1

2
 I. BOOK I [ARTICLES 1-99 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)]

1. AAAs were charged with violation of Article 9l(B)(3) of Presidential Decree (PD) 1067, due to occupying
and building structures in the foreshore area without securing the necessary permit. Is the unauthorized
occupancy of seashore without the necessary permit considered as malum prohibitum and thus AAAs’
pending foreshore lease application over the subject area with the DENR is not t a defense to exculpate
them of the criminal charge?
Yes. The act of unauthorized occupancy of seashore without the necessary permit punished under Article
91(B)(3) of PD 1067 is considered malum prohibitum. The test to determine when the act is mala in se and not
malum prohibitum is whether it is inherently immoral or the vileness of the penalized act. The mere occupancy
and construction of various structures by AAAs on the subject foreshore land without the necessary permit is
not inherently immoral but constitutes a violation of and penalized by Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067. Hence, as
malum prohibitum, AAAs' pending foreshore lease application over the subject area with the DENR is not a
defense to exculpate them of the criminal charge. (People vs. Constantino, [G.R. No. 251636. February 14, 2022.])

2. What are the requisites of self-defense? Who has the burden of proving self-defense?
It requires (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed
by the accused to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part. By invoking self-defense, the burden
is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly. While all three elements must concur,
self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful
aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. (People vs. Pereira y Montalvo, [G.R. No. 220749.
January 20, 2021.])

3. One evening, AAA, BBB and CCC passed through a cornfield all the way to the house of Spouses DDD
and EEE (Spouses FFF), armed and wearing bonnets and masks. AAA entered the house first and pulled
GGG, one of FFF’s daughters into the comfort room. A few minutes later, AAA brought GGG out of the
comfort room and she saw CCC, standing by the door of the store and BBB, standing guard at the CR
door and holding a gun. Upon reaching the dining area, AAA stabbed GGG with a small knife on the left
breast and then BBB hit her on the forehead, causing her to fall down. After EEE closed the store and
returned to the house, CCC, upon the instruction of HHH, hit EEE hard on the forehead, causing the
latter to fall. Madday, one of the five men who also used to work for EEE, boxed DDD on the abdomen
and when CCC saw the chopping knife, he stabbed her in the back. Thereafter, the group proceeded to
HHH's house, where CCC learned that they got the money from the FFF family. When accused of
Robbery with Frustrated Homicide, CCC posits that he was compelled or forced at gunpoint by a certain
HHH to join them in robbing the house, and if he will resist, something bad will happen to him and his
family. Is CCC entitled to the exempting circumstance of irresistible force?
No. To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable
fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to
that committed. A threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave
no opportunity for the accused to escape. Here, the malefactors had a well-hatched plan to commit the crime
of robbery with homicide and that CCC was not only well-aware of every detail thereof but likewise actively
participated in its commission. While they were passing through the cornfields on their way to the FFF's house,
he had every opportunity to escape. However, he did not avail of the said chance. He did not perform any overt
act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.
While he refused to kill GGG, he nonetheless delivered the fatal blow to EEE's head and stabbed DDD at her
back using a chopping knife without any prodding or compulsion from his companions. Verily, there was no
genuine, imminent, and reasonable threat to his life and his family as he was an active participant in the
commission of the crime charged. He acted on his own free will and was not under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear as he claims. (People vs. Labuguen y Francisco, [G.R. No. 223103. February 24, 2020.]).

4. AAA stabbed BBB with a knife in the chest. The barangay authorities eventually arrested AAA at the
house of his aunt and turned him over to the police for inquest proceedings. Should the court consider
his voluntary submission to the barangay authorities as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender?
No. The requisites for voluntary surrender that: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender was voluntary, were not
met. The facts established herein parlay that the barangay authorities had to search for AAA and go to the
place where he fled to. Only then was he arrested. (People vs. Pereira y Montalvo, [G.R. No. 220749. January 20, 2021.])

5. What happens if the prosecution was not able to allege the victim’s minority and her relationship with
the offender in the Information?
Minority and Relationship shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances, not qualifying circumstances.
The qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. It would be a denial of the right of the
accused to be informed of the charges against him and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged
with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the
offense and resulting in the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was
arraigned.(People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 238405. December 7, 2020.])

6. How should the qualifying circumstance of treachery be alleged in an information?

An information alleging that treachery exists, to be sufficient, must have factual averments on how the person
charged had deliberately employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the act that tended directly
and specially to insure its execution without risk to the accused arising from the defense that the victim might

3
 make. The Information must so state such means, methods or forms in a manner that would enable a person
of common understanding to know what offense was intended to be charged. (People vs. Alegre y Nazaral, [G.R. No.
254381. February 14, 2022.])

7. In the evening, along with his wife, ten-year old daughter, and neighbor, BBB was seated on the floor
watching television with his back towards the screen door when AAA surreptitiously entered the house
through the unlocked screen door, positioned himself behind BBB and wrapped his left arm around
BBB's neck and repeatedly stabbed him with a knife in the chest. BBB died. Did treachery attend the
killing of BBB?
Yes. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of
means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, and done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. In
order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. In this case, the elements of treachery were
present: at the time of the attack, BBB was not in a position to defend himself from the suddenness and
swiftness thereof. He had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming and had no opportunity to mount a defense.
(People vs. Pereira y Montalvo, [G.R. No. 220749. January 20, 2021.])

8. AAA stealthily entered the house of BBB and shot him while he was going upstairs. Is treachery present,
qualifying the killing as murder?
Yes. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In
order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.

9. Is there treachery when AAA shot BBB abruptly and without provocation at all, hitting the victim at the
back?
Yes. The attack was treacherous. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that 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 party might make. The following elements that must be established for treachery to be
appreciated: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. (People
vs. Panis, [G.R. No. 234780. March 17, 2021.])

10. AAA was having dinner with his family at their residence when they heard the hushed conversation of
several persons outside their house and the cocking of a "paleontod" firearm (homemade shot gun).
AAA stood up to check the noise outside. He went to their bedroom and looked out from the window.
Suddenly, a gunshot was fired which hit and knocked AAA on the floor. AAA was then hacked and
stabbed with the use of bladed weapons, which caused his death. Is treachery present in this case?
Yes. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest
provocation on the victim's part. The two elements of treachery, namely: (1) that at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself or herself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack employed by him or her, are both present in this case. AAA was
unarmed and looking out the window to ascertain the noise outside when he was shot on his head which
consequently knocked him to the floor. The location of the wound obviously indicated that the perpetrators
deliberately and consciously aimed for the vital part of AAA's body to ensure the commission of the crime. The
attack was done suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving AAA without any means of defense. More importantly, the
subsequent hacking of AAA when he lay lifeless on the floor indicated treachery since he was already wounded
and unable to put up a defense.(People vs. Natindim, [G.R. No. 201867. November 4, 2020.])

11. At around 2:15 in the morning, AAA was awakened from her sleep when a hard object hit her head.
When she turned on the lights, the accused leaped on their bed and repeatedly stabbed her husband,
BBB, on the leg and chest. BBB was able to kick the man out of the room and even close the door.
Immediately thereafter, BBB collapsed and fell on the floor. BBB died. Is treachery present in the
commission of the crime?
Yes. Treachery must still be appreciated even if the victim was able to retaliate as a result of his reflexes, so
long as he did not have the opportunity to repel the initial assault. The accused’s sudden attack on BBB while
asleep in his own home amply demonstrates treachery in the commission of the crime. BBB had no inkling of
the impending attack that night; or any peril to his person as he felt secured in his home. BBB was not able to
put up an effective defense. Although he kicked and pushed the accused out of their room, this did not negate
the presence of treachery. (People vs. Moreno y Tazon, [G.R. No. 191759. March 2, 2020.])

12. AAA, BBB, CCC, and other unnamed accused simultaneously fired their long firearms at the houses in
the general direction of the plaza, killing the victim, YYY, who was buying cigarettes at the time. One of
the accused ordered his companions to retreat, which they all did, upon the arrival of the police. Is there
treachery thus qualifying the crime to murder?

4
 Yes. YYY was unarmed and unprepared for the attack. Also, the execution of the crime was without risk on the
part of the accused and there was no doubt that YYY could not mount a defense for himself. He had no chance
to resist or escape. (People vs. Camarino, [G.R. No. 222655. December 9, 2020.])

13. AAA and BBB had a confrontation. The day after, AAA entered the house of BBB and shot him. Is
evident premeditation present?
No. Per jurisprudence, the elements of evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to
commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
(3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow accused
to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. The confrontation between AAA and BBB one day before the
killing does not constitute evident premeditation. It was not shown how and when AAA planned to kill and how
much time had elapsed before the killing was carried out; thus, evident premeditation cannot be considered.
Evident premeditation must be based on external acts and must be evident, not merely suspected, indicating
deliberate planning. (People v. Manansala (G.R. No. 233104, September 02, 2020

14. Brothers AAA and BBB were on a drinking spree with CCC. AAA told the tricycle driver to bring them
all to a videoke bar. The three were fighting inside the tricycle so the driver stopped, at which point the
brothers pulled CCC out. AAA boxed CCC while BBB aided by choking the former. AAA then returned
to the tricycle and took out the knife kept at the backseat which was usually used by the tricycle driver
in cutting rubber. BBB choked and restrained CCC by putting his right arm around the latter's neck,
while his left hand twisted CCC's left hand upwards. Meanwhile, AAA was in front of CCC with a knife.
CCC struggled against BBB's choking, and at the same time he tried to repel AAA's attacks by
embracing the latter with his free hand. Both CCC and AAA fell on the ground with AAA on top of CCC.
AAA cut and stabbed Rhandy on the waist and the two of them struggled to gain possession of the
knife. All throughout the brawl, BBB was watching on standby and when CCC was able to get a hold of
the knife, BBB stepped on CCC's hand, retrieved it and returned the same to AAA. AAA repeatedly
stabbed CCC but was not able to mortally wound him as the knife was already bent. AAA thus got a
hold of a stone and hit it against CCC's head. Is there conspiracy making AAA and BBB both guilty of
murder notwithstanding lack of proof who delivered the death blow?
Yes. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. However, oftentimes, direct proof of conspiracy is elusive. Hence, while it is true
that the elements of conspiracy must be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt necessary to establish the
physical acts constituting the crime itself, this is not to say that direct proof of such conspiracy is always required.
The existence of conspiracy need not, at all times, be established by direct evidence; nor is it necessary to
prove prior agreement between the accused to commit the crime charged. Thus, the rule is well-settled that
conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime, where such conduct reasonably shows community of criminal purpose or design. Therefore, it is
conclusive from the admitted individual acts of the assailants that conspiracy among them existed. It thus
becomes inconsequential to prove who delivered the death blow considering conspiracy was implied from their
actions thereby making the act of one, the act of all. (People vs. Padilla, [G.R. No. 247824. February 23, 2022.])

15. AAA, BBB, CCC, and other unnamed accused simultaneously fired their long firearms at the houses in
the general direction of the plaza, killing the victim who was buying cigarettes at the time. One of the
accused ordered his companions to retreat, which they all did, upon the arrival of the police. Is there
conspiracy?
Yes. It is very clear that conspiracy, connivance and unity of purpose and intention were present during the
execution of the crime. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement to commit a crime, may be deduced from the
mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action, and community of intent. (People vs. Camarino, [G.R. No. 222655. December 9, 2020.])

16. One evening, AAA, BBB and CCC passed through a cornfield all the way to the house of Spouses DDD
and EEE (Spouses FFF), armed and wearing bonnets and masks. AAA entered the house first and pulled
GGG, one of FFF’s daughters into the comfort room. A few minutes later, AAA brought GGG out of the
comfort room and she saw CCC, standing by the door of the store and BBB, standing guard at the CR
door and holding a gun. Upon reaching the dining area, AAA stabbed GGG with a small knife on the left
breast and then BBB hit her on the forehead, causing her to fall down. After EEE closed the store and
returned to the house, CCC, upon the instruction of HHH, hit EEE hard on the forehead, causing the
latter to fall. Madday, one of the five men who also used to work for EEE, boxed DDD on the abdomen
and when CCC saw the chopping knife, he stabbed her in the back. Thereafter, the group proceeded to
HHH's house, where they divided the money they got from the FFF family. AAA, BBB, and CCC were
accused with Robbery with Frustrated Homicide. Is there conspiracy in the crime charged?
Yes. It was shown that the malefactors acted in concert in order to achieve their common purpose of robbing
the victims. They met at the designated place; went together to the victims' house wearing bonnets and masks
while armed with a gun. After the commission of the crime, they again met at HHH's house and divided the loot
among themselves. (People vs. Labuguen y Francisco, [G.R. No. 223103. February 24, 2020.]).

17. Is AAA, who is serving the sentence of reclusion prepetua after having been found guilty of murder,
entitled to the benefits of the GCTA?
No, AAA is not entitled. The last paragraph of Section 1 of the GCTA Law reads “That recidivists, habitual
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act.”
The GCTA Law and the 2019 Revised IRR have made it abundantly clear that persons charged with and/or

5
 convicted of heinous crimes are not entitled to the benefits under the law. The 2019 Revised IRR defines
"heinous crimes" as “crimes which are grievous, odious and hateful to the senses and which, by reason of their
inherent and/or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society, including crimes
which are mandatorily punishable by Death under the provisions of RA No. 7659, as amended, otherwise known
as the Death Penalty Law, and those crimes specifically declared as such by the Supreme Court.” The crime
of Murder is one that is mandatorily punishable by death, in accordance with the Death Penalty Law. Being
such, it falls within the definition of "heinous crimes" in the 2019 Revised IRR and is therefore considered as a
heinous crime. Hence, the Writ of Habeas Corpus may not be issued and the discharge of Miguel from
imprisonment should not be authorized.(Miguel vs. Director of Bureau of Prisons, [UDK-15368. September 15, 2021.])

18. Does Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which states that “in applying the provisions of this
rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years”, cap the
duration of the penalty of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years only and hence AAA who was found
guilty of Murder should be released since he has served 38 years in prison?
No. Nowhere in the cited provision does it state that perpetual penalties, such as reclusion perpetua, are capped
at thirty (30) years. Instead, what it only provides is that in applying the rules laid out in Article 70, such as the
three-fold rule, the duration of perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty (30) years. The imputed duration
of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua, therefore, is only 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 x x x. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua requires imprisonment of at least thirty (30) years, after which the convict becomes
only eligible for pardon, and not for release. (Miguel vs. Director of Bureau of Prisons, [UDK-15368. September 15, 2021.])

II. BOOK II (ARTICLES 114-365 OF THE RPC) AND RELATED SPECIAL LAWS
19. How is Falsification of Public Document committed and what are its elements?
Falsification of Public Document is committed when the public document is simulated "in a manner so as to
give it the appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading others to errors as to its authenticity." 1
Falsification of Public Documents has the following elements: 1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or
notary public; 2) the offender takes advantage of his or her official position; and 3) the offender falsifies a
document by committing any of the acts enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. 2 (1People vs.
Mondejar, G.R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022; 2People vs. Mondejar, G.R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022)

20. AAA, the Vice-Mayor, persuaded 4 Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members to sign the Minutes of the SB
which misrepresented that SB deliberated on the issuance of 2 resolutions giving AAA the authority to
enter into a contract with BBB. Did AAA commit Falsification of Public Documents?
Falsification of Public Documents under paragraph 2, Article 171 of the RPC. In Falsification of Public
Documents under paragraph 2, Article 171 of the RPC, the prosecution must prove the existence of the following
elements: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his
official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding; and (4) that such persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding. Here, AAA was a
public officer at the time material to the case. He took advantage of his official position as the vice mayor to
falsify the Minutes of the SB on the session, making it appear that the SB members approved the resolutions.
(People vs. Mondejar, G.R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022)

21. What are the elements of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC?
1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 2) he or she has a legal
obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him or her; and 3) the facts narrated are absolutely false.
(People vs. Gil-Roflo, [G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76. March 21, 2022.])

22. Should there be the presence of criminal intent to be convicted of the crime of Falsification of Public
Documents?
Yes. In Falsification of Public Documents, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his or her
official position in making the falsification when (1) he or she has the duty to make or prepare or, otherwise, to
intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he or she has the official custody of the document which he
falsifies. Falsification of Public Documents is an intentional felony committed by means of "dolo" or "malice" and
could not result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Intentional felony requires the
existence of dolus malus - that the act or omission be done willfully, maliciously, with deliberate evil intent, and
with malice aforethought. This felony falls under the category of mala in se offenses that requires the attendance
of criminal intent. In fine, criminal intent is required in order to incur criminal liability under Article 171 of the
RPC. (People vs. Gil-Roflo, [G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76. March 21, 2022.])

23. What is ‘chain of custody’ in cases involving Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
In cases involving Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that
the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that it is the corpus delicti of
the crime. To ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain
of custody, as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer; (2) the tum-over of the seized illegal drug to the investigating officer; (3) the tum-
over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and ( 4)
the tum-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. (People vs. Hernandez, G.R.
No. 258077, June 15, 2022; CICL XXX vs. People, G.R. No. 230964. March 2, 2022; People vs. Castillo y Galang, G.R. No. 242520.
November 15, 2021)

6
24. What is the chain of custody rule under RA 10640, the amendatory law of RA 9165?
The relevant portions of the amended Section 21 which refers to the chain of custody rule in relation to seized
dangerous drugs read as follows:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with all elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination. (People vs. Batino, [G.R. No. 254035. November 15, 2021.])

25. In the seizure of illegal drugs in relation to RA10640 which amended RA 9165, how should photography
and inventory of illicit items be conducted?
RA10640 which amended Section 21 of RA 9165 on July 15, 2014, expounded that the photography and
inventory of the illicit items should, immediately after seizure, be conducted “in the presence of the accused or
the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required
witnesses, namely:
Prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 After the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640
(1) a representative from the media (1) an elected public official
(2) the Department of Justice, (2) a representative of the National Prosecution
(3) any elected official Service or the media
(CICL XXX vs. People, G.R. No. 230964. March 2, 2022)

26. What is the two-witness rule embodied in the chain of custody of dangerous drugs?
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires only two witnesses to be present during the conduct
of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official;
and (b) either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. (People vs. Ortega, G.R. No.
240224. February 23, 2022; see also People vs. Batino, [G.R. No. 254035. November 15, 2021)

27. On March 5, 2013, In a buy-bust operation, AAA was arrested for selling shabu. Intelligence Officer 1
(IO1) BBB recovered a marked five-hundred peso (P500.00) bill from AAA and two smaller plastic
sachets of shabu from AAA's black sling bag. However, IO1 CCC marked the plastic sachets subject of
the illegal sale when they were already in the PDEA National Headquarters, as they opted to leave the
site because of the possible danger, and only two (2) witnesses, a Barangay Kagawad and a
representative from the media, was present during the marking of the seized items. IO1 CCC then
executed an inventory receipt and also prepared the requests for laboratory examination of the seized
items and drug test on AAA, which were signed by IO1 DDD. Was the chain of custody rule sufficiently
complied in this case?
No. The applicable rule for this case is Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 prior to its amendment as the transaction
happened on March 5, 2013. Under the old rule, the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items
must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation of the items in the presence of three witnesses-a
representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected official. However, strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not be always possible as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The failure to immediately mark the seized
items at the place of arrest was not fatal to the prosecution, however, the PDEA officers failed to observe the
three-witness requirement during the marking of the seized items. In this case, there was no representative
from the DOJ. Thus, the failure to comply with the three-witness requirement produces a gap in the chain of
custody of the seized items that adversely affects the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This
raises doubts that the integrity of the seized items may have been compromised. (People vs. Baluyot y Biranda, [G.R.
No. 243390. October 5, 2020.)

7
28. May the police officers simply bypass the rule on chain of custody under RA 9165?
No, they may not. The procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is considered substantive law and
not merely a procedural technicality. The law requires that the police authorities implementing RA 9165 strictly
comply with the chain of custody procedure.

29. What is the effect of non-compliance of police officers with the rule on chain of custody under RA 9165
on the accused?
Lapses in the chain of custody and ultimately, lack of compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, warrants
the acquittal of the accused. Serious uncertainty hangs over the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti
introduced into evidence by the prosecution. However failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody does
not, ipso facto, render the seizure and custody over the illegal drugs as void and invalid if: (a) there is justifiable
ground for such noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were
preserved.1 While deviations may be allowed, the same however (1) must be satisfactorily explained by the
prosecution; (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had been preserved; and (3) the
justifiable ground for noncompliance is proven as a fact. Moreover, it must be alleged and proved that earnest
efforts were made to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses. 2 (1Uy y Sayan vs. People, G.R. No. 217097.
February 23, 2022.; see also People vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522. February 28, 2022; 2People vs. Castillo y Galang, G.R. No. 242520.
November 15, 2021; see also People vs. Arellaga y Sabado, G.R. No. 231796. August 24, 2020; People vs. Addin y Maddan, G.R. No.
223682. October 9, 2019)

30. AAA was arrested through a buy-bust operation, after which the police officers left the place of arrest
and immediately proceeded to their office with the unmarked items since there had allegedly been
several shooting incidents in the area. The shooting incidents were not established as a fact. Is AAA
guilty for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs?
No, he is not. In prosecutions for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the State bears the burden of not
only proving the elements of the offense of sale of dangerous drugs, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the
body of the crime. Tho dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Case law
teaches that the seized item must be immediately marked at the place of arrest to obviate any possibIlity of
tampering or switching. This precautionary measure unfortunately, was blatantly disregarded by the police
officers who did not immediately mark the seized items at the place of the arrest. Instead, they brought the
unmarked seized items to their office on the pretext that they felt uneasy marking the items at the place of arrest
considering the happening of several shooting incidents thereat. The apprehending team's explanation is hardly
satisfactory as there was no showing of an imminent danger to their life, it was merely self-serving and is not
an established fact. (People vs. Castillo y Galang, [G.R. No. 242520. November 15, 2021.])

31. In the chain of custody of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation, what happens if the two-witness
rule is not complied with?
Given the fact that a buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a planned activity, it strains credulity if the buy-
bust team could not have ensured the presence of all the required witnesses. Verily, a buy-bust team normally
has ample time to gather and bring with it the said witnesses. The law requires their presence in order to ensure
the establishment of the chain of custody and to guard against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination
of evidence. While jurisprudence held that the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the
confiscated items inadmissible, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient
effort to secure the required witnesses must first be adduced by the prosecution. Any discrepancy should be
reasonably explained and accounted for, otherwise, the regularity of the entire seizure procedure would be put
into question. (People vs. Ortega, [G.R. No. 240224. February 23, 2022.])

32. What are the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession
of Drug Paraphernalia?
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs Illegal Possession of Illegal Possession of Drug
Dangerous Drugs Paraphernalia
(1) the identity of the buyer and (1) the accused was in (1) possession or control by the
the seller, the object, and the possession of an item or object accused of any equipment,
consideration; identified as a prohibited drug; apparatus, or other paraphernalia
(2) the delivery of the thing sold (2) such possession was not fit or intended for smoking,
and the payment therefor. authorized by law; consuming, administering,
(3) the accused freely and injecting, ingesting, or introducing
consciously possessed the said any dangerous drug into the
drug, for the illegal possession body;
charge (2) such possession is not
authorized by law.
(People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 240224. February 23, 2022; CICL XXX vs. People, G.R. No. 230964. March 2, 2022; People vs. Batino, [G.R.
No. 254035. November 15, 2021)

33. When is Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs consummated in a buy-bust operation?

In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt
by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. (People vs. Batino, [G.R. No.
254035. November 15, 2021)

34. What is the penalty for selling and possessing dangerous drugs under RA 9165?

A person charged with and convicted of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 shall face the following
penalty:

8
 Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species
of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless
of the degree of purity thereof.

xxxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as
follows:

xxxx

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs
and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana. (People vs. Batino, [G.R. No. 254035. November 15,
2021.])

35. A P5,000 worth of Shabu was found in the cabinet inside AAA’s room which AAA shared with BBB, her
live-in partner. BBB did not permanently stay therein as he normally would stay out for two to three
months. When the search was conducted, AAA was sleeping inside the room where the illegal drugs
were found while accused BBB was in another room. Is AAA guilty of possession of the seized illegal
drugs under Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e)(2), Article I of RA 6425 as amended by RA
7659?
Yes. The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 16, Article III, in relation to Section
2(e) (2), Article I of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, are: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Possession, under the law, includes not only
actual possession, but also constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the
place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction
if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with
another. (Estores y Pecardal vs. People, [G.R. No. 192332. January 11, 2021.])

36. The Mayor awarded the contract for purchase of medicines to AAA’s companies through a flawed
bidding which resulted in unwarranted benefits and advantages to AAA’s favor. During said bidding,
AAA’s companies failed to submit Declaration of Business interests, thereby concealing the
composition of the companies, AAA authorized another person to act as representatives of his
company in clear disregard of arms-length dealing in bids, and failed to post the required performance
bond. The medicines were delivered by the AAA just a day after the award, and the payment was
immediately processed and accepted. Is AAA, notwithstanding that he is a private individual, guilty of
violation of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
Yes. Private individuals can be liable together with public officials if conspiracy is proven. Here, AAA's
actuations revealed his joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments with his co-accused
public officials in-charge of conducting a flawed bidding to unjustifiably favor his business entities. (Villanueva vs.
People, [G.R. No. 218652. February 23, 2022.])

37. The Mayor awarded the contract for the purchase of medicines and in fact bought such medicines in
the amount of P13,191,223.00 from Corporation AAA, notwithstanding the fact that on said date the
accreditation of Corporation AAA was still suspended by the Department of Health (DOH), that
Corporation AAA is owned and controlled by BBB, who at the same time is the sole proprietor of Mallix
Drug Center, a supplier who was awarded the contract for the supply of medicines in the amount of
PHPl,744,926.00 in the same public bidding and that the public bidding was conducted without the
presence of any provincial or municipal auditor or its duly authorized representative. Is BBB guilty of
violating R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act notwithstanding that there was no
damage or actual injury on the part of the Government or any of its instrumentalities?
Yes. BBB is guilty under Section 3 (3) of R.A. 3019. The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are:
(a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (b) he/she must
have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his/her action
caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. There are two separate acts under the third element

9
 of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The first punishable act is that the accused is said to have caused undue injury to
the government or any party when the latter sustains actual loss or damage, which must exist as a fact and
cannot be based on speculations or conjectures. The second punishable act is that the accused is said to have
given unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a private party. Hence, BBB is liable under Sec. 3 (e)
notwithstanding the actual damage or injury to the government and its instrumentalities since his participation
in the flawed bidding resulted in unwarranted benefits and advantages to his favor. (Villanueva vs. People, [G.R. No.
218652. February 23, 2022.]

38. AAA, a Provincial Legal Officer, requested a police officer, with 20 years of police experience, to
summon through a radio message several people AAA had issues with relating to a land dispute, which
the police officer did, which was beyond the scope of the powers and functions of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), as enumerated in Section 24 of RA 6975. Is AAA guilty of violation of Section 3(a)
Corrupt practices of public officers under RA 3019
No. The elements of the crime are the following: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender persuades,
induces, or influences another public officer to perform an act, or the offender allows himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit an act; and (3) the act performed by the other public officer, or committed by
the offender, constitutes a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority, or an
offense in connection with the official duty of the latter. The second element is not present. The first element is
obtaining here considering that AAA was a Provincial Legal Officer when the purported crime was committed.
Meanwhile, the third element is likewise present, given that AAA's request to call in several people for a
conference, and police officer's subsequent act of sending a radio message to summon said persons,
constituted a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority. Particularly, these acts
went beyond the scope of the powers and functions of the Philippine National Police (PNP), as enumerated in
Section 24 of RA 6975. Moreover, jurisprudence provides that "Section 3(a) requires a deliberate intent on the
part of the public official concerned to violate those rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority, or to commit an offense in connection with official duties." In this case, both AAA, with his presumed
knowledge of the law as a lawyer, and SPO4 Briones, with his 20 years of police experience, should have been
well apprised of the boundaries of police authority in the settlement of civil disputes. Their acts clearly evinced
deliberateness which cannot be countenanced. The second element of persuasion or inducement is absent in
the instant case. AAA had not persuaded or induced the police officer into sending the radio message. (People
vs. Enojo, [G.R. No. 252258. April 6, 2022.])

39. AAA, the Vice-Mayor, signed, and persuaded Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members to sign, the Minutes
of the SB which misrepresented that SB deliberated on the issuance of 2 resolutions giving AAA the
authority to enter into a contract with BBB, wherein BBB was granted the authority to extract surplus
sand and gravel supply from the river in exchange for its services. Is AAA guilty of violation of Section
3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019?
Yes, there is. The elements of offense falling under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are: (1) The offender is a public
officer; (2) The act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions;
(3) The act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4)
The public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference. Here, AAA is the Vice Mayor at the time material to the offense charged. He
deliberately acted with manifest partiality and bad faith when he, as the presiding officer of the SB, signed the
Minutes and persuaded the other sangguniang members to sign it, knowing fully well that there were certain
items not included nor discussed on the regular session. As a result thereof, AAA was given the authority to
enter into a contract with BBB, which was grossly disadvantageous to the government. BBB was given
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference by virtue of the contract, not in the form of monetary
compensation, but by getting the surplus supply of sand and gravel extracted from the river, despite not having
the necessary permit to do so. The said benefit, advantage, or preference would not have been probable without
the participation of AAA, as the presiding officer of the SB, in enacting the Resolutions, through falsification of
the Minutes. (People vs. Mondejar, [G.R. Nos. 245931-32. April 25, 2022.])

40. AAA, a Provincial Legal Officer, induced BBB, who was a Senior Jail Officer of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP) to release without Court Order from detention CCC and DDD
through the issuance of a recognizance despite the pendency of the preliminary investigation, in
violation of the BJMP Manual. BBB argued that the one who induced him was a private individual who
was a relative of the Vice Mayor. Is BBB guilty of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
Yes. The elements of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) are: (i) The offender is a
public officer; (ii) The offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act or the
offender allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an act; (iii) The act performed by the
other public officer or committed by the offender constitutes a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated
by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duty of the latter. In the instant case, all the
elements of the offense were established. Firstly, BBB was a public officer at the time of the commission of the
crime. Secondly, the crime of violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 may be committed in either of the following
modes: (1) when the offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the public officer; or (2) when the public officer allowed himself to be
persuaded, induced or influenced to perform said act which constitutes a violation of rules and regulations
promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the public officer. In
reference to the second mode of Section 3(a) of RA 3019, it is immaterial whether the one who induced him
was likewise a public officer or a private individual. BBB is liable under the second mode. Lastly, BBB released
CCC and DDD without a proper court order but by virtue of the Recognizance signed by Atty. AAA. These acts

10
 were in blatant violation of the procedure provided by law for the issuance of a recognizance and contrary to
the BJMP Manual. (Marzan vs. People, [G.R. No. 226167. October 11, 2021.])

41. What are the elements of the crime of murder?

To be convicted of the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established, to wit: (1) a person was
killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned
in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor
infanticide. (People vs. Panis, [G.R. No. 234780. March 17, 2021.]; People vs. Camarino, [G.R. No. 222655. December 9, 2020)

42. In September 2012, AAA and DDD were at the house of EEE for a birthday party. While waiting for EEE,
AAA and DDD were asked by EEE’s mother, GGG, if they would consider working as a waitress in a bar.
AAA and DDD agreed. Later on, they went back to the house of EEE and they were introduced to XXX,
and told AAA, DDD, EEE and FFF, that they will work in a bar seven days a week, and that if a customer
approaches, they should say that they were 18 years old. Their work includes entertaining customers
and allowing them to bring them to a hotel for sexual intercourse. Is XXX guilty of the crime of trafficking
in persons?
Yes. Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 defines the term "Trafficking in Persons" as the "recruitment, transportation,
transfer or 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." (People vs. XXX, [G.R.
No. 244048. February 14, 2022.])

43. AAA was recruited by YYY and hired by XXX, a police officer, to work for the purpose of sexual
exploitation. XXX is also the owner of the Bar where AAA and the other girls danced on stage and
performed other sexually exploitative acts to lure customers to go to the VIP rooms. YYY and XXX
offered the sexual services of AAA and other girls in exchange for a fee. At the time AAA was hired until
her rescue during the entrapment operation, she was a child, below 18 years of age. Are XXX and YYY
guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons?
Yes. The elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons derived from the definition under Section 3 (a) of RA
9208 are as follows:
(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders."
(2) The means used which include "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" ; and
(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "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.
Here, XXX and YYY committed acts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208 which were qualified by
the minority of one of the victims and the status of XXX as a police officer. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 225288. June 28,
2021.])

44. DDD, BBB, and CCC were accused of qualified trafficking. The victim is AAA, who is the biological
daughter of BBB. CCC is BBB’s live-in partner, whom AAA calls “Papa CCC.” AAA’s age was not
established during the trial. AAA testified that DDD, BBB, and CCC would pimp her whenever the family
had nothing to eat. AAA also testified that on the night of the arrest of the three accused, a man paid
DDD money and afterwards instructed AAA to go with him. Are DDD, BBB, and CCC guilty of qualified
trafficking?
Yes. Although AAA’s age was not established, the crime is still qualified, since the Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act says that the crime is qualified if committed by a syndicate, meaning three or more persons, or when the
crime is committed by an ascendant or someone who has authority over the victim. Since BBB is AAA’s mother,
the crime is qualified. CCC’s being an authority figure over AAA also qualifies the crime. Finally, since the crime
was committed by three persons – DDD, BBB, and CCC – the crime is qualified. (People vs. Bawalan [G.R. No. 232358.
May 12, 2021.])

45. At around 11 pm, AAA, 14 years old, went with her friend, BBB, to a hotel to meet with the latter’s
“textmates.” Upon arriving at the hotel, BBB introduced AAA to XXX. Afterwards the two men booked
separate rooms. AAA was later on convinced by BBB to try the folded foil paper containing “enchang”
or shabu. Sometime after, AAA was brought to another room with XXX. The latter turned off the lights
and tightly held her upper arm, and kissed her on the lips while he was taking off her clothes. AAA
resisted but her efforts proved futile. After XXX successfully removed all her clothes, XXX went on top
of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Terrified and helpless, AAA could only cry in pain as she
pushed XXX away. AAA saw XXX few more times thereafter because BBB would always find a way to
persuade her to go back to the hotel. At one time, AAA and BBB brought four girls to the hotel, as
instructed by XXX, so that he could match them with four of his male friends. All of them took shabu.
Subsequently, XXX provided AAA with her own male customer whom she had to have sex with. The
customer paid XXX P2,000 from which AAA got P1,000 and BBB, P500. The same payment and sharing
scheme applied to the other girls. What crime/s was/were committed by XXX?

XXX is guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons and Rape.

11
 The elements of trafficking in persons are as follows: (1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders;" (2) The means used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or 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;" and (3) The
purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "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." Furthermore,
the crime becomes qualified when the trafficked person is a child, which refers to a person below the age of 18
years old or above 18 years old but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself or herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or Condition. In the
case at bar, all the elements are present.

Meanwhile, the elements of rape are as follows: (a) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, and
(b) that the said act was accomplished through the use of force, threat, or intimidation. Here, the prosecution
sufficiently established that XXX had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation by pulling her and
pinning her down and inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and without her consent. Thus, XXX is
likewise guilty of Rape. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 248815. March 23, 2022.])

46. DDD, BBB, and CCC were accused of qualified trafficking of AAA. They were arrested through a police
entrapment. AAA testified that prior to the entrapment, the three would pimp her. The accused
contended that AAA’s testimony was inconsistent as to how many times she had been pimped by them
before the police entrapment. Should AAA’s testimony be discounted?
No. The supposed discrepancy in her testimony as to the number of times she was pimped by the accused is
irrelevant in the prosecution of this case. If any inconsistency exists, it pertains to minor or trivial matters, which
are inconsequential in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in the crime charged against them.
(People vs. Bawalan [G.R. No. 232358. May 12, 2021.])

47. XXX and AAA were married in 2005 after being pregnant with BBB who was later on diagnosed with
Congenital Torch Syndrome, resulting in delayed development and hearing impairment. XXX
acknowledged BBB as his child. AAA spent approximately Php35,000 for BBB’s hearing aid and had to
enroll BBB to a school for children with special needs but XXX did not contribute any financial support.
XXX has gross compensation of P234,565.79.55 in 2009. From the moment the child was born until the
case was filed, XXX was only able to give a total of about P10,000.00 in a span of five years. He withheld
financial support for BBB due to the ire he felt towards his wife. He provided financial support after the
complaint for violation of RA 9262 (Anti VAWC Law) against him in the Prosecutor's Office was filed. Is
XXX liable?
Yes. Sec. 5, par. (e) (2) of RA 9262 penalizes the deprivation of financial support legally due the woman or
child, which is a continuing offense. All the elements of a violation of Section 5 (e)(2) of RA 9262 are present,
as it was established that: (a) XXX and AAA were married after being pregnant with BBB; (b) XXX
acknowledged BBB as his child; (c) he failed to provide sufficient support for BBB; (d) he withheld financial
support for BBB due to the ire he felt towards his wife; (e) he only provided financial support after the complaint
against him in the Prosecutor's Office was filed. Under Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged
to support his child, comprising everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling clothing, medical attendance,
education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. The amount of support shall
be in proportion to the necessity of the recipient and the means of the person obliged to give support. In the
case at bar, XXX deliberately deprived his son BBB of financial support for the latter's sustenance, clothing,
medical, and educational expenses. The P10,000 support in a span of 5 years does not meet the necessity of
BBB's expenses, considering that the child is suffering from Congenital Torch Syndrome. This especially holds
true since XXX is capable of giving support. (XXX vs. People, [G.R. No. 221370. June 28, 2021.])

48. Is a protection order under the Anti-VAWC Law a procedural mechanism or a substantive relief?
A protection order is not a procedural mechanism, which is imperative for the progression of an initiated action.
Rather, it is itself a substantive relief which prevents further acts of violence against a woman or her child
specified in Section 5 of the Anti-VAWC Law and grants other necessary relief. Section 15 of the Anti-VAWC
Law's reference to "immediate personal service" is an incident of the underlying urgency which compelled the
ex parte issuance of a protection order. It should not be construed as a restriction on the manner of acquisition
of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Otherwise, far from relieving a manifest urgency, it stifles a
civil action for the issuance of a protection order right at the moment of its initiation. Construed as such, a
temporary protection order is twisted to a shrewdly convenient procedural tool for defeating the very purposes
for which it was issued in the first place. (Sabado vs. Sabado, [G.R. No. 214270. May 12, 2021.])

49. XXX was doing his welding works but got angry at the children playing near the bulldozer and told them
to climb down the said heavy equipment. All the children playing near it complied except AAA, 6 years
old, prompting XXX to approach AAA and poke a welding rod onto her genital area. What is the criminal
liability of XXX?

XXX is criminally liable under Section 10(a), RA 7610. The said crime has the following elements:
(1) AAA's minority;
(2) the acts constituting physical abuse committed by XXX against AAA; and
(3) the fact that the said acts are clearly punishable under RA 7610.

12
 It was likewise established that XXX physically abused AAA when he poked her genitals with a welding rod, an
act that is plainly child abuse as contemplated under Section 3(b) of RA 7610.

The acts of XXX have also been shown to fall within the punitive purview of rape by sexual assault under Article
266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610. (People vs. Pueyo, [G.R. No. 192327. February 26, 2020.])

50. What are the elements of the crime of Rape?

Under the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for the
conviction of the accused in the crime of Rape: (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (ii)
the act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation; or (b) when the victim is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the victim is 12 years of age, or is demented. (People vs. XXX, [G.R.
No. 225781. November 16, 2020.])

51. XXX was charged with rape through sexual intercourse. The alleged victim is AAA, a fourteen (14) year
old minor. XXX pleaded not guilty to all charges. On trial, AAA as witness pointed to a man wearing a
yellow shirt who happens to be XXX when asked by the Court on who committed the alleged crime
against her person. AAA testified that XXX inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent and
that XXX covered her mouth and that she tried to fight back, but to no avail because of his strength.
Further, she recalled that XXX uttered threats of killing her and her family. Are the elements of rape
through sexual intercourse present?
Yes. The elements of the first mode of rape or rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A Paragraph 1 of
RPC are:(1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and, (2) the act was accomplished (a) through
the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c)
when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Here, AAA testified that XXX inserted his penis into
her vagina-thereby satisfying the first element of carnal knowledge. For the second element, it can be gleaned
from the testimony that XXX again employed force and intimidation to perform the rape. AAA stated that XXX
covered her mouth and that she tried to fight back, but to no avail because of his strength. Further, she recalled
that XXX again uttered threats of killing her and her family. And notably, she clearly stated that she did not
consent to having sexual intercourse with accused. Thus, the elements of rape through sexual intercourse are
present. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 233867. February 28, 2022.])

52. XXX was charged with rape through sexual assault. The alleged victim is AAA, a fourteen (14) year old
minor. XXX pleaded not guilty to all charges. On trial, AAA as witness pointed to a man wearing a yellow
shirt who happens to be XXX when asked by the Court on who committed the alleged crime against her
person. AAA clearly narrated that in the early morning of August 23, 2006, XXX entered her room and
assaulted her by inserting his finger in her vagina. AAA likewise stated that XXX pinned her down and
threatened her not to tell anybody about the deed or else, he will kill her and her family. Are the elements
of rape through sexual assault present?
Yes. The elements of the second mode of rape or rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A Paragraph
2 of RPC are: (1) the accused committed an act of sexual assault by (a) inserting his penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or (b) inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person;
and, (2) the act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Here, AAA
was able to clearly narrate that XXX assaulted her by inserting his finger in her vagina – thereby satisfying the
first element of performing sexual assault by inserting an object into a person's genital. AAA likewise stated that
XXX pinned her down and employed intimidation by threatening her not to tell anybody about the deed or else,
he will kill her and her family – thereby satisfying the second element by performing the sexual assault through
force or intimidation. Additionally, AAA is a credible witness and in ruling that all the elements of both offenses
were present. AAA was able to identify XXX in open court as the perpetrator in the three incidents. (People vs.
XXX, [G.R. No. 233867. February 28, 2022.])

53. Accused was found by the RTC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his 13 year-old niece, AAA.
Accused now filed an appeal theorizing that the sexual encounter between his niece and him was
unforced and consensual and thus rape is inconceivable. He further contended that the niece allegedly
failed to thwart his advances despite her claim that it was not the first time he violated her. Lastly,
accused claims that no rape can be concluded even from the medical findings as the medical certificate
did not state that AAA suffered any physical injury resulting from his alleged use of force. Is the accused
guilty of rape?
Yes. There is no standard behavior expected by law from a rape victim. She may attempt to resist her attacker,
scream for help, make a run for it, or even freeze up, and allow herself to be violated. By whatever manner she
reacts, the same is immaterial because it is not an element of rape. Neither should a rape victim's reflex be
interpreted on its lonesome. Absent any other adequate proof that the victim clearly assented to the sexual act
perpetrated by the accused, a victim shall not be condemned solely on the basis of her reactions against the
same. Without clear evidence of consent, the niece’s apparently passive conduct will not negate the rape
committed by Accused against her person. Jurisprudence has steadily held that "no woman, least of all a child,
would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or
ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her
being." Moreover, while a medical certificate attesting to the victim's physical trauma from the rape has
corroborative purposes, it is wholly unnecessary for conviction, if not a mere superfluity. (People vs. Cabales, G.R.
No. 213831. September 25, 2019)

13
54. Is absence of laceration or physical injury or hymen in the victim’s genitalia fatal to the case of the
prosecution in proving the commission of rape?
No. It is settled that a medical report is dispensable in proving the commission of rape. The medical examination
of the victim or the presentation of the medical certificate is not essential to prove the commission of rape, as
the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. The medical
examination of the victim as well as the medical certificate is merely corroborative in character. 1 Neither does
the lack of semen belie sexual abuse as it is equally settled that 'the absence of sperm samples in the vagina
of the victim does not negate rape, because the presence of spermatozoa is not an element thereof. Mere
touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute
carnal knowledge.Thus, when a penis comes in contact with the lips of the victim's vagina, the crime of Rape
is considered consummated.2 (1People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 255491. April 18, 2022.]; People vs. Bueza y Ranay, [G.R. No. 242513.
November 18, 2020.]2)

55. Is the absence of another witness in a rape case aside from the complainant, crucial to the cause of the
latter?
No. It is settled that "a conviction for rape may be upheld based on a complainant's testimony when it is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things." Besides, it is settled
that when the offended party's testimony is corroborated by physical findings of penetration (which in this case
are the fingers and the penis), there is sufficient basis to conclude that sexual intercourse (and sexual abuse)
had occurred. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 233867. February 28, 2022.])

56. Should the alibi of the accused in rape cases be preferred?

No. The defense of denial is inherently weak due to the ease with which it can be concocted; it cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused by the victim. Case law provides that "mere denial,
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is [a] negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given
greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters."
(People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 233867. February 28, 2022.])

57. When a minor is presented as a witness in rape cases, can the court disregard the minor’s testimony
considering his or her tender age?
No, a child's testimony on sexual abuse deserves great respect. When the offended party is of tender age and
immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative
vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident
cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and
so painful as rape. What is important is that the victim's declarations are consistent on basic matters constituting
the elements of rape and her positive identification of the person who did it to her. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 233867.
February 28, 2022.])

58. Are minor inconsistencies in the testimony consequential to the commission of the crime of rape?
No. In any case, the alleged inconsistencies were inconsequential to the commission of the crime. This Court
reiterates that inconsistencies on one's testimony will only result in reasonable doubt when the detail pertains
to an essential element of the crime or to the identity of the offender. As clarified in People v. Nocido, minor
inconsistencies may even work to enhance the credibility of a witness. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 255491. April 18,
2022.])

59. AAA, a nine year old child, was raped by accused, her father. However, AAA failed to respond to material
questions such as: "(1) why she did not immediately tell her mother about the incident; (2) what was
the accused doing while in the act of penetrating her; and (3) why was she afraid of the accused." Thus,
the accused raised that AAA's testimony bore inconsistencies which invited uncertainty as to the
veracity of her statements. Additionally, he averred that there is doubt as to AAA’s motive, considering
that the accused, as a father, was known to be a stern disciplinarian who usually spanked her and hit
her mother. Should the accused be acquitted for failure of AAA to provide consistent testimonies and
for the said motive?
No. "Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she is a
minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." Additionally, accused's imputation of ill motive
on the part of the victim is equally unconvincing and rather shallow when compared to the consequences upon
the victim by reporting a rape incident especially since it involves her dignity and reputation. A young girl's
revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and
willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her
dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 218277. November 9, 2020.])

60. ZZZ is the stepfather of the victim, AAA. AAA and her mother began living with ZZZ when the latter
separated from AAA’s biological father. AAA testified that ZZZ had started committing sexual acts
against the former since she was 10 years old stating that whenever her mother was not around, ZZZ
would wake her up, and tell her to remove his undergarments and then insert his organ into her private
parts. AAA further testified that she was last molested by ZZZ on November 6, 2007. A doctor was
presented by the prosecution and after conducting the general physical and ano-genital examination,
Dr. Tan testified that there was no evident injury on AAA’s genitalia at the time of examination on 14
November 2007, but there was an indentation of her hymen suggesting a possibility that it was
penetrated by a blunt object, possibly a sex organ. ZZZ claimed that the filing of the criminal charges
against him was only motivated by AAA’s dislike for him for being a disciplinary father and that all her

14
 testimony was a lie. He averred that He was sleeping at the times he allegedly committed the sexual
acts against AAA. Is ZZZ guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes. Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, describes how the crime of Rape is committed. Rape is committed
— 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a)
Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d) When the offended party
is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.

There is no reason for the Court to doubt that ZZZ had repeatedly obtained carnal knowledge of the victim, a
minor, by means of coercion, threats, and intimidation. ZZZ miserably failed to overturn the burden of evidence
against him. His defenses were threefold: denial, alibi, and imputation of ill motive against the victim. All such
defenses, however, disintegrate on their own.

First, denial is an inherently weak defense. While a conviction rests not on the weakness of the defense but on
the strength of the evidence against the accused, the Court finds that the prosecution has fully discharged its
evidentiary duty. The testimony of the victim was categorical, leaving no room to doubt that ZZZ truly raped her.
It is long settled that a clear narration by a victim of the awful circumstances of her defloration, even if it stands
on its lonesome, can sustain a strong verdict of guilt.

Next, it is not physically impossible for the rapist to sexually abuse the victim even in the presence of another
person. Criminal lust does not discriminate. Undaunted by age, sex, relationship, place, distance, time,
aesthetic preferences, or moral considerations, sexual predators attack with reckless abandon and surprising
ingenuity, always impelled by the sole aim of having their worldly fill. Perverse desires find ways. A mere arm-
span distance from the victim or a lack of privacy will not deter a rapist who has been consumed entirely by
lust.

Lastly, that the victim harbored animosity against the rapist's fatherly discipline hardly dents the evidence
proffered against him by the prosecution. Ill motive becomes inconsequential in the face of an affirmative and
credible declaration from the rape victim, who had already clearly established the liability of the accused.
Moreover, ZZZ's theory is specious at best. It was never corroborated, and bare allegations deserve scant
consideration for being self-serving. (People vs. ZZZ, [G.R. No. 226144. October 14, 2020.])

61. What are the elements of Statutory Rape

Statutory Rape has the following elements: (1) that a man had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the
offended party is under 16 years of age. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 255491. April 18, 2022.])

62. Is XXX guilty of the crime of statutory rape for having carnal knowledge with AAA, a minor under 12
years old, notwithstanding that AAA did not resist nor reported the incident right away?
Yes. As provided in the Revised Penal Code, sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape.
The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that
the woman was below 12 years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape. From
the foregoing, it is clear that what only needs to be established is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim who was under twelve (12) years old. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 246194. November 4, 2020.])

63. Accused was charged with Qualified Rape after allegedly having a sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor
7 years old, aggravated by relationship, the accused being the uncle of the victim. Accused denied
having raped AAA and claimed that he was sleeping at the time of the incident. While he noted that the
only possible motive against him is a land dispute between the siblings, he stated that he was very
close to AAA' s parents, who treated him well and had no reason to charge him with sexual abuse. The
accused argued that there are glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her mother, BBB,
noting further that BBB's supposed reaction of not rushing to the aid of her daughter in a dreadful
situation is incredulous and that his relationship to AAA was not duly proven. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) considered the medico-legal certificate indicating an abrasion on
AAA’s labia majora and accorded great weight to the victim’s straightforward and positive testimony
over the bare denials of the accused. Is the accused guilty of qualified rape?
Yes. In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for
rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands
or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Thus, in a
prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. Considering the
foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the courts a quo that the elements of
Statutory Rape were duly established. AAA's straightforward and positive testimony that accused-appellant
raped her was corroborated by BBB's testimony. When considered together with the medico-legal certificate
indicating an abrasion on her labia majora and AAA's birth certificate proving that she was seven years old at
the time of the incident, the prosecution's evidence is sufficient for conviction. It is settled that the crime of rape
is deemed consummated even when the man's penis merely enters or comes into contact to the labia or lips of
the female organ. Further, the trial court's assessment on the credibility of witnesses deserves great weight,
and even conclusive and binding effect, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact
or circumstance of weight and influence, since the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to

15
 properly evaluate testimonial evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the CA
sustained said findings, as in this case. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 257276. February 28, 2022.])

64. AAA, an eight-year old female, was lying naked on the floor inside the room of their house when XXX,
the common-law spouse of her mother, laid on top of her and twice inserted his penis into her vagina,
then threatened her not to tell her mother. What was the crime committed?
Qualified Rape. Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2)
with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under [eighteen] years of age at the time
of the rape; and (5) the offender is [either] a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted),
[ascendant,stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent] of the victim. Here, all of the elements of Qualified Rape are present. (People
vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 238405. December 7, 2020.])

65. AAA, a nine year old child, was instructed by her father, accused, to go up to the bedroom and to
remove her shorts. After AAA complied, the accused inserted his penis into her vagina which caused
her pain. AAA shouted and pleaded, "wag na, tama na po". Accused stopped but threatened her not to
tell her mother about what happened. When AAA told her mother about it, she reported the matter to
the authorities which eventually led to the accused's arrest. Afterwards, AAA gave her statement to the
police and then underwent medical examination. Is there a crime committed by the accused despite
absence of actual force, threat or intimidation?
Yes. The accused committed Qualified Rape. The elements of Qualified Rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2)
with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under [eighteen] years of age at the time
of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim." In this
case, AAA was below eighteen years old when the crime was committed against her. Accused, who admitted
that he is AAA's father, sexually took advantage of her without her consent, likely relying on the authority he
holds over her. Relevantly, "when the offender is the victim's father, as in this case, there need not be actual
force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter,
who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over
the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation." Undoubtedly, the accused's relationship with the victim
should be considered in assessing his criminal liability. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 218277. November 9, 2020.])

66. XXX raped AAA. AAA alleged to be the step-daughter of XXX but there was no proof of marriage between
XXX and AAA’s mother. Is XXX guilty of qualified rape?

No. XXX shall be convicted for the crime of simple rape. The element of qualified rape are:
1. sexual congress;
2. with a woman;
3. Done by force and without consent;
4. the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and
5. the offender is either a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted), [ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree or the common-law spouse of the
parent] of the victim.”

A “stepfather” is the “husband of one’s mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person
spoken of is offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship between the accused and the victim’s mother.
Here, there is no stepparent-stepdaughter relationship between XXX and AAA. (People vs. De Guzman, [G.R. No.
224212. November 27, 2019.])

67. Summarize the applicable laws and penalties for the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness or Lascivious
Conduct and Rape through sexual intercourse or sexual assault
The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating or charging the offense, and in determining the
imposable penalty.
Nomenclature of the crime Imposable penalty
If the victim is 12 years old and Lascivious Conduct under Section Reclusion temporal in its medium
under 18 years old and the 5(b) of RA 7610. period to reclusion perpetua
crime falls under rape through
sexual assault It should not make any reference
to the provisions of the RPC.
If the victim is 18 years old and "Sexual Assault under paragraph Prision mayor
above, and not demented and 2, Article 266-A of the RPC"
the crime falls under rape
through sexual assault
If the victim is 12 years old and Rape under Article 266-A (1) in Reclusion perpetua
under 18 years old and the relation to Article 266-B of the RPC
crime falls under rape through or Simple Rape
sexual intercourse
If the victim is under 12 years Statutory Rape defined under Reclusion perpetua
old and the crime falls under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1 (d)
rape through sexual intercourse penalized under Article 266-B of
the RPC
(People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 233867. February 28, 2022; People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 246194. November 4, 2020)

16
68. ZZZ had carnal knowledge of his 12-year old granddaughter AAA, twice, without her consent, which
acts debase, degrade her intrinsic worth as a child and is prejudicial to her growth and development,
to her damage. Is it correct to charge ZZZ with two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610)?

No. There is a need to fix the error in the nomenclature of ZZZ's crime. ZZZ should be held criminally liable for
two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) penalized under Article 266-B (1) of the RPC.

Jurisprudence provides that while R.A. No. 7610 is a special law specifically enacted to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other
conditions prejudicial to their development, it is contrary to the legislative intent of the same law if the lesser
penalty (reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua) under Section 5(b) thereof would be imposed against
the perpetrator of sexual intercourse with a child 12 years of age or below 18. X x x Article 266-A, paragraph
1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, is not only the more recent law, but
also deals more particularly with all rape cases, hence, its short title "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997." R.A. No.
8353 upholds the policies and principles of R.A. No. 7610, and provides a "stronger deterrence and special
protection against child abuse," as it imposes a more severe penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B
of the RPC x x x “ Moreover, the crime of Qualified Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC is
penalized under Article 266-B (1), which provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under
18 years of age and the offender, among others, is the ascendant or a relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree. Applying RA 9346, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and without eligibility for parole
should be imposed upon ZZZ. When circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty are present
but the death penalty could not be imposed because of RA 9346, the qualification "without eligibility for parole"
shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced
to death had it not been for RA No. 9346.

Jurisprudence states that RA 8353 amending the RPC should now be uniformly applied in cases involving
sexual intercourse committed against minors, and not Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. While RA 7610 has been
considered as a special law that covers the sexual abuse of minors, RA 8353 has expanded the reach of our
rape laws. These existing rape laws should not only pertain to the old Article 335 of the RPC but also to the
provision on sexual intercourse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 of a child "exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other abuse," covers the rape of a minor. (People vs. ZZZ, [G.R. No. 232329. April 28, 2021; see also People
vs. ZZZ, [G.R. No. 226144. October 14, 2020)

69. XXX, while armed with a knife, forcibly took AAA’s two (2) cellular phones and wallet containing
P4,000.00 and raped her. Is it correct to charge XXX of Robbery with Rape and Grave Threats in relation
to Republic Act No. 7610?
No. Force, threat or intimidation' is the element of rape under the RPC, while 'due to coercion or influence of
any adult, syndicate or group' is the operative phrase for a child to be deemed 'exploited in prostitution or other
sexual abuse,' which is the element of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. Therefore, there could
be no instance that an Information may charge the same accused with the crime of rape where 'force, threat or
intimidation' is the element of the crime under the RPC, and at the same time violation of Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610. Assuming that the elements of both violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and of Article 266-A,
paragraph l(a) of the RPC are mistakenly alleged in the same Information, the accused should still be
prosecuted pursuant to the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, which is the more recent and special penal
legislation that is not only consistent, but also strengthens the policies of R.A. No. 7610. XXX is to be held
criminally liable for Robbery with Rape defined under Article 294, Paragraph 1 of the RPC and of Grave Threats
under Article 282 of the RPC. The correlation to RA 7610 should be deleted. (People vs. XXX, [G.R. No. 225781.
November 16, 2020.])

70. When Spouses AAA and BBB were about to board their car, four armed men approached them. XXX
and YYY poked a gun at BBB and AAA and managed to take away BBB. BBB was brought to a small
house. BBB's hands were tied at the back with a chain. After several hours, AAA received a call
informing her that BBB was held captive and will only be released upon payment of P5,000,000.00.
Despite AAA paying the ransom, BBB was not released. At the small house, BBB was shot in the head
by ZZZ. Are XXX and YYY guilty of the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide?
Yes.The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended, are as follows: (a)
intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his/her liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of
his/her liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release of the victim. In the
special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, the person kidnapped is killed in the course
of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought. In the
instant case, the prosecution was able to prove the foregoing elements of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide. Firstly, the accused's intent to deprive BBB of his liberty was evident from the moment his freedom
of movement was forcibly. Secondly, there was actual deprivation of his liberty when BBB was brought to a
small house and his hands were tied at the back with a chain. Thirdly, the prosecution was able to prove that
ransom money was demanded for the release of BBB. Finally, BBB was killed in the course of the detention.
(People vs. Cornista y Reotutar, [G.R. No. 218915. February 19, 2020.])

17
71. XXX threatened the life of AAA, 17 years old, by uttering the words: “HUMANDA KA SA SUSUNOD
NATING PAGKIKITA, PAPATAYIN NA KITA.” Is XXX guilty of the crime of Grave Threat notwithstanding
that it was said in the presence of a number of people,?
Yes. Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats, "any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime."
The crime is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened. In this
case, it is clear that XXX’s threat to kill AAA is a wrong on the person amounting to, at the very least, homicide
under the RPC. The felony of Grave Threats was consummated the moment AAA heard XXX utter his
threatening remarks. It was inconsequential that the threat was made in the presence of a number of people
since the offense does not require that it be committed in private. (People vs. Bueza y Ranay, [G.R. No. 242513. November
18, 2020.])

72. AAA took the bag of BBB containing P4,000.00 cash. Can he be held liable for theft notwithstanding
that the prosecution failed to establish the intent to gain?
Yes. The essential elements of Theft are: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property taken belongs to
another; (3) the taking was done without the owner's consent; (4) there was intent to gain; and (5) the taking
was done without violence against or intimidation of the person or force upon things. In this case, AAA took the
bag belonging to BBB without the latter's consent and with intent to gain. AAA's contention that the prosecution
failed to establish the element of intent to gain in the taking of the bag is without merit. Since intent to gain is
an internal act, it is presumed from the unlawful taking of the bag in question. (Albotra vs. People, G.R. No. 221602,
November 16, 2020)

73. May a person who finds something which is not his be liable for theft?
Yes. Under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), theft is also committed by one’s failure to
deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities. In this kind of theft, it is essential to prove: 1) the finding of
lost property; 2) the failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner. One who receives
property from the finder thereof assumes, in legal contemplation, by voluntary substitution, as to the property
and the owner, the relation occupied by the finder, placing himself in the finder’s stead. In such a case, whether
the person taking the property is guilty must be determined on the same principles that govern in the case of
the actual finder. A “finder” under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC is not only limited to the actual finder of the
lost property, since the gist of the offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found. (Pante
y Rangasa vs. People, [G.R. No. 218969. January 18, 2021.])

74. The accused, possessing deadly weapons, conspired to rob and carry away several belongings of AAA,
without the consent of the latter, after succeeding with their primary purpose of shooting, and killing
her husband BBB. Are the accused guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide?
No. A conviction for Robbery with Homicide requires that Robbery is the main purpose and objective of the
malefactors and the killing is merely incidental to the Robbery. If, originally, the malefactors did not comprehend
Robbery, but Robbery follows the Homicide either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the Homicide,
then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, that of Homicide or Murder and Robbery, and not of the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. ( People vs. Natindim, [G.R. No. 201867. November 4, 2020.])

75. May a special complex crime of robbery with homicide and double frustrated homicide be charged?
No. The offense should be designated as robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the number of homicides
or injuries committed. These other felonies have, at the most and under appropriate circumstances, been
considered merely as generic aggravating circumstances which can be offset by mitigating circumstances. The
term "homicide" in paragraph 1 of Article 294 is used in its generic sense, that is, any act that results in death.
Any other act producing injuries short of death is integrated in the "homicide" committed by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery, assuming, of course, that the homicide is consummated. If no death supervenes, the
accused should be held liable for separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide or murder
(provided that there was intent to kill) if the latter offenses were not necessary for the commission of the robbery,
or for a complex crime of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide or murder under Article 48 of the Code
if the latter offenses were the necessary means for the commission of robbery. ( People vs. Labuguen y Francisco,
[G.R. No. 223103. February 24, 2020.])

76. XXX, while armed with a knife, forcibly took AAA’s two (2) cellular phones and wallet containing
P4,000.00 and raped her. What crime did he commit?
Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. The following
elements must concur in the crime of Robbery with Rape: (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
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the Robbery is accompanied by Rape. Here, the
elements of the crime of Robbery with Rape are present. (People vs. Bueza y Ranay, [G.R. No. 242513. November 18,
2020.])

77. Distinguish theft from estafa.

Theft
The thing is taken
However, there may be theft even if the accused has
possession of the property. If he was entrusted only
with the material or physical (natural) or de facto
possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the
same constitutes theft.
Estafa
The accused receives the property and converts it
to his own use or benefit
If he has the juridical possession of the thing, his
conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement
or estafa.
(Horca vs. People, [G.R. No. 224316. November 10, 2021.])

18
78. AAA was charged with the crime of theft after she carried away cash money amounting to more than 1
million pesos received from the complainant under the express obligation of delivering 19 Swiss
airplane tickets to the latter. The complainant was able to receive only 4 tickets and was informed that
the other 15 tickets were stolen. Upon several demands of the complainant, AAA was able to return
only 90,000 prompting the former to file a complaint. Should the crime charged be estafa? Is AAA guilty
of theft or estafa?

No. AAA was properly charged with the crime of Theft because she was merely entrusted with the material or
physical possession of the sum of money which she was supposed to use for the purchase of the 19 airline
tickets. Juridical possession, which means a possession that gives the transferee a right over the thing
transferred and that which he may set up even against the owner, was never shown to have been transferred
to petitioner

In any case, this Court rules to acquit AAA based on reasonable doubt. Under Article 308 of the RPC, the crime
of theft is committed when the following elements concur: (I) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that
said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done
without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking be accomplished without the use of violence, intimidation,
or force upon persons or things. Animus lucrandi, or intent to gain, is an internal act which can be established
through the overt acts of the offender and can be presumed from the unlawful taking. Here, the prosecution
failed to adduce any concrete evidence which would show that AAA had taken the cash for her own personal
gain. On the contrary, the records show that AAA actually used the money covered by the checks for its intended
purpose, i.e., to purchase the airline tickets, albeit only four were initially delivered. (Horca vs. People, [G.R. No.
224316. November 10, 2021.])

79. AAA and BBB were both dealers of ZZZ products. After BBB's store was gutted by a fire, AAA agreed
to place orders of ZZZ products in BBB's behalf through AAA's credit line. Their transactions were
covered by Trust Receipt Agreements (TRAs). The parties agreed that BBB would either pay for the
items or return them if unsold after 30 days from receipt thereof. BBB admitted to having received the
items covered by TRAs 1 and 2. BBB also claimed that AAA received Avon products from her with a
total value of P25,900.00 but this amount was not deducted from her payables to AAA. AAA claimed
that BBB failed to pay on time for the other items with a total value of P74,955.00. BBB thus issued
checks to pay her obligations to AAA but the checks bounced for having been drawn against a closed
account. AAA demanded payment from BBB under TRAs 1 and 2 which went unheeded. Is BBB guilty
of estafa?
Yes. The elements of estafa under Article 315 paragraph (1)(b) of the RPC are: (a) that money, goods, or other
personal properties are 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; (b) that there is a misappropriation
or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (c) that the
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a demand made by
the offended party on the offender. All the essential elements of Estafa are present in this case. First, BBB
received merchandise from AAA. Second, BBB failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the products she
procured from AAA upon the latter's demand. Third, BBB's misappropriation or conversion of the proceeds of
the sale of AAA's products caused damage to the latter. Lastly, AAA demanded payment from BBB under TRAs
1 and 2 which went unheeded. (Barlin vs. People, G.R. No. 207418, June 23, 2021)

80. If there are supervening events which are beyond the control of the entrustee, like a financial crisis, or
pandemic, can the entrustee be excused from the crime of estata in failing to comply with the trust
receipt agreement?
No. The law punishes the entrustee's failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered, or to
return the goods themselves if not sold. Under Section 13 of the law, such failure shall constitute the crime of
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the offense of
violation of the Trust Receipts Law is malum prohibitum. Thus, mere failure to turn over the proceeds of the
sale, or to return the goods themselves if not sold, amounts to the violation. Intent to defraud is immaterial. (Chua
vs. Secretary of Justice, [G.R. No. 214960. June 15, 2022.])

81. What are the elements of estafa (or swindling) under means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a)
of the Revised Penal Code?
(1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
(2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means,that is,
he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent actor fraudulent
means; and
(4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. (Spouses Dulay III vs. People, [G.R. No. 215132.
September 13, 2021.]; Debuque vs. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, May 10, 2021)

82. What is the legal definition of “deceit” in the commission of estafa by deceit as defined under Article
315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code?
It is 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. (Spouses Dulay III vs. People, [G.R. No. 215132. September 13, 2021.]

19
83. Claiming to be the actual owners of a lot, AAA sold it to BBBs. AAA took advantage of the demise of
the real registered owners and the similarity in their names and claimed that title to the subject property
is simply being reconstituted to reflect their names and that they are the same persons as the registered
owners, both of which are false. Are AAA guilty of the crime of estafa when BBBs were aware that the
subject property was not in their names at the time of the transaction?
Yes. AAA made false pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentations to complainants. AAA' false pretense of
ownership which could transfer valid title to the subject property, was committed prior to and simultaneous with
the commission of the fraud. BBBs' reliance on this false pretense induced and impelled them to purchase the
subject property from sham owners who do not hold any color of title and pay them the total amount. (Spouses
Dulay III vs. People, [G.R. No. 215132. September 13, 2021.])

84. AAA tried to sell BBB’s lot to CCC even if the truth was BBB was not selling the said lot and that he
never gave AAA the authority to sell the said lot. CCC already gave earnest money and other additional
fees to AAA but when the former tried to get back the money from the latter, the latter issued checks
which were subsequently dishonored. Is AAA guilty of estafa?
Yes, AAA is criminally liable for estafa by false deceits under Article 315 (2) of The Revised Penal Code. All the
elements of Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315, Paragraph 2 (a) of the RPC are present. Case law
instructs that the gravamen of the crime of Estafa is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or
prejudice of another. With the foregoing, AAA's actuations toward CCC snugly encapsulated this
description.(Arriola vs. People, [G.R. No. 199975. February 24, 2020)

85. What are the elements of Syndicated Estafa?

The elements are as follows (a) Estafa or Other Forms of Swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the
RPC, is committed; (b) the Estafa or Swindling is committed by a syndicate of five 5 or more persons; and, (c)
defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers' association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations
from the general public. (Debuque vs. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, May 10, 2021)

86. AAA, without a license to engage in recruitment activity, asked 4 individuals to pay P40,500.00 each for
placement fee, plane tickets, passport, and visa processing in exchange for work in a noodle factory in
Japan which will be easy since her sister is a manager in the said factory. They never got out in the
Philippines to work abroad. AAA used their money for personal use. Is AAA guilty of illegal recruitment
in large scale and estafa?

Yes, AAA is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.

The essential elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale are that: 1) the person charged undertook any
recruitment activity as defined under Sec. 6 of RA 804; 2) accused did not have the license or the authority to
lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and 3) accused committed the same against three or more
persons individually or as a group. In this case, AAA’s acts of offering and promising to deploy the complainants
to Japan as factory workers, as well as collecting money for passports, plane tickets, visa processing and
placement fees constitute a recruitment activity as defined under Sec. 6 of RA 8042. This is despite the fact
that AAA has no license from POEA to engage in recruitment of workers.

On the other hand, the elements of Estafa are: 1. The accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or
by means of deceit; and 2. The offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation. Here, AAA defrauded the complainants by making them believe that she has the capacity to deploy
them to Japan as factory workers, even if she did not have the authority or license for the purpose. (People vs.
Liwanag, [G.R. No. 232245. March 2, 2022.] )

87. Aside from promising to deploy AAAs for work abroad, when BBB paid their placement fees, BBB
issued receipts using a fictitious name. Can BBB be also held guilty of estafa aside from illegal
recruitment?
Yes. Jurisprudence is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately for Illegal
Recruitment under RA 8042 (or the Labor Code), and Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. In estafa,
damage is essential, but not in the crime of illegal recruitment. As to the latter, it is the lack of the necessary
license or authority, but not the fact of payment that renders the recruitment activity as unlawful. In the instant
case, the elements of deceit and damage are present. BBB’s representation induced the victims to part with
their money, resulting in damage. BBB also issued receipts using a fictitious name. In view of the deceitful and
illegal acts of BBB, AAAs undoubtedly suffered damage. (People vs. Manalang, [G.R. No. 198015. January 20, 2021.])

88. AAAs, upon the order of BBB who claims to be the true owner of the property occupied by CCC, entered
said property, without CCC’s consent, and destroyed the iron fence, removed the cement foundation,
and made diggings until it reached a portion of the foundation of his apartment. Are AAAs and BBB
guilty of malicious mischief?
Yes. Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code pertinently provides that any person who shall deliberately cause
to the property of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter, shall be guilty
of malicious mischief. The elements of Malicious Mischief have been duly proven in this case, viz: 1. Petitioners
admitted in their "kontra salaysay" that Teofilo deliberately destroyed the fence and its cement foundation, and
made diggings in the subject property; 2. The destruction did not constitute arson or other crime involving
destruction; and 3. The act of damaging another's property was committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
Under the third element, assuming that BBB owned the property in controversy, he and his co-accused were

20
 not justified in summarily destroying the improvements built thereon by CCC. They unlawfully took the law into
their own hands when they surreptitiously entered CCC's enclosed lot and destroyed its fence and foundation.
Evidently, their actions were made out of hatred, revenge or evil motive.(Grana vs. People, [G.R. No. 202111. November
25, 2019.])

89. AAA was charged with bigamy after he had an affair and married a certain BBB during the course of his
marriage with CCC. AAA, in his defense, contends that he cannot be held criminally liable for bigamy
because both his marriages are null and void: lack of a valid marriage license with CCC and lack of a
marriage ceremony with BBB. May AAA raise the defense that his marriages in cases for bigamy
Yes, AAA may raise as a defense the nullity of both his marriages in bigamy. To summarize and for future
guidance, the parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first
and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to all
marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code. Article 40 of the Family Code, which states
that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely
of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void, did not amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did
not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy. (Pulido vs. People, [G.R. No. 220149. July 27, 2021.])

21