DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations

CRIMINAL LAW
Animo Notes 2019
 FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW

Q: Define criminal law.

A: It is the branch of law which defines crimes, treats their nature, and provides for their punishment.

Q: Define mala in se.

A: It refers to acts which are wrong in themselves (Dunlao v. CA, 1996). The term male in se refers generally to
felonies penalized by the Revised Penal Code. When the acts are inherently immoral, they are male in se, even if
punished by special laws. In crimes of male in se, intent governs. Crimes male in se are those so serious in their
effects in society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s
3rd Revision).

Q: Define mala prohibita.

A: Acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them (Dunlao v. CA, 1996). The term
mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws. Crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere
rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. Intent does not govern
in crimes mala prohibita. The only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated. (People v. Kibler, 1887).

Q: When is the RPC applicable to malum prohibitum?

A: RPC is not generally applicable to malum prohibitum. However, when a special law, which punishes malum
prohibitum, adopts the nomenclature of the penalties in RPC, the provisions under this Code shall apply.

Q: What are the principles in Criminal Law?

A: The principles are:
1. Generality;
2. Territoriality; and
3. Prospectivity.

Q: What is the generality principle?

A: Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory (Art. 14, Civil Code) The following are the exceptions:
1. Treaty stipulations and international agreements (Art. 14, Civil Code);
2. Laws of preferential application; and
3. Principles of Public International Law

Q: What is the territoriality principle?

A: The penal laws have the force and effect only within its territory. (Art. 2, RPC) The following are the exceptions:
1. Treaties; and
2. Laws on preferential application.

Q: What is the prospectivity principle?

A: Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission (Art. 366, RPC). Thus, a penal law
cannot punish an act done before its effectivity. The exception is when a new law is favorable to the accused.
However, there are exceptions to the exception:
1. The new law is expressly inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action (Tavera v. Valdez,
1902); and
2. The offender is a habitual criminal. (Art. 22, RPC)

Q: Can a foreign national who visited the Philippines, on board a vessel registered to a foreign country that
just left the port of Manila, be held criminal liable and prosecuted in the Philippines after killing another
foreigner on the vessel?
A: Yes. Applying the generality principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory. The foreign characteristics of an offender and offended party does not exclude him from the
operation of penal laws. Under the RPC, except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
penal laws of the Philippines shall have the force and effect within its territory. In this case, the killing took place
within the Philippine territory and our penal laws applies.
The foreign national may be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel being a foreign-registered ship is not
tenable. Following the English rule, as recognized in Philippine jurisdiction, crimes committed aboard a vessel
within the territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country except when the crimes merely
affect things within the vessel or when they only refer to the internal management there.

Q: Distinguish between a bill of attainder and ex post facto law.

A:
Bill of Attainder Ex post facto law
It is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act was
It is a law which inflicts
committed. It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it
punishment on a named individual
greater than what it was committed, or which changes the punishment
or a group of individuals without
and inflicts a greater penalty than the law governing the crime when
judicial trial.
committed.

Q: What is the Doctrine of In Dubio Pro Reo or Pro reo principle?

A: Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to
the offender and one strict to the offender - that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will
be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and
consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the
balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. (People v. Guinto, 2014)

FELONIES

Q: What are the elements of criminal liability?

A:
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and
3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. (People v. Gonzales, 1990)

Q: How are felonies classified?

A: Felonies are classified:
1. According to manner or mode of execution
a. Intentional felonies: committed by means of deceit or malice; and
b. Culpable felonies: where the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill. (Art. 3, RPC)
2. According to stage of execution
a. Consummated: when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present;
b. Frustrated: when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator;
c. Attempted: when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 4, RPC)
3. According to gravity
a. Grave felonies: Those which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any
of their period are afflictive in accordance with Art. 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
b. Less Grave felonies: Those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional.
c. Light felonies: Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or fine not exceeding two hundred pesos (P200.00), or both, is provided. (Art. 9)
Q: Differentiate aberratio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem
A:
ABERRATIO ICTUS ERROR IN PERSONAE PRAETER INTENTIONEM
Or mistake in the blow. This happens if the person It is the lack of intention to commit so
Presupposes 3 persons injured is not the intended victim grave a wrong as that committed. The
present in the crime scene – of the offender. injury is on the intended victim but the
(1) offender, (2) intended There are only 2 persons present resulting consequences is so grave a
victim, and (3) the innocent in the scene of the crime. wrong than what was intended. It
person. The innocent person happens when somebody already was
is the who is injured by reason planning to do something bad but his
of the offender’s act actions ended up producing something
committed by mistake. worse.

There must be a great disparity between

the means employed and the resulting
felony.

Q: Enumerate the requisites of an impossible crime.

A:
1. The act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. The act was done with evil intent; and
3. Its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual. (Jacinto v. People, 2009)

Q: Define a continuing crime.

A: A continued, continuous, and continuing crime is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts arising from one
criminal resolution and is therefore, a complex crime. (People v. Sandiganbayan, 2004) A continuing or transitory
offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place.
Examples of continuing crimes are illegal recruitment and robbery.

Q: Distinguish between complex crimes and composite crimes.

A:
Complex Crimes Composite Crimes/Special Complex Crimes
A Composite crime is otherwise known as a special complex crime, a
(1) When a single act constitutes
composite takes place when another crime is committed during the
two or more grave or less grave
subsistence or performance of another crime. (People v. Cachuela, 2013).
felonies;
(2) When an offense is a necessary
Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component
means for committing the others.
offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex crime. (People v.
(Art. 48, RPC)
Larrañaga, 2004)
Note: In a special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily prove each of the component offenses with
the same precision that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints.

Q: Explain the concept of justifying circumstances.

A: A person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
Jurisprudence holds that when the accused admits killing the victim, but invokes a justifying circumstance, the
constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived and the burden of proving the existence of such
circumstance shifts to the accused. (Aguilar v. DOJ, 2013)

Q: What are the kinds of defenses available in invoking the justifying circumstance of Self-Defense?
A:
1. Defense of the person,
2. Defense of the rights protected by law; and
3. The right to honor.
Q: What are the requisites of self-defense?
A:
1. Unlawful aggression – an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon
a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it – it exists when
a. There must be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making the defense;
b. A necessity of the means used. (People v. Catbagan, 2004)
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (Art. 11(1), RPC).

Q: When can unlawful aggression be appreciated?

A: To be appreciated, the unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at
the time the defense is made. (People v. Gotis, 2007)

Q: What is an indispensable requisite in availing of the justifying circumstance of self-defense?

A: There can be no self-defense, may it be complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful
aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. (People v. Catabagan, 2004)

Q: If the act does not constitute unlawful aggression, what other circumstances may such act be considered?
A: While the act cannot be considered unlawful aggression for the purpose of self-defense, it may be considered
as sufficient provocation for the purpose of mitigating the crime. (People v. Gotis, 2007)

Q: What are the rights included in self-defense?

A: Self-defense includes not only defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also include his rights,
such as property rights, rights to honor, and right to chastity. (Reyes, 2012)

Q: What are the elements to avail of the justifying circumstance for the Defense of Relatives?
A:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part
therein. (People v. Eduarte, 1990)

Q: Who are relatives contemplated in this justifying circumstance?

A:
1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants;
3. Descendants;
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters or relatives by affinity in the same degrees; and
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree. (Art. 11(2), RPC)

Q: Explain the concept of Battered Woman Syndrome.

A: According to Sec. 3 (c), R.A. 9262, Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.

Q: Can a person suffering from battered woman syndrome avail of the justifying circumstance of self-defense,
even if all the elements of self-defense are not present?
A: Yes. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any element for the justifying circumstance of self-
defense under the Revised Penal Code.

Q: What are the requisites to avail of the justifying circumstance of Defense of Strangers:
A:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defensing was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. (People v. Moral,
1984)
Q: What are the requisites to avail of the justifying circumstance of “State of Necessity” or the Avoidance of
Greater Evil or Injury?
A: The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the actor from liability under this paragraph:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than the one done to avoid it; and
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not
applicable. Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater injury feared should not have
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor. (Ty v. People,
2004)

Q: If the greater evil sought to be prevented was caused by the actor, will his act be considered committed in
the state of necessity under paragraph 4 of Art. 11?
A: No. The evil which must have brought about the greater evil must not emanate from negligence of the actor
or violations of law. (Art. 11(4), RPC)

Q: What are the requisites to avail of the justifying circumstance of Fulfilling a Duty or Lawful Exercise of
Right or Office?
A:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office; and
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be necessary consequence of the due performance
of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. (People v. Oanis, 1943)

Q: What are the requisites to avail of the justifying circumstance for the Obedience to an Order Issued for
some Lawful Purpose?
A:
1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. (Art. 11(6), RPC)

Q: The subordinate was not aware that the order was illegal. Is the subordinate liable?
A: No. There is a mistake of fact committed in good faith. (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, 1997)

Q: Can an incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to a superior order be claimed by accused?

A: Yes, it can be considered as a mitigating circumstance. (Ambil v. Sandiganbayan, 2011)

Q: Explain the concept of Exempting Circumstances.

A: An exempting circumstance, by its nature, admits that criminal and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is
freed from criminal liability; in other words, the accused committed a crime, but he cannot be held criminally
liable therefor because of an exemption granted by law. In admitting this type of defense on appeal, the appeal
of a criminal case (even under Rule 45) opens the whole case for review, even on questions that the parties did
not raise. (Sierra v. People, 2009)

Q: Define an imbecile.
A: A person who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two
(2) and seven (7) years of age. (People v. Sevilla, 1997)

Q: Define an insane person.

A: One who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing
the crime. (People v. Ambal, 1980)

Q: What are the requisites for the exempting circumstance of imbecility or insanity?
A:
1. Offender is an imbecile; and
2. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
Q: When is imbecility or insanity not exempting?
A: When the accused has acted during a lucid interval.

Q: What are the tests for exemption on grounds of insanity?

A:
1. Cognition Test – This test asks whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing said crime; and
2. Volition Test – This test asks whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will
(People v. Rafana, Jr., 1991)

Q: Who are covered by the exempting circumstance of minority?

A:
1. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense, he shall be
exempt from criminal liability; and
2. A child above fifteen (15) years of age but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subject to intervention program; except when he has acted with
discernment. (Sec. 6, RA 9344)

Q: Who is a child in conflict with the law?

A: A child in conflict with law or (CICL) is one who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine laws. (Sec. 4(e), RA 9344)

Q: Why is a CICL in the age of fifteen (15) or under exempt?

A: The law establishes a conclusive presumption that a CICL is incapable of performing a criminal act due to the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the
CICL. (Ortega v. People, 2008)

Q: What is discernment?
A: It is the mental capacity of the child not only to understand the difference between right and wrong, but also
to fully realize the consequences of his/her act, as determined by the child’s appearance, attitude, comportment,
and behavior not only before and during the commission of the offense, but also after and during the trial.
(Guevara v. Almodovar, 1989)

Q: What are the ways/documents to determine the age of the child?

A: The ways or documents to determine a child’s age are:
1. Through the child’s birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or any other pertinent document;
2. In the absence thereof, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of
other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence (Sec. 7, R.A. 9344); and/or
3. Lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accused’s or his relative’s testimonies are untrue. (Sierra
v. People, 2009)

Q: A child below the age of responsibility was apprehended by the authorities. How should such authority
treat such child?
A: Generally, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately release
the child to the custody of his/her parents, or guardians, or in the absence thereof, the child’s nearest relative.
Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development office who will determine the
appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. (Sec. 20,
R.A. 9344)

Q: In relation to the question above, what if the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or
if they refuse to take custody over the child?
A: This is an exception to the general rule. In this situation, the child may be released to any of the following:
1. A duly authorized nongovernmental or religious organization;
2. A barangay official, or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC);
3. A local social welfare and development officer; or
4. When and where appropriate, the DSWD.
Q: Define a status offense.
A: It is any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered
an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child. (Sec. 67, RA 9344)

Q: Explain the concept of an accident as an exempting circumstance.

A: Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
or intention of causing it. (Sec. 12(4), RPC)

Q: What are the requisites for a circumstance be considered an accident?

A:
1. A person who, while performing a lawful act;
2. Exercise of due care;
3. He causes an injury by mere accident; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing it. (Sec. 12(4), RPC)

Q: What are the requisites to avail of the exempting circumstance for the Compulsion of an Irresistible Force?
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. That the physical force be irresistible; and
3. That the physical force must come from a third person (Art. 15(5), RPC)

Q: When is the circumstance for the compulsion of an irresistible force appreciated?

A: For this circumstance to apply, the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for escape
or self-defense in equal combat. (People v. Anod, 2009) In order for this defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear,
or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.

Q: What are the requisites for the exempting circumstance of Uncontrollable Fear of an Equal or Greater
Injury?
A:
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. (People v. Anticamara, 2011)

Q: When is uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury appreciated as an exempting circumstance?

A: It must appear that the threat which caused the uncontrollable fear related to a crime of such gravity and so
imminent that it might safely be said that the ordinary run of men would have been governed by it; and the evil
threatened must be greater than, or at least equal to, that which he is compelled to cause. (U.S v. Elicanal, 1916)

Q: What are the requisites for the exempting circumstance of Lawful or Insuperable Cause?
A:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That person failed to perform such act; and
3. That his failure to perform such act is due to some lawful or insuperable cause. (Art. 12(7), RPC)

Q: Define mitigating circumstances.

A: These are circumstances which if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty.

Q: What are the mitigating circumstances?

A:
1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances;
2. Over 15 and under 18, if there is discernment; or over 70 years old; It is the age of the accused at the time
of the commission of the crime which should be determined. His age at the time of the trial is immaterial.
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong: The basis is diminution of intent.
4. Sufficient threat or provocation; Requisites:
a. Provocation must be sufficient;
b. It must originate from the offended party; and
c. It must be immediate to the act.
5. Vindication of a Grave offense;
Requisites:
a. Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the
same degree; and
b. Felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
6. Passion and obfuscation;
Requisites:
a. Accused acted upon an impulse; and
b. Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him.
7. Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt;
Requisites of Voluntary Surrender:
a. Offender had not been actually arrested;
b. Surrender was made to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and
c. Surrender was voluntary (People v. Placer, 2013)

Requisites of Confession of Guilt:

a. Offender voluntarily and spontaneously confessed his guilt;
b. It was made in open court, that is before the competent court that is to try the case; and
c. It was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution (People v. Juan, 2004)
8. Physical defect of offender;
It refers to a person’s physical condition whereby his means of action, defense or communication with
others are restricted or limited. The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the
commission of the crime.
9. Illness of offender; and
10. Similar Analogous Circumstances (Art. 13, RPC)

Q: What are the requisites of voluntary surrender?

A:
1. Offender had not been actually arrested;
2. Surrender was made to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and
3. Surrender was voluntary.

Q: What are the requisite of confession of guilt?

A:
1. Offender voluntarily confessed his guilt;
2. It was made in open court (a competent court that is to try the case); and
3. It was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

Q: Is the surrender made after the filing of an information and/or issuance of a warrant of arrest considered
involuntary?
A: No. The court in the case of People v. Cagas and in People v. Taraya, added a requisite that there should be no
pending warrant of arrest or information filed for a surrender to be voluntary. However, when an accused, upon
learning that the court had finally determined the presence of probable cause and even before the issuance and
implementation of the warrant of arrest, gave himself up acknowledging his culpability and the eventual plea of
guilt during the arraignment, makes the surrender voluntary. (De Vera v. De Vera, 2009)

Q: When should the plea of guilty be made in order for it to be considered as a mitigating circumstance?
A: The plea of guilty shall be made before the presentation of the prosecutor’s evidence in order. (People v. Dela
Cruz, 1936)

Q: For the mitigating circumstance to be considered, to what offense must the accused confess?
A: The accused must confess his guilt to the offense charged in the information. (People v. Intal, 1957)

Q: When the accused confessed to a lesser offense not charged in the information and he was later found
guilty of the lesser offense, will it be considered as a mitigating circumstance?
A: No. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not a mitigating circumstance because to be voluntary, the plea
must be to the offense charged. (People v. Noble, 1946)
Q: Is return of stolen item(s) be considered as voluntary surrender?
A: Yes. It has been repeatedly held that for surrender to be voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself
unconditionally to the authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his
search and capture would require. Voluntarily taking the stolen cow to the municipal hall to place it
unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and saved them the trouble of having to recover the cow can be
considered analogous to voluntary surrender. (Canta v. People, 2001)

Q: Is restitution analogous to voluntary surrender?

A: Yes. Restitution is akin to voluntary surrender. However, restitution should be treated as a separate mitigating
circumstance in favor of an accused when the two circumstances are present in a case, which is similar to
instances where voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating
circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. (Legrama v.
Sandiganbayan, 2012)

Q: Distinguish ordinary mitigating and privilege mitigating.

A:
Ordinary Mitigating Privilege Mitigating
As to Can never be offset by any aggravating
It can be offset by aggravating circumstances
nature circumstance
If not offset, will operate to reduce the penalty Operates to reduce the penalty by one or two
As to
to the minimum period provided the penalty is a degrees, depending upon what the law
effect
divisible one provides.

Q: Define aggravating circumstances.

A: Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the
penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.

Q: What are the kinds of aggravating circumstances?

A:
1. Generic: These are those that apply to all crimes (People v. Lab-eo, 2002)
2. Specific: Applies only to a particular crime (Ibid)
3. Qualifying: Those that change the nature of the crime
4. Inherent: Those that must, out of necessity, accompany the commission of the crime (Ibid)
5. Special: Those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of the offense and cannot be
offset by mitigating circumstances. (Palaganas v. People, 2006)

Q: Explain the rule that aggravating circumstances should be alleged to be appreciated by the court.
A: In order for an aggravating circumstance to be appreciated against the accused, as provided by Section 8 of
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, every Complaint or Information must specify the aggravating
circumstances. (People v. Orilla, 2004)

Q: When is taking advantage of public position appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when the public officer uses the influence, prestige and
ascendancy of his office in realizing his purpose. (People v. Amion, 2001)

Q: What is the basis of the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position?
A: The basis is the greater perversity of the offender as shown by his personal circumstances used to secure the
commission of the crime

Q: When is public position not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A:
1. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position (People v. Amion,
2001)
2. In offenses where taking advantage of official position is made by law an integral element of the
crime, such as:
 a. Malversation under Article 217, RPC;
b. Falsification of a public document committed by public officers under Article 171, RPC;
c. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime under Article
19, paragraph 3, RPC; and
d. Crimes committed by public officers under Articles 204 to 245, RPC

Q: What are the requisites for committing a crime in contempt or with insult to public officers to be
appreciated as aggravating?
A:
1. There must be a public authority engaged in the exercise of his functions
2. Such public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed
3. Offender knows him to be a public authority; and
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the crime.

Q: For what crimes is contempt or insult to public officers considered aggravating?

A: Only in crimes against persons and honor, not against property like robbery with homicide (People v. Paraiso,
1999). It must also be proven that in the commission of the crime the accused had particularly intended to cast
insult or commit disrespect to the sex, rank or age of the victim (People v. Brana, 1969)

Q: When is a crime committed in the dwelling of a person appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is when the offended party has not given any provocation. (People v. Banez, 1992)

Q: When is dwelling not an aggravating circumstance?

A:
1. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation;
2. When the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house;
3. In the crime of robbery by use of force upon things;
4. The victim is not a dweller of the house;
5. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house;
6. Rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure which was being operated as a
video rental shop, and the upper floor, which was used as a residence and not as a residential abode.
(People v. Tano, 2000)

Q: When is abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness appreciated as aggravating?

A: When the abuse of confidence is a means of facilitating the commission of a crime, the culprit taking advantage
of the offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. (People v. Luchico, 1926)

Q: What are the requisites for abuse of confidence?

A:
1. The offended party had trusted the offender;
2. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against offended party; and
3. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime (People v. Castador, 1999)

Q: What specific places wherein, if a crime is committed there, such circumstance would be appreciated as
aggravating?
A:
1. In the palace of the Chief Executive;
2. In the presence of the Chief Executive;
3. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties; or
4. In a place dedicated to religious worship (Art. 14(5), RPC)

Q: When is nighttime, uninhabited place or band considered as aggravating circumstances?

A: Nighttime, uninhabited place or band are considered aggravating circumstances:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime;
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose
of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. (People v. Meren, 1999)
Q: When is the circumstance of nighttime appreciated as aggravating?
A:
1. When the malefactor particularly sought or took advantage of the darkness to commit the offense; or
2. When nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime (People v. Arizobal, 2000)

Q: When is nighttime not considered as an aggravating circumstance?

A:
1. Nighttime cannot be considered if it is shown that the place was adequately lighted; and
2. It is not aggravating if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime
without interruption;
3. When nighttime is inherent in the crime in and that the same way was not sought and taken advantage
of. (People v. Luchico, 1926)

Q: Explain the rule if nighttime and treachery are both present.

A: Nighttime is generally absorbed in treachery; an exception to this rule would be where both the treacherous
mode of attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided upon, they can be considered separately if such
circumstances have different factual bases. (People v. Ong, 1975)

Q: What is a band, as appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is a group of more than three armed malefactors acting together in the commission of an offense. (Art. 14(6),
RPC) A band is whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense. (People v. Lungbos, 1988).
Q: What happens when the crime of robbery with homicide is committed by a band?
A: The element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.

Q: What is uninhabited place?

A: An uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or
where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.

Q: What determines whether or not the fact that a crime is committed in an uninhabited place appreciated as
aggravating?
A: It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the
place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.

Q: What are the requisites for aid of armed men to be appreciated as aggravating?
A:
1. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly; and
2. Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.

Q: Who is a recidivist?
A: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. (People v. Lagarto, 1991)

Q: What is the difference between recidivism and reiteracion?

A:
Recidivism Reiteracion
The offender shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of The offender shall have been
another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code punished previously for an
(People v. Bartolay, 1995) offense.

Q: Distinguish between a recidivist and a habitual delinquent.

A:
Recidivist Habitual Delinquent
One who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have
One who, within a period of ten (10) years from the
been previously convicted by final judgment of another
date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. (Art. 14(9),
of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found
RPC)

In recidivism, there must be at least two (2) crimes
committed.
Ordinary aggravating circumstances, the presence of any
of which will trigger the application of the penalty for the
second crime committed in the maximum period unless
it is set-off by a mitigating circumstance.
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
(Art. 62, RPC)
In habitual delinquency, there must be at least
three (3) crimes committed. (Art. 62, RPC)
Extraordinary or special aggravating
circumstance, the presence of which will trigger
the imposition of additional penalty for the third
or subsequent crime. (Art. 62, RPC)

Q: What are the requisites of recidivism?

A:
1. Offender is on trial for one crime;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC; and
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense. (People v. Lagarto, 1999)

Q: When is habitual delinquency appreciated?

A:
1. When the previous conviction, like any qualifying circumstance, is alleged and proven. (People v. Nayco,
1923)
2. Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven
during the trial.

Q: What are special aggravating circumstances?

A: Special aggravating circumstances are those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for
the offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree. (People
v. Homo, 2009)

Q: What are the examples of special aggravating circumstances?

A: Quasi-recidivism (Article 160, RPC) and complex crimes (Art. 148, RPC)

Q: Whether or not a special aggravating circumstance can be offset by a mitigating circumstance?

A: No, unlike a generic aggravating circumstance, special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. (People v. De Leon, 2009)

Q: What is Quasi-Recidivism?
A: It is a special aggravating circumstance where any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. (Art. 160, RPC)

Q: When is Quasi-Recidivism appreciated as aggravating?

A: It can be so appreciated when the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. (People v.
Race, 1992)

Q: Whose criminal liability is affected when a crime is committed in consideration of a price, reward or
promise?
A: The circumstance aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price, reward or promise but
also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer. (US v. Parro, 1917)

Q: When is price, reward or promise not aggravating?

A:
1. If, without previous promise, it was given voluntarily after the crime had been committed as an
expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by other accused, it should not be taken
into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty. (US v. Flores, 1914)
2. Not aggravating when the law in defining the crime includes them
Q: When is fire not considered aggravating?
A: In the crime of arson since fire is a necessary element thereof. (Arts. 320-321, RPC)

Q: How is evident premeditation, as an aggravating circumstance, defined?

A: It occurs when the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. (People
v. Ducabo, 2007)

Q: What is the essence of premeditation?

A: The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment. (People v. Fuentesela, 1942)

Q: What are the requisites of evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance?

A:
1. The time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination;
3. Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. (People v. Duavis, 2011)

Q: When is evident premeditation not aggravating?

A:
1. In the case of implied conspiracy, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim
was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it cannot be determined if the
accused had “sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and
accept the consequences” (People v. Manansala, 1992)
2. Even if all the requisites of evident premeditation were present, it still cannot be appreciated if the actual
victim is different from the intended one. (People v. Barros, 1995)

Q: What does craft, as an aggravating circumstance, involve?

A: It involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused. (People v. Manuzon, 1997)

Q: When is craft appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It can be appreciated when it is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime (e.g. accused pretended
to be a member of the constabulary, accused, in order to perpetrate rape, used chocolates containing drugs.
(People v. Zea, 1984)

Q: As an aggravating circumstance, what does fraud involve?

A: It involves insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable
the offender to carry out his design. (People v. Bariquit, 2000)

Q: Explain the concept of disguise as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is a superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification. (People v. Reyes, 1998)

Q: If the mask used by the offender to conceal his identity fell down, will the aggravating circumstance of
disguise be inapplicable?
A: No. There could have been no other purpose for the wearing of the mask but to conceal their Identities. (People
v. Cabato, 1988)

Q: When can abuse of superior strength be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A: When the accused purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked. (People v. Cabiling, 1976)

Q: Explain the rule on abuse of superior strength?

A: It is applicable in a crime when there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor to take advantage
thereof. To justifiably appreciate it, not only is it necessary to evaluate the physical conditions of the protagonists
or opposing forces and the arms or objects employed by both sides, but it is further necessary to analyze the
incidents and episodes constituting the total development of the event. (People v. Escoto, 1995)
Q: X, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter's eyes and then wounds or kills
him. What aggravating circumstance is present, if there is any?
A: The aggravating circumstance of treachery by employing means to weaken the defense is present. In casting
sand or dirt upon the victim's eyes, the offender employed means which tend directly to insure the execution of
the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense, which the offended party might make. (People v.
Siaotong G.R. No. L-9242).
Q: As an aggravating circumstance, how does treachery occur?
A: Treachery occurs when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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 (Art. 14(16), RPC)

Q: Does sudden attack automatically constitute treachery?

A: No, treachery cannot be presumed. The fact that the attack was sudden, of itself, cannot suffice to support a
finding of treachery. (People v. Escota, 1995)

Q: What are the requisites of treachery?

A:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself; and
2. The offender conspicuously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.
(People v. Magallanes, 1997)

Q: When is treachery not aggravating?

A:
1. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act
which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it can in no way be established from mere
suppositions that the killing was perpetrated by treachery (People v. Tubongbanua, 2006)
2. Treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the commencement of the assault
(People v. Tiozon, 1991)
3. The mere fact that the victim was stabbed from behind does not necessarily establish treachery where
it does not appear that the accused purposely chose to employee such means or mode of attack (People
v. Meren, 1999)
4. Where the crime was not a crime against persons, such as robbery with homicide or robbery with rape
(People v. Solamillo, 2003)

Q: What is ignominy, as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury
caused by the crime, e.g. applicable to crimes against chastity (rape included), less serious physical injuries, light
or grave coercion and murder. (People v. Acuya, 1988)

Q: When can ignominy be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It can be so appreciated when the offense is committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more
humiliating, thus adding to the victim’s moral suffering. (People v. Cacbola, 2004)

Q: When is ignominy not considered as an aggravating circumstance?

A: Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered. (People v. Cacbola, 2004)

Q: Explain cruelty as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. (People v. Dayug, 1926)

Q: What is essential in cruelty?

A: It is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, causing him unnecessary
moral and physical pain. (People v. Llamera, 1973)
Q: Distinguish between Ignominy and Cruelty
A:
Ignominy Cruelty
Shocks the moral conscience of man Physical effect or suffering
Refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral Pertains to physical suffering of the
order, whether or not the victim is dead or alive. victim. It is adding insult to injury.

Q: When is there unlawful entry?

A: When an entrance of building, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. (Art. 14(18), RPC)

Q: When is unlawful entry not considered as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It is not aggravating in the crimes having the same as an inherent element, such as, trespass to dwelling, and
robbery with force upon things

Q: Explain the rule on the appreciation of an aggravating circumstance if there are several accused.
A: The criminal liability of those persons who employed or who had knowledge of them at the time of execution
of the act or their cooperation therein are aggravated by circumstances which consist in:
1. The material execution of the act; or
2. Means employed to accomplish it

Q: Explain the rule regarding the appreciation of an aggravating circumstance if there are several accused?
A: The general rule is that circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act or means employed
to accomplish it will only aggravate the criminal liability of those persons who employed or who had knowledge
of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

Q: Explain the exception to the rule regarding the appreciation of an aggravating circumstance if there are
several accused?
A: When there is proof of conspiracy, in which case, the act of one is deemed to be the act of all, regardless of
lack of knowledge of the facts constituting the circumstance. (Art. 62 (4), RPC).

Q: Explain the concept of Alternative Circumstances?

A: It refers to those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. (Art. 15, RPC).

Q: What are the alternative circumstances?

A:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction or education of the offender

Q: Explain the rules regarding relationship as special circumstance

A:
1. It is an exempting circumstance:
a. In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal (Art. 20, RPC)
b. A spouse will not incur criminal liability for a crime of slight or less serious physical injuries or
serious physical injuries, if this was inflicted after having surprised the offended spouse or
paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse (Art. 247, RPC)
c. In the crime of theft, malicious mischief, and swindling or estafa, there is no criminal liability if
the offender is related to the offended party as spouse, ascendant, or descendant or if the
offender is a brother or sister or brother-in-law or sister-in-law of the offended party and they
are living together. (Art. 332, RPC)
2. It is considered mitigating:
a. In crimes against property, by analogy to Art. 332, such as:
i. Robbery
ii. Usurpation
iii. Fraudulent insolvency
iv. Arson
 b. When the offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the
offended party is a relative of a lower degree.
3. It is considered as an alternative circumstance when the offended party is the:
a. Spouse,
b. Ascendant,
c. Descendant,
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
e. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. (Art. 15, RPC)
4. It is considered as aggravating:
a. In crimes against chastity
b. In crimes against persons, such as
i. When the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender (People v. Alisub,
1940)
ii. When the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, as in the killing of
a brother or brother-in-law (People v. Alisub, 1940)
iii. When the crimes committed is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating (Art. 248-249,
RPC)
iv. In the crime of rape (People v. de Leon, 1999; People v. Lucas, 1990)
v. Where the crime is physical injuries;
vi. In serious physical injuries, even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender (Art.
263, RPC)
vii. The serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement (Art. 263, RPC)
viii. In less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative
of a higher degree of the offender (Arts. 265-266, RPC)
5. It is neither aggravating nor mitigating when relationship is an element of the offense, as in parricide,
adultery and concubinage;
6. Jurisprudence considers that relationship is considered aggravating in crimes against chastity. (People v.
Orilla, 2004).
7. Relationship is aggravating whether the offender is of a higher or lower degree than that of the offended
party. It is due to the nature of the crime. (People v. Porras, 1933)

Q: Explain the rules on intoxication as a special circumstance.

A:
1. It is mitigating:
a. When it is not habitual;
b. When it is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony (People v. Camano, 1982); or
c. At the time of the commission of the crime, the accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks
as to blur his reason and deprive him of certain degree of control (Art. 15, RPC)
2. It is aggravating:
a. When it is habitual; (People v. Camano, 1982)
b. When it is intentional (People v. Camano, 1982);
c. When it is subsequent to the plan to commit a felony; (Art. 15, RPC)

Q: Is the influence of dangerous drugs aggravating in crimes against chastity?

A: Yes, influence of dangerous drugs is always aggravating. (Sec. 15, B.P. No. 179)

Q: Explain the rule on determining if degree of instruction and education should be considered as a mitigating
or aggravating circumstance.
A:
1. The intelligence test is used to determine whether degree of education is mitigating or aggravating. It is
used in determining the capacity to know and understand the consequence of one’s act.
2. It will be considered mitigating when the offender has low degree of instruction and education, wherein
they have low mental capacity that they had not realized the full significance of their acts. However, this
will not be mitigating if the crime is inherently wrong, such as murder, theft, robbery or rape.
3. It will be aggravating when the offender has a high degree of instruction and education, wherein he took
advantage of his learning in committing the crime. Exception to this is when the degree is already
considered in the penalty or crime, such as abortion practiced by physician.
Q: Explain the rule with regard to the effect of Degree of Instruction or Education on criminal liability?
A: As a general rule, lack or low degree of instruction is mitigating in all crimes. (US v. Reguerra, 1921) The
exceptions are:
1. Crimes against property (US v. Pascual, 1908)
2. Crimes against chastity (Molesa v. Director of Prisons, 1934)
3. Murder or homicide (Molesa v. Director of Prisons, 1934)
4. Rape (Molesa v. Director of Prisons, 1934)
5. Treason (Molesa v. Director of Prisons, 1934)

Q: Define an absolutory cause.

A: An absolutory cause is present where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed. Because the reason is public policy, it should apply to both the Revised
Penal Code and special laws. (People v. Talisic, 1997)

Q: Give examples of absolutory causes.

A:
1. Accessory is a relative of the principal;
2. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of ward by their guardian is not penalized. (Art.
219, RPC);
3. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his/her
spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247)
4. Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative. (Art. 332);
5. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction,
seduction or acts of lasciviousness (Art. 334)
6. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another's dwelling against the latter's will is to
prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, or for the
purposes of rendering some services to humanity or justice (Art. 280(2));
7. Adultery and concubinage if the offended party consented or pardoned the offenders

Q: What defense is available to a rehabilitated drug use who acted as a poseur-buyer to entrap a drug pusher?
A: He may invoke Section 33, Article II (Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment) of R.A. No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 in order to free himself from criminal liability.

One who acted as the poseur-buyer in the entrapment operation is exempt from prosecution or punishment as
he helped lead the authorities to arrest a drug pusher. He cannot be prosecuted for violation of R.A. No. 9165 as
long as the information and testimony given are pleaded and proven.

Q: How are principals classified?

A: They are classified by:
1. Direct Participation; Those who, participating in the criminal resolution, proceed to perpetrate the
crime and personally take part in its realization, executing acts which directly tend to the same end.
2. Inducement; The inducer’s utterances must be of such nature and made in such manner as to become
the determining cause of the crime.
3. Indispensable Cooperation. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.

Q: Who are accomplices?

A: Those persons who, not falling as principal, cooperate in the execution of the offenses by previous or
simultaneous acts. (Art. 18, RPC)

Q: Who are accessories?

A: Those who do not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but with
knowledge of the commission of the crime, he subsequently takes part in three ways by:
1. Profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery; and
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime. (Art. 19 RPC)
Q: Define conspiracy.
A: There is a conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, RPC) The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. (Quidet v.
People, 2010)

Q: How is conspiracy determined?

A: In determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous for
simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which
are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is proof establishing that the accused
were animated by one and the same purpose.

Q: Explain the doctrine of implied conspiracy?

A: The doctrine of implied conspiracy provides that direct proof of the agreement of the conspiracy is not
essential to prove conspiracy. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and
after. It may be established by the unity of acts and purpose of the perpetrators. (People v. De Leon, 2009)

Q: What is the effect of conspiracy?

A: Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals
regardless of the extent or degree of their participation. (Aquino v. Paste, 2008)

Q: Define proposal.
A: There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons. (Art. 8, RPC)

Q: When are conspiracy and proposal to commit felony punishable?

A: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides
a penalty therefor.

Q: What is the liability of two or more persons who take part in the direct execution of the act?
A: They are both liable as principals by direct participation.

Q: What are the requisites to determine if two or more persons are principals by direct participation?
A: Two or more persons who took part in the commission of the crime are principals by direct participation when
the following requisites are present:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution;
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended
to the same end. (People v. Ong Chiat Lay, 1934; People v. Tamayo, 1922)

Q: Distinguish between wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy.

Wheel Conspiracy Chain Conspiracy
There is a single person or Usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in
group (the hub) dealing which there is successive communication and cooperation in much the
individually with two or more same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer
other persons or groups (the and wholesaler, then wholesale and retailer, and then retailer and
spokes) consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbyan, 2002)

PENALTIES

Q: What is the rule on the retroactivity application of penal laws.

A: General rule: Penal laws are applied prospectively.
Exception: When the retrospective application will be favorable to the person guilty of a felony; provided
that:
1. The offender is not a habitual delinquent under Art. 62(5) of the RPC
2. The new or amendatory law does not provide against its retrospective application

The provisions of Art. 22 are applicable even to special laws which provide more favorable conditions to the
accused.
Q: Define the concept of penalties.
A: Penalties provides punishment for a felony. It is inflicted by the State for violation of a law. Penalties are
provided following the concept of nullum poena sine lege (There is no crime where there is no law punishing it).
As expressly provided in Art. 21 of the RPC, no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission. (Art. 21, RPC)

Q: Explain the general rule with regard to a pardon by an offended party?

A: A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action but civil liability with regard to the
interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver; except under Art. 344 of the RPC.

Q: What are imposed in lieu of the death penalty?

A: In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(1) The penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties
of the Revised Penal Code; or
(2) The penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Q: Distinguish principal penalties from accessory penalties?

A:
Principal Penalties Accessory Penalties
Those expressly imposed by the court in the Those that are deemed included in the imposition of the
judgment of conviction principal penalties

Q: What are the classification of penalties according to subject-matter?

A:
1. Corporal (death);
2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto);
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro);
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension); and
5. Pecuniary (fine)

Q: What are the classification of penalties according to their gravity?

A:
1. Capital;
2. Afflictive;
3. Correctional; and
4. Light.

Q: What is the duration of the various penalties?

A:
Penalty Duration of Imprisonment
Reclusion perpetua 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
Reclusion temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Prision mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
Prision correcional 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days

Q: Distinguish life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua.

A:
Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua
Imposed for serious offenses penalized by Prescribed by the RPC
special laws
No accessory penalties Carries with it accessory penalties
No definite duration Entails imprisonment for at least 20 years and 1 day up to a
period not exceeding 40 years.
Q: Explain destierro.
A: It is a penalty wherein the person shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence,
nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250, and not less than 25 kilometers from
the place designated. (Art. 87, RPC)

Q: How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) applied in imposing a sentence? (2012 Bar)
A: If the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the offense is punishable under a special
law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
the same (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225)

Q: What kind of persons will the ISLAW not be applicable to?

A:
1. Those sentenced to death penalty or life imprisonment;
2. Those convicted of treason, or conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who have escaped from confinement, or evaded sentence;
7. Those granted with conditional pardon by the President, but violated the terms thereof;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year; and
9. Those who are sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension only. (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103 as amended
by Act No. 4225)

Q: When is Indeterminate Sentence mandatory?

A: Indeterminate Sentence is mandatory where imprisonment would exceed one year. (People v. Lee, 1984) (But
the instant case is not a prosecution under a special law. It is a homicide case. The application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory if the imprisonment would exceed one year. It would be favorable to
the accused (People vs. Alvarez, 101 Phil. 516)

Q: Why is Indeterminate Sentence mandatory?

A: It is clear in Section. 1 of Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 and 4203, that there is a mandate to
prescribe an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum
term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
offense. The application of the ISLAW is mandatory to both the Revised Penal Code and the special laws.
(Argoncillo v. CA, 1998).

Q: Explain the process in computing for crimes covered by the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
A: The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that
which could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. (Section 1, Act 4103)
STEPS:
1. Identify the offense
2. Identify the penalty prescribed by law
3. Identify attendant circumstances

1. No MC or AC Medium

2. 1 MC Minimum*

3. 1 AC Maximum**

4. 1 MC and 1 AC Offset***
*iIf privileged MC, reduce the penalty a degree lower
*2 MCs are treated as 1 privileged MC
*2 privileged MCs max
*does not apply when an AC is present
*excess MC will only bring the sentence to its minimum period
**No matter how many ACs present, the penalty does not elevate a degree higher
***An AC cannot offset a privileged MC (minority and incomplete justifying and exempting
circumstances)

Example:
Offense: Homicide
Penalty: Reclusion Temporal

1. No MC or AC
MAX- Reclusion temporal medium
MIN- Prision mayor in any period

2. 1 MC
MAX- Reclusion temporal minimum
MIN- Prision mayor in any period

3. 1 AC
MAX- Reclusion temporal maximum
MIN- Prision mayor in any period

Next Example:
Offense: Discharge of Firearms
Penalty: Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods

Penalties Entire Duration Minimum Medium Maximum

Reclusion 12 years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day 14 years, 8 months and 17 years, 4 months
temporal 20 years 1 day and 1 day

to 14 years and 8 to 17 years and 4 to 20 years

months months

Prision mayor 6 years and 1 day to 6 years and 1 day 8 years and 1 day 10 years and 1 day
12 years

to 8 years to 10 years to 12 years

 Prision 6 months and 1 day 6 months and 1 day 2 years, 4 months and 1 4 years, 2 months
correccional to 6 years day and 1 day

to 2 years and 4 to 4 years and 2 months to 6 years

months

Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 1 month 2 months and 1 day 4 months and 1 day
6 months
to 2 months to 4 months to 6 months

Arresto menor 1 to 30 days 1 day 11 days 21 days

to 10 days to 20 days to 30 days

Q: Explain the concept of the Three-fold rule.

A: The three-fold rule provides that the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three
(3) times the length of the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him, but in no case to exceed forty (40)
years. The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve at least four (4) sentences successively.
Subsidiary penalty forms part of the penalty (Art. 70, RPC).

Q: When is subsidiary penalty excluded in the three-fold rule?

A: Subsidiary imprisonment shall be excluded in computing for the maximum duration. It applies although
penalties were imposed for different crimes at different times and under separate information. (RPC, Art. 70)

Q: Explain the rules on subsidiary imprisonment.

A:
1. It is applied:
a. When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries
with it a fine; or
b. When penalty is only a fine; and
c. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine. (Art. 39, RPC)
2. It is not imposed:
a. When penalty imposed is higher than prision correctional;
b. When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty not to be executed by confinement in a penal
institution and which has no fixed period; and
c. For failure to pay the reparation of the damage caused, indemnification of the consequential
damages, and costs of the proceedings.

Q: What do graduation of penalties by degrees refer to?

A: Graduation of penalties refer to stages of execution: consummated, frustrated or attempted; and to the degree
of the criminal participation of the offender whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory.

Q: What does the division of a divisible penalty into three periods (i.e. maximum, medium and minimum) refer
to?
A: The division of a divisible penalty refers to the proper period of the penalty which should be imposed when
aggravating or mitigating circumstances attend the commission of the crime.

Q: Define accessory penalties.

A: Accessory penalties are those that are deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalties.

Q: What are the accessory penalties provided in the RPC?

A:
1. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification;
2. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling;
3. Civil interdiction;
4. Indemnification;
 5. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense; and
6. Payment of cost.

Q: What kind of penalty can be executed?

A: The judgment must be final before it can be executed, because the accused may still appeal within 15 days from
its promulgation. But if the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, the judgment becomes
final immediately. (Rule 120, Sec. 7, ROC)

Q: What is the concept of probation under the Probation Law?

A: It is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. (Sec. 3(a), P.D. 968)

Q: What is the purpose of the Probation Law?

A:
1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized
treatment;
2. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he
were to serve a prison sentence; and
3. To prevent the commission of offenses. (Sec. 2, P.D. 968, as amended)

Q: What is the effect of the filing for application for probation?

A: A judgment of conviction becomes final when the accused files a petition for probation. However, the judgment
is not executory until the petition for probation is resolved. The filing of the petition for probation is a waiver by
the accused of his right to appeal the judgment of conviction.

Q: Who are eligible to apply for probation?

A: Only those whose penalty does not exceed six (6) years of imprisonment are qualified for probation, without
regard to the nature of the crime. Hence, if the penalty is six years and one day, he is no longer qualified for
probation. However, the following are under the exception:
1. First time minor offenders under RA 9165; and
2. Violation of the Omnibus Election Code.

Q: Who are offenders that are disqualified from probation?

A:
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
2. Convicted of any crime against the national security;
3. Who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more
than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos;
4. Who have been once on probation; and
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of PD 968 became applicable
(Sec. 9, P.D. 968, as amended).

Q: What is the period of probation?

A:
1. Term of imprisonment of not more than one (1) year shall not exceed two (2) years
2. Fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Q: X was convicted in the RTC. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction. Instead of filing an appeal, X filed a
motion to be admitted into probation. Decide on the motion.
A: Motion denied. In view of the latest amendment of the Probation Law that "no application for probation shall
be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction," prevailing
jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies. (Dimakuta vs. People, 2015)

Q: What presumption does a child in conflict with the law enjoy under RA 9344?
A: He enjoys the presumption of minority. He shall all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he is
proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older.
 EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Q: When is there total extinguishment of criminal liability?

A:
1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability thereto is
extinguished only when death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
2. Extinguishment of criminal liability is a ground for a motion to quash. The death of the offended party
however does not extinguish liability of the accused because it is a crime against the State;
3. Service of sentence;
4. Amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects;
5. Absolute pardon;
6. Prescription of the crime;
7. Prescription of the penalty; and
8. Marriage of the offended person as in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness
(Art. 89, RPC).

Q: Should a criminal case, which the RTC ruled on convicting the accused with the award of actual damages
and has been appealed and affirmed by the CA, be dismissed because the accused died on the ground that the
criminal liability has been extinguished?
A: No. While the criminal liability has been extinguished, the civil liability of actual damages survives the death of
the accused.

Q: In case the death of the accused occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a
different answer?
A: Yes, the RTC decision must be set aside and the case must be dismissed. The law provides that if death occurred
before CA rendered its decision causes his criminal liability, as well his civil liability ex delicto, to be totally
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action is instituted
therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case.

Q: Does amnesty restore the right of the accused, who is convicted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
hold public office?
A: Yes. The RPC provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua
but also its effects as the accessory penalty perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty looks backward and
abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is
charged, so that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no
offense.

Q: Does pardon restore the right of the accused, who is convicted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
hold public office?
A: No. The RPC provides that a pardon, shall not work the restoration of the right: to hold public office unless
such right be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it
perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Q: When an accused escapes the country without serving his sentence and then returns years later and filed
the motion to quash on the ground that the penalty imposed against him as prescribe, should the motion be
granted?
A: No. The RPC provides that penalties of prescription commence to run from the date the felon evades the
service of his sentence. In sum, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been
convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence.

CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES

Q: Does extinction of criminal liability necessarily mean the extinction of civil liability?
A: Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily mean that civil liability is also extinguished. (Petralba v.
Sandiganbayan, 1991)
Q: When is there partial extinguishment of criminal liability?
A:
1. Conditional pardon;
2. Commutation of sentence;
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence;
4. Parole; and
5. Probation.

Q: When does civil liability exist in criminal cases?

A: Civil liability exists only when the accused is convicted by final judgment. The general rule is that a civil action
is instituted automatically with the criminal action (Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court), with three exceptions:
1. If the offended party waives the civil action,
2. If the offended party reserves the right to institute it separately; or
3. When the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the civil action.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However, the civil
action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (Sec. 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court).

Q: When is civil liability extinguished in criminal cases?

A: Civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.

Q: Distinguish between Absolute Pardon and Conditional Pardon

A:
Absolute Pardon Conditional Pardon
A pardon which exempts the If delivered and accepted, it is a contract between the executive and
individual from the penalty he has the convict wherein the convict is released upon compliance with the
committed condition.

Q: What is the effect of offender's death in its civil liability:

A:
1. Before final judgment: His death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities.
2. While the case is on appeal: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Offended party may file a separate civil
action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as provided for under
Article 1157 Civil Code.

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAW OF NATIONS

Q: What are the elements of treason?

A:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines;
2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; and
3. The offender either:
a. Levies war against the government; or
b. Adheres to the enemies by giving them aid or comfort (Art. 114, RPC)
NOTE: Treason is a war crime. It can only be committed in times of war. Emotional or intellectual sympathy to
the enemy, without giving the enemy aid or comfort, is not treason.

Q: Can treason be committed when there is no war?

A: No, treason is a war crime and can only be committed in times of war. Though there is no need for a declaration
of war to be made.

Q: Define mutiny.
A: Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotion and disturbances on board
a ship against the authority of its commander
Q: Define piracy.
A: Piracy is robbery or depredation in the high seas, without lawful authority and done with animo furandi (intent
to steal) and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

Q: What are the elements of piracy?

A:
1. Vessel is on high sears or in Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the vessel; and
3. The offenders either:
a. Attack that vessel; or
b. Seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers (Art. 122, RPC)

Q: Define high seas.

A: High seas mean any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low water mark although
such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government, parts of the sea that are not included in
the exclusive zone, in the territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an
archipelagic state (UNCLOS)

Q: Define Philippine Seas.

A: Philippine seas shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to seas, gulf, bays around, between and
connecting each of the islands of the Philippine archipelago irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension and all waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-
bed, insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction (Sec.
2, PD 532)

Q: Define espionage.
A: Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the national defense with
intent, or there is reason to believe that information is to be used to the inquiry of the Republic of the Philippines
or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Q: Can a foreigner be held liable for espionage?

A: Yes, espionage can be committed by any person as provided under Art. 117 of the RPC. It is not conditioned on
citizenship of the offender and the offender can be a citizen or a foreigner.

Q: What are the modes of committing espionage?

A:
1. First mode: By entering, without authority, a warship, fort, or naval or military establishments or
reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative
to the defenses of the Philippines
2. Second mode: By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in par. 1 of Art 117, which he had in his possession by reason of the public office
he holds

Q: Is being a public officer a requisite for commission of espionage?

A: Yes, being a public officer is a requisite in the second mode of espionage but is only aggravating in the first
mode.

Q: What are the punishable acts in hijacking?

A:
1. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the pilots
thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
2. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory, compelling
the pilots thereof to land in any part of the Philippine territory;
3. Carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines,
any flammable, corrosive, explosive or poisonous substances; and
4. Loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft, operating as a public utility in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive or poisonous substance if this was done in accordance
 with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter. (P.D.
6235)

Q: What are considered as aggravating circumstances to nos. 1 and 2 of the acts punishable in hijacking?
A:
1. When the offender has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew, or passenger of the aircraft;
2. When the offender has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape.

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Q: Define detention.
A: Detention is the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him
of his liberty. If the person is under surveillance and could not escape for fear of being apprehended again, there
would still be arbitrary detention.

Q: Will there be arbitrary detention if the person is put under surveillance?

A: Yes, there would still be arbitrary detention if the person is under surveillance and could not escape for fear
of being apprehended again.

Q: Will there be arbitrary detention when the victims are not kept in enclosure?
A: Yes, there is arbitrary detention even if the victims are not kept in an enclosure. (Astorga v. People)

Q: When is detention without legal grounds?

A:
1. Person detained has not committed any crime or, at least, there is no reasonable ground for suspicion
that he has committed a crime, unless there is a valid warrantless arrest;
2. He is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a
hospital

Q: Is there reasonable ground for detention if the officer only wants to know the commission of crime?
A: No, the detention is without legal ground.

Q: Define expulsion.
A: Expulsion is committed by a public officer or employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel
any person from the Philippines Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.

Q: What are the modes of committing violation of domicile?

A:
1. First mode: Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner.
2. Second mode: Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner.
3. Third mode: Refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same.

Q: Will there be a violation of domicile if entrance to dwelling is done without consent of the owner.
A: No, lack of consent will not suffice as the law requires that the offender's entry must be over the owner's
objection, express or implied.

Q: What is being punished under the third mode of committing violation of domicile?
A: What is punished is the refusal to leave, the entry having been made surreptitiously.

Q: What are the common elements of violation of domicile?

1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search for papers and for
other effects. (Art. 128, RPC)
Q: What is the crime committed by a public officer authorize to implement a search warrant or warrant of
arrest but at the time of the incident is not armed with warrant?
A: The crime committed is violation of domicile

Q: In relation to the previous question, what is the crime if the officer is not authorized to execute search
warrants?
A: The crime committed is qualified trespass to dwelling when a public officer who is not authorized to executes
search warrants and warrants of arrests.

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Q: What are the elements of rebellion or insurrection?

A:
1. There be:
a. Public uprising; and
b. Taking up of arms against the government.
2. Purpose of the uprising or movement is either to:
a. Remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws;
i. The territory of the Philippines, or any part thereof; or
ii. Anybody of land, naval or other armed forces; or
iii. Deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.

Q: Distinguish between rebellion and insurrection.

A:
Rebellion Insurrection
It seeks merely to effect some change of minor
The object of the movement is completely to overthrow importance or to prevent the exercise of
and supersede the existing government. governmental authority with respect to particular
matters or subjects.

Q: What is the nature of the crime of rebellion?

A: The nature of the crime of rebellion or of inciting it is that it is a crime of masses of multitude. It is a vast
movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. It is a civil war on a bigger or lesser scale.

Q: Is an actual clash of arms with the forces of the Government necessary?

A: No, the mere fact that the accused knowingly identified himself with the organization that was openly fighting
to overthrow the Government was enough to make him guilty of the crime of rebellion.

Q: Will there be rebellion if the purpose is not accomplished?

A: Yes, it is not necessary that the purpose of the rebellion be accomplished.

Q: When is the crime of rebellion completed?

A: The crime of rebellion is complete the very moment a group of rebels rise publicly and take arms against the
Government, for the purpose of overthrowing the same by force.

Q: Distinguish between rebellion and treason.

A:
Rebellion Treason
Rebellion always involves taking up arms It is not necessary that there be taking up arms against the
against the Government government. Treason may be committed by mere adherence
to the enemy giving him aid or comfort.
The levying of war during peace time is It must be committed during war time.
rebellion.
Q: What are the two ways to commit direct assault?
A:
1. By employing force or intimidation, without a public uprising, with the aim of attaining any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion or sedition; or
2. By attacking, employing force or seriously intimidating or resisting any person in authority of any of
these agents while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance.

Q: When is direct assault qualified?

A:
1. When the assault is committed with a weapon;
2. When the offender is a public officer or employee;
3. When the offender lays hand upon a person in authority.

Q: Will direct assault be committed when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight?
A: Yes, there is still direct assault committed even if the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight.

Q: Will there be direct assault when the person in authority or the agent provoked or attacked first the
innocent party?
A: No, the innocent party is entitled to defend himself and may raise justifying or mitigating circumstances.

Q: Can there be indirect assault without direct assault being committed?

A: Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed. The person who should be
aided is the agent (not the person in authority because it is already direct assault, the person coming to the aid
of the person in authority being considered as an agent and an attack on the latter is already direct assault).
Example. Aiding a policeman under attack.

Q: What are the elements of resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person?
A:
1. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
2. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent; and
3. That the act of the offender must not constitute direct assault or indirect assault.

Q: Can a person guilty of disobedience be held liable for contempt?

A: Yes, it is without prejudice to the power of the bodies or commissions to punish the offender for contempt.
(Art. 150, RPC)

Q: What are the different acts of inciting to sedition?

A:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representation tending to the
same end;
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing, publishing, or
circulating scurrilous (vulgar, mean, libelous) libels against the government or any of the duly constituted
authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace; and
3. Knowingly concealing such evil practices.

Q: What are the elements of inciting to sedition?

A:
1. That the offender does not take direct part in the crime of sedition;
2. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition; and
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or
other representation tending to the same end.

Q: Is disturbance or disorder necessary in inciting to sedition?

A: No, disturbance or disorder is not necessary in inciting to sedition.
Q: Who are offenders in delivery of prisoners from jail?
A:
1. Usually, an outsider to the jail; or
2. It may also be:
a. An employee of the penal establishment who does not have the custody of the prisoner;
b. A prisoner who helps the escape of another prisoner.

Q: What are the acts punished of disloyalty of public officers and employees?
A:
1. By failing to resist rebellion by all means in their power;
2. Continuing to discharge duties under control of rebels; and
3. Accepting appointment to office under them.

Q: Can the crime of disloyalty be committed even if there is no rebellion?

A: No, the crime of disloyalty of the public officers presupposes the existence of rebellion by other persons.

Q: What are the crimes against popular representation?

A:
1. Art. 143 - Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting of Congress and Similar Bodies
Elements:
a. That there be a projected or actual meeting of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines)
or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional committees or divisions thereof, or any
of the provincial board or city or municipal council or board; and
b. Offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud. He alters its substance,
quantity or quality; and
2. Art. 144 - Disturbance of Proceedings
Elements:
a. That there be a meeting of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board; and
b. Offender does any of the following acts:
i. Disturbs any of such meetings; or
ii. Behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
3. Art. 145 - Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
Punishable acts:
a. Using force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly from (1)
attending the meetings of the Assembly or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from (2) expressing his opinions or casting his vote
Elements:
i. The offender uses force, intimidation, threats or frauds of the offender is to prevent any
member of the National Assembly from –
a) attending the meetings of the Assembly or of any of its committees or constitutional
commissions, etc;
b) expressing his opinions; or
c) casting his vote.
b. By arresting or searching any member thereof while the National Assembly is in regular or special
session, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty
higher than prision mayor
Elements:
i. The offender is a public officer or employee;
ii. He arrests or searches any member of the National Assembly;
iii. The Assembly, at the time of arrest or search, is in regular or special session; and
iv. The member arrested or searched has not committed a crime punishable under the Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor.
Q: What are the crimes classified under public disorders?
A:
1. Tumults and other disturbances of public order (Art. 153, RPC);
Punishable Acts:
a. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment;
b. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act
is not included in Arts. 131 and 132;
c. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public
place;
d. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public disorder in such place; or
e. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
2. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (Art. 154, RPC);
Punishable Acts:
a. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of
publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the
interest or credit of the State;
b. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or
extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches;
c. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without
proper authority, or before they have been published officially; or
d. Printing, publishing or distributing books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the
real printer’s name, or which are classified as anonymous.
3. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155, RPC); and
a. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place,
calculated to cause alarm or danger;
b. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to
another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
c. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements; and
d. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided Art.
153 is not applicable.
4. Delivering prisoners from jail (Art. 156, RPC)
a. There is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment; and
b. that the offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such person.

Q: Where can the crime of evasion of service of sentence be prosecuted?

A: As a continuing offense, the crime may be prosecuted in any place where the offender was found.

Q: What are the qualifying circumstances of evasion of service of sentence?

A: If evasion or escapes takes place:
1. By means of unlawful entry (by scaling);
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors;
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution.

Q: What are the forms of evasion of service of sentence?

A:
1. By simply leaving or escaping from the penal establishment (Art. 157, RPC);
2. Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the penal establishment because of a calamity,
conflagration or mutiny and such calamity, conflagration or mutiny has been announced as already
passed (Art. 158, RPC); and
3. Violating the condition of conditional pardon. (Art. 159, RPC)

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Q: What are the crimes called forgeries?

A:
1. Forging the seal of the government, signature or stamp of the chief executive (Art. 161, RPC);
 2. Counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art. 162, RPC;)
3. Counterfeiting coins (Art. 163, RPC);
4. Mutilation of coins (Art. 164, RPC);
5. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer (Art. 166, RPC);
6. Counterfeiting of instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167, RPC);
7. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170, RPC);
8. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister (Art. 171, RPC);
9. Falsification by private individuals (Art. 172, RPC);
10. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraphs and telephone messages (Art. 173, RPC); and
11. Falsification of medical certificate, certificate of merit of service (Art. 174, RPC).

Q: What is the meaning of counterfeiting?

A: Counterfeiting is to imitate a coin that is genuine. The imitation is given the appearance that is of legal tender.
The coin is considered a counterfeit even if it has more intrinsic value than the coin of legal tender.

Q: What is the meaning of mutilation of coins?

A: Mutilation means diminishing or taking off by ingenuous means part of the metal in the coin either by filing or
substituting it for another metal of inferior quality.

Q: What type of instrument is necessary for the commission of counterfeiting of instruments under Art. 167?
A: The instrument necessary for the commission is an instrument payable to order or other document or credit
not payable to bearer.

Q: What is the crime committed if the falsification took place before the private document becomes part of
the public record?
A: The crime committed is falsification of public documents even if the falsification took place before the private
document becomes part of the public record.

Q: When is falsification consummated?

A: Generally, falsification is consummated when the genuine document is altered or the moment the false
document is executed. It is immaterial that the offender did not achieve his objective.

Q: Is mere falsification of private document enough to consummate the crime?

A: No, there are two things required:
1. He must have falsified the same; and
2. He must have performed an independent act which operates to the prejudice of third persons.

Q: What are the three forms of false testimony?

A:
1. False testimony in criminal cases (Art. 180 and Art. 181, RPC);
2. False testimony in civil cases; and
3. False testimony in other cases which is also known as Perjury.

Q: What are the crimes classified as fraud?

A:
1. Machinations in public auctions (Art. 185, RPC);
2. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. 186, RPC);
3. Importations and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver or other
precious metals (Att. 187, RPC);
4. Substituting and altering trademarks and tradenames or service marks (Art. 188, RPC); and
5. Unfair competition, fraudulent registration or tradename, trademark or service mark; fraudulent
designation of origin and false description. (Art. 189, RPC)

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

Q: Define gambling.
A: Gambling is any game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill wherein wagers consisting of money, articles
or value of representative of value are at stake or made.
Q: Define lottery.
A: Lottery is a scheme for the distribution of prized by chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a
valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize. (US v. Filart, 1915)

Q: What is grave scandal?

A: Grave scandal consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs which, having been committed
publicly, and have given rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally witnessed the same.

Q: What is the test of obscenity?

A: It is whether the matter which is charged to be obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open
to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may
fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency.
“Indecency” is an act against the good behavior and a just delicacy. (US v. Kottinger, 1923)

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Q: Who are public officers?

A: Any person who by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall
take part in the performance of public functions in the government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in
said government or in any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank
or class (Art. 203, RPC)

The term includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government. (Sec.
2(c), RA 3019)

Q: What is malversation?
A: Malversation is when one appropriates public funds or property; takes or misappropriates the same; by
consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, by permitting any other person to take such public funds or
property; or by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
(Legrama v. Sandiganbayan, 2012)

Q: What are the punishable acts in malversation of public funds or property?

A:
(1) By appropriating public funds or property;
(2) By taking or misappropriating the same;
(3) By consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public
funds or property; and
(4) By being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.

Q: Between the name of the office and the nature of the duties, which is controlling?
A: The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee is the factor that determines whether or not
malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. It is the fact that as part of his duties, he
received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it. The name or relative
importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. (Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, 2005)

Q: Distinguish between malversation and estafa.

A:
Malversation Estafa
Committed usually by a public official who has charge by Committed by a private individual or a public
virtue of his official position of public funds officer who is not accountable for public funds
Funds are usually of public nature Funds are always private
Conversion is not required Conversion is required
No need for prior demand Prior demand is necessary
No element of damage There is damage
Q: When can a public officer not accountable for public funds be held liable for estafa?
A: When while acting as a public official, he received money without authority which belongs to another and
appropriates the same to his own use and fails and refuses to deliver the same to the person to whom it properly
belongs.

Q: Can private property be involved in malversation?

A: Yes, there is malversation when the offender is an administrator or depositary of funds or property attached,
seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

Q: When can a private individual be held guilty of malversation?

A:
1. He acts in conspiracy with public officers;
2. He is an accessory or accomplice to a public officer;
3. He has charge, in any capacity whatsoever, of national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or
property; and
4. He is an administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public
authority.

Q: Explain the effect of restitution.

A: The full restitution of the amount malversed will not in any way exonerate an accused, as payment is not one
of the elements of extinction of criminal liability. The refund of the sum misappropriated, even before the
commencement of the criminal prosecution, does not exempt the guilty person from liability. The payment of
the amount malversed will only serve as a mitigating circumstance akin to voluntary surrender. (Perez v. People,
2008)

Q: What is the prima facie evidence of malversation?

A: The prima facie evidence of malversation is the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public
funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer. It is prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use (Art. 217, RPC)

Q: Can malversation be committed through abandonment or negligence?

A: Yes, malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the
offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony (Cabello v. Sandiganbayan, 1991)

In malversation not committed through negligence, lack of criminal intent or good faith is a defense. If he made
an honest mistake as to the law or the facts as to his duties relative to the expenditure of the public funds,
although he might be liable civilly, he is not criminally liable (US v. Elvina, 1913)

Q: Distinguish illegal use of public funds or property from malversation?

A:
Malversation Technical malversation
Offenders are accountable public officer Offenders are accountable public officer
Offender in certain cases profits from the proceeds of
Offender does not derive any personal gain or profit
the crime
The public fund or property is applied to the personal The public fund or property is applied to another
use and benefit of the offender or of another person public use

Q: Differentiate malversation under Article 217 from estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315 (1).
A:
Malversation (Art. 217) Estafa with abuse of confidence (Art. 315 [1])

The offender is a public officer The offender is a private person

The property or funds misappropriated constitutes The property or funds misappropriated is private in
public funds or property (Catingub v. Court of Appeals) character (Catingub v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
except if an administrator or depositary 28701 (1983) [Per J. Guerrero, Second Division])
misappropriates a private property attached, seized
 or deposited by a public authority, which makes said
administrator/depositary liable under Art. 217 (Reyes,
p. 432).

Damage to the government is not necessary (Reyes, p. Owner or third person must be prejudiced (Reyes, pp.
441) 801-802)

A crime committed by public officers A crime committed against property

Q: What are the punishable acts under failure to make delivery of public funds or property?
A:
1. By failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make such payment from
Government funds in his possession;
2. By refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by competent authority to deliver
any property in his custody or under his administration. (Art. 221, RPC)

Q: When is there direct bribery?

A:
1. If the public officer agrees to perform, or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
present, an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties;
2. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime; and
3. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from
doing something which it was his official duty to do.

Q: Distinguish between direct bribery and indirect bribery.

A:
Direct bribery Indirect bribery
Public officer accepts a gift Public officer accepts a gift
There is an agreement between the public officer and
Usually no such agreement exists
the giver of the gift
It is not necessary that the officer should do any
Offender agrees to perform or performs an act or
particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is
refrains from doing something because of the gift or
enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason
promise.
of his office.

Q: Is there attempted or frustrated indirect bribery?

A: No, mere acceptance consummates the crime.

Q: Does acceptance of gift or presence necessary for qualified bribery?

A: No, mere offer or promise is sufficient.

Q: What are the acts punished under disloyalty of public officers or employees?
A:
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power;
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels; or
3. By accepting appointment to officer under them. (Art. 137, RPC)

Q: What are the three (3) forms of breach of oath/duty?

A:
1. Misfeasance: when the public officer performs official acts
2. Nonfeasance: when public officer willfully refrains or refuses to perform an official duty which his office
requires him to perform
3. Malfeasance: when a public officer performs in his public office an act prohibited by law
Q: Differentiate malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. What are the crimes classified under each?
A:
Malfeasance Misfeasance Nonfeasance

Refers to the performance of some Refers to the improper Refers to the omission of some act
act which ought not to be done performance of some act which which ought to be performed
(Reyes, p.375) might lawfully be done (Reyes, (Reyes, p.376)
p.375)

Includes: Includes: Includes:

(a) Direct bribery (Art. 210); and (a) Knowingly rendering unjust (a) Dereliction of duty in
(b) Indirect bribery (Art. 211). judgment (Art. 204); prosecution of offenses (Art.
(b) Rendering judgment through 208)
negligence (Art. 205);
(c) Rendering unjust
interlocutory order (Art. 206);
and
(d) Malicious delay in the
administration of justice (Art.
207).

Q: What are crimes classified as infidelity of public officers?

A:
1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
2. Infidelity in the custody of documents; and
3. Revelation of secrets.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Q: How is rape committed?

A:
1. Rape by sexual intercourse (Traditional rape, Art. 335, RPC); or
2. Rape through sexual assault (R.A. No. 8353)

Q: Is there a crime of frustrated rape?

A: There is no such thing as frustrated rape. In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and from that moment, all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration because not all the acts
of execution was performed. It is hardly conceivable how frustrated stage can be committed. (People v. Orita,
1999)

Q: What is the crime committed if the offender knew that the victim is demented?
A: The crime is qualified rape. The age not only pertain to chronological age but also to mental age. (People v.
Atento, 1991)

Q: What is the crime committed when the accused detained the victim for two (2) weeks and raped the latter
for the entire duration of the detention?
A: Multiple rape. Each rape is a distinct offense. The principal intention was to abuse the victim, and the detention
was only incidental.

Q: What is the effect of the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party as to the
criminal liability of the offender?
A: The marriage extinguishes the criminal action, or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified
from a crime against chastity, to that of a crime against persons. (Article 266-C, RPC)
Q: Define statutory rape.
A: It is rape committed when the girl is under twelve (12) years of age. The offender’s knowledge of the victim’s
age is immaterial.

Q: Is sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived of reason or with a girl who is below twelve years of
age rape?
A: Yes, because she is incapable of giving rational consent to the intercourse. (People v. Manlapaz, 1979)

Q: What if the girl is thirteen years old but has a mental capacity of that of a five year old?
A: It would still be rape, since she is incapable of giving rational consent. (People v. Manlapaz, 1979)

Q: Can rape be committed against any gender?

A: Yes, rape may be committed against any gender. It is now a public crime, it may be instituted by anyone and
may be committed against any gender. (Sec. 2, R.A. 8353)

Q: Distinguish between the two kinds of rape with respect to the required gender of the accused and the
victim.
A:
Rape through sexual intercourse Rape through sexual assault
The accused must be male and the victim must be There is no gender requirement
female

Q: If the accused inserted his finger in the genital orifice of the female victim, what crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is rape through sexual assault. (People v. Ching, 2007)

Q: What is the rape shield law?

A:
Rape shield law refers to a law that in prosecutions for rape, evidence pertaining to the complainant’s past sexual
conduct is barred from being admitted, unless the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the
case (Section 6, RA 8505).

Q: Can rape be instituted de officio?

A: Yes, it can now be instituted de officio or by anyone because of the change of its classification from crimes
against chastity to crimes against persons. It is now a public crime and the same may be instituted even if the
complainant does not institute the case. (Sec. 2, R.A. 8353)

Q: Define murder.
A: It is the unlawful killing of another person which is neither parricide nor infanticide with the following
circumstances being present:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of
a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation; or
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse (As amended by RA 7659).

Q: Define homicide.
A: It is the unlawful killing of any person which is neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide or abortion. The
killing, however, must not be justified under of the justifying circumstances.
Q: What are the three (3) stages of homicide?
A:
1. Attempted Homicide: If the offender with intent to kill attempted to inflict non-mortal wounds upon the
victim, he already commenced an overt act to committed homicide. Hence, the crime committed is
attempted homicide if he failed to inflict mortal wounds upon the victim by reasons of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
2. Frustrated Homicide: If the offender with intent to kill inflicted mortal wounds upon the victim, he
already performed acts of execution which would produce the homicide as a consequence. If death is
not produced despite the mortal character of the wounds due to causes independent of the will of the
offender, the crime is committed is frustrated homicide.
3. Consummated Homicide: If death is produced, the crime committed is consummated homicide. All the
elements necessary for execution and accomplishment of homicide are present if the victim due to the
wounds inflicted by the offender with intent to kill.

Q: Distinguish between physical injuries and frustrated homicide?

A:
Physical injuries Frustrated homicide
There is no intent to kill There is intent to kill (Cirera v. People, 2014)

Q: When is intent to kill conclusively presumed?

A: If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such
case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence,
the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor
responsible for all the consequences thereof. Evidence of intent to kill is crucial only to a finding of frustrated
and attempted homicide, as the same is an essential element of these offenses, and thus must be proved with the
same degree of certainty as that required of the other elements of said offenses. (Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, 2012)

Q: Is there frustrated homicide by reason of one’s imprudence?

A: No, the offense of frustrated homicide requires the concurrence of the essential requisites of intent to kill,
which is incompatible with the charge of reckless imprudence. Although a charge for physical injuries, serious or
less serious, through reckless imprudence is legally proper under the law; as in that case the act sought to be
punished is the material damage or injury actually done. (People v. Castillo, 1946)

Q: What is the effect of the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder?
A: It can be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance if such use is alleged specifically in the information
for murder.

Q: What is the effect of the commission of the crime of illegal possession of firearm and any other crime?
A: The offender cannot be prosecuted separately for illegal possession of firearm since RA 8294 prescribes a
penalty for possession of unlicensed firearm “provided, that no other crime was committed.” (Celino v. Court of
Appeals, 2007)

Q: Is the non-recovery of the body of the victim a bar to the prosecution of the accused for murder?
A: No, in all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element of the offense, what is important
is to establish beyond reasonable doubt:
1. The fact of death; and
2. The identity of the victim.

Q: What are the crimes of physical injuries?

A:
1. Mutilation (Art. 262, RPC)
2. Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 263, RPC)
3. Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages (Art. 264, RPC)
4. Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265, RPC)
5. Slight Physical Injuries (Art. 266, RPC)
Q: What are the two kinds of mutilation?
A:
1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, totally or partially, of some essential organs for
reproduction; and
2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is lopping or clipping off any other part of the body of the
victim, that must be protruding from the body

Q: Can there be mutilation when there is no specific intent to clip off some part of the victims’ body?
A: No, in mutilation, there is a special intention to clip off some part of the victim’s body so as to deprive him of
such part. Without such specific intent, the crime is physical injuries and not mutilation.

Q: Differentiate serious, less serious, and slight physical injuries.

A:
Slight physical injuries Less serious physical injuries Serious physical injuries
When the injuries inflicted When the injuries incapacitated When the injuries
incapacitated the offended party from the offended party from 10-30 incapacitated the offended
1-9 days or required medical days. party 31 days or more.
attendance of the same period

Q: What circumstance is contemplated under Art. 247 of the RPC?

A: Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon
them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. (Art. 247, RPC)

The same is true to a parent who, having surprised his daughter under eighteen (18) years of age and living with
him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with her seducer, shall kill any or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury.

Q: Is it material whether the daughter is legitimate or not?

A: No, the only requirement is that she is living with her offended parents.

Q: What are the elements of death or physical injuries considered as exceptional circumstances?
A:
1. A legally married person surprises his spouse (or daughter) in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person;
2. He kills any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he has not consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse. (People v. Macal, 2016)

Q: Is banishment or destierro intended as a penalty in death or physical injuries under exceptional

circumstances?
A: No. It is but a means to remove the accused from the vicinity, for his protection against possible reprisal from
the family or relatives of the other spouse or of the paramour or mistress. (People v. Coricor, 1947)

Q: Under death by exceptional circumstance, should the victim be killed immediately after the sexual
intercourse?
A: No. The Revised Penal Code only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. However, the killing
should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external
factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage. (People v. Abarca, 1987)

Q: What is the crime of Parricide?

A: It is a crime committed by any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide.
Q: When is legitimacy of relationship essential in parricide?
A: The legitimacy of the relationship is an essential element, if the victim is the wife or the second-degree direct
relative of the offender. Thus, the killing of one’s illegitimate granddaughter, grandson or wife shall not be
considered as parricide since the relationship is not legitimate.

Q: Is the killing of one’s legitimate brother parricide?

A: No, the brother is just a collateral relative. Collateral relatives are not included under Art. 246 of the RPC.

Q: What is “tumultuous”?
A: It must be caused by more than three (3) persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.

Q: Is it necessary that the person killed be a participant in the melee?

A: No, the person killed could be a participant or anybody caught in the melee.

Q: Distinguish this from death caused in tumultuous affray?

A:
Death Caused in Tumultuous Affray Physical Injuries Caused in Tumultuous Affray
Person killed need not be a participant in the affray. The person injured must be one or some of the
participants in the affray.

Q: When is infanticide committed?

A: Infanticide is committed by any person who kills any child less than 3 days of age. (Art. 255, RPC)

Q: How is abortion committed?

A: It is committed by any person who shall cause an abortion intentionally, or by violence, but unintentionally.
Abortion is the expulsion of a non-viable fetus.

Q: Distinguish between the intentional and unintentional abortion.

A:
Intentional abortion Unintentional abortion
There is a pregnant woman There is a pregnant woman
Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without
administered, or that the accused otherwise acts
intending an abortion
upon such pregnant woman
As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages
As a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the
upon her, or any other act of the accused, the fetus
womb or after having been expelled therefrom
dies, either in the womb, or after having been expelled
The violence is intentionally exerted (People v.
The abortion is intended (Art. 256, RPC)
Paycana, 2008)

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

Q: What are the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention?

A: The following are the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention:
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. The Act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. Kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days;
b. Committed simulating public authority;
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made; or
d. Person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. (Art. 267, RPC)
Q: What is the essence of kidnapping and serious illegal detention?
A: The essence of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled
with the intent of the accused to effect it. There must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor
was to deprive the offended party of liberty. (People v. Pavillare, 2000).

Q: Is it required that the restraint be permanent?

A: No, the restraint need not be permanent. It is sufficient that there be deprivation of the victim’s liberty (People
v. Pavillare, 2000).

Q: What crime is committed when a person initially agrees to go with the offender but was later prevented
from leaving the place and is detained against his will?
A: The crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention. (People v. Picker, 2003).

Q: Distinguish illegal detention from arbitrary detention (Art. 124)?

A:
Illegal detention Arbitrary detention (Art. 124)

The offender is a private individual The offender is a public officer or employee

The offender unlawfully kidnaps, detains, or The offender detains a person without legal ground
otherwise deprives a person of liberty (Reyes, p. 587) (Reyes, p. 587)

If the offender is a public officer but does not have the The offender must have the duty under the law to
duty to detain a person, he is liable for illegal detain a person (e.g. police officers)
detention (Reyes, p. 577)

A crime against personal liberty and security (Reyes, p. A crime against the fundamental law of the State
587) (Reyes, p. 587)

Q: Define ransom.
A: Ransom is the money, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or
persons. A payment that releases from captivity.

Q: Is demand for ransom necessary to constitute kidnapping and serious illegal detention?
A: No, demand is not required. It is merely a qualifying circumstance and no matter how short the detention and
kidnapping lasts, the crime is still committed because ransom is not an element of kidnapping.

Q: Is actual demand for ransom necessary for ransom to be considered qualifying circumstance?
A: No, actual demand of ransom is not necessary as long as it was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

Q: Distinguish unlawful arrest (Art. 269) from delay in the delivery of detained persons (Art. 125)?
A:
Unlawful arrest (Art. 269) Delay in the delivery of detained persons (Art. 125)

The arrest is not authorized by law or there is no The detention is for some legal ground
reasonable ground therefor

The crime is committed by making an arrest not The crime is committed by failing to deliver such
authorized by law (Reyes, p. 591) person to the proper judicial authority within a
certain period of time (Reyes, p. 591)

Q: What are the crimes under Kidnapping of minors?

A: The crimes are:
1. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270, RPC); and
2. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. (Art. 271, RPC)
Q: What are the elements of kidnapping and failure to return a minor?
A: The elements are the following:
1. Offender must have been entrusted with custody of a minor; and
2. Said offender deliberately fails to return the said minor to the latter's parents or guardian. (Art. 270,
RPC)

Q: Distinguish bond for good behavior (Art. 284) from bond to keep the peace (Art. 35)?
A:
Bond for good behavior (Art. 284) Bond to keep the peace (Art. 35)

Made applicable only to cases of grave threats and Made applicable to any particular case
light threats

If the offender fails to give bail, he shall be sentenced
to destierro
If the offender fails to give bond, he shall be detained
for a period not exceeding six (6) months (if
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony) or not
exceeding thirty (30) days(if prosecuted for light
felony) (Reyes, pp. 626-627)

Q: What are the elements of grave coercion?

A: The elements of the grave coercion are the following:
1. That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law; or
2. That he compelled him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; and
3. That the prevention of compulsion be effected by violence, either by material force or such a display of
force as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party;
4. That the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had not the wants to do.
5. the act prevented is not prohibited by law. authority of law or the right to do so. (Art. 286, RPC)

Q: Is coercion consummated even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of coercion?
A: Yes, it is already consummated. The essence of coercion is an attack on individual liberty.

Q: Differentiate preventive and compulsion grave coercion.

A:
Preventive Compulsion
The offender uses violence to prevent the victim from The offender uses violence to compel the offended
doing what he wants to do. party to do what he does not want to do.
The act prevented is not prohibited by law. The act compelled may or may not be prohibited by
law.

Q: When does light coercion become unjust vexation?

A: Light coercion under the 1st par. of Article 287 will be unjust vexation if the 3rd element (employing violence
or intimidation) is absent.

Q: Distinguish grave threats, light threats and other light threats.

A:
Grave Threats Light Threats Other Light Threats
A person threatens another with the A person threatens another with
In other light threats, there is no
infliction upon the person, honor or infliction of a wrong not
demand for nor any condition is
property of the latter or of his family of constituting a crime, with a
imposed since acts are limited
any wrong amounting to a crime. (Art. demand for money or other
to verbal threats
282, RPC) condition. . (Art. 283, RPC)

Q: What are the elements of exploitation of child labor?

A: To constitute exploitation of child labor, the following must be present:
1. Offender retains a minor in his service;
 2. It is against the will of the minor; and
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with the custody of such minor. (Art. 273, RPC)

Q: What are the elements of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling?

A: The elements are:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another; and
3. Entrance is against the latter's will. (Art. 280, RPC)

Q: What is the crime committed if the offender is a public officer?

A: The crime committed is violation of domicile.

Q: Define dwelling.
A: Dwelling is a place that a person inhabits, or any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort.
Whether a building is a dwelling house or not depends upon the use. It includes the dependencies which have
interior communication with the house. It is not necessary that it be a permanent dwelling of a person.

Q: Explain the requirement that entrance be “against the will of another”.

A: It means that the entrance is either expressly or impliedly prohibited.

Q: What are the instances when prohibition to enter a dwelling is implied or presumed?
A: Prohibition to enter a dwelling is implied if:
1. Entering a dwelling of another at late hour of the night;
2. When the entrance is made through means not intended for ingress; and
3. The existence of enmity or strained relations between the accused and the occupant

Q: When is trespass to dwelling not committed?

A: There is no trespass to dwelling if:
1. Entrance is for the purpose of preventing harm to himself, the occupants or a third person;
2. Purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice; and
3. Place is a cafe, tavern, etc., while open.

Q: Distinguish qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280) from other forms of trespass (Art. 281)?
A:
Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280) Other forms of trespass (Art. 281)

The offender is a private person The offender is any person

The offender enters a dwelling house The offender enters closed premises or fenced estate

The place entered is inhabited The place entered is uninhabited

The crime is entering the dwelling against the will of The crime is entering the closed premises or the
the owner fenced estate without securing the permission of the
owner or caretaker thereof

The prohibition to enter is express or implied The prohibition to enter must be manifest (Reyes, p.
616)

Q: Enumerate the crimes under abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors.
A: The crimes under abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors are:
1. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of One's victim (Art. 275, RPC)
2. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276, RPC)
3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody, indifference of parents (Art. 277, RPC)
4. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278, RPC)
 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Q: How is theft committed?

A: It is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence or intimidation of persons or force
upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. (Art. 308, RPC)

Q: What is the determinative characteristic of theft?

A: The determinative characteristic as to whether the crime of theft was produced is the ability of the actor to
freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary. It is consummated upon the voluntary and
malicious taking of the property, which is realized by the material occupation of the thing whereby the thief
places it under his control and in such a situation that he could dispose of it once. (Valenzuela v. People, 2007)

Q: Can there be theft in the frustrated stage?

A: No, there is no crime of frustrated theft. Theft is consummated when there is deprivation of property due to
its taking with intent to gain. It is immaterial if the accused was able or unable to freely dispose of the property
stolen. It is sufficient that there is disturbance of proprietary right. At the moment the accused was able to take
the property, the crime is already consummated and if he was not able to perform all acts of execution, the crime
is merely attempted. (Ibid.)

Q: Who are liable for theft?

A: The following are liable for theft:
1. Any person who
a. With intent to gain
b. But without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things
c. Shall take
d. Personal property
e. Of another
f. Without the latter’s consent (Art. 308, RPC)
2. Any person who
a. Having found lost property
b. Shall fail to deliver the same to its owner, if known, or to the local authorities (Art. 308(1)
3. Any person who
a. After having maliciously damaged the property of another
b. Shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by them; (Art. 308(2))
4. Those who
a. Enter an enclosed estate or a field
b. Where trespass is forbidden, or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner,
c. Hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products. (Art. 308(3))

Q: May a person who receives a lost or mislaid property be liable for theft?
A: Yes, one who receives lost or mislaid property from the finder assumes, in legal contemplation, by voluntary
substitution, the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder. He can be guilty of theft in
misappropriating it because one who receives only has physical possession—the same physical possession that
the finder had that was transferred. (People v. Avila, 1923)

Q: Can there be separate charge for trespass to property in the commission of theft under Art. 308 (3) of the
RPC?
A: No, the trespass to property will be absorbed.

Q: When is theft qualified?

A: Theft is qualified when:
1. theft is committed by a domestic servant;
2. theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle;
4. the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation;
5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery;
6. the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident, or other civil disturbances; (Art. 310, RPC, as amended) or
 7. the property taken is illegally cut timber or other forest products in public or private forest. (P.D. No.
330)

Q: What is the crime committed when one took valuables of victims of vehicular accident?
A: Qualified theft is committed when there is evident intent to gain and on occasion of vehicular accident, the
perpetrator took advantage of the helpless condition of the victims and took all their valuables. (Art. 310, RPC)

Q: Will there be more than one crime of qualified theft when more than one victim is divested of their valuables
in the same occasion?
A: No, there can be only one crime of qualified theft when the taking of the valuables is made on one and the
same occasion, constituting a continued crime.

Q: How is robbery committed?

A: It is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another,
by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or by using force upon anything. (Art. 293, RPC)

Q: Is there a crime of frustrated robbery?

A: No. The crime of robbery is consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing and or is in a position
to freely dispose of it freely. (People v. Salvilla, 1990) There can be no circumstance wherein the crime will be
frustrated. The moment the accused performs all the acts of execution, the crime is consummated. Failure to do
all acts, the crime is merely attempted. (Art. 6, RPC)

Q: What are the two kinds of robbery?

A: The kinds of robbery are:
1. Robbery with violence or intimidation; and
2. Robbery with force upon things.

Q: What qualifies robbery?

A: It is the violence against or intimidation of persons, relative in the taking of the thing, that qualifies the crime
as robbery.

Q: Is snatching from behind, without using violence, considered as robbery?

A: No, there is no robbery. Where the accused snatched from behind the bag the offended party was then
carrying, there being no violence against the offended party immediately before, after or at the time the bag was
snatched from her, the accused was not liable for robbery, but only for theft. (People v. Villar, 1995)

Q: What is Robbery with Homicide?

A: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property. Homicide is incidental to the robbery
which is the main purpose of the criminal. (People v. Torres, 2001)

Q: What must be the offender’s purpose in Robbery with Homicide?

A: The purpose of the offender must be to commit robbery and the homicide is committed on the occasion of the
robbery which means that even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the robbery, as long as it is
related to the robbery, robbery with homicide is committed. (People v. Micu, 1961)

Q: What does the phrase “by reason” cover?

A: It covers homicide committed before, during or after the taking of personal property of another, as long as the
motive of the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive the victim of his personal property
which is sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or in killing a person after the
robbery to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of the stolen property. (People v. Torres, 2001)

Q: What crime is committed when killing was done by reason or on occasion of a robbery?
A: Only one crime of robbery with homicide is committed. The RPC punishes the crimes as only one indivisible
offense. (Art. 294(1), RPC, People v. Mabasa, 1938)
Q: What is the crime committed if two or more persons are killed and physical injuries are inflicted on another,
on the occasion or by reason of robbery?
A: There is one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is primordial is the result obtained without
reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
crime. (People v. Daniela, 2003)

Q: Is attempted homicide or attempted murder, during or on the occasion of the robbery, absorbed in the
crime of Robbery with homicide?
A: Yes, it is absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide. However, the serious physical injuries, inflicted in
connection with robbery, must be inflicted in the course of its execution or during the robbery.

Q: Explain the rules on serious physical injuries committed on the occasion of robbery.
A:
1. When the offender inflicts physical injuries resulting to homicide after committing robbery: Two
crimes are committed, robbery and physical injuries
2. If on the occasion of robbery, less serious physical injuries are inflicted: It is simple robbery only.
The less serious physical injuries will constitute the violence in simple robbery. There is no special
complex crime as robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries.
3. If less serious physical injuries are inflicted after robbery has been consummated: Two separate
crimes of robbery and less serious physical injuries.

Q: If the crimes of rape and robbery were separated by time and space is there a special complex crime of
robbery and rape?
A: No. If the two crimes were separated by time and space, there is no complex crime of robbery with rape. (People
v. Angeles, 1993)

Q: What must be the offender’s purpose in Robbery with Rape?

A: The offender must have the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes
the taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the rape.

Q: What is the crime committed when the original plan was to commit rape but the accused after committing
the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself?
A: Rape and Robbery

Q: Will the additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery increase the penalty?
A: No, the same is absorbed in the special complex crime of robbery with rape. (People v. Regala, 2000)

This doctrine does not apply:

(1) When the elements of using force upon things are not present; and
(2) When there is Robbery by using force upon things, committed by reason or on occasion of robbery by
means of violence or intimidation, shall be integrated in the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with
Homicide. (People v. De Leon, 2009).
(3) The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry and disregard of dwelling.

Q: Will disregard of dwelling be an aggravating circumstance in an unlawful entry?

A: Yes, because disregard of dwelling is not inherent in unlawful entry (People v. Barruga, 1935)

Q: Explain the rule on appreciating treachery in Robbery with Homicide.

A: Treachery will be appreciated in relation to the Homicide and not on the circumstances of the Robbery. The
circumstance is considered an ordinary aggravating circumstance on the Robbery with Homicide, as there is no
Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Murder. (People v. Maccabales, 2000).

Q: What is brigandage?
A: It is the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another, by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things of other unlawful
means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway. (Sec.2(e), P.D. 532)
Q: Distinguish brigandage (Art. 306) and robbery in band (Art. 296)?
A:
Brigandage (Art. 306) Robbery in band (Art. 296)

The purpose of the offenders is any of the following: The purpose of the offenders is only to commit
(a) To commit robbery in the highway; robbery, not necessarily in the highway
(b) To kidnap persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom; or
(c) For any other purpose to be attained by
means of force and violence.

Mere formation of a band for any of the purposes It is necessary to prove that the band actually
mentioned in the law is sufficient, as it would not be committed robbery, as a mere conspiracy to commit
necessary to show that the band actually committed robbery is not punishable (Reyes, p. 728)
robbery in the highway

Q: Distinguish between highway robbery and ordinary robbery committed on a highway.

A:
HIGHWAY ROBBERY ROBBERY COMMITTED ON A HIGHWAY
(P.D. 532) (ART. 306, RPC)
Committed indiscriminately against any person or persons Committed against only a predetermined or
on Philippine. particular victim.
Offender is a brigand or one who roams in public highways
Offender is not a brigand and the commission
and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue,
thereof in a public highway is only incidental.
whenever the opportunity to do so arises.
Frequency in the commission of the robbery in public Occasional against a predetermined victim,
highways and against persons traveling thereat. without frequency in public highways.

Q: What is the purpose of brigandage?

A: The purpose of brigandage is indiscriminate highway robbery. If the purpose is only particular robbery, the
crime is robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four (4) armed participants. (People v. Puno, 1993)

Q: How is estafa is committed?

A: Estafa is committed by a person who defrauds another causing him to suffer damage by means of
unfaithfulness, abuse of confidence, or of false pretense or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud, or through any of the fraudulent means enumerated under Article 315 of the
RPC.

Q: Is there a crime of frustrated estafa?

A: There is no frustrated estafa. In estafa, the crime is consummated when the offended party is actually damaged
or prejudiced. (Nierras v. Dacuycuy, 1990) Damage is an essential element of the crime, without which, the crime
is only attempted. By the nature of the crime, if the accused performed all acts of execution but the same does
not result to damage to the offended party, the crime is only attempted estafa. (Art. 6, RPC)

Q: What is the crime committed if there was intent to cause damage, but no damage was inflicted upon the
offended party?
A: The crime committed is attempted estafa. The offender failed to cause damage to the defendant which is an
essential element of the crime. The accused was not able to perform all the elements necessary for the execution
and accomplishment of estafa by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (Art. 6, RPC)
Q: What are the ways of committing estafa? Differentiate them.
A:
Estafa with Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Estafa By Means of Deceit Estafa Through
Confidence Fraudulent Means
ELEMENTS:
Estafa with Unfaithfulness a. That there must be false a. Estafa by inducing
a. The offender has an onerous pretense, fraudulent act or another to sign any
obligation to deliver something of fraudulent means; document
value b. That such false pretense, act or b. Estafa by resorting to
b. He alters its substance, quantity or fraudulent means must be made some fraudulent
quality; and or executed prior to or practice to insure
c. Damage or prejudice capable of simultaneously with the success in a
pecuniary estimation is caused to commission of the fraud; gambling game
the offended party or third c. That the offended party must c. Estafa by removing,
person/s. (Art. 315 (1)(a), RPC) have relied on the false pretense, concealing, or
fraudulent act, or fraudulent destroying, in whole
means, that is, he was induced to or in part, any court
Estafa by Taking Undue Advantage of the part with his money or property record, office files,
Signature in Blank because of the false pretense, document or any
a. The paper with the signature of the fraudulent act, or fraudulent other papers
offended party be in blank; means; and
b. The offended party delivered the d. That as a result thereof, the
same to the offender; offended party suffered damage.
c. The offender wrote a document (Art. 315(2), RPC)
above the signature of the offended
party without authority to do so;
and
d. The document so written creates a
liability of, or causes damage to the
offended party or third person/s.
(Art. 315(1)(c), RPC)

Estafa with Abuse of Confidence

a. Money, goods, or other personal
property is 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 return to,
the same;
b. Offender misappropriate or
converts such money or property,
or denies receipt of the same;
c. Such misappropriation,
conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and
d. There is demand made by the
offended party to the offender.
(Art. 315 (1)(b), RPC)
Ways of committing:
a. By using fictitious name, or
falsely pretending to possess
power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits;
 b. By altering the quality, fineness
or weight of anything pertaining
to his art or business;
c. By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee;
d. By post-dating a check, or issuing
a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had
no funds in the bank or the funds
were insufficient to cover the
amount of the check. Failure to
deposit the necessary amount
within three (3) days from receipt
of the notice of dishonor from the
bank and/or the payee or holder
shall be prima facie evidence of
the deceit. (As amended by RA
4885); and
e. By obtaining any food,
refreshment or accommodation
at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house,
or apartment house and the like
without paying therefor, with
intent to defraud the proprietor
or manage thereof, or by
obtaining credit at hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment
house by use of any false
pretense, or by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any part
of his baggage from a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house or apartment
house after obtaining credit,
food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without
paying for his food, refreshment
or accommodation. (Art. 315(2)).

Q: Is intent to defraud necessary in all forms of estafa?

A: No. Intent to defraud is not a necessary ingredient of embezzlement under subdivision I, paragraph (b), of
Article 315 of the RPC. It is the breach of confidence or infidelity in the conversion or diversion of trust funds that
takes the place of the usual element, in other forms of estafa, or fraud or deceit. (Dayawon v. Judge Badilla, 2000).

Q: Distinguish estafa through falsification of commercial documents and estafa through falsification of private
documents.
A:
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS
(1) that the offender is a private individual or a public
(1) that the offender is a private individual or a
officer or employee who did not take advantage of
public officer or employee who did not take
his official position
advantage of his official position
(2) That the offender committed any of the acts of
(2) that he committed any of the acts of
falsification, except those in paragraph 7, Article 17
falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the
(3) The falsification was committed in any private
RPC
document
 (3) that the falsification was committed in a (4) That the falsification caused damage to a third party
commercial document. or at least the falsification was committed with
(4) Actually utilizing that falsified commercial intent to cause such damage.
document to defraud another

There is no complex crime of Estafa through Falsification

There is complex crime of Estafa through
falsification of commercial document. Taken in its
entirety, when the falsification is committed as a
necessary means to commit Estafa, the complex
crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Document takes place. (Tanenggee v.
People of the Philippines, 2013)
of a Private Document. The immediate effect of
falsification of a private document is the same as that of
Estafa. The falsification of a private document cannot be
said to be a means to commit Estafa, because the
fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in Estafa, in the
commission of which, a private document was falsified, is
nothing more or less than the very damage caused by the
falsification of such document. (Reyes, 2012)

Q: When is there a complex crime of estafa through falsification?

A: There is a complex crime of estafa through falsification when the offender commits falsification of public,
official or commercial document as a necessary means to commit estafa.

Q: When does falsification absorb estafa?

A: Falsification absorbs estafa when falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa.
(US v. Chan Tiao, 1917)

Q: When does estafa absorb falsification?

A: Estafa absorbs the elements of damage of falsification if a person commits falsification of private documents
to conceal estafa. Here, the crime will only be estafa.

Q: Is damage an essential element of estafa?

A: Yes, damage is an essential element of estafa. It is the amount of the damage or prejudice that is the basis of
the penalty for estafa. (Art. 315, RPC)

Q: What crime would be committed if the document falsified is a private document?

A: The crime committed could either be falsification or swindling only. It could not be both falsification and
swindling or a complex crime of estafa through falsification since the document falsified is a private document.
The two crimes cannot go together. (Batulanon v. People, 2006)

Q: How many counts of estafa may be charged for violations involving different victims?
A: Where there are several victims of estafa and violations of B.P. 22, the accused is guilty of as many counts of
estafa against each victim since each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived
at different times or dates and in different amounts. Moreover, the drawing of separate checks payable to each
payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and of different dates. Each act is a
separate fraudulent intent against each swindling victim and has distinct criminal intent in drawing and issuing
each check. It cannot be maintained that the acts are the product of one criminal resolution only.

Q: Define syndicated estafa.

A: It is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons. (PD. 1689)

Q: Is there a crime of estafa through negligence?

A: No, there is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must be obtained by the
accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere negligence in allowing another to take advantage of or
benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v. Nepomuceno, 1949)

Q: Enumerate the other forms of swindling.

A: The following are other forms of swindling:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage
the same;
2. Any persons who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such
encumbrance is not recorded;
 3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the
prejudice of the latter or any third person;
4. Any persons who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract;
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the belief that it was in payment of
services rendered or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such services or
labor; and
6. Any persons who, while being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action, without express
authority from the court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage or in any other manner, encumber the real property
or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation. (Art. 316, RPC)

Q: Distinguish other forms of swindling from Estafa under Article 315.

A:
Estafa Other forms of swindling
(Art. 315) (Art. 316)
There is no case wherein the offender takes the Offender receives the thing
thing
There is not estafa committed in this manner under Estafa under Art. 316(3) is committed if the offender
Art. 315. who takes the thin is the owner of the thing and then
misappropriates it.

Q: What is the effect of the use of unlicensed firearms?

A: If any of the arms carried is unlicensed, it is presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands and
in case of convictions, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period. (Art. 306).

Q: How is the crime of aiding and abetting a band of brigands committed?

A: The crime of aiding and abetting a band of brigands is committed by any person who knowingly and in any
manner aids, abets or protects a band of brigands as described in the next preceding articles, or gives them
information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the Government, when the latter are acting
in aid of the Government, or acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands. (Art. 307, RPC)

Q: How is Arson committed?

A: It is committed by any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another. It also applies when a person
sets fire to his own property under circumstances which endangers the life or property of another. (Sec. 1, P.D.
No. 1613)

Q: How is Destructive Arson committed?

A: Destructive arson is committed in the following cases:
1. Burning of one (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of building, or as a result
of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions;
2. Burning of any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or for a
gathering or congregation, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in
said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually
inhabited or not;
3. Burning of any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or
conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Burning of any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are
devoted to the service of public utilities;
5. Burning of any building to conceal or destroy evidence of another violation or law, or to conceal
bankruptcy or defraud creditors or to collect from insurance;
6. When perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of
whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an
overt act in the commission or another violation of law;
7. Burning of any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordinance,
storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government; and
8. Burning in an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. (Sec. 10,
R.A. 7659)
Q: Explain the rule on appreciating the crimes committed where both burning, and death occurred.
A: In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine if the crime/s perpetrated was/were
arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigeur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
1. If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;
2. If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is
resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only;
3. If the objective is to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed—homicide/murder and arson. (People v. Baluntong, 2010)

Q: Explain the corpus delicti rule in Arson.

A: In arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having
been intentionally caused. Even if the whole house has not been completely gutted by the fire, the crime is still
consummated arson. It is enough that a portion thereof is shown to have been destroyed. (People v. Gutierrez,
1947)

Q: Leo gathered dried coconut leaves and set fire to the porch of Abi’s house. Abi, who was inside, was able to
jump from the rear window but in haste, forgot about her 6-year old son Junior who was sleeping. By the time
she came out from hiding, the house had been completely burned and Junior had died. Leo was convicted with
Arson with Homicide. Was the RTC correct?
A: No. Leo is guilty only of simple Arson under Sec. 3 of PD 1613. In People vs. Malngan, the Court laid down the
rules in determining what crime was committed in cases where both burning and death occur:
1. If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice but death results by reason or on the occasion
of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed.
2. If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, and fire is resorted
to as the means to accomplish such goal, the crime committed is murder only.
3. If the objective is to kill a particular person and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted
to as a means to cover u the killing, then there are 2 separate and distinct crimes of homicide/murder and
arson.

Here, while Leo was positively identified to be the perpetrator of the fire, no evidence was submitted to show
that he had the intention to kill Abi, much less Junior, who was, sadly, merely left inside the house sleeping when
the burning occurred. Thus, the crime committed is only arson, with the resulting homicide absorbed therein.
However, following to Sec. 5 of PD 1613, where death results in the occasion of arson, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed. (People vs Dolendo y Fediles, GR 223098, (2019)

Q: Define malicious mischief.

A: It is the willful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage due to hate, revenge or other
evil motive. (Art. 327, RPC)

Q: Enumerate the special cases of malicious mischief.

A: The special cases of malicious mischief are the following:
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions.
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance.
3. Spreading infection or contagion among cattle.
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public. (Art. 328, RPC)

Q: How is occupation of real property or usurpation of real right in property committed?

A: It is committed by any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take
possession of any real property, or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another (Art. 312, RPC)

Q: How is Fraudulent Insolvency committed?

A: It is committed by any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his creditors. (Art. 314,
RPC)
Q: Explain the rules on exemption from criminal liability under Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code.
A: Those who commit the crimes of Theft, Swindling or Malicious Mischief, cause mutually by the following
persons, are not criminally liable and may only be civilly liable:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law (Art. 332, RPC)

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Q: Define private crime.

A: They are crimes that cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the offended party.

Q: What is the rationale behind limiting the prosecution of private crimes to the offended party?
A: The law regards the privacy of the offended party as more important than the disturbance to the order of
society. The law gives the offended party the preference whether to sue or not to sue. But the moment the
offended party has initiated the criminal complaint, the public prosecutor will take over and continue with the
prosecution of the offender. This is so because when the prosecution starts, the crime already becomes public
and it is beyond the offended party to pardon the offender.

Q: What crimes are considered private?

A: The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness are the so-called private
crimes.

Q: Explain the concept of adultery in the Revised Penal Code.

A: The Spanish concept of “Adulterio,” is confined to heterosexual intercourse. It does not include homosexual
intercourse. When the RPC was being convened, such homosexual relationship was not contemplated upon.

Q: How is adultery consummated?

A: It is consummated and completed at the moment of the carnal union.

Q: Is there a crime of frustrated adultery?

A: No, there is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense. It is consummated at the moment of
carnal knowledge.

Q: Will abandonment be a justifying circumstance in adultery?

A: No, abandonment without justification will not justify adultery. However, it may be treated as a mitigating
circumstance.

Q: Does a single intercourse sufficient to constitute the crime of adultery?

A: Yes, every sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery, even if it involves the same man.

Q: If the husband saw on a DVD that his wife was having sexual intercourse with another man and in the
course of trial, it is proven that the wife was born male and underwent sex reassignment. Will a charge of
adultery prosper?
A: Yes, the discovery by the husband that the wife had sexual intercourse with another man is sufficient enough
to charge his wife with Adultery. All the elements of adultery under Art. 333 of the RPC are present in this case
regardless of the later discovery that the wife underwent sexual reassignment.

Q: Who commits the crime of concubinage?

A: The married man, or the husband. Similarly, it includes the woman who had relationship with the married man.

Q: Is concubinage a crime of moral turpitude? Is the same a continuing crime?

A: Yes. It is likewise a continuing crime.
Q: What are the elements of acts of lasciviousness?
A:
1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. Committed against a person of either sex;
3. Done under the following circumstances:
a. use of force or intimidation;
b. offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. Offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented. (Art 336, RPC)

Q: When is act of lasciviousness committed?

A: It is committed when the act performed with lewd design was perpetrated under circumstances which would
have brought about the crime of rape if sexual intercourse was effected.

Q: When is an act considered lewd?

A: It must be obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous. It signifies the form of immorality which has relation to moral
impurity; or which is carried on a wanton manner.

Q: Who may be an offended party in acts of lasciviousness?

A: The offended party may be a man or a woman:
1. Under 12 years of age; or
2. Being over twelve (12) years of age, the lascivious acts were committed on him or her through violence
or intimidation, or while the offender party was deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious.

10. Distinguish acts of lasciviousness (Arts. 336) from attempted rape (Art. 266-A)
A:
Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336) Attempted rape (Art. 266-A)

The acts performed by the offender is with lewd The acts performed by the offender is for the purpose
designs of lying with the offended woman

The lascivious acts are themselves the final objective The lascivious acts are preparatory acts to the
sought by the offender commission of rape (Reyes, p. 920)

Q: When is seduction committed?

A: It is committed by enticing a woman to love unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or other means
of persuasion without use of force.

Q: When is seduction qualified?

A: Seduction is qualified in the following instances:
1. Seduction of a virgin over twelve (12) years and under eighteen (18) years of age by certain persons, such
as, a person in authority, priest, teacher, etc.; and
Elements:
a. Offended party is a virgin which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation
b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age
c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her
d. There is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her age or
reputation.

Q: When is the crime of corruption of minors committed?

A: Corruption of Minors take place when a person promotes or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons
under age to satisfy the lust of another.

Q: What are the punishable acts under Art. 341 of the Revised Penal Code?
A: The punishable acts under Art.341 are:
 1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
2. Profiting by prostitution; and
3. Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution.

Q: Define abduction.
A: It is the taking away of a woman from her house or the place where she may be for the purpose of carrying her
to another place with intent to marry or to corrupt her.

Q: What are the kinds of abduction?

A: The different kinds of abduction are:
1. Forcible abduction (Art. 342, RPC);
2. Consented abduction (Art. 343, RPC)

Q: Distinguish kidnapping and forcible abduction?

A:
Kidnapping Forcible Abduction
Art. 267, RPC Art. 342, RPC
There is no lewd design There is lewd design
This is a non-bailable offense This is a bailable offense
There is a special complex crime of kidnapping with There is no special complex crime of forcible
rape abduction with rape

Q: What is the effect if rape was committed subsequent to forcible abduction?

A:
If the offended party was taken away against her will, with lewd designs, and was subsequently raped, the accused
is liable for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 48 of the RPC, in relation to Articles
266-A and 342 of the same Code (People v. Alburo, G.R. No. 85822 (1990) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera]).

However, there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, since the forcible abduction was
only necessary for the first rape. Hence, subsequent acts of rape shall be treated as a separate charge from the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232 (1971) [Per Curiam, En Banc]).

Q: What are the effects of pardon in adultery and concubinage?

A:
Pardon of the offenders by the offended party is a bar to prosecution for adultery and concubinage (Art. 344, par.
2). The pardon may be express or implied (Reyes, p. 955).

Q: What are the effects of pardon in seduction, acts of lasciviousness and abduction?
A:
Pardon of the offender in seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness totally extinguishes the criminal
liability of the offender (Art. 89, in relation to Art. 344, par. 2, RPC).

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS

Q: What is the effect of the second marriage with regard the liability for bigamy?
A: The validity of the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the liability for bigamy

Q: Can a person convicted for bigamy be liable for another crime?

A: Yes, a person convicted for bigamy may still be prosecuted for concubinage.

Q: When is there usurpation of civil status?

A: It is committed when a person represents himself to be another and assumes the filiation or the paternal or
conjugal rights of such another person.
 CRIME AGAINST HONOR

Q: Define libel.
A: Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or
juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. (Art. 353, RPC)

Q: How is libel committed?

A: It is committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical
or cinematographic exhibition or any similar means.

Q: What is publication as an element of libel?

A: Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons. (People v.
Silvela, 1958) Writing a letter to another person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute
publication, for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the
person defamed therein (Orfanel v. People, G.R. No. L-26877 (1969) [Per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc]).

Q: What is the Doctrine of Fair Comment?

A:
The Doctrine of Fair Comment means that while in general, every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false since every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation
is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his
public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable (Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466 (1999) [Per J. Bellosillo,
Second Division]).

Q: What is slander or oral defamation?

A:
Slander or oral defamation is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is the speaking of
base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means
of livelihood (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division]).

Q: Define slander by deed.

A: Slander by deed is committed by performing an act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt on another
person which caused him shame or embarrassment. (Art 359, RPC)

Q: What are the felonies under incriminatory machinations?

A: The following are felonies under incriminatory machinations:
1. Incriminating against innocent persons (Art 363, RPC)
2. Intriguing against honor (Art 364, RPC)

Q: Explain the rules on imposing penalties for the crime of libel.

A: The preference is for the imposition of fine only rather than imprisonment; bearing in mind the following
principles:
1. This Administrative Circular (AC No. 08-2008) does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty
for the crime libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the
peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether or the imposition of a fine alone would best
serve the interest of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperative
of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the
application of the Revised Penal Code provision on subsidiary imprisonment.
 QUASI - OFFENSES

Q: What are the punishable acts as Criminal Negligence?

A: Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave or
less grave felony or light felony;
1. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave
or less serious felony;
2. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or
negligence; and
3. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have
constituted a light felony. (Art. 365, RPC)

Q: What does Art. 365 punish?

A: Art. 365 penalizes not the act defined as a felony, but the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care of foresight, unlike willful offenses which punish the intentional criminal
act. (Ivler v. Modesto, 2010)

Q: Differentiate abandonment of the victim under Art. 365 from that under Art. 275(2)?
A:
Abandonment of the victim under Art. 365 Abandonment of the victim under Art. 275 (2)

A quasi-offense committed by means of culpa A crime against security committed by means of dolo

The failure to lend help to one's victim is neither an
offense by itself nor an element of the offense therein
penalized. Its presence merely increases the penalty
by one degree
The failure to help or render assistance to another
whom one has accidentally wounded or injured is an
offense under paragraph 2 of Article 275 (Lamera v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93475 (1991) [Per J. Davide,
Jr., Third Division]).

Q: A played a trick on his friend knowing that the latter is suffering from a heart problem. As a result of the
trick, the latter died. Will A be liable?
A: Yes. The accused will be liable under Article 365 or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide because there
is a felony committed although the wrongful act be done different from that which is intended.

Q: A drew his gun and shot twice in the air, and fired another shot at the ground and the bullet ricocheted
which hit a bystander and died, is A liable?
A: Yes. A is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. It is apparent the defendant willfully discharged his
gun without taking the precautions demanded by the circumstance that the district was populated, and the
likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement (People v. Nocum, 1947)

Q: Does the principle of complex crimes apply to quasi-offenses?

A;
No, complex crimes under Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the RPC. By prohibiting
the splitting of charges under Article 365, irrespective of the number and severity of the resulting acts, rampant
occasions of constitutionally impermissible second prosecutions are avoided, not to mention that scarce state
resources are conserved and diverted to proper use. Hence, prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from
a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences (Ivler v. Hon. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R.
No. 172716 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]).

ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. NO. 1613)

Q: How is arson committed?

A: Arson is committed by any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another. It is also committed when
a person sets fire to his own property under circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of
another.
Q: Where both burning, and death occur, what crime or crimes are committed?
A: In cases where both burning, and death occur, in order to determine if the crime/s perpetrated was/were
arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigeur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor.
Thus,:
1. If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;
2. If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is
resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only;
3. If the objective is to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed—homicide/murder and arson. (People v. Baluntong, 2010)

Q: How is the corpus delicti rule satisfied in Arson?

A: In arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having
been intentionally caused. Even if the whole house has not been completely gutted by the fire, the crime is still
consummated arson. It is enough that a portion thereof is shown to have been destroyed. (People v. Gutierrez,
1947)

ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW (R.A. NO. 9775)

Q: Who is a child under Anti-Child Pornography Law?

A:
1. A person below 18 years of age or over but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;
2. A person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined;
3. Computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented
or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein. (Sec. 3(a))

Q: What is child pornography?

A: Child pornography is any representation, whether visual, audio, or written combination thereof, by electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit
sexual activities. (Sec. 3(b), RA. No. 9775)

Q: What are included in the term explicit sexual activity?

A: It includes actual or simulated:
1. Sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, but not limited to, contact involving genital to genital,
oral to genital, anal to genital, or oral to anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
2. Bestiality;
3. Masturbation;
4. Sadistic or masochistic abuse;
5. Lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts, pubic area and/or anus; or
6. Use of any object or instrument for lascivious acts (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9775)

ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. NO. 1612)

Q: What is fencing?
A: It is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object
or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft. (Sec. 2(a), P.D. 1612)

Q: What are the elements of the fencing?

A:
1. Robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes or buys and sells or in any manner deals in any article or
object taken during that robbery or theft;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the thing was derived from that crime; and
 4. There is intent to gain for himself or for another. (Dion-Pamintuan v. People, 1994)

Q: Is criminal intent necessary to constitute fencing?

A: No, Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum,
requiring no proof of criminal intent. (Dimat v. People, 2012)

Q: What is the crime committed by one who knowingly profits or assists the principal to profit by the effects
of robbery or theft?
A: One who knowingly profits or assists the principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not just an
accessory to the crime but principally liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612

Q: When does the presumption of fencing arise?

A:
1. Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing. (Bar 2009)
The presumption of "fencing" arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery
or thievery. (Sec. 5, PD 1612)
2. The presumption of fencing applies when a person paid a price so inadequate for the value of the thing
suggestive that it was not legitimately acquired by the seller.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)

Q: Who are the persons covered by R.A. 3019?

A: All public officers including elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the classified or unclassified or exempt service, receiving compensation, even nominal from the government

Q: What are the punishable acts under R.A. 3019?

A:
1. A public officer:
a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to:
i. Perform an act constituting a violation of the Rules promulgated by competent authority; or
ii. An offense in connection with the official duties of the latter.
b. Allowing him to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit such violation.
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself
or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and
any other party wherein the public officer, in his office capacity, has to intervene under the law.
3. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit,
for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for
the help given or to be given.
4. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
5. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly,
from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the
purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against
any other interested party.
7. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
8. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group.
 9. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
10. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its
authorized release date. (Sec. 3, RA. No. 3019)

Q: Can officers and employees of offices or GOCCs be liable for graft and corruption by causing undue injury,
advantage or injury to any party?
A: Yes, it is applicable to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.

Q: When does the presumption of interest for personal gain be present?

A: Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they
belong.

ANTI-HAZING LAW (R.A. NO. 8049)

Q: What is hazing?
A: It is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such
as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to
physical or psychological suffering or injury. (Sec. 1)

Q: When is an initiation rite allowed?

A: Only initiation rites or practices that do not constitute hazing are allowed, if the following requisites are
complied with:
1. There must be prior written application to the school authorities or head of organization seven (7) days
before the conduct of such initiation;
2. The written application indicates the place and the date of the initiation rites and the names of the
recruits, neophytes, or applicants to be initiated and the manner by which they will conduct the
initiation rites.
3. Such written applications contains an undertaking that no harm of any kind shall be committed by
anybody during the initiation rites.
4. The initiation rites shall not last more than three (3) days
5. The application shall contain the names of the incumbent officers of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization and any person or persons who will take charge in the conduct of the initiation rites;
6. The application shall be under oath with a declaration that it has been posted in the official school
bulletin board, the bulletin board of the office of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, and two(2)
other conspicuous places in the school or in the premises of the organization; and
7. The application shall be posted from the time of submission of the written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization and shall only be removed from its posting three (3) days after the
conduct of the initiation rites.

The school, fraternity, sorority, or organization shall provide for their respective bulletin boards for
purposes of this section. The written notice shall further contain an undertaking that no physical
violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. (Sec. 2, RA. No. 8049, as amended by RA
11053)

Q: What is the responsibility of the head of the school or organization?

A: The head of the school or organization or their representatives must assign at least two (2) representatives of
the school or organization, as the case may be, to be present during the initiation. Such representative must see
to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (Sec. 2, R.A. No.
8049)
Q: Who are the persons liable?
A:
1. The following are liable as PRINCIPALS:
a. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in
the infliction of physical harm.
b. The parents of one of the officer or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization, when they
have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their home but failed to take any action to
prevent the same from occurring.
c. The officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who
actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting hazing were
committed.
2. The following are liable as ACCOMPLICES:
a. The owner of the place where the hazing is conducted, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
b. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual
knowledge thereof but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.

Q: When is there prima facie evidence of participation as principal?

A: The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal,
unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein.

ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (R.A. NO. 6235)

Q: What are the punishable acts under Anti-Hijacking Law?

A:
1. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the pilots
thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
2. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory,
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of the Philippine territory;
3. Carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive or poisonous substances;
4. Loading, shipping or transporting on board a cargo aircraft, operating as public utility in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive or poisonous substance if this was done in accordance
with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter.
(P.D. 6235)

Q: When is an aircraft considered in flight?

A: An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until any of
such doors is opened for disembarkation. (Sec. 1, R.A. 6235)

Q: What are the aggravating circumstances to paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the Anti-Hijacking Law?
A:
1. When the offender has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew, or passenger of the aircraft;
2. When the offender has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the
aircraft;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape.

ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009 (R.A. NO. 9995)

Q: What are the prohibited acts under R.A. 9995?

A:
1. To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar
activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
2. To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual
act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
 3. To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act,
whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
4. To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or
show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. (Photo or Video
Voyeurism)

NOTE: The prohibition under paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or
take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s.

Q: When are the circumstances in which a person has reasonable expectation of privacy?
A: When a person, regardless of being in a public or private place:
1. Believes that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area
of the person was being captured; or
2. Is under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person
would not be visible to the public

ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (R.A. NO. 7080)

Q: What is plunder?
A: It is crime committed by a public officer by himself or in a connivance with members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, by amassing, accumulating or
acquiring ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt acts in the aggregate amount or value of at
least 50 Million Pesos. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

Q: Who are the persons covered under Anti-Plunder Act?

A: Any person holding public office in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an
appointment, election or contract. (Sec. 1(a), RA. No. 7080, as amended)

Q: What is ill-gotten wealth?

A: It is any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person, acquired by a public officer
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates. (Sec. 1(d), RA.
No. 7080, as amended)

Q: How is ill-gotten wealth acquired?

A: Ill-gotten wealth is acquired directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other
form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract
or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government/any of its subdivisions/agencies/instrumentalities/GOCCs and subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form
of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
people and the Republic of the Philippines. (Ibid.)

Q: What is the rule of evidence in plunder?

A: For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each, and every criminal
act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7080)
 ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (R.A. NO. 7877)

Q: When is work, education or training-related sexual harassment committed?

A: Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object.

Q: When is work-related or employment environment harassment committed?

A: It is committed when:
1. Sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of
conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
2. The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
3. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee

Q: When is sexual harassment committed in an education or training environment?

A:
1. Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;
2. Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
3. When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors
and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration;
or
4. When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student,
trainee or apprentice.

Q: Will a person who directs or induces another to commit such acts be also liable under the law?
A: Yes, any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or
who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall
also be held liable under this Act.

Q: Can the victim institute a separate and independent action for damages for sexual harassment?
A: Yes, nothing in the law precludes the victim from instituting a separate and independent action for damages
and other relief.

ANTI-TORTURE ACT (R.A. NO. 9745)

Q: What is torture?
A: Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or
a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a
third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or
at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.

Q: What are the acts of Torture? Explain and give examples.

A:
1. Physical Torture - a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or
dysfunction of one or more parts of the body.
 Examples are systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with truncheon or
rifle butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;
2. Mental or Psychological Torture - refers to acts committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's
dignity and morale.
  Some examples are blindfolding; Threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s) with bodily
harm, execution or other wrongful acts.

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT (R.A. NO. 9208)

Q: What is trafficking in persons?

A:
1. Recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders
2. 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
3. For the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of
others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal
or sale of organs. (Sec. 3(a) R.A. 10364)

Q: What are the punishable acts under the Anti-Trafficking Persons Act?
A:
1. To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done
under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
2. To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as
provided for under RA 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of
acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
3. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or
trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
4. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
6. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
7. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit,
violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person;
8. To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad. (Sec. 4,
R.A. No. 9208)

ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT

(R.A. NO. 9262)

Q: What is “Violence Against Women and their Children” as defined in RA 9262?

A: Any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman, who is his wife, former wife, or against
a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child,
or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is
likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such
acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Q: What are the acts included in VAWC?

A: It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
1. Physical violence: acts that include bodily or physical harm
2. Sexual violence: act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child.
3. Psychological violence: acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim
4. Economic abuse: acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent. (Sec. 3(a)
Q: What are the acts of violence against Women and their Children?
A:
1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
5. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or
her child has the right to desist from or from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to
engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or
conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or child
6. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or
decisions;
7. Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not
constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the
woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
8. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child
9. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including,
but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of
minor children of access to the woman's child/children. (Sec. 5)

Q: What are the phases in VAWC?

A:
1. Tension-Building Phase: Minor battering occurs—verbal, physical abuse or other form of hostile
behavior. Legitimizes her belief that the man has the right to abuse her.
2. Acute battering Incident: Characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. She has a
sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain.
3. Tranquil, Love Phase: Begins when acute battering ends. The couple experience profound relief. The
batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner

The defense must prove that all three (3) phases of cycle of violence have occurred at least twice. (People
v. Genosa)

Q: Can a single act of harassment be sufficient to constitute VAWC?

A: A single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect
women and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. (Ang v.
Sagud, 2010)

Q: What is battered woman syndrome?

A: Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.

Q: What is the effect of Sec. 26 of RA 9262 on the doctrine laid down in People v. Genosa?
A: Sec. 26 of RA 9262 strikes down the doctrine held in People v. Genosa. In People v Genosa, the Court did not
appreciate BWS to absolve Genosa of any liability because at the time Genosa fired the gunshot, the attack had
already ceased as Ben was in fact, already asleep and was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat
on her life or safety. Unlawful aggression was absent thus there was no self-defense on the part of Genosa. With
Sec. 26, despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code, any victim-survivor found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome still do not incur any
criminal and civil liability.

Q: What must always be present to justify the killing of the victims’ partner?
A: There must be an actual imminent danger or harm from her batterer and honestly believed the need to kill him
in order to save herself. Aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense.
Q: What is the Barangay Protection Order (BPOs) under VAWC?
A: BPOs refer to the protection order issued by the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from
committing acts of violence under Section 5(A) and (B) of the law. (Sec. 14)

Q: What is the Temporary protection order (TPOs) under VAWC?

A: TPOs refer to the protection order issued by the court effective for thirty (30) days. (Sec. 15)

Q: What is the permanent protection order (PPO)?

A: PPO refers to protection order issued by the court after notice and hearing effective until revoked by a court
upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued. (Sec. 16, RA. 9262)

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. BLG. 22)

Q: What are the acts penalized under B.P.22?

A:
1. Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue
that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and
2. Failing to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored
by the drawee bank

Q: What are the elements of the first punishable act?

A:
1. The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
2. The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment;
and
3. The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment. (Young v. Court of Appeals, et al., 2005)

Q: What are the elements of the second punishable act?

A:
1. Accused has sufficient funds with the drawee bank when he makes/draws and issues the check;
2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount if presented within a
period of ninety (90) days from the date of appearing thereon; and
3. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank. (Sec. 1 (2), B.P. Blg. 22)

Q: What is the purpose of the law in allowing the complete defense upon full payment?
A: B.P. Blg. 22 gives the accused an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the check and thus avert
prosecution. This opportunity, however, can be used only upon receipt by the accused of a notice of dishonor.
(Young v. Court of Appeals, et al., 2005)

Q: Can an endorser of check be held liable under B.P. 22?

A: No, a mere endorser cannot be held liable under B.P. 22. BP 22 does not apply to endorser of checks.

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (R.A. NO. 9165)

Q: What are among the punishable acts under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
A:
1. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5)
2. Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 11)
3. Use of dangerous drugs (Sec. 15)

Q: What are the elements of Sale of Dangerous Drugs?

A:
1. That the transaction or sale took place;
 2. That the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
3. That the buyer and seller were identified (People v. Edgardo Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011).

Q: What are the elements of possession of dangerous drugs

A:
1. The accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug;
2. Such possession was not authorized by law; and
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug (People v. Manansala).

Q: Can a person be held liable for illegal possession if she was unaware of the contents of the sachet?
A: No, the criminal intent to possess the drug is absent.

Q: How is attempt or conspiracy to commit punished under the Dangerous Drugs Act?
A: Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty
prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under the Act:
1. Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals;
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical;
3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical;
5. Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.

Q: What is the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9262?

A: The chain of custody rule is the (D-R-A-M-S) duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/ confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.

Q: What are the links to be established in the chain of custody.

A:
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court
(People v. Marcelino, G.R. No. 189325, (2011)

Q: What is the rationale behind the requirement of chain of custody?

A: To preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the crime by rendering it improbable that the
original item seized/confiscated in the violation has been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered
with or confiscated.

Q: What is the effect of failure to observe the chain of custody?

A: Failure to observe the chain of custody requirement renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy and
insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

Q: Where should the physical inventory and photographing of the articles be conducted?
A: It shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or in case of warrantless seizures, at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (P.D. NO. 1866)

Q: What are the effects of using an unlicensed firearm in the crimes of homicide and murder?
A: The use of unlicensed firearm is considered an aggravating circumstance.
Q: What are the rules on the use of loose firearms?
A:
1. When the use is inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the RPC or other Special laws, the
use shall be considered an aggravating circumstance
2. If the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which
is lower than that prescribed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the
penalty for the crime charged.
3. If the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which
is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under
RPC or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty
4. If the violation of PD 1866 is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of
rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d'etat.
5. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation shall be considered
as a distinct and separate offense. (Sec. 29, RA 10591)

CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT (R.A. No. 10175)

Q: What are the offenses punishable under R.A. No. 10175?

A: The following are offenses punishable under R.A. No. 10175:
1. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:
a. Illegal Access.
b. Illegal Interception.
c. Data Interference.
d. System Interference.
e. Misuse of Devices
f. Cyber-squatting
2. Computer-related Offenses:
a. Computer-related Forgery.
b. Computer-related Fraud.
c. Computer-related Identity Theft.
3. Content-related Offenses:
a. Cybersex.
b. Child Pornography.
c. Unsolicited Commercial Communications
4. Libel.

Q: Are there other acts which are punishable?

A: The following acts shall also constitute an offense:
(1) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the
commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
(2) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the
offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10175)

Q: Are offenses under the Revised Penal Code and special laws punishable under this act?
A: Yes. Provided that the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 10175)

Q: Is a prosecution under R.A. No. 10175 with prejudice?

A: A prosecution under R.A. No. 10175 shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of
the Revised Penal Code or special laws. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 10175)

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (R.A. NO. 9372)

Q: Who are guilty of terrorism?

A: A person who commits murder, arson, crimes involving destruction, rebellion or insurrection, coup d'etat,
including acts punishable under P.D. No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law), thereby sowing and
creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of terrorism.

Q: Who else are liable, aside from the principals, under the Human Security Act?
A:
1. Conspirator - persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism. There is conspiracy when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide
to commit the same. (Sec. 4, RA 9372)
2. Accomplice - any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of the RPC or a conspirator as
defined in Section 4, cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts. (Sec. 5, RA 9372)
3. Accessory - any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as principal or
accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its commission
in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof,
in order to prevent its discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal
or conspirator of the crime (Sec. 6, RA 9372)

NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT (R.A. NO. 10883)

Q: What is carnapping?
A: Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. (Sec. 3, R.A.
No. 10883)

Q: What is the overt act which is being punished under RA No. 10883?
A: The taking of a motor vehicle under circumstances of theft and robbery.

Q: What are the ways of committing carnapping?

A:
1. When the subject matter is a motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is unlawfully taken through violence,
threat or intimidation; and
2. In any other unlawful means

Q: What is the penalty for concealment of carnapping?

A: Any person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6) years up to twelve (12)
years and a fine equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any
other part involved in the violation.

If the perpetrator is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed on its president, secretary, and/or members
of the board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may have directly participated in the violation.
If the perpetrator is a public official or employee, he be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited
and shall be permanently disqualified from holding public office. (Sec. 4, RA 10883)

Q: When is carnapping qualified?

A: The penalty of life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant
of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof. The killing or the rape qualifies the crime of carnapping. The carnapping and the killing or the
rape may be considered as a single or indivisible crime or a special complex crime. (People v. Mejia, 1997)

Q: What are the new range of penalties for Carnapping under RA 10883 “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016”.
A:
ACT COMMITTED PENALTY
Carnapping, regardless of the value of the motor vehicle Imprisonment for not less than twenty (20)
taken, committed without violence against or intimidation of years and one (1) day but not more than thirty
person, or force upon things (30) years,
 Carnapping, regardless of the value of the motor vehicle Imprisonment for not less than thirty (30)
taken, committed with violence against or intimidation of years and one (1) day but not more than forty
person, or force upon things (40) years
When the owner, driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor Life imprisonment
vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping
(Sec. 3, RA 10883)

OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS (P.D. NO. 1829)

Q: What are the acts punishable under P.D. 1829?

A: Any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects
and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following:
1. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of
any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit,
intimidation, force or threats;
2. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of
or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
3. harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground
to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
4. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
5. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
6. Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and
with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
7. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting,
or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
8. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person
from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition,
whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in
official proceedings in, criminal cases; or
9. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating
information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of
background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead
the investigator or to the court. (Sec. 1, P.D. 1829)

ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (R.A. NO. 7610)

Q: What are the punishable acts under the Anti-Child Abuse Law:
A:
1. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse;
2. Child Trafficking;
3. Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows; and
4. Other Acts of Abuse

Q: How is a child defined under the Anti-Child Abuse Law?

A:
1. A person below eighteen (18) years of age or
2. those over 18 years of age but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition (Sec. 3[a], RA 7610).
Q: Who are the persons liable for child prostitution and sexual abuse?
A:
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution such as:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or
other similar means;
c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
e. Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; and
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment

Q: What are the acts considered as attempt to commit Child Prostitution?

A:
1. When any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room
or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse.
2. When any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health
club and other similar establishments. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 7610)

Q: What are the other acts of abuse?

A: Committed by any person who:
1. Commits any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development
2. Keeps or haves in one’s company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his
junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna
or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places, except when the person is related
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to the child or any bond recognized by law, local
custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Induces, delivers or offers a minor to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a
minor as provided in the preceding paragraph
4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public or private place of
accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including residential places, who
allows any person to take along with him to such place or places any minor herein described
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other child to;
b. Beg or use begging as a means of living;
c. Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
d. Conduct any illegal activities (Sec. 10, RA 7610).

Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and
the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.
– Harriet Tubman