not
publication. But sending to the wife, a letter
defamatory of her husband, is sufficient
publication (the person defamed is the husband
and the wife is already considered a 3rd person)
Third element: Malice
■ Malice is used to indicate that the offender is
prompted by personal ill-will or spite and
speaks merely to injure the reputation of the
person defamed.
■ Malice may be in-fact or in-law. As a general
rule, malice in law is presumed from a
defamatory imputation. But where privileged
communication is involved, malice (in law) is
NOT presumed; the plaintiff must prove malice
in fact. In either case, where malice in fact is
present, justifiable motives cannot exist and the
imputations become actionable.
Fourth element: Identification
■ Identity of the person must be identified. It is
not necessary that the person must be named
or described. It suffices that any reader or a
person who heard would know that he is the
person being referred to.
■ The moment a third party has recognized or has
known that he is the one being referred to in the
defamatory statement, the identity of the
offended party is already present.
What if A, on national television said, “ikaw B, isa
kang estafadora”. A accused B of the crime of
estafa. Is the crime committed libel or oral
defamation (slander)?
The crime committed is LIBEL. According to the
Supreme Court, Television is within the phrase any
similar means.
What if A, in the same incident, using a microphone,
using an amplifier sound system, called B “isa kang
estafadora”. Is the crime committed libel or is it oral
defamation?
The crime committed is Oral Defamation or Slander. The
use of the microphone or the amplifier is not within the
means provided for Art. 355.
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Domingo (2017)
For an imputation to be libelous under Art. 353 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following requisites must
be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be
malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the
victim must be identifiable.
An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a
person the commission of a crime, the possession of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status or circumstance which tends to
dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which
tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the
words used are to be construed in their entirety and
should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary
meaning as they would naturally be understood by
persons reading them, unless it appears that they were
used and understood in another sense.
Moreover, a charge is sufficient if the words are
calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and
understand that the person or persons against whom
they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are
sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or
to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.
There is publication if the material is communicated to a
third person. It is not required that the person defamed
has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is
material is that a third person has read or heard the
libelous statement, for "a man's reputation is the
estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion
which he has of himself."
Simply put, in libel, publication means making the
defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone
other than the person against whom it has been written.
"The reason for this is that [a] communication of the
defamatory matter to the person defamed cannot injure
his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem. A
man's reputation is not the good opinion he has of
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 130
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
himself, but the estimation in which others hold him.
To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown
that at least a third person or a stranger was able to
identify him as the object of the defamatory statement.
It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is
apparent or if the publication contains matters of
description or reference to facts and circumstances
from which others reading the article may know the
person alluded to; or if the latter is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such
person could and did understand that he was the
person referred to.
Belen v. People (2017)
Publication in libel means making the defamatory
matter, after it has been written, known to someone
other than the person to whom it has been written.
A communication of the defamatory matter to the
person defamed alone cannot injure his reputation
though it may wound his self-esteem, for a man's
reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but
the estimation in which other hold him.
In the same vein, a defamatory letter contained in a
closed envelope addressed to another constitutes
sufficient publication if the offender parted with its
possession in such a way that it can be read by person
other than the offended party.
If a sender of a libelous communication knows or has
good reasons to believe that it will be intercepted before
reaching the person defamed, there is sufficient
publication.
The publication of a libel, however, should not be
presumed from the fact that the immediate control
thereof is parted with unless it appears that there is
reasonable probability that it is hereby exposed to be
read or seen by third persons.
Brillante v. Court Of Appeals (2004)
A single defamatory statement, if published several
times, gives rise to as many offenses as there are
publications.
This is the "multiple publication rule" which is followed
in our jurisdiction, as explained in Soriano v.
Intermediate Appellate Court:
We follow the "multiple publication" rule in the
Philippines. Thus, in the cases of Montinola D. Montalvo
(34 Phil. 662, [1916]) and United States v. Sotto (36 Phil.
389 [1917]), this Court ruled that each and every
publication of the same libel constitutes a distinct
offense. Stated more succinctly for purposes of
ascertaining jurisdiction under Art. 360 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, every time the same written
matter is communicated such communication is
considered a distinct and separate publication of the
libel.
ARTICLE 358 – SLANDER
ELEMENTS:
1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, status or circumstances;
2) made orally;
3) publicly;
4) and maliciously;
5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or
one who is dead;
6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed.
■ Slander is oral defamation. There are two kinds
of oral defamation: Simple slander; and Grave
slander.
■ The slander need not be heard by the offended
party, because a man’s reputation is the
estimate in which other hold him, not the good
opinion which he has of himself.
■ Illustration of simple slander: An accusation that
the offended party has been living successively
and with several men uttered before several
persons, when intended to correct an improper
conduct of the offended party, a kin of the
accused, is only simple slander.
■ Illustration of Grave Slander: “You sold the
union. You swindled the money of the members
and received bribe money in the amount of
P10K…”
■ Slander is oral defamation while libel is
defamation in writing. In both, there is a public
and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice
or defect, real or imaginary, or an act, omission,
status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 131
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
one who is dead. [Gonzales v. Arcilla, (1991)]
Pader v. People
There was a drunk man who passed by the house of a
political candidate. Their families are enemies. A told to
the family of B, “putang ina mo B, magnanakaw ka sa
bayan”. So because of this, B filed a case of oral
defamation or slander.
The Supreme Court said that phrase is not considered
as a defamatory statement. It is a mere expression on
the part of the Filipino People. The crime committed by
the offender is only SIMPLE ORAL DEFAMATION or
SIMPLE SLANDER, not grave. Although the offended
party is running for a political position. The Court has
taken into consideration the antecedent facts of the
case, their families are enemies of each other.
Ramos v. People (2017)
Digna Ramos uttered the words "ukininam, puta, awan
ad-adal mo," which means "vulva of your mother,
prostitute, illiterate," against Patrocinia Dumaua and was
charged with Grave Oral Defamation. The Supreme
Court held that Ramos indeed said defamatory words
against Dumaua, but the utterances were made in the
heat of anger and were with some sort of provocation
on the part of the latter. As such, it held Ramos is only
guilty of the crime of Slight Oral Defamation.
M. Quasi-offenses
ARTICLE 365 – IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
1) that the offender does or failed to do an act
2) that the doing of or the failure to do that act is
voluntary
3) that it be without malice
4) that material damage results
5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the offender.
■ RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE — Consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing
to do an act from which material damage results
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time, and
place.
■ SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE — consists in the lack
of precaution displayed in those cases in which
the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
■ Criminal negligence presupposes lack of
intention to commit the wrong done, but that it
came about due to imprudence on the part of
the offender.
■ There must be injury to person or damage to
property as a consequence of reckless or
simple imprudence.
Ivler v. Hon. Modesto (2010)
There was this vehicular accident and the husband,
Ponce, died. The wife suffered only slight physical
injuries. Two charges were filed in the court (1) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Slight Physical Injuries and (2)
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and
Damage to Property. In the case of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Slight Physical, Jason Ivler
immediately pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The
judgment became final and executory. During the
arraignment of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide and Damage to Property, the council of Jason
Ivler filed a motion to quash claiming that he can no
longer be prosecuted for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide and Damage to Property because
he has already been convicted of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Slight Physical Injuries. He cannot be
prosecuted based on the same offense otherwise; the
accused will be placed in double jeopardy. This was
denied so it went up to the SC by a petition for
certiorari.
HELD: The SC ruled that Jason Ivler and his counsel are
correct. A person can no longer be prosecuted for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and
Damage to Property after he is convicted of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Slight Physical Injuries. SC
said, what is being punished is the reckless
imprudence. Since what is punished is reckless
imprudence the damage to property and slight physical
injuries or homicide are only resulting felonies. Since
they are only resulting felonies, since the crime being
punished is the imprudence or negligence, one can no
longer be prosecuted or convicted after he has already
been convicted and prosecuted of the same offense.
Reckless imprudence and simple negligence are crimes
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 132
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
by themselves. THEY ARE QUASI-OFFENSES.
Therefore, to prosecute a person after he has been
convicted of simple negligence, will result to double
jeopardy.
More complete ruling:
1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its
Consequences on Persons and Property are Material
Only to Determine the Penalty
Quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness,
lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible,”
unlike willful offenses which punish the intentional
criminal act. These structural and conceptual features of
quasi-offenses set them apart from the mass of
intentional crimes.
2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence
Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same
Quasi-offense
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again
for that same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense
of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or
negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the
substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is
single, whether the injurious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be
split into different crimes and prosecutions.
3) Article 48 Does Not Apply to Acts Penalized Under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single
prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of
two categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from
its operation light felonies); and (2) when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other. The
legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the
accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will
only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most
serious crime.
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing
not an act defined as a felony but the mental attitude
behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care
or foresight, a single mental attitude regardless of the
resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted
as one quasi-crime resulting in one or more
consequences. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of
quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.
Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes
under Article 365. It is conceptually impossible for a
quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting
two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an
offense which is a necessary means for committing
another.
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a
single charge regardless of the number or severity of the
consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do
no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for
each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there
shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and
only one information shall be filed in the same first level
court.
Take note of the case of Ivler v. Hon Modesto
Reckless imprudence or negligence is the crime itself.
Hence, once committed or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of
the quasi offense of criminal negligence under Art 365
of the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent or
negligent act that if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The
gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to
determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance
of the offense. And, as the careless act is single,
whether the injurious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense (criminal negligence)
remains one and the same, and cannot be split into
different crimes and prosecutions.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 133
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
A. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs.
3[a-c], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9775)
Section 3. Definition of Terms. –
(a) “Child” refers to a person below eighteen (18)
years of age or over, but is unable to fully take care of
himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.
For the purpose of this Act, a child shall also refer to:
1) a person regardless of age who is presented,
depicted or portrayed as a child as defined
herein; and
2) computer-generated, digitally or manually
crafted images or graphics of a person who is
represented or who is made to appear to be a
child as defined herein.
(b) “Child pornography” refers to any representation,
whether visual, audio, or written combination thereof,
by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or
any other means, of child engaged or involved in real
or simulated explicit sexual activities.
(c) “Explicit Sexual Activity” includes actual or
simulated –
1) As to form:
i) sexual intercourse or lascivious act
including, but not limited to, contact
involving genital to genital, oral to
genital, anal to genital, or oral to anal,
whether between persons of the same
or opposite sex;
2) bestiality;
3) masturbation;
4) sadistic or masochistic abuse;
5) lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks,
breasts, pubic area and/or anus; or
6) use of any object or instrument for lascivious
acts.
Section 4. Unlawful or Prohibited Acts. – It shall be
unlawful for any person:
a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
coerce a child to perform in the creation or
production of any form of child pornography;
b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any
form of child pornography;
c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute,
broadcast, advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child pornography;
d) To possess any form of child pornography
with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast: Provided. That possession of three
(3) or more articles of child pornography of
the same form shall be prima facie evidence of
the intent to sell, distribute, publish or
broadcast;
e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
provide a venue for the commission of
prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens,
private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in
establishments purporting to be a legitimate
business;
f) For film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies, by themselves
or in cooperation with other entities, to
distribute any form of child pornography;
g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having
custody or control of a child to knowingly
permit the child to engage, participate or
assist in any form of child pornography;
h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a
child;
i) To engage in pandering of any form of child
pornography;
j) To willfully access any form of child
pornography;
k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited
acts stated in this section. Conspiracy to
commit any form of child pornography shall
be committed when two (2) or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited acts
and decide to commit it; and
l) To possess any form of child pornography.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 134
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Section 5. Syndicated Child Pornography – The
crime of child pornography is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another
and shall be punished under Section 15(a) of this Act.
Elements of child pornography
1) There is a written, visual, and/or audio material;
2) The content of the material involves a real or
simulated explicit sexual activity; and
3) The one engaged in the sexual activity, whether
a natural person, a graphical representation of a
person, or a computer generated image of a
person, is a child or is presented, depicted, or
portrayed as a child.
In short, any material that shows a child (natural, or an
adult portrayed as a child, animated or computer
generated) engaging in a real or simulated sexual
activity is considered child pornography.
Sexual grooming of a child is criminalized and is defined
as “the act of preparing a child, or someone who the
offender believes to be a child, for sexual activity or a
sexual relationship by communicating any form of child
pornography. It includes online enticement or
enticement through any other means.”
B. Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs. 2 to 6, P.D.
No. 1612)
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms
shall mean as follows:
(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in
any article, item, object or anything of value which he
knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm,
association corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing.
Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall
be punished as hereunder indicated:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of
the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the
total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed
reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining
thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be
imposed.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods, if the value of the
property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but
not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
property involved is more than 200 pesos but not
exceeding 6,000 pesos.
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if
the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but
not exceeding 200 pesos.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not
exceeding 50 pesos.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If
the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or
association, the president or the manager or any officer
thereof who knows or should have known the
commission of the offense shall be liable.
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of
any good, article, item, object, or anything of value
which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall
be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand
Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores,
establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of
any good, article item, object of anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof,
shall before offering the same for sale to the public,
secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police in the
town or city where such store, establishment or entity is
located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General,
Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules
and regulations to carry out the provisions of this
section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or
permit required by this section or who violates any of
the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 135
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
The Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD 1612) defines and
punishes “fencing” or the act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or shall
buy and sell, an item which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds
of robbery or theft.
Section 5 of PD 1612 provides a presumption that mere
possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value, which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery, shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing. In other words, a person found in possession
of stolen property has the burden to show that he did
not know or could not have known that the property
was stolen, and there is no intent to gain on his part.
Given this presumption, how does a legitimate
businessman protect himself and his customers? Under
the law, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in
the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object of
anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier thereof, shall secure the necessary clearance or
permit from the station commander of the police
authority in the town or city where such store,
establishment or entity is located — before offering the
same for sale to the public. Any person who fails to
secure the clearance or permit required by this section
or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon
conviction be punished as a fence.
Elements of fencing under PD 1612
1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2) The accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which
has been derived from the proceeds of the said
crime;
3) The accused knows or should have known that
the said article, item, object or anything of value
has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and:
4) There is on the part of the accused intent to
gain for himself or for another.
Mariano Lim vs People (2016)
A heavy equipment stolen from the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was found in the
possession of the accused. In his defense, the accused
said that he bought the heavy equipment from Petronilo
Banosing who showed him a certificate of ownership
that stated that the heavy equipment was his.
The High Court ruled that the first and elements were
not established because the DPWH did not present
satisfactory evidence to prove its ownership of the
equipment and the fact that it had been stolen.
The third element is also absent. The presumption under
Section 5 of the law was overcome by the certificate of
ownership presented by Banosing to the accused.
Being a duly notarized document which, by virtue of its
notarization, it enjoys a presumption of regularity. The
accused need not obtain a police clearance first
because it is only required if several conditions are met:
first, that the person, store, establishment or entity is in
the business of buying and selling of any good, articles
item object, or anything of value; second, that such
thing of value was obtained from an unlicensed dealer
or supplier thereof; and third, that such thing of value is
to be offered for sale to the public. Here, the accused
did not appear to be engaged in the business of buying
and selling, neither did it appear that he had intended to
sell the equipment to the public.
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)
Where do you file the complaint?
It must be in the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases of
RA 3019, it is the Ombudsman that acts as the
prosecution, it is the representative of the State as well
as in the case of Plunder.
The moment the Ombudsman found probable cause,
the case is filed either before the Sandiganbayan or
before the RTC.
If the public officer charged is of Salary Grade “27” or
above, the case must be filed before the
Sandiganbayan. But if the public officer is of Salary
Grade of below “27”, the case is to be filed before the
proper trial court.
Prescription of offenses
Violation for RA 3019 shall prescribe after 20 years.
Therefore, the State has 20 years within which to
prosecute the said public officer. After 20 years, the
State loses the right to prosecute the offender.
However, the right of the government to forfeit or to
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 136
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

recover ill-gotten wealth does not prescribe. So there Information filed by the Office of Ombudsman
are no latches and estoppel insofar as the right of the sufficient in form and substance as to bring about
government to recover ill-gotten wealth is concerned. the conviction?
There is no time limit.
A: If it is, then there is probable cause. The moment the
Preventive Suspension SB found probable cause, it is now
mandatory/ministerial on the part of the SB to place the
As early as the case of Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, the said public officer under preventive suspension.
Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality
of Sec. 13 of RA 3019 which provides for preventive Section 3 (e) — Causing any undue injury to any party,
suspension. It is constitutional because preventive including the Government, or giving any private party
suspension is not a penalty imposed after trial of the any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
merits. It is only a preventive measure. Its purpose is to the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
prevent the said accused public officer from hampering functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or frustrating his prosecution by influencing or coercing or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
witnesses or by tampering pieces of evidence or by apply to officers and employees of offices or government
committing further criminal acts. Since the purpose of a corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
preventive suspen sionis merely for a preventive permits or other concessions;
measure and not a form of penalty, the Supreme Court
ruled it is constitutional.
Elements of Sec. 3(e), RA No. 3019, as amended:
: X is a public of icer and he was charged before the
Q
1) The accused must be a public officer
Of ice of the Ombudsman in a contract or transaction,
discharging administrative, judicial or official
he receives gifts/presents in the said contract or
functions;
transaction where he has to intervene. He was charged
with violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 before the Of ice 2) He must have acted with manifest partiality,
of the Ombudsman. The Of ice of the Ombudsman evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
found probable cause, it iled the Information before negligence; and
the Sandiganbayan because X have the Salary Grade of
beyond “27”. The Sandiganbayan upon review of the 3) His action caused any undue injury to any party,
case found also probable cause and so the including the government, or gave any private
Sandiganbayan immediately issued a warrant of arrest. party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
The Sandiganbayan also placed X under preventive preference in the discharge of his functions
suspension. The counsel of X did not question the said (Lihaylihay v. People, G.R. No. 191219, 31 July
warrant of arrest and immediately posted bail. 2013).
However, they questioned the act of the Sandiganbayan
in placing him under preventive suspension. Is the Sison v. People, 2010
Sandiganbayan correct in placing the X under
preventive suspension? Petitioner was held liable for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA
3019. He was grossly negligent in all the purchases that
: Yes. Because based on the facts, the SB placed X under
A were made under his watch, and which caused undue
preventive suspension after the SB has found probable cause. damage to the Municipality. The purchase of the
supplies were conducted without public bidding.
Placing a public officer under preventive suspension is Petitioner’s admission that the canvass sheets sent out
considered as mandatory but not automatic. It is to the suppliers already contained his signatures
mandatory because it is the duty of the SB to place him because he pre-signed these forms only proved his
under preventive suspension because the law used the utter disregard of the consequences of his actions. He
word “shall”. However, before it may become mandatory also admitted that he knew the provisions of RA 7160
on the part of the SB, it is necessary that there must on personal canvass but he did not follow the law
first be a finding of probable cause. Hence, it is not because he was merely following the practice of his
automatic. predecessors. This was an admission of a mindless
disregard for the law in a tradition of illegality.
The finding of probable cause of the Ombudsman will
not suffice. There must also be a probable cause Abubakar v. People, 2018
determined by the Sandiganbayan in itself.
Accused were found guilty of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA
How is the probable cause determined? Is the No. 3019, as amended. Sec. 3(e) thereof punishes a

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 137

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
public officer who causes “any undue injury to any
party, including the Government” or gives “any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official administrative
or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”
The audit of the infrastructure projects showed that: (a)
there had been an overpayment amounting to P17.6M;
(b) there were advance payments totaling P14.4M given
contractors for the procurement of aggregate sub-base
courses.
Accused’s acts of identifying certain contractors ahead
of the scheduled public bidding and of allowing the
advanced deployment of their equipment through the
issuance of certificates of mobilization are glaring
irregularities in the bidding procedure that engender
suspicion of favoritism and partiality towards the
contractors. These irregularities create a reasonable, if
not conclusive presumption that the concerned public
officials had no intention of complying with the rules on
public bidding and that the results were already
predetermined.
Tupaz v. Ombudsman, 2019
Atty. Abella, the Register of Deeds of Northern Samar,
should be held criminally liable for violation of Sec. 3(e),
RA No. 3019, as amended. His official acts of canceling
OCT No. 15609 registered in the name of Hubahib,
tupaz’s mother, and issuing transfer certificates of title in
the name of Genaro, appear to be attended, at the very
least, by gross inexcusable negligence. Abella’s actions
fell miserably short of the standards apropos to his
office. He relied on manifestly defective and tellingly
suspicious documents that Macrina (attorney-in-fact of
Genaro) or persons acting under and for her presented.
D. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 8049, as
amended by R.A. No. 11053)
Mere presence at the place of hazing:
The presence of any person, even if such person is not a
member of the fraternity, sorority, or organization,
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation therein as a principal unless such person or
persons prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein or promptly reported the same to the
law enforcement authorities if they can do so without
peril, to their person or their family.
The incumbent officers of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization concerned shall be jointly liable with those
members who actually participated in the hazing.
Any person charged under this Act shall not be entitled
to the mitigating circumstances that there was no
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
This section shall apply to the president, manager,
director, or other responsible officer of businesses or
corporations engaged in hazing as a requirement for
employment in the manner provided herein.
Any conviction by final judgment shall be reflected on
the scholastic record, personal, or employment record of
the person convicted, regardless of when the judgment
conviction has become final.
RSE: This is a rebuttable presumption. The only way to
rebut this is by proving that you did something to
prevent the act of hazing.
Important Points (Section 14):
■ The presence of any person during the hazing,
even if such person is not a member of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization, is prima facie
evidence of participation therein as a principal
unless such person or persons prevented the
commission of the acts punishable herein or
promptly reported the same to the law
enforcement authorities if they can do so
without peril, to their person or their family
■ The incumbent officers of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization concerned shall be jointly liable
with those members who actually participated
in the hazing.
■ Any person charged under R.A. No. 11053 shall
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstances
that there was no intention to commit so grave a
wrong.
E. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. No.
9160)
What is a money laundering offense?
It is committed by any person who, knowing that any
monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity:
a) Transacts said monetary instrument or property;
b) converts , transfers, disposes of, moves,
acquires, possesses, or uses said monetary
instrument or property;
c) Conceals or disguises the true nature, source,
location, disposition, movement, or ownership
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 138
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
of or rights with respect to said monetary
instrument or property;
d) Attempts or conspires to commit money
laundering offenses referred to in pars. (a), (b),
or (c);
e) Aids, abets, assists in or conceals the
commission of the money laundering offenses
referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) above;
and
f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result
of which he facilitates the offense of money
laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)
above.
Money laundering is also committed by any covered
person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under this Act to be reported to
the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do
so. (Sec. 4)
F. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
(Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995)
Under Sec. 3 of RA 9995, photo or video voyeurism
means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a
person or group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or of capturing an image of the private
area of a person or persons without the latter’s consent,
under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a
reasonable expectation of privacy. It also includes the
act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting,
sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar
activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and
similar means or device without the written consent of
the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to
record or take photo or video coverage of same was
given by such persons.
The following acts are punishable under Section 4 of
RA 9995:
a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or
group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of the
private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast without the consent
of the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the person/s has/have a
reasonable expectation of privacy;
b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied
or reproduced, such photo or video or recording
of sexual act or any similar activity with or
without consideration;
c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether it be the original copy or
reproduction thereof; or
d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be
published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo
or video coverage or recordings of such sexual
act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD,
internet, cellular phones and other similar
means or device.
Take note that if the photo or video was taken with the
person’s consent, then he or she cannot complain that
his photo or video was taken since there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy. Under the said law,
the phrase “under circumstances in which a person has
a reasonable expectation of privacy” means belief that
he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being
concerned that an image or a private area of the person
was being captured; or circumstances in which a
reasonable person would believe that a private area of
the person would not be visible to the public, regardless
of whether that person is in a public or private place.
G. Anti-Plunder Act (Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No.
7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659)
What is the crime of Plunder?
Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires
ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts as described in Sec.1(d) hereof, in
the aggregate amount or total value of at least
P50,000,000.00, shall be guilty of the crime of plunder
and shall be punished by life imprisonment with
perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any
public office. Any person who participated with said
public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise
be punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree
of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the
court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten
wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stock derived
from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor
of the State.
ELEMENTS:
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 139
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

1) That the offender is a public officer who acts
by himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other
persons;
2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired
ill-gotten wealth through a combination or
series of the following overt or criminal acts:
(predicate offenses)
a) through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds
or raids on the public treasury;
b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickback or any other form of pecuniary
benefits from any person and/or entity
in connection with any government
contract or project or by reason of the
office or position of the public officer;
c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance
or disposition of assets belonging to the
National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies
instrumentalities of Government owned
or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries;
d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting
directly or indirectly any shares of stock,
equity or any other form of interest or
participation including the promise of
future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking;
For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it
shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal
act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme
or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
The crime punishable under R.A. 7080 prescribes in
twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to
recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers
from them or from their nominees or transferees shall
not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
Enrile v. People, 2015
Since the crime of plunder may be done in
connivance or in conspiracy with other persons, and
the information filed alleged that Enrile and Reyes
conspired with one another and with Napoles, Lim
and De Asis unnecessary to specify, as an essential
element of the offense, whether the ill-gotten wealth
amounting to at least P172M had been acquired by
one, by two or by all of the accused. In the crime of
plunder, the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired
by each accused in a conspiracy is immaterial for
or
as long as the total amount amassed, acquired or
accumulated is at least P50 million. The Court,
however, directed the prosecution to file a Bill of
Particulars identifying the acts, breakdown of
kickbacks and description of projects, among others,
sought by petitioner Enrile.
H. Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (Secs. 3 [a, b], 4 and
5, R.A. No. 9745)

e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or Section 3. Definitions.

commercial monopolies or other
(a) "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or
combinations and/or implementation of
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
decrees and orders intended to benefit
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining
particular persons or special interests;
from him/her or a third person information or a
or
confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having
f) by taking advantage of official position,
committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a
authority, relationship, connection or
third person; or for any reason based on
influence to unjustly enrich himself or
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
themselves at the expense and to the
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with
damage and prejudice of the Filipino
the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or
people and the Republic of the
agent of a person in authority. It does not include pain
Philippines;
or Buffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
3) That the aggregate amount or total value of the
ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or (b) "Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
acquired is at least P50,000,000.00. or punishment" refers to a deliberate and aggravated

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 140

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
treatment or punishment not enumerated under
Section 4 of this Act, inflicted by a person in authority
or agent of a person in authority against a person
under his/her custody, which attains a level of
severity causing suffering, gross humiliation or
debasement to the latter.
Section 4. Acts of Torture.
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority or agent
of a person in authority upon another in his/her
custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability
or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body, such
as:
1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching,
kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt
or other similar objects, and jumping on the
stomach;
2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with
spoiled food, animal or human excreta and
other stuff or substances not normally eaten;
3) Electric shock;
4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically
heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of
pepper or other chemical substances on
mucous membranes, or acids or spices
directly on the wound(s);
5) The submersion of the head in water or water
polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or
blood until the brink of suffocation;
6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and
stressful bodily position;
7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the
insertion of foreign objects into the sex organ
or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;
8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential
parts of the body such as the genitalia, ear,
tongue, etc.;
9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the
teeth;
10) Pulling out of fingernails;
11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as
sunlight and extreme cold;
12) The use of plastic bag and other materials
placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;
13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
perception, memory. alertness or will of a
person, such as:
i) The administration or drugs to induce
confession and/or reduce mental
competency; or
ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme
pain or certain symptoms of a disease;
and
14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts
committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect or
confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's
dignity and morale, such as:
1) Blindfolding;
2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s)
with bodily harm, execution or other
wrongful acts;
3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret
detention places;
4) Prolonged interrogation;
5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or
prisoner;
6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person
deprived of liberty from one place to another,
creating the belief that he/she shall be
summarily executed;
7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed
by the person's family, relatives or any third
party;
9) Denial of sleep/rest;
10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person
naked, parading him/her in public places,
shaving the victim's head or putting marks on
his/her body against his/her will;
11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of his/her
family; and
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 141
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological
torture.
Section 5. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. - Other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment refers to a
deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment
not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted
by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against another person in custody, which
attains a level of severity sufficient to cause suffering,
gross humiliation or debasement to the latter. The
assessment of the level of severity shall depend on all
the circumstances of the case, including the duration
of the treatment or punishment, its physical and
mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, religion, age
and state of health of the victim.
I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs.
3 to 12, R.A. No. 9208)
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
It is the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing,
offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring,
or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s
consent or knowledge, within or across national borders
by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power
or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of
the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person for the purpose of
exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms
of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs. (Sec 3(a))
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring,
adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any
form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall
also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it
does not involve any of the means set forth in the
preceding paragraph.
QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (SEC. 6)
ELEMENTS:
a) When the trafficked person is a child;
b) When the adoption is effected through R.A.
No. 8043, otherwise known as the
“Inter-country Adoption Act” and said
adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate
or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another. It is
deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;
d) When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant,
parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person
or when the offense is committed by a public
officer or employee;
e) When the trafficked person is recruited to
engage in prostitution with any member of the
military or law enforcement agencies (Sec.
6(e), R.A. No. 9208);
f) When the offender is a member of the military
or law enforcement agencies;
g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is
afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS);
h) When the offender commits one or more
violations of Section 4 over a period of sixty
(60) or more days, whether those days are
continuous or not; and
i) When the offender directs or through another
manages the trafficking victim in carrying out
the exploitative purpose of trafficking.
J. Anti-Violence Against Women and their
Children Act of 2004 (Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A.
No. 9262)
1) The offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman;
2) The offender, by himself or through another,
commits an act or series of acts of harassment
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 142
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
against the woman; and
3) The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her (Sec.
3(a), R.A. 9262; Ang v. Sagud, G.R. No. 182835,
20 April 2010)
A single act of harassment is enough to commit an
offense
Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes “any act or series of
acts” that constitutes violence against women. This
means that a single act of harassment which translates
into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is
to protect women and children. Punishing only violence
that is repeatedly committed would license isolated
ones (Ang v. Sagud, supra).
It is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of the dating or sexual relationship
While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual
or dating relationship with the offended woman, for R.A.
9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the
act of violence be a consequence of such relationship
(Dabalos v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January
2013).
It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for
as long as there is sufficient evidence of such
relationship between the offender and the victim when
the physical harm was committed.
ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN
1) Physical violence or acts that include bodily or
physical harm;
2) Economic abuse or acts that make or attempt
to make a woman financially dependent;
■ “Economic Abuse” may include the
deprivation of support of a common
child of the man-accused and the
woman-victim, whether such common
child is legitimate or not. Under this
provision, the deprivation or denial of
financial support to the child is
considered an act of violence against
women and children. Notably, case law
instructs that the act of denying support
to a child is a continuing offense.
(Melgar v People, 2018)
3) Psychological violence or acts or omissions
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional
suffering of the victim; and
4) Sexual violence or acts which are sexual in
nature (Sec 3(a), R.A. No. 9262).
a) Causing physical harm to the woman or
her child (Sec. 5(a), R.A. No. 9262);
b) Threatening to cause the woman or her
child physical harm (Sec. 5(b), R.A. No.
9262);
c) Attempting to cause the woman or her
child physical harm (Sec. 5(c), R.A. No.
9262);
d) Placing the woman or her child in fear
of imminent physical harm (Sec. 5(d),
R.A. No. 9262);
Araza v. People, 2020
Supreme Court affirms that marital infidelity is a form of
psychological violence and may be punishable under
the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act.
The Court explained that psychological violence is an
indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of the
Anti-VAWC Act. Equally essential is the element of
emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are
personal to the complainant. Psychological violence is
the means employed by the perpetrator, while emotional
anguish and mental suffering are the effects caused to
or the damage sustained by the offending party. The law
does not require proof that the victim became
psychologically ill due to the physical violence done by
her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional
anguish or mental suffering.
In this case, the Court found that marital infidelity, which
is a form of psychological violence, is the proximate
cause of the offended party’s emotional anguish and
mental suffering, to the point that even her health
condition was adversely affected.
Finding that the prosecution has established beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime
of psychological violence through his acts of marital
infidelity which caused mental or emotional suffering on
the part of AAA, the Supreme Court convicted him for
violating section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act.
■ RSE: The marital infidelity does not simply
cause psychological violence and for which the
husband may be held liable, there must also be
a showing that the wife or victim suffered
emotionally and psychologically because of the
marital infidelity.
Q: X and Y were married and they were married here. X
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 143
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

ent to a foreign country (Singapore) to work. After one

w
PEOPLE v. GENOSA, 2004
year of working in the said foreign country, Y, the wife in
the Philippines learned that X was having a The accused was found liable for parricide for having
relationship with another woman in Singapore. Y was killed her husband while the husband was asleep.
sent with pieces of evidence showing that her husband Though in her defense, she was a battered woman
X was maintaining an extra-marital relationship in suffering from this syndrome.
Singapore. She was always crying every night until she
decided to ile a case of violation of RA 9262 against the If the accused can prove that she indeed was a
said husband. The moment the said husband arrived battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as
here in the Philippines, she iled a case of violation of a species of self-defense. Having been proven to be a
RA 9262 against her husband X. Will the case prosper? victim of domestic violence by the husband, this can
be self-defense because since the wife already
: The case will prosper as held by the Supreme Court in the
A always assumes correctly that the husband would
case of AAA vs. BBB and in Araza vs. People, what is being beat her up again, she may be justified in taking steps
punished is not only physical violence but also to protect herself.
psychological violence. It is the act of in licting mental,
psychological harm, suffering on the part of the said
offended party. The Supreme Court said what is being
punished is not the marital in idelity, what is being punished K. Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No.
is the psychological violence being in licted by the said 4200)
husband on the said wife, when he had that extramarital
affair even in Singapore. The marital in idelity occurred in IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL:
the foreign country however, another element is that of
psychological violence, the in liction of mental, emotional a) for any person, not being authorized by all the
suffering on the said woman and that is being felt by the parties to any private communication or spoken
woman here in the Philippines. word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly
Therefore, the RTC of Pasig has jurisdiction, the RTC of the overhear, intercept, or record such
Philippines has jurisdiction because the said psychological communication or spoken word by using a
pain, mental pain, suffering was felt by the woman who is device commonly known as a dictaphone or
here in the Philippines. The Supreme Court said that this is a dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or
akin to the so-called continuing or transitory offense. tape recorder, or however otherwise described;

The offender can be prosecuted before the courts of that
place where any of the elements of the crime happened and
that element of emotional, psychological, mental pain and
suffering was happening here in the Philippines because it
was being felt by the wife here in the Philippines, although
the said relationship occurred in a foreign country.
Therefore, in both cases of AAA vs. BBB and in Araza vs.
People, the husband is criminally liable for violation of RA
9262.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in bettering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. (Sec. 3(c))
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code.
b) for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding
sentence, (1) to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any other
such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either
before or after the effective date of this Act in
the manner prohibited by this law; or (2) to
replay the same for any other person or
persons; or (3) to communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing, or (4) to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete
or partial, to any other person. Provided, That
the use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or
trial of offenses, shall not be covered by this
prohibition;
c) for any person who willfully or knowingly does
or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts declared to be unlawful or who
violates the provisions of the following section
or of any order issued thereunder, or aids,

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 144

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
permits, or causes such violation.
IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL:
a) for any peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the Court, to execute any of the
acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving
the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war
and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in
the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as
defined by the RPC, and violations of C.A. No.
616, punishing espionage and other offenses
against national security: Provided, That such
written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
1) that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes
enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is
about to be committed: Provided,
however, That in cases involving the
offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to
commit sedition, and inciting to
sedition, such authority shall be granted
only upon prior proof that a rebellion or
acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being
committed;
2) that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that evidence will be obtained
essential to the conviction of any
person for, or to the solution of, or to
the prevention of, any of such crimes;
and
3) that there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence.
Effect of violation of the law: Any communication or
spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part
thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or
secured by any person in violation of this Act shall NOT
be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.
Gaanan v. IAC (1986)
FACTS: Atty. Pinto filed a complaint for direct assault
against Atty. Laconico. Pintor, through phone, offered to
withdraw the complaint for consideration. Atty. Gaanan
was able to overhear this conversation through a
telephone extension. Pinto was arrested for extortion.
But Gaanan and Laconico were charged with violation
of R.A. No. 4200 and found guilty by the lower court.
HELD: The phrase “any other device or arrangement” in
the Anti-Wiretapping Law doesn’t cover an extension
line. The law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or the use
of a device or arrangement for the purpose of secretly
overhearing, intercepting or recording the
communication. There must be the physical interruption
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a
device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept or
record the spoken words. The extension here was not
installed for the purpose but for ordinary office use.
Also, an extension phone is an instrument which is very
common, not what the law refers to in which the
presence of such devices cannot be presumed by the
party being overheard.
It is not only the actual wiretapper that is liable
under the law. Section 2 of the law states: “Any person
who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit,
or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful… or aids, permits, or causes such violation
shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by
imprisonment for not less than six months or more than
six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual
absolute disqualification from public office if the
offender be a public official at the time of the
commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an
alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
The law understandably provides for an exception. A
police officer can secure a written order from the Court
to commit any of the acts that would otherwise be
considered wiretapping “in cases involving the crimes of
treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in
case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the
Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth
Act 616, punishing espionage and other offenses
against national security.” (Section 3, RA 4200).
L. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22)
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. Making or drawing and issuance of a check
knowing at the time of issue that the offender does
not have sufficient funds in the bank.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 145
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
■ The drawer of the check knew that at the time
of the issuing of the check, he had no funds in
the bank. At the making, drawing, issuance, the
drawer knows he has no funds.
II. The failing to give sufficient funds or credit with
the drawee bank such that when the check
presented within the period of 90 days from the date
appearing on the check, it was dishonored by the
drawee bank.
■ At the time of the issuance of the check, the
drawer has funds in the bank, however, the
crime will arise because he failed to make good
the check or he failed to keep funds to the said
drawee bank within the period of 90 days such
that when the check was deposited within 90
days, it was dishonored by the drawee bank.
SECTION 2 – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS
The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment
of which is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when
presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the
check shall constitute prima facie knowledge of
insufficiency of funds.
This prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds,
however, will not arise if the drawer of the check
deposited the amount necessary to cover the check
within five (5) banking days from the date of receipt of
notice thereof.
Therefore, for the prima facie of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to arise, the following are the
elements are the requisites:
1) The check must be deposited within 90 days
from the date appearing on the check.
2) That the drawer of the check received a notice
of dishonor either from the bank or from the
payee or holder of the check
3) The drawer of the check failed to make good of
the check within 5 banking days.
No prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds:
1) The drawer of the check received a notice of
dishonor within five days, he deposited the
amount in the bank to cover the check, there
will arise no prima facie evidence of knowledge
of insufficiency of funds.
2) Within 5 banking days, he went to the bank and
made arrangement for the amount necessary to
cover the check.
Five banking days is important.
: What if A issued a check to B in favor of an obligation,
Q
B was however a businessman who was too busy so he
was able to deposit the check 120 days from the date
appearing on the check (beyond the 90-day period).
The check presented was dishonored. Notice of
dishonor was sent to A and A failed to make good the
check within 5 banking days. Can B still ile a case for
violation of BP 22 against A?
: Yes, B can ile a case for violation of BP 22 against A. This
A
is because for as long as a check is not yet a stale check, if
the check was deposited and it was dishonored, violation of
BP 22 is committed. Here, the check was deposited 120 days
from the date appearing on the check. The fact that it was
deposited beyond the 90-day period would only mean that
there is no longer prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insuf iciency of funds. However, such prima facie
presumption knowledge of insuf iciency of funds can be
proven through other evidence, so still, violation of BP 22 is
committed.
The 90-day period in the second act is only important in
order to determine prima facie knowledge of insuf iciency of
funds. In the irst act, at the outset, at the time of the issuance
of the check, the drawer has already prima facie knowledge
that he has no funds in the bank. In the second act, the fact
that the offender has kept funds in the bank for 90 days and
thereafter the depositor deposited the check beyond 90 days,
what is only erased is the act of prima facie knowledge of
insuf iciency of funds by the drawer of the check but this
knowledge can still be proven by other facts, hence, 90- day
period does not mean that there is no case of BP 22.
: X was charged with violation by BP22. The
Q
investigating commissioner is looking at the evidence
and noticed that no evidence of notice of dishonor was
sent and received.
: It will result to the dismissal of the case. Upon the
A
receipt of the notice of dishonor he is informed that the
checks bounced and that he is given by the law 5 days
to make good on his checks. If he made good within 5
days, he will not be charged and it will be a dismissal of
the case. Note that postdating a check under BP 22, the
demand letter must be in writing and must be received. A
mere statement that the checks were received will amount to
acquittal. We have to present the mailman and his af idavit
that he sent the notice and it was received by the offender.
When is BP 22 not committed?
In this case, the check was deposited 157 days after the
date appearing on the check. The SC said that it is not
yet a stale check. A check becomes stale when it is
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 146
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
deposited after six months or after 180 days. (Wong v.
CA)
: B was so busy, he deposited the check on the 181st
Q
day from the date appearing on the check. The check
was dishonored. Can he ile a case of violation of BP 22
against A?
: No, B cannot ile a case of violation of BP 22 against A.
A distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs
This is because the check has no more value since it is
already a stale check under the Negotiable Instruments Law.
It is no longer the fault of the drawer that he has no funds in
the bank. It is the fault of the holder or the payee of the check
that he failed to deliver or deposited the check within the
period required by law.
PENALTY
Under Section 1 of BP 22, the penalty for violation of BP
22 is imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year or a fine not
less than but not more than double the value of the
check or in no case to exceed 200, 000 pesos, or both
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Are these still the penalties or have they been
amended by the SC by SC A.C. No. 12-2000 and SC
A.C. No. 13-2001?
The penalty of 30 days to 1 year and the fine are still the
penalty prescribed by law. Even if the SC issued these
two circulars, the SC cannot amend the law. The SC
does not have that power; only congress has that
power.
Lim v. People
Even if the offender makes good of the check beyond
five-banking days allotted by law, still the fiscal, upon
learning that the offender had already made good the
check before the filing of the case before the court, the
fiscal should not have filed a case of BP 22 against the
offender. Unlike estafa, violation of BP 22 is a crime
against public interest and the moment the value of the
check had been paid, public interest is no longer
damaged.
The SC said, in the bottom of decision, that the ruling is
only applicable in violation of BP 22 and not in Estafa by
postdating a check because in the latter, even if the
offender made good of the check after the case has
been filed, such act would not relieve the person from
criminal liability because what is being punished in
estafa is the presence of false pretense, the presence of
fraud therefore, in estafa by postdating a check, the
offender is only given 3 days to make good the check
and if he failed, he is already liable for estafa and no
amount of payment would free him from criminal liability.
M. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 (R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No.
10640)
KEY PUNISHABLE ACTS (Sec. 5, 11, and 15)
1) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals (Sec 5);
■ In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of
the marked money consummate the illegal
transaction. What matters is the proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the
prohibited drug, the corpus delicti as
evidence (People v. Catubay, 2016).
■ In actions involving the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements
must first be established: (1) proof that the
transaction or sale took place and (2) the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or
the illicit drug as evidence (Lescano v.
People)
■ There is no rule of law which requires that in
buy-bust operations there must be a
simultaneous exchange of the marked
money and the prohibited drug between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher. Sec. 5
punishes not only the sale but also the mere
act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the
offer to buy by the entrapping officer has
been accepted by the seller. In the
distribution of prohibited drugs, the
payment of any consideration is immaterial.
(People v. Conception)
2) Possession of dangerous drug (Sec 11);
■ When a person is charged with illegal
possession or transportation of prohibited
drugs, the ownership thereof is immaterial.
Proof of ownership of the confiscated
marijuana is not necessary. Accused’s
alleged lack of knowledge does not
constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal
intent and good faith are not exempting
circumstances where the crime charged is
malum prohibitum, as in this case People v.
Mariaocos, 2010.
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 147
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

3) Use of dangerous drugs (Sec 15).
■ Even though a person, who was arrested for
possession of cocaine, was found positive
for opium, he shall not be held additionally
liable for use of dangerous drugs under
Sec. 15 of RA 9165. Under this provision,
where a person tested positive for
dangerous drugs is also found to have in his
possession of any dangerous drugs, he
shall be held liable for possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 11 thereof.
This means that the offender may not be
charged separately of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and use of dangerous
drugs since it is clear from Section 15 that
the provision of Section 11 shall apply.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs
absorbs the use of dangerous drugs.
(People v. Galicia)
t ransporting dangerous drugs because the said drugs
were not delivered. They do not know on whom the
drugs were to be delivered. Therefore, if ever they
should be held liable, it should only be for illegal
possession and not transportation of dangerous drugs.
: The SC said they are liable for transporting dangerous
A
drugs. According to the SC, transportation of dangerous drugs
only means to carry or to convey dangerous drugs from one
place to another. The essential element is the movement of
the dangerous drugs from one place to another. There is no
need to prove on whom the dangerous drugs will be
transported. All that is required is the movement of the
dangerous drugs from one place to another. Since under
Section 26 of RA 9165 there is conspiracy in transportation
of dangerous drugs, X and Y can be held liable for conspiracy
in transporting dangerous drugs.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS:

SECTION 5 of RA 9165 - Sale, trading, 1) The buyer and seller are clearly identified.
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution
2) The corpus delicti and the price must be
and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or
established.
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
3) The corpus delicti must be transferred from the
: X and Y were on board a motorcycle. At a distance,
Q hands of the seller to the hands of the buyer.
they immediately saw the checkpoint of the police so
they made a U-turn; they do not want to pass by the In every criminal prosecution for dangerous drugs, the
checkpoint. However, there is no other way but to pass corpus delicti is always the drugs.
through the checkpoint. So they decided to pass
through the checkpoint. X, the driver passed through Usually, a person is charged for illegal sale of dangerous
the checkpoint and in doing so he deliberately slide his drugs based on a buy-bust operation. A buy bust
motorcycle so both of them (X and Y) fell and the operation is an entrapment procedure which is
motorcycle fell. The police of icers went towards them, approved by both the law and the courts because it is a
as he was being lifted up, the police of icers saw device used by police officers in order to trap and
something on his waist. The police of icer asked “is that capture drug pushers or drug peddlers in the actual act
a pistol? Hand the pistol to us.” X had no recourse but to of selling dangerous drugs.
hand over the pistol. They could not produce any
license, so the police arrested them. Their : The police of icers planned a buy-bust operation
Q
constitutional rights were read to him. against W. The police used one of their informants by
the name of X to be the poseur buyer. They gave X
ince they were caught in the act of committing a crime,
S 200-peso marked bills. 7 police of icers accompanied X
the police searched his body. Nothing was found except during the buy-bust operation. The police were in
for the gun. The police then searched the motorcycle, hiding of course. X went to the place of W and told the
and the police found a little box in the compartment. latter that he will buy shabu worth P2000. W handed
When the police of icer looked inside the box, he found to X several plastic sachets of shabu. Before X was able
several plastic sachets of shabu. All the sachets were to give the money to W, the police of icers suddenly
marked and thereafter brought to the PNP crime lab, arrived and arrested W. W was charged with illegal sale
where it was tested. It was found positive for of dangerous drugs. Subpoena was sent to X but he
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. failed to appear. W was convicted of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs based on the testimonies of the police
and Y were charged with transportation of dangerous
X of icers.
drugs – violation of Sec. 5 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165). Their appealed. His grounds on appeal are as follows: (1)
W
argument was that they cannot be held liable for he did not receive the marked money, and (2) there was

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 148

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

o sale transaction. In fact, the prosecution failed to

n defense that can bring about an acquittal.
present the person who allegedly acted as a poseur
buyer (X). Are his arguments meritorious? In this case, based on the facts, the said vendor lacks
knowledge that the said bag contains dangerous drugs.
: The irst argument has no merit. Even if the P2000 pesos
A Therefore, is a valid defense that can bring about an acquittal
was not handed to him, the price was established when X for violation of Sec. 5 of RA 9165.
told W that he is buying P2,000 worth of shabu.
: The police of icers learned that this person is
Q
However, the second argument of W has merit. In this case, engaged in selling dangerous drugs. By means of phone,
since the prosecution failed to present the poseur buyer, they transacted that he is going to buy this amount of
there is no evidence for the said sale transaction and that the dangerous drugs. The transaction was inside a room.
drugs allegedly con iscated from W were indeed taken from The police of icer acting as a poseur buyer entered
him. Only X the poseur buyer can testify to that effect inside the said room and bought the said dangerous
because the police of icers were far from the said place. The drugs. He gave the money, there was (inaudible). The
police of icers, being several meters away from the place, said peddler was arrested. When the said allegedly
their testimony as to the said sale transaction would be shabu was brought to the PNP crime lab, it was
considered only as hearsay evidence. discovered that it was not shabu but ephedrine. The
accused was charged with violation of Section 5 of RA
As a rule, the testimony of the poseur buyer is not necessary 9165 – illegal sale of dangerous drugs. His argument
to convict one of illegal sale of dangerous drugs if there are was that he cannot be held liable for violation of section
other pieces of evidence to prove the said transaction. If 5 because what was stated in the information was that
however in this case, the police of icers were so far away as the police of icers bought and transacted to buy
to witness the said exchange of drugs, only the poseur buyer methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. However,
can testify as to that effect. His absence would create a hiatus after testing at the crime lab, it was found that it was
on the evidence of the prosecution. It would be an acquittal. not methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu but
ephedrine. Is his argument meritorious?
: X was driving and then he parked his car. He called
Q
the cigarette vendor on the sidewalk and told the latter : NO, the argument has no merit. The SC said that what
A
“Come here! Do you want to earn money today?”. The Section 5 punishes is the sale of dangerous drugs. Whether it
vendor said “Of course!”. X said “Ok. Do you see that is methamphetamine hydrochloride/shabu or ephedrine,
man waiting near the electric post? Could you give this still they are considered as dangerous drugs. Still, section 5
bag to him?”. The vendor said “I can give that bag but applies. The information need not state the particular drugs
why can’t you give it yourself?”. X said “No more for as long as they are within the meaning of dangerous
questions! Do you want to do the job or not?”. The drugs under RA 9165.
vendor said “Of course I want to do it, I have no money”.
X gave the vendor the bag and the Php 1,000 as SECTION 11 of RA 9165 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
payment. The vendor was walking towards the said DANGEROUS DRUGS
man. However, when he was about to deliver the said
drugs, suddenly the man disappeared because there
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
were already police of icers behind the vendor. The
DANGEROUS DRUGS:
police con iscated the said bag and they found therein
dried marijuana leaves. The vendor was charged with
1) The offender is found in possession of any item
delivering dangerous drugs, a violation of Section 5 of
or object identified to be drugs.
RA 9165. The vendor’s defense was that he has no
knowledge that the bag he is delivering contained 2) He is not authorized by law to possess the
dangerous drugs. Therefore, according to the vendor, he same.
could not be held liable for delivering dangerous drugs.
Is his argument meritorious? 3) That he freely and consciously possesses the
said dangerous drugs – animus possidendi
: YES, his argument is meritorious. Under RA 9165, TO
A
DELIVER means to transfer dangerous drugs from one The prosecution must prove the first element. The
person to another personally or otherwise, with or without prosecution must prove that when the said offender
consideration. It is the act of knowingly transferring, was found in possession of dangerous drugs, he was
knowingly passing dangerous drugs. Since the law used the freely and consciously possessing it. There is intent to
word “knowingly”, it means the courier knows that what he possess or animus possidendi on his part.
is transferring/giving/delivering is dangerous drugs. Absent
such knowledge on the part of the courier, it could be a valid

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 149

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
The second element requires that the offender was not
authorized by law to possess the said dangerous drugs.
The 2nd element need not be proven by the state or the
prosecution because the 2nd element is presumed by
law. Dangerous drugs are per se contraband. Since they
are illegal per se, any person found in possession of the
same is presumed by law not to have been authorized
because no one will be authorized by law to possess an
unlawful illegal or contraband item. Therefore, the law
presumes that his possession of the same is without
authority. The burden is on the defense to prove that he
is authorized by law to possess the said dangerous
drugs.
When you say POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS,
it includes both physical or actual possession and
constructive possession of dangerous drugs.
PHYSICAL POSSESSION – the dangerous
drugs were in the hand, body, or clothing of the
offender.
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION – the
dangerous drugs were found in a place where
the offender has direct control and custody of
the same.
: Police of icers raided the house of X by virtue of a
Q only apply if the said offender has been apprehended or
search warrant for illegal possession of dangerous arrested for the commission of a crime under RA 9165.
drugs. The drugs were found in X’s room under his
pillow. Can X be held liable for illegal possession of Among the requirements before enrollment is that
dangerous drugs? the student shall be subjected to a drug test. He was
: Yes, X is liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs
A be charged for illegal use of dangerous drugs?
because he has constructive possession over the same. That
is his house, that is his room. Therefore, the law presumes
that he has direct control and custody of all the things inside
the house. Therefore, he can be held liable for such
constructive possession of dangerous drugs.
SECTION 15 of RA 9165 - ILLEGAL USE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS:
1) That the offender has been apprehended or
arrested for the commission of a crime.
2) The said offender is subjected to a drug test.
3) After a confirmatory test, he was found positive
for use of dangerous drugs.
The SC said that the first element that the offender is
apprehended or arrested for the commission of a crime,
the word “crime” does not refer to any crime. The word
“crime” refers only to crimes under Article 2 of RA
9165. Therefore, it only refers to crimes involving
violations of RA 9165.
A person can only be found liable for illegal use of
dangerous drugs if he was found positive after he was
apprehended for the commission of a crime punished
under RA 9165.
: X was arrested by the police for selling and
Q
possessing dangerous drugs. He was brought to the
crime lab. He was told to produce his urine and after
the urine test, he was found positive for use of
dangerous drugs. Can he be charged for illegal use of
dangerous drugs?
: NO. Although the police of icers are correct in subjecting
A
him to a drug test, in this case, such positive inding for use
of dangerous drugs under Sec. 25 of RA 9165 shall be
considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. He can
no longer be charged for illegal use of dangerous drugs, but
instead the fact that he was found positive for use of
dangerous drugs, taking into consideration Sec.25, it will be
a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Therefore, the fact
that a positive inding for use of dangerous drugs shall be
considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance will
found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Can he
A: First, is this random drug testing allowed? YES,
under Section 36. Section 36’s constitutionality has long
been upheld in the case of Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drugs Board. The SC said that mandatory,
random, suspicionless drug testing is allowed. The SC
said that this is to ensure that all those in the said office
are not involved in the use of dangerous drugs.
The question now is if a person was found positive
during the said mandatory, random, suspicionless
drug testing, can he be prosecuted for violation of
Section 15 - illegal use of dangerous drugs?
A: The SC said in the case of People v. Sullano, NO.
According to the SC, Section 15 is unambiguous. A
person apprehended or arrested for a crime and he was
found positive for use of dangerous drugs. The SC said
a person can only be charged under Sec.15 if he has
been apprehended or arrested, and then thereafter
subjected to a random drug test, and after a
confirmatory test he was found positive for use of
dangerous drugs. In all these instances, the police, the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 150
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
employee, the student who were subjected to
mandatory, random, suspicionless drug testing they
were not apprehended, they were not arrested for the
commission of a crime. They were just subjected to a
mandatory, random, suspicionless drug testing because
of the rules and regulation of the AFP, of the PNP, of the
office or the school. Therefore, they cannot be held
liable for violation of Section 15.
SECTION 21 of RA 9165 - PROCEDURE IN THE
SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF DANGEROUS
DRUG (RA 10460)
The law provides for a procedure that the apprehending
team must follow upon arrest and seizure of dangerous
drugs.
The apprehending team having initial custody of the
dangerous drugs seized or confiscated must physically
inventory the same and photograph the same in the
presence of the person from whom the dangerous drug
was taken or confiscated, or his representative or his
counsel or any representative from the DOJ, or from the
media, and any elected public official.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Chain of custody is defined as the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipts in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and to
presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition.
Links in the chain of custody:
1. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of
the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer;
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.
First link:
■ Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the
apprehending team, after seizure and
confiscation, to immediately conduct a
physical inventory of, and photograph, the
seized drugs in the presence of:
(a) the accused or the persons from whom
such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or
counsel;
(b) a representative from the media OR a
representative from the DOJ; and
(c) an elected public official.
These 3 witnesses should be present at the time
of the apprehension of the accused and must all
sign the copies of the inventory and obtain a
copy thereof.
What does the word “immediately” mean?
According to the SC, it means that the marking or the
inventory must be done in the place where the accused
was arrested or where the drugs were confiscated
EXCEPT when there are valid reasons, then it should be
in the PNP station.
: Based on a tip, the police of icers arrested 2 muslims.
Q
Allegedly, they were found in possession of dangerous
drugs. Thereafter, they were brought to the police
station. There at the police station, there was the
marking of the dangerous drugs, the inventory, and the
taking of photographs of the said dangerous drugs. RTC
convicted them. The CA af irmed.
: The SC acquitted the 2 muslims. The SC said that the said
A
act of inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the
said dangerous drugs must be done in the place where the
said accused was arrested. Here, from the said place, it is a
distance to the police station. Therefore, the said act of
taking photographs, the said act of making inventory, the said
act of marking was not done immediately. The argument of
the police of icers was that it was a muslim area and since it
was a muslim area, they were afraid, they do not feel that it is
a safe place for them to do the marking. The SC said NO.
Being anti-muslim (Justice Leonen called it islamophobia) is
not suf icient reason for not marking the evidence in the
muslim area. You are police of icers, there were many of you
there, you were armed, how come you are afraid of the
people in the area. The SC said that it was not a suf icient
justi ication. The said act of marking and inventory was not
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 151
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
done immediately. Therefore, it is an acquittal.
The SC said although failure to comply with the provisions of
Section 21 does not necessarily mean an acquittal if there is
a justi iable ground for noncompliance if the apprehending
public of icers were able to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs. If these 2 elements
are present, then even if Section 21 was not complied with, it
will still be a conviction. (People v. Abdullah)
Second link:
■ The investigating officer shall conduct the
proper investigation and prepare the necessary
documents for the proper transfer of the
evidence to the police crime laboratory for
testing. Thus, the investigating officer's
possession of the seized drugs must be
documented and established.
■ When the apprehending officer is unable to
identify the investigating officer to whom he
turned over the seized items, the Court has held
that such circumstance, when taken in light of
the several other lapses in the chain of custody
that attend the case, raises doubts as to
whether the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized illegal drugs had been preserved.
(People v. Del Rosario)
Third link:
■ In this case, SPO1 Basang testified that he was
the one who personally delivered the seized
items to PCI Libres. However, the evidence
presented by the prosecution does not actually
identify who received the drug from SPO1
Basang. In the request for laboratory
examination, there was no name indicated
therein as to who received the confiscated
drugs from SPO1 Basang. There was likewise
an absence of description as to the condition of
the seized drugs when PCI Libres received it, or
the way it was handled while the drugs were in
her possession. This leaves the Court to
conclude that there are serious doubts on the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence against the appellant in the third link.
(People v. Bangcola)
■ In People v. Beran, there was also an irregularity
in the third link. The police officer, who both
served as the apprehending and investigating
officer, claimed that he personally took the drug
to the laboratory for testing, but there was no
showing of who received the drug from him. The
records therein also showed that he submitted
the sachet to the laboratory for testing only on
the following day, without explaining how he
preserved his exclusive custody thereof
overnight. All those facts cast serious doubt
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item were not fatally compromised.
Hence, the accused therein was acquitted.
Fourth link:
■ In People v. Gutierrez, there were inadequate
stipulations as to the testimony of the forensic
chemist. In that case, no explanation was given
regarding the chemist's custody in the interim -
from the time it was turned over to the
investigator to its turnover for laboratory
examination. The records also failed to show
what happened to the allegedly seized shabu
between the turnover by the chemist to the
investigator and its presentation in court. Thus,
since no precautions were taken to ensure that
there was no change in the condition of the
object and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession thereof, the
accused therein was acquitted.
■ “it is of paramount necessity that the forensic
chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the
handling and analysis of the dangerous drugs
submitted for examination, i.e,. when and from
whom the dangerous drug was received; what
identifying labels or other things accompanied
it; description of the specimen; and the
container it was in. Further, the forensic
chemist must also identify the name and
method of analysis used in determining the
chemical composition of the subject specimen.”
PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM, 2018
Accused Romy Lim was charged with sale of illegal
drugs (shabu) after a buy bust operation. He was,
however, acquitted because of noncompliance with
the requirements of Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as amended.
There was a violation of the Chain of Custody Rule,
i.e., there was an absence of an elected public official
and representatives of the DOJ and the media to
witness the physical inventory and photograph of the
seized items. In fact, their signatures do not appear in
the Inventory Receipt.
The Supreme Court also ruled that so as to “weed out
early on from the courts’ already congested docket
any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related
cases,” the following should be enforced as a
mandatory policy in connection with arrests and
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 152
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
seizures related to illegal drugs:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their
compliance with the requirements of Section
21 (1) of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002), and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR);
2. In case of non-observance of the provision,
the apprehending/seizing officers must state
the justification or explanation therefor as well
as the steps they have taken in order to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized/confiscated items;
3. If there is no justification or explanation
expressly declared in the sworn
statements/affidavits, the investigating fiscal
must not immediately file the case before the
court. Instead, he or she must refer the case
for further preliminary investigation in order to
determine the (non) existence of probable
cause; and
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite
such absence, the court may exercise its
discretion to either refuse to issue a
commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or
dismiss the case outright for lack of probable
cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule
112, Rules of Court.
PLEA-BARGAINING FRAMEWORK IN DRUGS CASE
(A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC)
In view of the case of Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, a revised
plea bargaining framework for drug cases was adopted:
■ Where the imposable penalty is life
imprisonment or life imprisonment to death,
plea bargaining is not allowed.
■ Plea bargaining is also not allowed under Sec. 5
(Sale, Trading etc. of Dangerous Drugs)
involving all other kinds of dangerous drugs
except shabu and marijuana.
PEOPLE v. REAFOR, 2020
Doctrine: The accused cannot enter into a plea
bargaining agreement without the consent of the
prosecution.
Facts:
Edwin Reafor was charged with violating Section 5 of
R.A. No. 9165 for allegedly selling two (2) heat-sealed
transparent sachets containing shabu. He proposed
to plead guilty to the lesser offense of possession of
illegal drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A.
No. 9165.
The prosecution objected to the plea bargaining
proposal invoking DOJ Circular No. 27.
Nonetheless, despite the objection, the trial court
gave due course to the plea bargaining proposal. It
opined that since it is only the Supreme Court that
has the power to promulgate rules of procedure, A.M.
No. 18-03-16-SC must prevail over the said DOJ
Circular [No.] 27. Thereafter, judgment was
promulgated convicting Reafor for violation of Section
12 of R.A. No. 9165.
Thus, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. However,
the CA dismissed the petition on purely procedural
grounds.
Ruling:
No. The judgment is void ab initio.
A defendant has no constitutional right to plea
bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him
rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor
need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the
present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead
guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor,
which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty
to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the
offense charged.
The basic requisites of plea bargaining are (a) consent
of the offended party (b) consent of the prosecutor, (c)
plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged, and (d) approval of
the court.
In the case of Sayre v. Dax Xenos, the Court
concluded that the continuing objection on the
part of the prosecution based on DOJ Circular No.
27 will necessarily result in the parties' failure to
arrive at a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case that may be submitted for the trial court's
approval. In light of the absence of a mutual
agreement to plea bargain, the proper course of
action would be the continuation of the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 153
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
proceedings.
In this case, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in
granting respondent's motion to plea bargain
notwithstanding the prosecution's opposition to the
same which is grounded on DOJ Circular No. 27.
Effectively, the respondent's plea of guilty to a
lesser offense was made without the consent of
the prosecution. Since Reafor’s plea of guilt and
subsequent conviction for a lesser offense clearly lack
one of the requisites of a valid plea bargain, the plea
bargaining is void. Resultantly, the judgment
rendered by the trial court which was based on a void
plea bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be
considered to have attained finality for the simple
reason that a void judgment has no legality from its
inception.
The case is remanded to the trial court for the
resumption of trial.
PASCUA v. PEOPLE, 2020
Doctrine: In applying for probation, what is essential
is not the offense charged but the offense to which
the accused is ultimately found guilty of.
Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in
the Information, the judgment would be for the lesser
offense to which the accused plead guilty. This means
that the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the
attendant accessory penalties, and other
consequences under the law, including eligibility for
probation and parole, would be based on such lesser
offense.
Facts:
Pascua was charged with violations of Section 5 and
11 of Article 2 of RA 9165 for selling and possessing
shabu. Upon arraignment, Pascua pleaded not guilty,
however he later filed a motion to allow the accused
to enter into a plea bargaining agreement wherein he
offered to enter into a plea of guilty to the lesser
offense. Prosecution opposed and stated that per
DOJ circular no. 027-18, the state’s consent is
necessary before the accused can plead to a lesser
offense. The RTC allowed Pascua to enter into a plea
of guilty for the lesser offense however it was also
stated that was ineligible for probation for criminal
case no. 18805 where he then applied for probation
for criminal case no 18806. He then moved for a
reconsideration for the previous order that made him
ineligible for probation for criminal case no. 18805
which was denied. The case was then moved to the
CA wherein the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Ruling:
In A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, the Court enumerated, in
table format, several violations of RA 9165 which
could be subject to plea-bargaining. Included
therein is violation of Section 5, Article II thereof,
particularly for the sale, trading, etc. of shabu
weighing less than 1.00 gram.
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC also provides, among others,
that "if accused applies for probation in offenses
punishable under R.A. No. 9165, other than for illegal
drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation
to [Section] 24 thereof, then the law on probation
applies."
It is clear from both Section 24, Article II of RA 9165
and the provisions of the Probation Law that in
applying for probation, what is essential is not the
offense charged but the offense to which the accused
is ultimately found guilty of.
In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that upon
acceptance of a plea bargain, the accused is actually
found guilty of the lesser offense subject of the plea.
According to jurisprudence, "[p]lea bargaining in
criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and
the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval. It
usually involves the defendant pleading guilty to a
lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of
a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter
sentence than that for the graver charge."
Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in
the Information, the judgment would be for the lesser
offense to which the accused plead guilty. This means
that the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the
attendant accessory penalties, and other
consequences under the law, including eligibility for
probation and parole, would be based on such lesser
offense. Necessarily, even if Pascua was originally
charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 in Criminal Case No. 18805, he was ultimately
convicted of the lower offense of violation of Section
12, Article II of the same law. Since the foregoing
effectively removed Pascua's case from the coverage
of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, he should, at the
very least, be allowed to apply for probation.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it is well to clarify that
this ruling does not, per se make Pascua eligible for
probation. This ruling is limited to the deletion of the
RTC's pronouncement that Pascua is "ineligible to
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 154
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
apply for probation", thereby allowing him to file such
application. If he files for the same, the grant or denial
thereof will then lie in the sound discretion of the RTC
after due consideration of the criteria laid down in the
Probation Law, e.g., Section 844 thereof.
N. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No.
10175)
SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses.
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems:
(6) Cybersquatting. – The acquisition of a
domain name over the internet in bad faith to
profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and
deprive others from registering the same, if
such a domain name is:
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to
an existing trademark registered with the
appropriate government agency at the time of
the domain name registration:
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the
name of a person other than the registrant, in
case of a personal name; and
(iii) Acquired without right or with
intellectual property interests in it.
(c) Content-related Offenses:
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts
of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, committed through
a computer system or any other similar means
which may be devised in the future.
NOTE: A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of
a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead. (Art. 355, RPC)
Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel was
declared as valid and constitutional with respect to the
original author of the post; but void and unconstitutional
with respect to others who simply receive the post and
react to it (Disini v. Secretary of Justice).
O. New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs. 3 to
4, R.A. No. 10883)
Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things.
SECTION 2(e) - Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle
propelled by any power other than muscular power
using the public highways, except road rollers, trolley
cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers,
bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and
cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles which
run only on rains or tracks; and tractors, trailers and
traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of
wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by
attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a
separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
SECTION 3. Carnapping; Penalties. — Carnapping is
the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
by using force upon things.
Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall,
regardless of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than 20 years and
1 day but not more than 30 years, when the carnapping
is committed without violence against or intimidation of
persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for
not less than 30 years and 1 day but not more than 40
years, when the carnapping is committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or force
upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment shall
be imposed when the owner, driver, or occupant of the
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the
commission of the carnapping.
Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime
of carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or
syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of
any person or persons or forced upon things; or when
the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the
carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the
carnapping shall be denied bail when the evidence of
guilt is strong.
SECTION 4. Concealment of Carnapping. — Any
person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with
imprisonment of 6 years up to 12 years and a fine equal
to the amount of the acquisition cost of the motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved
in the violation; Provided, That if the person violating
any provision of this Act is a juridical person, the
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 155
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its

Children, whether male or female, who for money,
president, secretary, and/or members of the board of
profit, or any other consideration or due to the
directors or any of its officers and employees who may
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
have directly participated in the violation.
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct,
are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution
Any public official or employee who directly commits
and other sexual abuse.
the unlawful acts defined in this Act or is guilty of gross
negligence of duty or connives with or permits the
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
commission of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in
period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding
the following:
paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her
benefits forfeited and shall be permanently disqualified
a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
from holding public office.
induce child prostitution which include, but
are not limited to, the following:
PENALTY
1) Acting as a procurer of a child
■ Without violence against or intimidation of prostitute;
persons, the penalty is 20 years and one day to
30 years. 2) Inducing a person to be a client of a
child prostitute by means of written
■ If committed by employing force and violence, or oral advertisements or other
the penalty is 30 years and one day to 40 years. similar means;
■ If in the course of the commission of the 3) Taking advantage of influence or
carnapping, the owner, the driver, or the relationship to procure a child as
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is prostitute;
killed or died as a consequence of the said
carnapping, the penalty now is LIFE 4) Threatening or using violence
IMPRISONMENT. towards a child to engage him as a
prostitute; or
○ Note that it is necessary the person who
is killed is the owner, driver or occupant 5) Giving monetary consideration goods
of the carnapped motor vehicle. The law or other pecuniary benefit to a child
says the carnapped motor vehicle. with intent to engage such child in
Therefore, if the one who is killed, if the prostitution.
one who is raped, is not the owner, the
driver or the occupant the carnapped b) Those who commit the act of sexual
motor vehicle, it will give rise to a intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
separate and distinct charge. You exploited in prostitution or subject to other
cannot just simply be considered as sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
carnapping. victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article
P. Special Protection of Children Against 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal
(Secs. 3(a), 5 and 10, R.A. No. 7610) Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the
case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period; and
(a) “Children” refers to person below eighteen (18)
years of age or those over but are unable to fully take c) Those who derive profit or advantage
care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, therefrom, whether as manager or owner of
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination the establishment where the prostitution takes
because of a physical or mental disability or condition; place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place
xxx of entertainment or establishment serving as a
cover or which engages in prostitution in
Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – addition to the activity for which the license

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 156

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
has been issued to said establishment.
Sec. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
Child’s Development. –
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of
child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child’s development including those covered by
Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended,
but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum period.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his
company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who
in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or
private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque,
cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor,
beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00): Provided, That this
provision shall not apply to any person who is related
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
or any bond recognized by law, local custom and
tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral
or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a
minor to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or
have in his company a minor as provided in the
preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not
less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00); Provided,
however, That should the perpetrator be an
ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the
penalty to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its
maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00), and the loss of parental
authority over the minor.
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted
with the operation of any public or private place of
accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink
or otherwise, including residential places, who allows
any person to take along with him to such place or
places any minor herein described shall be imposed a
penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a
fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00),
and the loss of the license to operate such a place or
establishment.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or
intimidate a street child or any other child to:
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug
trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer
the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the
commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249,
262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No.
3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the
crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional
mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively,
shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the
commission of acts punishable under Articles 337, 339,
340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts
of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade,
respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that
imposed by law when the victim is under twelve (12)
years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section
shall be entrusted to the care of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.
PEOPLE v. TULAGAN, 2019
The Court pronounced that if the victim is 12 years
old or above but under 18 years old, or at least 18
years old under special circumstances, "the
nomenclature of the crime should be 'Lascivious
Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610' with the
imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua, but it should not make
any reference to the RPC." The crime shall be called
"Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of
the RPC" with the imposable penalty of prision mayor
only when the victim of the sexual assault is 18 years
old or above and not demented.
Discussion on the nomenclature of the crime
Considering the development of the crime of sexual
assault from a mere "crime against chastity" in the
form of acts of lasciviousness to a "crime against
persons" akin to rape, as well as the rulings in
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 157
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”
Dimakuta and Caoili, We hold that if the acts
constituting sexual assault are committed against
a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the
nomenclature of the offense should now be "Sexual
Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC
in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610" and no
longer "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,"
because sexual assault as a form of acts of
lasciviousness is no longer covered by Article 336 but
by Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, as amended by R.A.
No. 8353. Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is
still reclusion temporal in its medium period, and
not prision mayor.
Whereas if the victim is 12 years old and under 18
years old, or 18 years old and above under special
circumstances, the nomenclature of the crime
should be "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610" with the imposable penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua, but it should not make any
reference to the provisions of the RPC.
It is only when the victim of the sexual assault is 18
years old and above, and not demented, that the
crime should be called as "Sexual Assault under
paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC" with the
imposable penalty of prision mayor.
Sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12 years
old or is demented is statutory rape
Under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the proper
penalty when sexual intercourse is committed with a
victim who is under 12 years of age or is demented is
reclusion perpetua, pursuant to paragraph l(d), Article
266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as
amended by R.A. No. 8353, which amended Article
335 of the RPC.
Applying by analogy the foregoing discussion in
Quimvel to the act of sexual intercourse with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse, We rule that when the offended party is
under 12 years of age or is demented, only the first
proviso of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 will
apply, to wit: "when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted
under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape xxx." The
penalty for statutory rape under Article 335 is
reclusion perpetua, which is still the same as in the
current rape law, i.e., paragraph I (d), Article 266-A in
relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by
R.A. No. 8353, except in cases where the victim is
below 7 years of age where the imposable penalty
is death.
Note that the second proviso of Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610 will not apply because it clearly has
nothing to do with sexual intercourse, and it only
deals with "lascivious conduct when the victim is
under 12 years of age." While the terms "lascivious
conduct" and "sexual intercourse" are included in the
definition of "sexual abuse" under Section 2(g) of the
Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and
Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, note that the
definition of "lascivious conduct" does not include
sexual intercourse. Be it stressed that the purpose
of indicating the phrase "under twelve (12) years of
age" is to provide for statutory lascivious conduct or
statutory rape, whereby evidence of force, threat or
intimidation is immaterial because the offended party,
who is under 12 years old or is demented, is
presumed incapable of giving rational consent.
Q. Swindling by Syndicate (P.D. No. 1689)
ELEMENTS:
1) Commission of any act of Estafa under Article
315 or 316.
2) It is committed by a group of five persons acting
as a syndicate.
3) The defraudation consists in the
misappropriation of money contributed by the
stockholders or members of the corporation,
rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)",
or farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general
public.
What is considered as a syndicate?
In order to commit the crime of syndicated estafa, the
estafa must be committed by a “syndicate” as
contemplated by the law. In PD No. 1689, the term
syndicate is described as “consisting of five or more
persons formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme
x x x.”
In order to be considered as a syndicate under PD No.
1689, the perpetrators of an estafa must not only be
comprised of at least five individuals but must have
also used the association that they formed or
managed to defraud its own stockholders, members
or depositors. Only those who formed or manage
associations that receive contributions from the general
public who misappropriated the contributions can
2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 158
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.”

commit syndicated estafa. this case, the money was solicited by ABCDE from the
general public.
The Court was able to come up with the following
standards by which a group of purported swindlers
may be considered as a syndicate under PD No.
1689:

1) They must be at least five (5) in number;

2) They must have formed or managed a rural

bank, cooperative, “samahang nayon,” farmer’s
association or any other corporation or
association that solicits funds from the general
public.

3) They formed or managed such association with

the intention of carrying out an unlawful or
illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme,
i.e., they used the very association that they
formed or managed as the means to defraud its
own stockholders, members and depositors.

PENALTY

Syndicated estafa, however, is punishable by life

imprisonment to death regardless of the value of the
damage or prejudice caused.

: ABCDE formed an investment corporation and looked

Q
for a place where they could induce people to invest in
their corporation. And then, they saw a barangay where
there are many retirees and went there. He told clients
that they will earn plus interest guaranteed. 25 people
were induced and gave money to ABCDE corporation.
ABCDE corporation gave them certi icates of investment
plus 5 postdated checks representing interests for 5
months. On the irst maturity date, the 25 people
deposited the check and they bounced. It is a closed
account. Sent letters of demand which were ignored
and they went to the houses of ABCDE and found no
people inside their houses. What are crimes
committed?

: ABCDE is liable under PD 1689. Under PD 1689, the

A
following elements are: that the offender any acts of estafa
under 315 and 316. The elements are in this case, they
committed violation of estafa under 315 2A through means
of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. By such
acts, they were able to induce the persons to part with their
money and such pretense are concomitant with defraudation.
It is syndicated estafa because syndicated estafa is
committed when 5 or more people committed the act. The
third element is when there is defraudation of money,
contributed by stockholders, rural banks, cooperatives,
samahang nayon, farmer’s association or solicited by
corporations and associations from the general public. In

2022 Bar Reviewer by J.K.R. Gamboa | 159