CHAIR’S

CASES in

Atty. Lyan David M. Juanico

 11 TIPS TO
ACE THE
Atty. Lyan David M. Juanico
 Always believe in yourself.

TIP NO. 1
 TIP NO. 2
Always observe the E-D-G-E
format in answering essay
problems.
 Take mock bars and answer
them seriously.

TIP NO. 3
 TIP NO. 4

Attend lectures.
 Surround yourself with the
people who love you and
show endless support to all
your endeavors.
TIP NO. 5
 Stick to your TIP NO. 6
schedule. But do
not panic if you fail
to do so.
 Do not be hard on
yourself. Relax and
unwind.
TIP NO. 7
 TIP NO. 8

Exercise.
 During pre-week, do
not be of the
impression that you
can re-read and re-
TIP NO. 9 study everything.
 TIP NO. 10
Sleep the night before
the bar exams.
 Ora et labora.

TIP NO. 11
 CHAIR’S
CASES in

Atty. Lyan David M. Juanico

 Ghor is a driver by occupation. He was engaged by Thor to drive for his client,
an unknown woman with the alias Sexy, using Thor's vehicle, i.e., a Toyota
Revo. After driving Sexy to the Sandiganbayan complex along Commonwealth
Avenue, Sexy instructed Ghor to proceed to Hapi Chan Restaurant without
her and to meet with a certain Star Lord who would get Sexy's bag for a
consideration, which the latter placed on the backseat of the Toyota Revo.

On the other hand, SPO3 Valkyrie received a reliable tip that a drug trade
would happen in front of Hapi Chan Restaurant involving a pusher named
Sexy on board on a Toyota Revo. Acting on the said tip, Valkyrie decided to
go undercover. Valkyrie went to the said restaurant and walked towards the
parked car matching with the description that she received. When she opened
the door, she saw Ghor to whom she asked where Sexy is. Instead of giving a
responsive answer, Ghor asked him if she is Star Lord to which she answered
in the affirmative. Forthwith, Ghor told him to get the blue bag at the back seat
and leave the money there as instructed by Sexy. At once, SPO3 Valkyrie took
the blue bag from the Toyota Revo and opened it. She then saw six (6) brown

PROBLEM
envelopes containing white crystalline substance inside a plastic bag which
turned out to be shabu.

Ghor was subsequently arrested and was charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Is Ghor criminally liable?
 ANSWER
No, Ghor is not criminally liable.

One of the elements of the crime of illegal possession of

dangerous drugs is intent to possess or animus possidendi. The
accused must knowingly, freely, intentionally, and consciously
possessed the prohibited drugs in his person.

In this case, Ghor is not the owner of the vehicle where the drug
was recovered. He is a mere driver for hire who followed the
instructions of his principal, Thor, and the latter's client, Sexy,
which, on their face, are lawful instructions. It cannot be said
that Ghor knowingly, freely, intentionally, and consciously
possessed the bag containing shabu.

Therefore, Ghor is not criminally liable.

 G.R. No. 231902, June 30, 2021.

• It is well-settled that criminal intent need not be proved in the

prosecution of acts mala prohibita. A person may not have
consciously intended to commit a crime. But if he did intend to
commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the
crime itself, then he can be held liable for the malum prohibitum. In
other words, "intent to commit the crime is not necessary, but
intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law must be
shown."
 G.R. No. 231902, June 30, 2021.

• Nevertheless, despite the offense of illegal possession of

dangerous drugs being malum prohibitum, "this, however, does not
lessen the prosecution's burden because it is still required to show
that the prohibited act was intentional." In cases involving the
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the prosecution is not
excused from proving that possession of the prohibited act was
done 'freely and consciously,' which is an essential element of the
crime."
G.R. NO. 224946, NOVEMBER 9, 2021.

• The crime penalized under Section 5 (i) R.A. 9262 is mala in se, not
mala prohibita, even though R.A. 9262 is a special penal law.
• The acts punished therein are inherently wrong or depraved, and the
language used under the said penal law requires a mental element.
Being a crime mala in se, there must thus be a concurrence of both
actus reus and mens rea to constitute the crime.
• Actus reus pertains to the external or overt acts or omissions
included in a crime's definition while mens rea refers to the accused's
guilty state of mind or criminal intent accompanying the actus reus.
G.R. NO. 224946, NOVEMBER 9, 2021.

• It is not enough, therefore, for the woman to experience mental or

emotional anguish, or for her partner to deny financial support that is
legally due her.
• In order for criminal liability to arise under Section 5 (i) of R.A. 9262,
insofar as it deals with "denial of financial support," there must,
therefore, be evidence on record that the accused willfully or
consciously withheld financial support legally due the woman for the
purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her.
 A traffic altercation happened between Mr. X and Mr. Y.
Because the traffic altercation was really heated, Mr. X
drew his gun from his waist and fired successive shots at
Mr. Y, who sped off with his motorcycle to flee. In the
meantime, ABC was flying a kite in the area at that time.
ABC fell to the ground upon being hit by one of the bullets
fired by Mr. X. Upon seeing ABC sprawled on the ground,
Mr. X stopped, left his motorcycle, and ran towards Nepa
Street. ABC died.

The trial court convicted Mr. X of the crime of homicide

insofar as ABC is concerned. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals ruled that Mr. X’s liability insofar as ABC is

PROBLEM concerned is only reckless imprudence resulting in

homicide.

Which court is correct?

 ANSWER
The trial court is correct.

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is

incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The
author of the felony shall be criminally liable for the direct,
natural, and logical consequence thereof, whether intended or
not.

In this case, Mr. X was committing a felony when he fired

successive shots at Mr. Y. The death of ABC is the direct,
natural, and logical consequence of this felonious act of Mr. X.
As such, Mr. X is criminally liable for an intentional felony.

Thus, the trial court is correct

 G.R. NO. 216642, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020

• Under Article 13, paragraph 4, of the RPC, the criminal liability of

the accused shall be mitigated if "x x x sufficient provocation or
threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act" of the accused.
• Sufficient provocation refers to "any unjust or improper conduct or
act of the victim adequate enough to excite a person to commit a
wrong, which is accordingly proportionate in gravity."
 G.R. NO. 216642, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020

• While his firing was preceded by a short verbal altercation, this still
does not amount to sufficient provocation. The short exchange of
words between the accused and the victim, though heated, is not
adequate to elicit such grave reaction as the firing of a gun. Thus,
the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
appreciated in favor of the accused.
G.R. NO. 245862, NOVEMBER 3, 2020

• Since Perez was charged with the violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019, the prescriptive period of the offense is found in Section 11 of
the same law, which provides that all offenses punishable under R.A.
No. 3019 prescribes in 15 years.
• This provision was later amended by R.A. No. 10910, increasing the
prescriptive period from 15 to 20 years. The amendatory law took
effect on July 21, 2016.
• As such, this longer period of prescription may not be retroactively
applied to crimes committed prior to the passage of R.A. No. 10910.
G.R. NO. 245862, NOVEMBER 3, 2020
• If the commission of the offense is not known at that time,
prescription begins to run from its discovery. This is otherwise
referred to as the "blameless ignorance" principle.
• This "blameless ignorance" principle was mostly applied in cases
involving behest loans executed during the Martial Law regime, as an
exception to the general rule that prescription runs from the
commission of the crime.
• Behest loans, by their very nature, are not easily discovered as they
normally involved a large-scale conspiracy among the loan
beneficiaries and the concerned public officials.
 Naruto, a tricycle driver, unloaded his passengers in front
of Dr. Ramon De Santos National High School. While
Naruto was giving his passengers their change, Sasuke
alighted from his own tricycle armed with a kitchen knife.
Without warning, Sasuke grabbed the Naruto's shoulder
and stabbed the latter twice in rapid successive motions
near the heart. Naruto got off his tricycle and tried to run
away, but Sasuke pursued him. When Naruto collapsed on
the road, Sasuke took this as an opportunity to stab the
former one more time. Sasuke left thereafter. Naruto was
then taken by bystanders to a hospital where he was
pronounced dead on arrival. During trial, Sasuke

PROBLEM
interposed self-defense. According to Sasuke, he was
plying his tricycle when he saw the Naruto on the other
side of the road pointing and cursing at him. Rule on the
contention of Sasuke.
The contention of Sasuke does not have merit.

The Supreme Court has ruled that unlawful aggression is

a condition precedent for self-defense. Unlawful
ANSWER
aggression refers to an actual physical assault, or at
least a threat to inflict real and imminent injury upon a
person.

In this case, there is no unlawful aggression on the part

of Naruto because he did not commit an actual physical
assault upon Sasuke. The pointing and cursing by
Naruto do not amount to a threat to inflict real and
imminent injury upon Sasuke.

Therefore, the contention of Sasuke does not have merit.

 G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018

• To appreciate treachery as a qualifying circumstance, the

following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant
employed means, methods or forms in the execution of
the criminal act which give the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said
means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately
or consciously adopted by the assailant.
 G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018

• In this case, although the attack was sudden and unexpected, the prosecution did
not prove that Armando deliberately chose a particular mode of attack that
purportedly ensured the execution of the criminal purpose without any risk to
himself arising from the defense that the victim might offer.
• As testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution, the incident happened in
broad daylight outside Dr. Ramon De Santos National High School, a public place
where there were plenty of other people present who could have offered their
help.
• If Armando wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he could have
chosen another time and place to stab the victim.
G.R. NO. 216018, MARCH 27, 2019
• The stabbing incident happened during a drinking spree in which the accused
was already a part of. The accused did not deliberately seek the presence of
Manuel as he was already in the same vicinity as the victim, joining the
merriment when he stabbed the latter.
• In killing the victim, the accused merely picked up a bladed weapon from his
table — there was no mention in the records as to who owned the said
weapon.
• The incident happened during a drinking spree where there were more or less
15 people, excluding the accused and the victim. If the accused wanted to
make certain that no risk would come to him, he could have chosen another
time and place to stab the victim.
 One evening, Sheldon and his best friend,
Leonard, were walking home along the road in
Norala, South Cotabato after attending a
wedding celebration. Suddenly, Raj shot
Leonard in the back four (4) times,
successively. Sheldon easily recognized Raj
as the assailant because the place was well lit
and he was just about ten (10) meters away
from Raj when the latter fired his gun. For fear
of his life, Sheldon ran away from the place of

PROBLEM
incident. He reported the incident to Penny
and to the police officers of Norala. Leonard
died despite medical assistance. What is the
crime committed by Raj, if any?
 ANSWER
The crime committed by Raj is murder.

It is settled in Criminal Law that the crime is murder if the killing

is qualified by treachery. There is treachery if: (a) at the time of
the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself;
and (b) the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
methods, or form of attack employed by him.

Here, the attack against Leonard came from behind. As such,

he was not in a position to defend himself. Also, the use of a
firearm by Raj showed that he consciously adopted the means,
methods, and form of attack employed by him to kill Leonard.

Hence, treachery is present, sufficient to qualify the crime to

Murder.
 G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017

• Under Article 248 of the RPC, murder is committed when:

(1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the
killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying
circumstances enumerated in Article 248; and (4) the
killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.
 Claire and her daughter, Haley, were in their
house watching the television when they heard
someone moaning at a nearby house. As they
peeped out of the window, they saw a bloodied
Mitchell coming out of his house and upon
reaching the door got stabbed in the back by
Cameron with a bread knife. Mitchell managed
to ask for help from his father's house before
collapsing. He was then brought to the
hospital but was unfortunately pronounced

PROBLEM dead on arrival caused by multiple stab

wounds in the neck and thorax. Is there
treachery in this case?
No, there is no treachery in this case.

It is settled in Criminal Law that treachery cannot be

considered where the witness did not see the
ANSWER
commencement of the assault.

In this case, Claire and Haley did not see the manner of
how the attack commenced or how the acts which
resulted in Mitchell’s death unfolded as the attack started
inside the house of the victim. They merely saw Mitchell,
already bloodied, coming out of his house. Thus, what
happened inside the house is unknown to Claire and
Haley.

As such, treachery cannot be appreciated in this case.

 G.R. No. 238171, June 19, 2019.

• With the removal of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the

crime is therefore Homicide and not Murder. The penalty for
Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC is reclusion temporal. In the
absence of any modifying circumstance, the penalty shall be
imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor
with a range of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
 If X committed the crime of
homicide, and there are no
aggravating circumstances, but
he voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities. What is the penalty
to be imposed upon him,

PROBLEM
applying the indeterminate
sentence law?
X shall suffer an indeterminate sentence, the maximum penalty
of which shall be reclusion temporal in its minimum period, while

ANSWER
the minimum penalty thereof shall be prision mayor in any of its
periods.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person found guilty of

homicide shall be meted the penalty of reclusion temporal, a
penalty which contains three (3) periods. Given that X voluntarily
surrendered, Article 64 (2) states that when only a mitigating
circumstance attended the commission of the felony, the penalty
shall be imposed in its minimum period.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall sentence

the accused to such maximum as may, in view of the attending
circumstances, be properly imposed under the present rules of
the Revised Penal Code, and to a minimum which shall not be
less than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
offense.
G.R. NO. 218209, APRIL 10, 2019

• The Supreme Court in this case sentenced the

accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six
(6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.
G.R. NO. 218209, APRIL 10, 2019
• There is no treachery if the attack was preceded by an altercation between
the accused and the victim. Each of them is forewarned of an impending
attack by either of them.
• The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance
to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
himself.
• As such, there is no treachery when the assault is preceded by a heated
exchange of words between the accused and the victim; or when the
victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the former.
 One evening, Batman and Robbin left the flea market and
went to the house of Harley. When they reached Harley’s
house, Robbin asked Harley for a cigarette lighter. After
Harley gave Robbin the lighter, the latter struck Harley on
the nape with a piece of firewood. Robbin then took a bolo
and hacked Harley's body on the side.

Harley lost consciousness and as he laid motionless on

the ground, Batman stabbed him twice in the chest using
a knife. Harley died.

During trial, Batman argued that he is only liable for an

impossible crime. Batman contended that it was legally

PROBLEM
impossible for him to kill Harley as the latter was already
dead when he stabbed him. This was evidenced by the
fact that Harley lost consciousness and laid motionless on
the ground when Batman stabbed him.

Is the contention of Batman correct?

Batman’s contention that he is merely liable for an

ANSWER
impossible crime is incorrect.

Under the Revised Penal Code, one of the requisites for

an impossible crime is its accomplishment is inherently
impossible on account of legal impossibility.

In this case, the opinion of Harley's death was arrived at

by merely looking at the latter's motionless body. No
other act was done to ascertain this, such as checking of
Harley's pulse, heartbeat, or breathing.

Therefore, Batman’s contention that he is merely liable

for an impossible crime is incorrect.
 G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018

• Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all. In this case, conspiracy is evident from the series of
acts of Batman and Robin, which, when taken together,
reveal a commonality and unity of criminal design that is
to kill Harley.
 G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018

• In this case, the victim was unarmed and totally unaware of the imminent
danger to his life. The accused asked for a lighter deliberately to catch the
victim off guard. When the victim handed the lighter, he was suddenly
hacked and thereafter stabbed to death. The victim had no foreboding of
any danger, threat or harm upon his life at the time and occasion that he
was attacked. Treachery was attendant not only because of the
suddenness of the attack but likewise due to the absence of opportunity
to repel the same.
SUMMARY
OF RULES
G.R. NO. 242552, MARCH 3, 2021
• In this case, the petitioners hacked the victim twice in the face and even
chased after him, which are indeed indicative of an intent to kill. However,
there is no evidence that the wounds sustained by the victim were fatal
enough to cause his death.
• Dr. Manaois, the prosecution’s witness, failed to categorically state
whether the wounds sustained by the victim are fatal. This cannot be
inferred from the fact alone that he was hacked in the face. In fact, it is
doubtful whether the stab wounds themselves were grave enough to
cause the victim’s death because Dr. Manaois merely mentioned that
victim might lose blood and it is possible for him to die because of
infection or tetanus it no timely medical attention was given.
G.R. NO. 242552, MARCH 3, 2021

• Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,

inter alia, in the: (i) the means used by the malefactors; (ii) nature,
location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (iii) conduct of
the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; (iv) circumstances under which the crime was committed; and (v)
motives of the accused.
• If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to
kill is presumed.
G.R. NO. 242552, MARCH 3, 2021

• The Supreme Court ruled that the crime

committed was only attempted homicide,
and not frustrated.
G.R. NO. 242552, MARCH 3, 2021

• In this connection, as previously discussed, due to the

inconsistent testimonies of the defense witnesses, aside
from the phone call from Mimielyn that she was allegedly
being attacked by Glenn, there is no clear evidence that
petitioners witnessed Glenn initiate any attack against
Mimielyn, which would have given rise to passion or
obfuscation on the part of petitioners. What is sure though
is that petitioners and the victim had a quarrel or a fight.
G.R. NO. 242552, MARCH 3, 2021

• The Court has consistently held that the obfuscation must

originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and unreason
which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be
confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of
a person injured or offended to such a degree as to
deprive him of his sanity and self-control, because the
cause of this condition of mind must necessarily have
preceded the commission of the offense.
G.R. NO. 218581, MARCH 27, 2019

• In the present case, Lumahang voluntarily

surrendered to the barangay officers on the same
night the incident happened because he was
convinced to do so by his aunt. This satisfies all
the aforementioned three requisites, thus entitling
Lumahang to claim the mitigating circumstances
of voluntary surrender.
G.R. NO. 218581, MARCH 27, 2019

• The Supreme Court held that for voluntary surrender to be

appreciated, the following requisites should be present: 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.
G.R. NO. 218581, MARCH 27, 2019
• The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of
the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities
either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the
authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his
search and capture.
• Without these elements, and where the clear reasons for the
supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and the need to
ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous and, therefore,
cannot be characterized as "voluntary surrender" to serve as a
mitigating circumstance.
G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019

• When a minor is above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old is
charged with a crime, he is criminally liable if the prosecution
establishes discernment.
• The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, on the other hand,
established only CICL’s supposed participation in the mauling of the
victim. To reiterate, these pieces of evidence only establish CICL’s
intent, instead of his having acted with discernment.
G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019

• It cannot be presumed that the minor acted with discernment. During

the trial, the prosecution must specifically prove as a separate
circumstance that the CICL committed the alleged crime with
discernment.
• The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
criminal liability of a minor who commits an act prohibited by law, is
his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong.
G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019

• The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, on the other hand,

established only CICL’s supposed participation in the mauling of the
victim. To reiterate, these pieces of evidence only establish CICL’s
intent, instead of his having acted with discernment.
• Furthermore, even if he was a co-conspirator, he would still be exempt
from criminal liability as the prosecution failed to rebut the
presumption of non-discernment on his part by virtue of his age.
G.R. NO. 218702, OCTOBER 17, 2018

X is liable for complex crime of double murder.

Under the RPC, complex crime is committed ……

In this case, the accused killed the victim by setting his house on fire.

Considering that the single act of burning the house resulted to two
grave felonies, namely the death of the victim and his daughter, the
crime committed is the complex crime of double murder.
10-Minute
Wellness
 The court in an ejectment case issued a favorable decision in favor of the
plaintiff, Matt Murdock, against the informal settlers of a compound known
as Hell’s Kitchen. It became final and executory. A writ of execution was
subsequently issued. However, despite several attempts, the writ of
execution was returned unsatisfied. Apparently, the mayor of the town,
King Pin, is preventing the implementation of the writ of execution. In fact,
Mayor King Pin, during an attempt to demolish the shanties, mentioned to
the sheriff the following words: “Mga putang-ina ninyo, para kayong mga
hari, basta na lang kayo mangingiba ng bahay ng may bahay, hindi man
lang kayo nagpapaalam sa akin, sige, ituloy ninyo yan at pagbabarilin ko
kayo, komo may dala kayong order.” On the same occasion, the sheriff
was approached by Echo and Elektra, both of whom are working for Mayor
King Pin. Echo and Elektra told the sheriff that if he will not desist from the
demolition something untoward might happen to him or that he might be
slapped with a court case.

PROBLEM
Aggrieved, Matt Murdock charged King Pin, Echo, and Elektra with
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 alleging that they were in a
conspiracy when they acted with evident bad faith by preventing the
implementation of a valid court order, and by giving the informal settlers
unwarranted benefits. During the pendency of the criminal case before the
Sandiganbayan, King Pin died.
 (A) What is the effect of the death of
King Pin insofar as his criminal and
civil liabilities are concerned?

(B) Decide on the criminal liabilities of

Echo and Elektra.
PROBLEM
(A) What is the effect of the death of King Pin insofar as his criminal and

ANSWER
civil liabilities are concerned?

The effect of the death of King Pin insofar as his criminal liability is concerned
is that it totally extinguishes the same. However, with respect to his civil
liabilities, only King Pin’s civil liability directly arising from and based solely on
the offense is extinguished.

It is settled in Criminal Law that the death of the accused prior to the finality of
his conviction totally extinguishes his criminal liability and civil liability ex
delicto. However, the civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the
accused, if the same may also be predicated on a different source of
obligation. This can be enforced by filing a separate civil action either against
the executor or administrator of the estate of the accused.

In this case, King Pin died during the pendency of his criminal case before the
Sandiganbayan. As such, King Pin’s criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto
are totally extinguished. However, King Pin can be civilly liable based on quasi-
delict and this survives notwithstanding his death. A separate civil action can
be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate of King Pin.
(B) Decide on the criminal liabilities of Echo and Elektra.

Echo and Elektra are not criminally liable.

It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that conspiracy exists when two
ANSWER
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or
agreement to cooperate, mere presence at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission, and mere companionship are insufficient to
constitute a conspiracy.

In this case, the only evidence against Echo and Elektra is their presence
at the demolition site to accompany Mayor King Pin. The acts performed
by Echo and Elektra like informing the sheriff that he might be slapped
with a court case do not qualify as overt acts made in pursuance or in
furtherance of the conspiracy.

Therefore, Echo and Elektra are not criminally liable.

 G.R. Nos. 197142 & 197153, October 9, 2019

• The accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial or official functions;
• He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
• That his action gave any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions.
 During the start of the pandemic, the Department of
Health, through Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve
Rogers, purchased several boxes of paracetamol
and sodium ascorbate from Avengers
Pharmaceutical Company. Citing the urgency of the
situation, the purchase was made through a direct
sale and was not conducted via public bidding.
Several months later, it was discovered that the
paracentral and sodium ascorbate purchased from
Avengers Pharmaceutical Company were all
overpriced. A criminal complaint for violation of

PROBLEM Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed against Peter
Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers. If you were
the judge, how would you rule on this case?
I will rule in favor of Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers.

The Supreme Court has held that the absence of public bidding in
the procurement of goods does not automatically equate to evident
bad faith and manifest partiality. The guilt of an accused charged
ANSWER
with violation of R.A. No. 3019 must be determined through the lens
of the anti-graft and corruption law and not the procurement law

In this case, the direct purchase made by Peter Parker, Tony Stark,
and Steve Rogers was based on their honest belief that the same
was warranted under the urgent circumstances. The failure of Peter
Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers to conduct public bidding in
accordance with the relevant procurement laws does not make them
automatically liable for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

Therefore, I will rule in favor Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve
Rogers.
 G.R. No. 215104, March 18, 2021

• It has been consistently ruled that a mere signature or approval appearing

on a document does not meet the required quantum of proof to establish
the existence of conspiracy.
• Not every person who signs documents required in standard operating
procedures automatically becomes a conspirator in a crime.
• There must be other positive and clear evidence showing each of the
accused's conscious and intentional participation in the planning,
preparation and execution of crime charged.
 G.R. No. 215104, March 18, 2021

• Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing whether there was overpricing, a

specific comparison with the same brand, features and specifications as
those purchased in the questioned transaction should be made.
• Further, the report upon which the proof of overpricing is based should
include a canvass of the different suppliers of the identical product with
their corresponding prices.
• Absent this evidence, the Court cannot reasonably conclude that the price
of the goods subject of the questioned transaction was actually
exorbitant.
 During the start of the pandemic, the
Municipality of Avengers, through its mayor,
Steve Rogers, purchased a Toyota Hilux.
Citing the urgency of the situation, and the
lack of other distributors, the purchase was
made through a direct sale and was not
conducted via public bidding. A criminal
complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019 was filed against Steve Rogers
alleging that his preference for a particular

PROBLEM make of a vehicle (i.e., Toyota) amounts to

manifest partiality. If you were the judge, how
would you rule on this case?
I will rule in favor of Steve Rogers.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court ruled

that while there appears to be a degree of preference for
a specific brand, a preference for the brand's
ANSWER
performance record and reliability, this preference does
not rise to the level of manifest partiality that would show
an ulterior motive or purpose on the part of the accused.
Under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, the prosecution
must show not only the defects in the procurement
procedure but also the alleged evident bad faith, gross
inexcusable negligence, or manifest partiality on the part
of the accused.

Therefore, Steve Rogers cannot be convicted of violating

Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
 G.R. Nos. 224720-23, February 2, 2021

• Manifest partiality is when there is a clear,

notorious, or plain inclination or predilection
to favor one side or person rather than
another.
 G.R. Nos. 224720-23, February 2, 2021

• Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment

but also palpably and patently fraudulent and
dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive
or ill will.
 G.R. Nos. 224720-23, February 2, 2021

• Gross inexcusable negligence refers to negligence

characterized by the want of even the slightest care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
 The Philippine National Railways (“PNR”) through its Bids and Awards
Committee (“BAC”) purchased from Black Pink Korea rail fastenings,
clips, and insulators for the repair of its rail tracks amounting to
US$225,000.00. One of the members of the BAC is Lisa. During the
procurement proceedings involving Blank Pink Korea, Lisa inhibited
because she is the adoptive mother of Rose, the Manila Liaison Officer
of the said company. However, Lisa subsequently authorized through a
letter signed by her, the opening of a Letter of Credit before the
Philippine National Bank in favor of Blank Pink Korea for the full
amount of the contract price (i.e., US$225,000.00). This is even though
the contract clearly provides that the payment to Blank Pink Korea shall
be made in tranches (i.e., 15% and 85%).

Lisa was then charged by the Ombudsman with violation of Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019 because she allegedly authorized payments not in

PROBLEM
accordance with the terms of the applicable contract. The Ombudsman
further argued that this failure on the part of Lisa, coupled by the fact
that she is the adoptive mother of Rose who negotiated for Blank Pink
Korea, is indicative of evident bad faith.

If you were the judge, how would you rule on this case?
I will acquit Lisa.

Jurisprudence provides that relationship alone should not

be determinative of liability under Section 3(e) of R.A.
ANSWER
3019, absent any kind of showing that it was used
improperly or with corrupt motives to the disadvantage of
the government.

In this case, there is no evidence to show that payments

were actually made to Blank Pink Korea upon Lisa’s
mere execution of the authorization to open the LC. As
such, it cannot be said that she acted with evident bad
faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Therefore, Lisa must be acquitted.

 G.R. No. 239871, March 18, 2021

• Jurisprudence is clear that the mere opening of an LC

does not involve a specific appropriation of a sum of
money in favor of the beneficiary. It only signifies that the
beneficiary may be able to draw funds upon the LC up to
the designated amount specified therein. It does not even
convey the notion that a particular sum of money has
been specifically reserved or has been held in trust.
G.R. NOS. 216745-46, NOVEMBER 10, 2020
• What is clear to the Court from the foregoing disquisition
of the Sandiganbayan is that it convicted petitioner on the
modality of gross inexcusable negligence, which is
separate and distinct from the modality of evident bad
faith petitioner was charged with in the Informations.
• This stark variance, as correctly pleaded by petitioner, is
violative of his constitutional right to due process,
specifically his right to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him.
G.R. NOS. 199284-85, OCTOBER 13, 2021

• No such malicious intent or design can be inferred from what

seems to be a failure to scrutinize the minute details of the
cancelled deed of sale.
• Indeed, those in the public service are expected to be competent
and judicious in the performance of their official duties. They are
not, however, mandated to be infallible. Mistakes committed by a
public officer are not actionable absent any clear showing that
they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to
bad faith.
G.R. NOS. 199284-85, OCTOBER 13, 2021

• It is settled in jurisprudence that the “evident bad faith” necessary

for a conviction under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 does not
simply connote bad judgment, but also palpably and patently
fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
• It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior
purposes.
SUMMARY
OF RULES
 The National Bureau of Investigation (“NBI”) received a
report from a non-governmental organization that a
certain Loki Laufeyson (“Loki”) was involved in
prostituting women in Angeles City, Pampanga, some of
whom are minors.

One evening, two (2) NBI agents went to Angeles City,

Pampanga to verify the report. As poseur customers, they
went to Avengers Hotel where they met Loki, who was
then selling cigarettes and Viagra in the area. The NBI
agents talked to Loki and inquired from him regarding the
minor girls he was selling to customers. Loki told the NBI
agents that he could provide them with girls at

PROBLEM
PhP1,500.00 each. The agents then asked Loki to provide
them with six (6) girls the following night. Thereafter, the
NBI agents returned to their office and informed their
superiors about the result of their operation.
 A team was organized for possible rescue and entrapment
operations. On the evening of February 14, 2022, Captain
Steve Rogers and another NBI agent returned to Avengers
Hotel in Angeles City, Pampanga. When they arrived at the
area, Loki offered them some girls, but they insisted that
they be given minor girls. Minutes later, Loki arrived with
six (6) minor girls in tow. Realizing that the girls brought
by Loki were indeed minors, the undercover NBI agents
requested the girls to go inside their van. Captain Steve
Rogers then handed Loki the marked money worth
P9,000.00.

Captain Steve Rogers then signaled to the rest of the team

PROBLEM
through a missed call and proceeded with the rescue
operation. Loki was subsequently arrested, and the
marked money was recovered from them.

What crime/s, if any, was/were committed by Loki?

Loki is liable for Trafficking in Persons.

The elements of Trafficking in Persons under R.A. No. 9208 are: (i) The
act of recruitment, transportation, or transfer of persons, with or without
the victim's consent, within or across national borders; (ii) The means
ANSWER
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 (iii) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which
includes the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation.

In this case, all the elements of Trafficking in Persons are present. Loki
recruited, transported, and transferred six (6) minor children, who
because of their age can be considered as coerced or threatened. Finally,
the purpose of the trafficking is to sexually exploit these six (6) minor
children.

Therefore, Loki is liable for Trafficking in Persons.

 G.R. No. 229514, July 28, 2020

• Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured

into the commission of the offense charged in order to
prosecute him.
• Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means
for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
 G.R. No. 229514, July 28, 2020

• In instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce,

instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or
she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of
committing.
• In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense
charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the
criminal by employing ruses and schemes.
 G.R. No. 229514, July 28, 2020

• In this case, the trial court acquitted the accused

for violation of Section 5a of R.A. No. 7610 on the
ground of double jeopardy.
G.R. NO. 248530, MARCH 3, 2021

• Notably, while the Medico-Legal Report shows no injuries

sustained by AAA on her genitalia, the examining physician
clarified that this circumstance does not negate rape as it was
possible that no injuries arose as a result thereof because: (a)
the rapist could have lubricated his penis and/or the victim's
vagina; or (b) the vaginal wall of the victim had already widened
after giving birth. In fact, AAA, during the incident of rape, was
already a mother of five children.
G.R. NO. 248530, MARCH 3, 2021

• The elements of rape under Article 266-A,

paragraph (1) (a) of the RPC are: (i) The act is
committed by a man; (ii) That said man had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (iii) That such act
was accomplished through force, threat or
intimidation.
 A criminal information was filed against Bruce Banner in this
manner:

“That on or about the 2nd day of October 2010, x x x Province of

Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, did [then] and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
with one [AAA], a minor being twelve (12) years of age at the time
of the commission of the crime, by calling her to his room and
once inside, he locked the door and brought her to his bed,
undressed her, sucked her breast, licked her vagina, and inserted
his penis into her vagina against her will and consent, which deeds

PROBLEM
debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
said [AAA] as a human being, to her great damage, prejudice and
mental anguish.”
 During trial, it was established that when AAA
refused to obey Bruce Banner, Bruce Banner
would get angry, and create trouble at their
residence to the point that AAA would fear for
her own life. At that time, Bruce Banner was 40
years old and was residing in the house of
AAA as a boarder. AAA testified that she even
considers Bruce Banner as her own father.

PROBLEM
Can Bruce Banner be convicted of rape by
means of force?
No, Bruce Banner cannot be convicted of rape by means of force.

ANSWER
Under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape can be
committed either by force or intimidation. There is force when there
is strength exerted against the victim. On the other hand, there is
intimidation when the circumstances produce fear, as when the
victim is threatened with death if she disobeys the offender.

In this case, the evidence was bereft of any categorical statement

that Bruce Banner used force in accomplishing the crime of rape.
While it was sufficiently proved that the carnal act was attended by
intimidation, the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him requires the
State to describe each purported criminal act with sufficient certainty
because an accused is presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the facts constituting the offenses charged.

Therefore, Bruce Banner cannot be convicted of rape by means of

force.
 G.R. No. 248016, December 2, 2020

• The Court takes opportunity to remind the State, as represented by

the public prosecutor, to be more conscientious in performing its
duties and to exert more diligence in crafting Information and in
prosecuting criminal cases.
 Mr. ABC got a hold of Ms. XXX’s
hand and placed it on top of his
penis. At the time of the incident,
Ms. XXX was only 10 years old.
What is the crime committed?
PROBLEM
 ANSWER
The crime committed is acts of lasciviousness, in relation
to section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.

The elements of the said crime are: (1) that the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2)
when the offended party is under 12 years of age.

In this case, the act of Mr. ABC placing the hand of Ms.
XXX on his penis amounts to an act of lewdness.
Second, the victim as the time of the offense was only 10
years old.

As such, the crime committed is acts of lasciviousness,

in relation to section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.
 G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018

The Supreme Court reiterated the following rules in this case:

1. The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating or

charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty.
 G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018

The Supreme Court reiterated the following rules in this case:

2. If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature of

the crime should be "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610."
Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b), of R.A. No. 7610, the
imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
 G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018

The Supreme Court reiterated the following rules in this case:

3. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below
eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older but is unable to fully
take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition, the crime should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
 Ms. Minchin, the school directress of International State
College of the Philippines, scolded her students for
improper behavior. These students allegedly bullied the
daughter of Ms. Minchin, who is also studying in the same
school. Ms. Minchin, while in front of other teachers,
called her students, who were all minors, as "punyeta"
and "malalandi.” Ms. Minchin even flashed her middle
finger and said "ito kayo" and "mga putang ina kayo. Sa
ganyang ugali ninyo sinisigurado ko hindi ninyo mare-
reach ang dreams ninyo at ngayon pa lang sinasabi ko na
I hate you."

Because of this incident, the minor students felt

PROBLEM
humiliated and ashamed. They instituted several actions
against Ms. Minchin. One for grave oral defamation in
relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 and another for
violation of Section 10 (a) in relation to Section 3 (b) (2) of
R.A. No. 7610. Is Minchin liable?
Ms. Minchin is not liable.

Section 10 (a) is clear in that it punishes

ANSWER
acts of child abuse which are "not covered
by the Revised Penal Code."

In this case, the crime charged against Ms.

Minchin, which is grave oral defamation is
already covered by the Revised Penal
Code. As such, the first charge against
Ms. Minchin does not hold water.
With respect to the second charge, the same does not

ANSWER
hold water as well.

The Supreme Court has held that in order for a criminal

compliant for child abuse to prosper, there must be a
specific criminal intent to degrade, debase, and demean
the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being.

Here, this specific criminal intent is wanting because the

incident involving Ms. Minchin and her students
happened at the spur of the moment. The acts of Ms.
Minchin were only done in the heat of anger, made after
she had just learned that the students bullied her
daughter.

Therefore, Ms. Minchin is not liable.

 G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021

SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions
Prejudicial to the Child's Development. —

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's
development including those covered by Article 59 of [Presidential Decree] No. 603,
as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
 G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021
SEC 3. Definition of terms. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) "Child Abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
 Charlotte and Kim flagged down a jeepney going to G-
Mall. After boarding said jeepney, two male persons, who
were later identified to be Roxan and Edwin, also boarded
the vehicle. Roxan sat across Charlotte while Edwin sat on
the side of Kim with a woman passenger in between them.

While on board the jeepney, Charlotte and Kim heard

Roxan and Edwin talking about who will pay the fare.
Upon reaching the corner of Quirino Street near the Villa
Abrille Building, the jeepney stopped at a red light. Kim
saw Edwin giving the signal to Roxan and heard him say
"tirahi na nang babaye bai." Thereafter, Roxan snatched

PROBLEM
the necklace of Charlotte, disembarked from the jeepney,
and ran away. Edwin also disembarked. Charlotte shouted
"magnanakaw."

What is the crime committed? Is it robbery or theft?

The crime committed is theft, and not robbery.

The Supreme Court has held that the distinguishing element

between the crimes of robbery and theft is the use of violence or
intimidation as a means of taking the property belonging to
ANSWER
another; the element is present in the crime of robbery and
absent in the crime of theft.

In this case, the snatching of the necklace was without violence

against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. To
snatch or to grab means to take or seize by or as if by a sudden
motion or grasp; to take hastily. Clearly, the same does not
suggest the presence of violence or physical force in the act.

Therefore, the crime committed is theft, and not robbery.

Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No. 235739, July 22, 2019

G.R. NO. 220761, OCTOBER 3, 2016

• While the circumstance of evident premeditation

is inherent in Robbery, it may be considered in
the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides
stealing.
G.R. NO. 220761, OCTOBER 3, 2016

• Here, the evidence clearly established how and when Charito and his
co-conspirators hatched their malevolent plan to rob the spouses
Vallecera and likewise kill Dionesia Lasconia's master. As discussed
above, the first attempt of the malefactors to carry out their scheme
was foiled and it was only on their second attempt that they were able
to consummate the conspiracy. Hence, that there were persistent
attempts made by the accused sufficiently demonstrate how
determined they were to adhere to their agreement despite the
sufficient lapse of time.
G.R. NO. 220761, OCTOBER 3, 2016

• Moreover, that Charito and his cohorts went to great lengths to hire
Joseph to ferry them back and forth to the scene of the crime shows
the sobriety and circumspection surrounding their decision. Such
circumstances therefore show that the crime committed was a
product of intent and coordination among the accused. Hence, the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is present in this
case.
G.R. NO. 226140, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

• The elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or deceit are: (a)

that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to
his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business
or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced
to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.
G.R. NO. 226140, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

• In the instant case, the element of false pretense or fraudulent

representations is lacking. Green Pastures was a duly licensed
recruitment agency registered with the POEA, as shown in its License.
Moreover, the Job Order Balance Report issued by the POEA shows
that Green Pastures had 24 approved job orders for Taiwan for the
period 2007-2008. Thus, the accused and her agency, Green Pastures,
possessed the qualifications and business transactions necessary to
deploy workers to Taiwan.
G.R. NO. 226140, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

• While it is settled jurisprudence that a person may be separately

charged and convicted with Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042 and
Estafa under Article 315 (2), for the same acts, conviction is not
automatic as the said crimes have different elements.
G.R. NO. 226140, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

• In the same manner, a conviction for Illegal Recruitment does not

automatically result to a conviction for Estafa. The prosecution must
still prove the elements of the offense. Moreover, in Estafa through
deceit or false pretenses, the fraud must have been executed prior to
or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud.
G.R. NO. 226140, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

• In this case, the accused and her agency had the qualifications and
capacity to deploy workers abroad. Therefore, the accused was
acquitted of the crime of Estafa. Nevertheless, the accused still
committed illegal recruitment because she failed to reimburse the
documentation and processing expenses incurred by the applicants
when they were not deployed without their fault.
G.R. NO. 234329, NOVEMBER 23, 2021
• An acquittal beyond reasonable doubt does not
automatically extinguish civil liability for the dishonored
checks. The Supreme Court finds, however, that in tracing
the source and accountability for the civil liability that
survives the acquittal of petitioner on the charge against
him under B.P. 22 by preponderance of evidence, the
reason must go into the very obligation that underlies the
issuance of the bad check in question, and the party that
must answer for the face value thereof.
G.R. NO. 234329, NOVEMBER 23, 2021

• The acquittal of an accused does not prevent a

judgment from still being rendered against him or
her on the civil aspect of the criminal case unless
the court finds and declares that the fact from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
G.R. NO. 234329, NOVEMBER 23, 2021

• In this case, considering the entire factual context

within which the dishonored check is situated, it
is persuaded that petitioner here in fact acted as
an accommodation party for RB Freight by virtue
of his singular act of issuing a personal check in
exchange for the deliveries of diesel products
which were made by respondent to RB Freight.
END OF BAR LECTURE.
THANK YOU.