REVIEW OF

TOP 25 ISSUES/CONCEPTS
IN CRIMINAL LAW

(1979-2007 BAR EXAMINATIONS)

by:
Prof. RAMON S. ESGUERRA
I. PROXIMATE CAUSE
Definition:

– the cause, which, in natural and

continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have
occurred.
 Article 4

Criminal liability. — Criminal liability

shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a
felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.
Death is presumed to be the natural
consequence of physical injuries
inflicted when:

1. The victim at the time the physical

injuries were inflicted was in normal health.

2. That the death may be expected from

the physical injuries inflicted.

3. That death ensued within a reasonable

time.
The felony committed is NOT the
proximate cause of the resulting injury
when:

a. There is an active force that

intervened between the felony committed
and the resulting injury, and the active force
is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
from the felonious act of the accused; or

b. The resulting injury is due to the

intentional act of the victim.
 Article 4
Par. 2
“ 2. By any person performing an
act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.”
 CASE/S:
 Quinto vs. Andres (2005):
 Proximate Cause is characterized by a
relationship of “cause and effect”, the
cause being the felonious act of the
offender and the effect is the resulting
injury or death of the victim.
 The felony committed is not the
proximate cause of the injury when:
 An active force intervened between the
felony committed and the resulting injury;
 The injury resulted from the victim’s
intentional act.
II. STAGES OF COMMISSION
OF A CRIME
 Article 6
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements

necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
A. ATTEMPTED

– there is an attempt when the offender

commences the commission of a felony,
directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance (Article 6,
Revised Penal Code).
Elements:
 The offender commences the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts;

 He does not perform all the acts of execution

which should produce the felony;

 The offender’s act is not stopped by his own

spontaneous desistance;

 The non-performance of all acts of execution

was due to cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
The commission of the felony is
deemed commenced directly by overt
acts when:

 there be external acts;

 such external acts have direct
connection with the crime intended
to be committed.
 DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME

Internal acts – such as mere ideas in the

mind of a person, are not punishable even
if, had they been carried out, they would
constitute a crime
external acts – cover a) preparatory and b)
acts of execution
Preparatory – acts tending toward the
crime; ordinarily not punishable unless
specifically provided for; these acts do not
yet constitute even the first stage of the
acts of execution; intent not yet disclosed
ACTS OF EXECUTION

– acts directly connected to the intended

crime; varies with the crime and is punishable
under the code; usually overt acts with a
logical relation to a particular concrete
offense
OVERT ACT

– some physical activity or deed, indicating the

intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural cause,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor
by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.

 Drawing or trying to draw a pistol or raising a

bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is
not an overt act of homicide.
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE

– Itis one where the purpose of the

offender in performing an act is not
certain. Its nature in relation to its
objective is ambiguous.

 The intention of the accused must be

viewed from the nature of the acts
executed by him, and not from his
admission.
SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASES OF A
FELONY

1. SUBJECTIVE PHASE
- That portion of the execution of the crime
starting from the point where the offender still
has control over his acts.

- If the offender reaches the point where he has

no more control over is acts, the subjective
phase is passed.

- If it is already passed but the felony is not

produced, it is frustrated.
2. OBJECTIVE PHASE

-the result of the acts of execution, that

is, the accomplishment of the crime.

- If the subjective and objective phases

are present, there is consummated felony.
B. FRUSTRATED

– it is frustrated when the offender

performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a
consequence but which nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Elements:
 The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
 All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
 But the felony is not produced;
 By reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
C. CONSUMMATED
– a felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its

Requisites:

 All the acts of execution are present

 The result is achieved.

Every crime has its own elements which

must all be present to constitute a culpable
violation of a precept of law.
 CASE/S
• People v. Caballero (2003):
A crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all
the acts of execution which should result in the
consummation of the crime. The offender has passed the
subjective phase in the commission of the crime.
Subjectively, the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted
the offender while passing through the subjective phase.
He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime.
However, the crime is not consummated by reason of the
intervention of causes independent of the will of the
offender.
In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed
all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim
is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring
medical intervention or attendance.
 People vs. Aca-ac (2001):
 There is no crime of frustrated rape. Rape is
attempted when, despite commencing the act
of penetration, such is not completed due to
forces other than the offender’s own
spontaneous desistance. Once there is
penetration of the female organ, no matter how
slight, rape is deemed consummated.

 Valenzuela vs. People (2007):

 There is no crime of frustrated theft. Once there
is unlawful taking, theft is consummated.
Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC.
 Adiao/Dino cases are expressly overturned.
III. CONSPIRACY
 Article 8
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. —
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons

come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided
to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.
First requisite – Participation in the criminal
resolution
• Two or more persons are said to have
participated in the criminal resolution when
they were in conspiracy at the time of the
commission of the crime.

• It is well settled that a person may

be convicted for the criminal act of another
where, between them, there has been
conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention
in the commission of the crime charged.
 • A conspiracy exists when 2 or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
• In order to hold an accused guilty as co-
principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be
established that he performed an over act in
furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively
participating in the actual commission of the
crime, or by lending moral assistance to his co-
conspirators by being present at the scene of the
crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the
rest of the conspirators as to move them to
executing the conspiracy.
 • When there is no conspiracy, each of
the offenders is liable only for the act
performed by him.

• When there is conspiracy, the act of one

is the act of all. There is collective criminal
responsibility.
Second requisite – that the culprits
“carried out their plan and personally took
part in its execution, by acts which directly
tended to the same end.”

• The principals by direct participation

must be at the scene of the crime,
personally taking part in its execution.

• The acts of each offender must directly

tend to the same end.
 CASE/S:
 People vs. Bello (2004):
 Conspiracy is predominantly a state of
mind as it involves the meeting of the
minds and intent of the malefactors.
Consequently, direct proof is not
essential to establish it.
 The existence of the assent of minds of
the co-conspirators may be inferred
from proof of facts and circumstances
which, taken together, indicate that they
are parts of the complete plan to commit
the crime.
 People vs. Ramos (2004):
 In conspiracy, there must be a showing
that appellant cooperated in the
commission of the offense, either morally,
through advice, encouragement or
agreement or materially through external
acts indicating a manifest intent of
supplying aid in the perpetration of the
crime in an efficacious way.
 In such case, the act of one becomes the
act of all, and each of the accused will
thereby be deemed equally guilty of the
crime committed.
 People vs. Comadre (2004):
 Conspiracy is never presumed. Neither is
it based on presumptions and conjectures.
 It must be proven by POSITIVE AND
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, shown to exist
as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself.
 Mere presence of a person at the crime
scene does not make him a co-conspirator
since conspiracy transcends
companionship.
IV. JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 Article 11
Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur
any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,

provided that the following circumstances concur;

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to

prevent or repel it.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the

person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his
relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided
that the first and second requisites prescribed in the
next preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, that the one making defense had
no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
of a stranger, provided that the first and second
requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this
Art. are present and that the person defending be not
induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are
present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually

exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that

done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less

harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an

order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
Par. 1 – SELF-DEFENSE

• Self-defense includes not only the defense of

the person or body of the one assaulted but also
that of his rights, that is, those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by law.

REQUISITES:

There must be unlawful aggression

• This is an indispensable requisite.
• Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or
at least threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind.
PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE

1. ACTUAL – that the danger must be

present, that is, actually in existence.

2. IMMINENT- that the danger is on

the point of happening. It is not required
that the attack already begins, for it may be
too late.
• A slap on the face constitutes
unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity.
Slapping it is a serious personal attack.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it

• The reasonableness of the necessity

depends upon the circumstances particularly
the time and location where the aggression
took place.

• The means employed by the person making

a defense must be rationally necessary to
prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
• The reasonableness of the means used
will depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY
of the weapon used by the aggressor, his
PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE and other
circumstances, and those of the person
defending himself, and also the place and
occasion of the assault.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself

• The third requisite of self-defense is

present:

1. When no provocation at all was given

to the aggressor by the person defending
himself; or

2. When, even if a provocation was giver,

it was not sufficient; or
 3. When, even if the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the person
defending himself; or

4. When, even if provocation was

given by the person defending himself, it
was not proximate and immediate to the
act of aggression.
 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. (Sec. 3[c]).

 Under Section 28 of Republic Act 9262,

Victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
and civil liability, notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code.
 People vs Genosa (2004):

 The Battered Woman Syndrome is characterized

by a “cycle of violence”, which has three phases:

 TENSION-BUILDING PHASE: minor

battering, slight abuse occurs; woman’s
placatory behavior legitimizes the attacker’s
belief that he has a right to abuse her.

 ACUTE-BATTERING INCIDENT: serious and

brutal abuse begins; woman develops sense
of detachment from the attacks.

 TRANQUIL/NON-VIOLENT PHASE: batterer

shows tender and nurturing behavior,
promises never to hurt the woman again.
She believes he’s changed.
Par. 2 – DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED

1. Spouse

2. Ascendants

3. Descendants

4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers

and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the
same degrees.

5. Relatives by consanguinity within the

 • Relatives by affinity, because of
marriage, are parents-in-law, son or
daughter-in-law, and brothers or sisters-in-
law.

• Consanguinity refers to blood

relatives. Brothers and sisters are within
the second civil degree; uncle and niece or
aunt and nephew are within the third civil
degree; and first cousins are within the
fourth civil degree.
 REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:

Unlawful aggression;

• Unlawful aggression may not exist as a

matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon
the honest belief of the one making a defense.
Ex. The sons of A honestly believed that their
father was the victim of an unlawful aggression
when in fact it was their father who attacked B.
If they killed B under such circumstance, they
are justified.
Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;

• The gauge of reasonable necessity of

the means employed to repel the
aggression as against one’s self or in
defense of a relative is to be found in the
situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON
REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the
defender).
In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making a
defense had no part therein.

• There is still legitimate defense of

relative even if the relative being defended
has given provocation, provided that the
one defending such relative has no part in
the provocation.
Par. 3 – DEFENSE OF STRANGER

REQUISITES:

Unlawful aggression;

Reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it;

The person defending be not induced by

revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Who are deemed strangers?

Any person not included in the

enumeration of relatives mentioned in
paragraph 2 of this article, is considered
stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3.

BASIS: What one may do in his defense,

another may do for him. The ordinary man
would not stand idly by and see his
companion killed without attempting to
save his life.
Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER
EVIL
• Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does an act which causes damage to
another.

DAMAGE TO ANOTHER – the term covers injury

to persons and damage to property.
REQUISITES:

That the evil sought to be avoided

actually exists;

- The evil must actually exist and

not merely expected or anticipated or
may happen in the future.
That the injury feared be greater than
that done to avoid it;

- The greater evil should not be brought

about by the negligence or imprudence of
the actor. The evil which brought about
the greater evil must not result from a
violation of law by the actor.
That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.

General rule: No liability in justifying

circumstances because there is no crime.

Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY

under this paragraph. It is borne by the
persons benefited by the act. They shall be
liable in proportion to the benefit which they
may have been received.
Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE.

REQUISITES:

1. That the accused acted in the

performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office

2. That the injury caused or the offense

committed be the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office.
Par. 6 – OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER
ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

REQUISITES:

1. That an order has been issued by a

superior.

2. That such order must be for some

lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate
to carry out said order is lawful.

• When the order is not for a lawful

purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is
criminally liable.
• The subordinate is not liable for
carrying out an illegal order of his superior,
if he is not aware of the illegality of the
order and he is not negligent.
 CASE/S
 Marzonia vs. People (2006):
 Using a penknife to mortally wound an
assailant is not a reasonable way of
repelling unlawful aggression committed
by means of fist blow attacks.

People vs. Dijan (2002):

 The number of wounds sustained by the
victim would itself likewise negate Dijan’s
claim of defense of a stranger.
 Certainly, the nature and number of wounds
inflicted by an accused on the victim should
be significant indicia in determining the
plausibility of the defense plea.
 People vs. Enfectana (2002):
 Once self-defense is raised, the burden of
proving the elements of the claim shifts to
him who invokes it.

 Ty vs. People (2004):

 If the evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated or may happen in
the future, the defense of an uncontrollable
fear of a greater injury” 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.
 Mamagun vs. People (2007):
 To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a
duty, without more, do not completely
justify the petitioner police officer’s
firing the fatal gunshot at the victim.
 However, in the absence of the equally
necessary justifying circumstance that
the injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty, there can only
be incomplete justification, a privileged
mitigating circumstance under Articles
13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code.
 V. EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 • Exempting circumstances (non-
imputability) are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
condition which makes the act voluntary or
negligent.

• The exemption from punishment is

based on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or
on the absence of negligence on the part of
the accused.
• One who acts by virtue of any of the
exempting circumstances commits a crime,
although by the complete absence of any of
the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability
arise.
 Article 12
Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.
— the following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter

has acted during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has

committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in
one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.*

3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,

unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.*

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally

irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who
shall be charged with his surveillance and education
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Modified by Republic Act No. 9344 (2006)
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act
with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.

5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of

an irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an

uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act

required by law, when prevented by some lawful
or insuperable cause.
Par. 1 – AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON,
UNLESS THE LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A
LUCID INTERVAL
IMBECILE

- one who, while advanced in age, has a

mental development comparable to that of
children between 2 and 7 years of age.
– one who is deprived completely of
reason or discernment and freedom of the
will at the time of committing the crime.
- exempt in all cases from criminal
liability
INSANE

- there is a complete deprivation of

intelligence in committing the act but
capable of having lucid intervals. During a
lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, not exempt from
criminal liability.
• Feeblemindedness is not imbecility
because a feeble-minded person can
distinguish right from wrong.

Cases covered under this article:

• Dementia praecox

• Kleptomania – if found by a competent

psychiatrist as irresistible
• Epilepsy

• Somnambulism – sleep-walking

• Malignant malaria – which affects the nervous

system
Par. 2. – A PERSON UNDER (FIFTEEN)
YEARS OF AGE, as amended by RA 9344.

• FIFTEEN YEARS OR LESS – presumed to

be incapable of committing a crime, and
this presumption is an absolute one which
cannot be overcome by any evidence.

• Senility, although said to be the second

childhood, is only mitigating.
 3 PERIODS OF THE
LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING

a. 15 years and below:

AGE OF ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY

b. between 15 and 18 years:

AGE OF CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

c. 18 or over to 70 years -
AGE OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY
Par. 3. – A PERSON OVER (15) YEARS OF AGE AND
UNDER (18) UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH
DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR
SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF (R.A. 9344)

• A minor over 15 and under 18 years of age must

have acted without discernment to be fully
exempted from criminal liability.

DISCERNMENT – means the mental capacity of a

minor to fully appreciate the nature and
consequences of his act (Llave v. People, 2006)
 DISCERNMENT INTENT

Moral significance Desired act of the

that a person person
ascribes to the said
act

Discernment may be shown by

1. the manner the crime was committed; or
2. the conduct of the offender after its
commission.
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
WELFARE ACT OF 2006
(Republic Act No. 9344)
 New Rules on Criminal Liability(Sec. 6)

 Age Criminally Liable?

1.15 years old and below NO

(Intervention)
2.Over 15 years old
and under 18 years old
 W/o Discernment NO
(Intervention)
 W/ Discernment Yes
(Diversion)
 On Presumption of Minority (Sec. 7)

- - Children in conflict with the law are presumed minors.

Any person who challenges this presumption must file a
separate, summary action for determination of age with
the Family Court before the filing of the Information.

On Suspension of Sentence (Sec. 5)

- - AUTOMATIC, as long as the defendant was a minor AT

THE TIME OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.

On Probation (Sec. 42)

- - Minors can apply for probation ANYTIME. Hence, they
can appeal first and file for probation later. The waiver
rule under Sec. 1 of PD 968 does not apply to them.
 INTERVENTION PROCEEDINGS (sec. 4(l)):

 A series of activities which are designed to

address issued that caused the child to
commit an offense.

 It may take the form of an individualized

treatment program which may include
counseling, skills training, education, and
other activities that will enhance his/her
psychological, emotional and psycho-social
well-being.
 DIVERSION PROCEEDINGS (sec. 4(j)):
 An alternative, child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment of a
child in conflict with the law on the basis of
his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or
educational background without resorting to
formal court proceedings.

 If the imposable penalty for the crime committed six (6)

years or less imprisonment, the law enforcement officer
or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local
social welfare and development officer shall conduct
mediation, family conferencing and conciliation or adopt
indigenous modes of conflict resolution in accordance
with the best interest of the child. (Sec. 23)

 Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed

exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion measures
may be resorted to only by the court.
 On Exemption From Prosecution:

The following offenses cannot be

committed by children:

 Prostitution (Sec. 58);

 Vagrancy (Sec. 58);
 Mendicancy (Sec. 58);
 Use of Rugby (Sec. 58); and
 Perjury, concealment or
misrepresentation relating to previous
conviction as a minor (Sec. 5(l)).
Par. 4. – ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE
PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE
CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY BY MERE
ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR
INTENTION OF CAUSING IT.

ELEMENTS:

• A person performing a lawful act;

• With due care;
• He causes an injury to another by mere
accident;
• Without fault or intention of causing it.
 ACCIDENT – something that happen
outside the sway of our will and although
it comes about through some act of our
will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.

- If the consequences are plainly

foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.
Par 5. – ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER
THE COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE.
ELEMENTS:

• That the compulsion is by means of

physical force.

• That the physical force must be

irresistible.

• That the physical force must come from a

third person
 • Before force can be considered to
be an irresistible one, it must produce such
an effect upon the individual that, in spite
of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and, as such, incapable of
committing a crime.

• The irresistible force can never

consist in an impulse or passion or
obfuscation. It must consist of an
extraneous force coming from a third
person.
 • A person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force, like one
who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable
fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from
criminal liability because he does not act with
freedom.
Par 6. – ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF
AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY.

ELEMENTS:

• That the threat which causes the fear

is of an evil greater than or at least equal to,
that which he is required to commit;

• That it promises an evil of such

gravity and imminence that the ordinary
man would have succumbed to it.
• REQUISITES:

a. existence of an uncontrollable fear;

b. the fear must be real and imminent; and

c. the fear of an injury is greater than or at

least equal to that committed.

• Duress as a valid defense should be based

on real, imminent or reasonable fear for
one’s life or limb and should not be
speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
 • A threat of future injury is not
enough. The compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
Par. 7 – ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO
PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW,
WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR
INSUPERABLE CAUSE.

ELEMENTS:

• That an act is required by law to be done;

• That a person fails to perform such act;

• That his failure to perform such act was

due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Madarang (2000):
 Capacity to act is presumed. A person who
invokes an insanity defense has the burden of
proving that he was completely deprived of
intelligence at the time of the attack.

 People vs. Agliday (2001):

 A shotgun equipped with a safety cannot
accidentally misfire. Herein, it is clear that the
accused shot his son on purpose, taking into
account the nature of his gun and the range
within which the boy was shot.
VI. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 • 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.
They are based on the greater perversity
of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by:

 motivating power itself;

 the place of commission;

 the means and ways employed;
 the time; or
 the personal circumstances of the
offender, or of the offended party.
 Article 14
Aggravating circumstances. — The following are
aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his

public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with

insult to the public authorities.

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard

of the respect due to the offended party on account
of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in
the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has
not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence
or obvious ungratefulness.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the

Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.

6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in

an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall

have acted together in the commission of an offense,
it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed

men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one

crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished of
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a

price, reward, or promise.

12. That the crime be committed by means of

inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving
great waste and ruin.

13. That the act be committed with evident

premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or

means be employed to weaken the defense.

16. That the act be committed with treachery

(alevosia).

There is treachery when the offender commits any of

the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.

18. That the crime be committed after an

unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is

effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

19. That as a means to the commission of a

crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or
other similar means. (As amended by Rep. Act No.
5438, approved Sept. 9, 1968).

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the

crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission.
 FOUR KINDS OF
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. GENERIC – Those that can generally apply

to all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6,
9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except “by means
of motor vehicles”.

2. SPECIFIC – Those that apply only to

particular crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling),
15, 16, 17 and 21.
3. QUALIFYING –Those that change the
nature of the crime. Art. 248 enumerates
the qualifying AC which qualify the killing
of person to murder.

4. INHERENT – Those that must accompany

the commission of the crime.
GENERIC AC QUALIFYING AC

The effect of a generic The effect of a qualifying

AC, not offset by any AC is not only to give
mitigating circumstance, the crime its proper and
is to increase the exclusive name but also
penalty which should be to place the author
imposed upon the thereof in such a
accused to the situation as to deserve
MAXIMUM PERIOD. no other penalty than
that specially prescribed
by law for said crime.
GENERIC AC QUALIFYING AC

A generic aggravating A qualifying AC

circumstance may be cannot be offset by a
compensated by a mitigating
mitigating circumstance.
circumstance.

• According to the new rules, generic and

qualifying aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in order to be appreciated.
Par. 1. - THAT –ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN
BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC
POSITION.

• The public officer must use the influence,

prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him
as the means by which he realizes his purpose.
The essence of the matter is presented in the
inquiry, “did the accused abuse his office in order
to commit the crime?”
• When a public officer commits a common
crime independent of his official functions and
does acts that are not connected with the duties
of his office, he should be punished as a private
individual without this AC.

• Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if

it is proven that he has failed in his duties as
such public officer, this circumstance would
warrant the aggravation of his penalty.
Par. 2. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.

REQUISITES:

a. That the public authority is engaged

in the exercise of his functions.

b. That he who is thus engaged in the

exercise of his functions is not the
person against whom the crime is
committed.
c. The offender knows him to be a
public authority.

d. His presence has not prevented

the offender from committing
the criminal act.
PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN
AUTHORITY
A public officer who is directly vested with
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the
power to govern and execute the laws. The
councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain etc.
are persons in authority. A school teacher, town
municipal health officer, agent of the BIR, chief of
police, etc. are now considered a person in
authority.

• Par. 2 is not applicable if committed din the

presence of an agent only such as a police officer.
AGENT

A subordinate public officer charged

with the maintenance of public order and
the protection and security of life and
property, such as barrio policemen,
councilmen, and any person who comes to
the aid of persons in authority.
Par. 3. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED (1)
WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE
RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON
ACCOUNT OF HIS (a) RANK, (b) AGE, OR (c)
SEX, OR (2) THAT IS BE COMMITTED IN
THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY,
IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN
PROVOCATION.
• Four circumstances are enumerated in
this paragraph, which can be considered
single or together. If all the 4
circumstances are present, they have the
weight of one aggravating circumstance
only. This circumstance (rank, age or sex)
may be taken into account only in crimes
against person or honor.

• There must be evidence that in the

commission of the crime, the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the
sex or age of the offended party.
(1) WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF
THE REPECT DUE THE OFFENDED
PARTY ON ACCOUNT:

a. OF THE RANK OF THE OFFENDED

PARTY

ex. An attempt upon the life of a general of

the Philippine Army is committed in disregard of
his rank.
b. OF THE AGE OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY

ex. When the aggressor is 45 years old

and the victim was an octogenarian.

• It is not proper to consider

disregard of old age in crimes against
property. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property.
c. OF THE SEX OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY

• This refers to the female sex, not to

the male sex
(2)THAT BE COMMITTED IN THE
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

DWELLING – BUILDING OR STRUCTURE,

EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR REST AND
COMFORT.

• This is considered an AC primarily

because of the sanctity of privacy, the law
accords to human abode. Also, in certain
cases, there is an abuse of confidence which
the offended party reposed in the offender
by opening the door to him.
 • The evidence must show clearly that
the defendant entered the house of the
deceased to attack him.

• The offended party must not give

provocation. If the provocation did not take
place in the house, dwelling may be
considered as an AC.

• Dwelling includes dependencies, the

foot of the staircase and the enclosure
under the house.
Par. 4. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED
WITH (1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR (2)
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.

1. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

REQUISITES:

a. That the offended party had trusted the

offender.
 b. That the offender abused such
trust by committing a crime against
the offended party.

c. That the abuse of confidence

facilitated the commission of the crime.

• The confidence between the offender

and the offended party must be immediate and
personal.
• It is inherent in malversation, qualified
theft, estafa by conversion or misappropriation and
qualified seduction.
2. OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

• The ungratefulness must be

obvious– manifest and clear.
Par. 5. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
IN THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR
IN HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES, OR IN A
PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

• If it is the Malacañang palace or a

church, it is aggravating, regardless of
whether State or official or religious
functions are being held.
 • The President need not be in the
palace. His presence alone in any place
where the crime is committed is enough to
constitute the AC. It also applies even if he is
not engaged in the discharge of his duties in
the place where the crime was committed.

• Offender must have the intention

to commit a crime when he entered the
place.
Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1)
IN THE NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND,
WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY
FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE.

WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED

MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED
TOGETHER IN THE COMMISSION OF AN
OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND.
 • These 3 circumstances may be
considered separately when their elements
are distinctly perceived and can subsist
independently, revealing a greater degree
of perversity.
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is
aggravating:

When it facilitated the commission of the

crime; or

When especially sought for by the offender

to insure the commission of the crime or for
the purpose of impunity; or

When the offender took advantage thereof

for the purpose of impunity.
(1) NIGHTTIME

- The commission of the crime must

begin and be accomplished in the
nighttime.

- The offense must be actually

committed in the darkness of the night.
When the place is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating.
(2) UNINHABITED PLACE

- TEST: WON in the place of the

commission of the offense, there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving some help.
(3) BAND

- Whenever more than 3 armed

malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense, it shall
be deemed to have been committed by
a band.
Par. 7. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON
THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION,
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR
OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.

• The reason for the existence of this AC is

found in the debased form of criminality met
in one who, in the midst of a great calamity,
instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to
their suffering by taking advantage of their
misfortune to despoil them. The offender
must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune.
“OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE”
– refers to other conditions of distress
similar to “conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake or epidemic.”
Par. 8. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR
PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD
IMPUNITY.

REQUISITES:

• That the armed men or persons took part in the

commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.

• That the accused availed himself of their aid or

relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
 Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A
RECIDIVIST.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of
penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides the
provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, 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.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who
is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of
seventy years if he shall have already served out his original
sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the
said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
 • 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 the RPC.

REQUISITES:

• That the offender is on trial for an

offense;

• That he was previously convicted by

final judgment of another crime;
• That both the first and the second
offenses are embraced in the same title
of the Code;

• That the offender is convicted of

the new offense.
Par. 10. - THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY 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.

REQUISITES:

• That the accused is on trial for an offense;

• That he previously served sentence
for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty,
or for 2 or more crimes to which it
attaches lighter penalty than that for
the new offense; and

• That he is convicted of the new

offense.
Par. 11. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD,
OR PROMISE.

• When this AC is present, there must be 2

or more principals, the one who gives or
offers the price or promise and the one who
accepts it, both of whom are principals – to
the former, because he directly induces the
latter to commit the crime, and the latter
because he commits it. When this AC is
present, it affects not only the person who
received the price or reward, but also the
person who gave it.
Par. 12. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY
MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON,
EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR
INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE THERETO,
DERAILMENT OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE
USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING
GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.
• Unless used by the offender as a means
to accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the
circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be considered
to increase the penalty or to change the nature of
the offense. When another AC already qualifies the
crime, any of these AC’s shall be considered as
generic aggravating circumstance only.
Par. 13. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED
WITH EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.

Evident premeditation implies a deliberate

planning of the act before executing it. 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.
REQUISITIES:

• The time when the offender determined

to commit the crime;

• An act manifestly indicating that the

culprit has clung to his determination;
and

• When the crime was carefully planned

by the offenders;

• When the offenders previously

prepared the means which they
considered adequate to carry it out.
 • A sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his
act and to allow is conscience
to overcome the resolution of his
will.
• The offender must have an
opportunity to coolly and serenely
think and deliberate on the meaning
and the consequences of what he
planned to do, an interval long enough
for his conscience and better
judgment to overcome his evil desire
and scheme.
Par. 14. - THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR
DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.

CRAFT – involves intellectual trickery and

cunning on the part of the accused. It is
employed as a scheme in the execution of
the crime.

FRAUD – insidious words or machinations

used to induce the victim to act in a
manner which would enable the offender to
carry out his design.
• DISTINCTION:

When there is a DIRECT INDUCEMENT by

insidious words or machinations, fraud is
present; otherwise, the act of the accused
done in order NOT TO AROUSE THE
SUSPICION of the victim constitutes craft.

DISGUISE – resorting to any device to

conceal identity.
Par. 15. - THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN
OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR (2) MEANS
BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE.

(1) SUPERIOR STRENGTH

• To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior

strength means to use purposely
excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person
attacked.
(2) MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN
DEFENSE

• This circumstance is applicable

only to crimes against persons and
sometimes against person and property,
such as robbery with physical injuries or
homicide.

• This AC is absorbed in
treachery.
RULES REGARDING TREACHERY

• Applicable only to crimes against

persons.

• Means, methods or forms need

not insure accomplishment of
crime.

• The mode of attack must be

consciously adopted.
ATTACKS SHOWN INTENTION TO
ELIMINATE RISK:

• Victim asleep

• Victim half-awake or just awakened

• Victim grappling or being held.

• Attacked from behind

ADDITIONAL RULES:

a. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS,

treachery must be present in the
BEGINNING of the assault.

b. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS,

in that there was an interruption, it is
sufficient that treachery was present AT
THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS
GIVEN.
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR
CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH
ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS
OF THE ACT.

IGNOMINY – it is a circumstance pertaining to

the moral order, which adds disgrace ad obloquy
to the material injury caused by the crime.

• The means employed or the circumstances

brought about must tend to make the effects of
the crime MORE HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE
OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.
Par. 18. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN
ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF,
FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.

• There is unlawful entry when an

entrance is effected by a way not intended
for the purpose.

• Unlawful entry must be a means to

effect entrance and not for escape.
 • There is no unlawful entry when
the door is broken and thereafter the
accused made an entry thru the broken
door. The breaking of the door is covered
by paragraph 19.
Par. 19 - THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY
WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL,
ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE
BROKEN.

• To be considered as an AC, breaking the door

must be utilized as a means to the commission of
the crime.

• It is only aggravating in cases where the

offender resorted to any of said means TO ENTER
the house. If the wall, etc. is broken in order to
get out of the place, it is not aggravating.
Par. 20. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
(1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER
FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR (2) BY MEANS
OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED
WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER
SIMILAR MEANS. (AS AMENDED BY RA
5438).

(1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15

YEARS OF AGE
(2) BY MEANS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

• It is aggravating where the accused

used the motor vehicle in going to the place
of the crime, in carrying away the effects
thereof, and if facilitating their escape.

“or other similar means” – the

expression should be understood as
referring to MOTORIZED vehicles or other
efficient means of transportation similar to
automobile or airplane.
Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE
DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING
OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS
COMMISSIONS.

CRUELTY

• For cruelty to exist, it must be shown

that the accused enjoyed and delighted in
making his victim suffer.
REQUISITES:

1. That the injury caused be

deliberately increased by causing other
wrong;

2. That the other wrong be unnecessary

for the execution of the purpose of
the offender.
 CASE/S:
 People vs. Antonio (2002):
 Every Complaint or Information must state not
only the qualifying but also the aggravating
circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive
effect in the light of the well-established rule that
statutes regulating the procedure of the courts
will be construed as applicable to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage.

 People vs. Mendoza (2000):

 Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not
a generic aggravating circumstance. Its presence
served to characterize the killing as murder; it
cannot at the same time be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the
imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it
cannot be offset by voluntary surrender.
 People vs. Villamor (2002):
 The fact that accused-appellant is a
policeman and used his government issued .
38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to
establish that he misused his public position
in the commission of the crime.

 People vs. Taboga (2002):

 Anent the circumstance of age, there must
be a showing that the malefactor
deliberately intended to offend or insult the
age of the victim. Neither could disregard of
respect due to sex be appreciated if the
offender did not manifest any intention to
offend or disregard the sex of the victim.
 People vs. Tano (2000):
 Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in this case
because the rape was committed in the
ground floor of a two-story structure, the
lower floor being used as a video rental
store and not as a private place of abode or
residence.

 People vs. Silva (2000):

 By and of itself, nighttime is not an
aggravating circumstance, however, it
becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is
especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is
taken advantage of by him; or (3) it
facilitates the commission of the crime by
ensuring the offender's immunity from
capture.
 People vs. Molina (2000):
 To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege
the same in the information and to attach
thereto certified copies of the sentences
rendered against the accused. Nonetheless,
the trial court may still give such AC
credence if the accused does not object to
the presentation of evidence on the fact of
recidivism.

 People vs. Cajara (2000):

 Reiteracion or habituality is present when
the accused has been previously punished
for an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty than that attached
by law to the second offense or for two or
more offenses to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
 People vs. Mondijar (2002):
 For the circumstance of evident
premeditation to be appreciated, the
prosecution must present clear and positive
evidence of the planning and preparation
undertaken by the offender prior to the
commission of the crime.

 People vs. Rendaje (2000):

 To constitute treachery, two conditions must
concur: (1) the employment of means,
methods or manner of execution that would
ensure the offender's safety from any
defense or retaliatory act on the part of the
offended party; and (2) the offender's
deliberate or conscious choice of the means,
method or manner of execution.
 People vs. Sansaet (2002):
 Mere superiority in number, even assuming
it to be a fact, would not necessarily indicate
the attendance of abuse of superior
strength. The prosecution should still prove
that the assailants purposely used excessive
force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the persons attacked

 People vs. Catian (2002):

 For cruelty to exist, there must be proof
showing that the accused delighted in
making their victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical
and moral pain in the consummation of the
criminal act.
VII. ORDINARY MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 Article 13
Mitigating circumstances. — The following are
mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when

all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or
over seventy years.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.

5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication

of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as

naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to

a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with his fellow beings.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish

the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.

10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a

similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
 CASE/S
 Romera vs. People (2004):
 If Sufficient provocation and passion or
obfuscation are based on the same
facts, they should be treated together
as one mitigating circumstance.

 People vs. Callet (2002):

 The lack of "intent" to commit so
grave a wrong is an internal state. It
is weighed based on the weapon used,
the part of the body injured, the injury
inflicted and the manner it is inflicted.
 People vs. Dawaton (2002):
 While the accused offered to plead guilty to the
lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with
murder for which he had already entered a plea of
not guilty.
 An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance
because to be voluntary, the plea of guilty must be
to the offense charged itself.

 People vs. Labeo (2002):

 For a person to be motivated by passion and
obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act
that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to
overcome reason and self-control.
 There is passional obfuscation when the crime is
committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts , or due to
a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason.
 Davalos vs. People (2006):
 The return of the said misappropriated
amount cannot be considered a
mitigating circumstance analogous to
voluntary surrender considering that it
took petitioner almost seven (7) years to
return the amount.
VIII. PERSONS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE
 • When a single individual commits a
crime, there is no difficulty in determining
his participation in the commission
thereof.

• But when 2 or more persons are

involved, it is necessary to determine the
participation of each.
 Article 16
Who are criminally liable. — The following are
criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:

1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
 Article 17
Principals. — The following are considered
principals:

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

the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to

commit it;

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the

offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
PAR. 1. – PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION

The principal by direct participation

PERSONALLY TAKES PART IN THE
EXECUTION OF THE ACT constituting the
crime.
• Two or more persons who took part in
the commission of the crime are
principals by direct participation, when
the following requisites are present:

a. That they participated in the

criminal resolution

b. That they carried out their plan

and personally took part in its
execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.
First requisite – Participation in the
criminal resolution

• Two or more persons are said to have

participated in the criminal resolution when
they were in conspiracy at the time of the
commission of the crime.

• It is well settled that a person may

be convicted for the criminal act of another
where, between them, there has been
conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention
in the commission of the crime charged.
Second requisite – that the culprits
“carried out their plan and personally
took part in its execution, by acts
which directly tended to the same
end.”

• The principals by direct participation

must be at the scene of the crime,
personally taking part in its execution.
PAR. 2. – PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION

2 WAYS OF BECOMING PRINCIPAL BY

INDUCTION

1. BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER

TO COMMIT A CRIME

a. By using IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

b. By causing UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR
 2. BY DIRECTLY INDUCING
ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME.

a. By giving price, or offering reward

or promise.

b. By using words of command.

REQUISITES:

1.That the inducement be made directly

with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and

a. A thoughtless expression without

intention to produce the result is not an
inducement to commit a crime.
b. The inducement may be by acts
of command, advice, or through
influence, or agreement for
consideration.
2.That such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission of
the crime by the material executor.

- The words of advice of the influence

must have actually moved the hands of
the principal by direct participation.
PAR. 3. – PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION
REQUISITES:

1.Participation in the criminal

resolution, that is, there is either
anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission
of the crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act, without
which it would not have been
accomplished.
 Article 18

Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons

who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts.
REQUISITES:
1.That there be community of design; that is,
knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter
in his purpose;
2.That he cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with
the intention of supplying material or moral
aid in the execution of the crime in an
efficacious way; and
3.That there be a relation between the acts done
by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as accomplice.
RULES:

• The one who had the original

criminal design is the person who
committed the resulting crime.

• The accomplice, after concurring in

the criminal purpose of the principal,
cooperates by previous or simultaneous
acts.
 • When the cooperation is by
simultaneous act, the accomplice takes
part while the crime is being committed
by the principal by direct participation or
immediately thereafter.

• The accomplice in crimes against

persons does not inflict the more or most
serious wounds.
 Article 19
Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent
to its commission in any of the following
manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender

to profit by the effects of the crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the

crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
the escape of the principals of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of
his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to
be habitually guilty of some other crime.
 • The ACCESSORIES are not liable
for light felonies because in the
commission of light felonies, the social
wrong as well as the individual prejudice
is so small that penal sanction is deemed
not necessary for accessories
SPECIFIC ACTS OF THE ACCESSORIES

1.BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR

ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO
PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE
CRIME

- The accessory must receive the

property from the principal. He should
not take it without the consent of the
principal, or else, he is not an accessory
but a principal in the crime of theft.
2.BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING
THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO
PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY.

BODY OF THE CRIME –“corpus delicti”

which means that a specific offense
was in fact committed by someone
3.BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR
ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME

2 CLASSES:

a. Public officers who harbor conceal or

assist in the escape of the principal of any
crime (not light felony) with abuse of his
public functions
REQUISITES:

(1) The accessory is a public officer;

(2) He harbors, conceals, or assists

in the escape of the principal;

(3) The public officer acts with

abuse of his public functions.

(4) The crime committed by the

principal is any crime, provided it is not a
light felony.
b. Private persons who harbor, conceal or
assist in the escape of the author of the crime
– guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt against the life of the President, or
who is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.

REQUISITES:

(1) The accessory is a private person.

(2) He harbors, conceals or assists in the

escape of the author of the crime.
(3) The crime committed by the principal
is either:
a. treason,
b. parricide,
c. murder,
d. attempt against the life of the
president, or
e. that the principal is known to be
habitually guilty of some other
crime.
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES:
a. Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been consummated.
b. But when light felonies are committed
against persons or property, the are punishable
even if they are only in the attempted or
frustrated stage of the execution.
c. Only principals and accomplices
are liable for light felonies.
d. Accessories are not liable for light
felonies, even if they are committed
against persons or property.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Dacillo:
 Two or more persons taking part in the commission of
a crime are considered principals by direct
participation if the following are present: 1. they
participated in the criminal resolution and 2. they
carried out their plan and personally took part in its
execution by acts directed towards the same end.

 People vs. Pilola (2003):

 To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements
must concur: (a) the community of criminal design;
that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose; (b) the performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime.
 People vs. Mariano (2000):
 The accused is the sister of the victim. As
such, their relationship exempts Ruby
from criminal liability under Art. 20 of the
Revised Penal Code.
 The reason for exemption is obvious; it is
based on ties of blood and the
preservation of the cleanliness of one's
name, which compels one to conceal
crimes committed by relatives so near as
those mentioned in the above-quoted
article. Ruby Mariano is acquitted.
IX. COMPLEX CRIMES
 Article 48
Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for
the more or most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period.
(As amended by Act No. 4000.)
 Art. 48 requires the commission of at least
2 crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or LESS
GRAVE felonies must be the result of a SINGLE
ACT, or an offense must be a NECESSARY
MEANS FOR COMMITTING the other.

 In complex crimes, although two or more

crimes are actually committed, they constitute
only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as
in the conscience of the offender. The offender
has only one criminal intent. Even in the case
where an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the evil intent of the
offender is only one.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES

COMPOUND CRIME - When a single

act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an

offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.
COMPOUND CRIME

REQUISITES:

• That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by

the offender

• That the single acts produces (a) 2 or

more grave felonies, or (b) one or more
grave and one or more less grave
felonies, or (c) two or more less grave
felonies
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER

REQUISITES:

• That at least two offenses are

committed

• That one or some of the offenses must be

necessary to commit the other

• That both or all the offenses must be

punished under the same statute.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES

- consists in the successive execution

by the same individual of different criminal
acts upon any of which no conviction has yet
been declared.
KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES

1. FORMAL OR IDEAL PLURALITY

- There is but one criminal liability in this kind of
plurality.
- divided into 3 groups:

a.When the offender commits any of the complex

crimes defined in Art. 48 of the Code.

b. When the law specifically fixes a single penalty

for 2 or more offenses committed.
c. When the offender commits continued crimes.
2. REAL OR MATERIAL PLURALITY

- There are different crimes in law as

well as in the conscience of the offender. In
such cases, the offender shall be punished
for each and every offense that he
committed.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Comadre (2004):
 The single act by appellant of detonating
a hand grenade may quantitatively
constitute a cluster of several separate
and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be
considered only as a single crime in law
on which a single penalty is imposed
because the offender was impelled by a
“single criminal impulse” which shows his
lesser degree of perversity.
 Monteverde vs. People (2002):
 Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, a complex crime refers to (1) the
commission of at least two grave or less
grave felonies that must both (or all) be
the result of a single act, or (2) one
offense must be a necessary means for
committing the other (or others).
Negatively put, there is no complex crime
when (1) two or more crimes are
committed, but not by a single act; or (2)
committing one crime is not a necessary
means for committing the other (or
others).
X. DEATH PENALTY
 Heinous Crimes Act
(Republic Act No. 7659)
 Death Penalty was MANDATORY:

 QUALIFIED BRIBERY: Officer Asks for a Bribe

 KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM
 KIDNAPPING: Victim is Raped, Tortured or
Dehumanized
 RAPE: Victim becomes insane
 RAPE with HOMICIDE
 QUALIFIED RAPE:

1. Rapist a Family member;

 2. In the Custody of Police/Military;
 3. In view of family members;
 4. Victim a Child of tender years (7 yrs);
 5. Rapist has AIDS/ STD;
 6. Rapist took advantage of position in
the PNP/AFP/CAFGU;
7. Permanent Physical mutilation or
Disability resulted;
8. Pregnant Victim;
9. Victim is Mentally Disabled.
 DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES:

1. Financiers in Drug Operations;

2. Drug Importer who used a Diplomatic Passport;
3. Drug Pushers who use Minors and Mentally
Handicapped Persons as runners;
4. Drug use proximate cause of victim’s death;
5. Selling drugs to minors or within 100 meters
from schools;
6. Certain Quantities of dangerous
drugs/controlled precursors;
7. Manufacture of Drugs in a Laboratory (with the
presence or help of minors; within 100 meters
from schools, churches and residences; protected
by booby traps; concealed as legitimate business
operations; employment of public official, doctor,
chemical engineer or foreigner)
 Death Penalty MAY BE IMPOSED:
 [RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH]

 Plunder
 Treason
 Qualified Piracy
 Qualified Bribery
 Parricide
 Murder
 Rape: Gang Rape
 Rape: Use of Deadly Weapon
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
 Robbery with Violence and Intimidation
Against Persons
 Destructive Arson, inc. those committed by a
Syndicate
 Attempted or Frustrated RAPE with HOMICIDE
 Anti-Death Penalty Law
(Republic Act No. 9346)
 On Imposition of the Death Penalty (Sec. 1):

- RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the Death

Penalty.
- In lieu of the Death Penalty, impose:
 1. Reclusion Perpetua, in offenses punishable
under the Revised Penal Code; and
 2. Life Imprisonment, in offenses punishable by
Special Laws. (Sec. 2)

 On Convicts currently on Death Row (Sec. 3):

- Their sentences are commuted to Reclusion
Perpetua.
 On Aggravating Circumstances

 In some offenses, the presence of mitigating

circumstances will be of no effect. For example,
in an offense punished by Reclusion Perpetua
to Death, the proper penalty is now Reclusion
Perpetua, regardless of any aggravating
circumstances

 Effect of the Repeal of RA 8177

 The repeal merely covered the use of lethal

injection in carrying out death sentences
imposed.
 Hence, in the future, should Congress decide to
lift the suspension on imposition of death
sentences, other modes of execution may be
availed of.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Bon (2006):
 There is no material difference between
“imposition” and “application,” for both terms
embody the operation in law of the death
penalty.
 Since Article 71 denominates “death” as an
element in the graduated scale of penalties,
there is no question that the operation of
Article 71 involves the actual application of
the death penalty as a means of determining
the extent which a person’s liberty is to be
deprived.
 Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars
the application of the death penalty, as well
as expressly repeals all such statutory
provisions requiring the application of the
death penalty, such effect necessarily
extends to its relevance to the graduated
scale of penalties under Article 71.
 There is no basis to conclude that Rep. Act
No. 9346 intended to retain the operative
effects of the death penalty in the
graduation of the other penalties in our
penal laws.
 People vs. Villanueva (2007):
 The Court stresses that even if the death
penalty is not to be imposed on the appellant
because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346,
the award of damages under prevailing
jurisprudence is not affected.
 This award is not dependent on the actual
imposition of the death penalty, but on the
fact that the qualifying circumstances
warranting the imposition of the death
penalty attended the commission of the
offense.
 XI. INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE LAW
(Republic Act No. 4103)
 Purpose: Uplift and redeem valuable human
material and prevent excessive deprivation of
personal liberty. (Pp. vs. Ducosin, 59 PHIL 109)

 Application: MANDATORY, unless the accused is

expressly disqualified by the ISLAW (Pp. vs. Yu
Lian, 40 OG 4205)

 Court must determine two penalties: MAXIMUM and

MINIMUM terms.

 For purposes of ISLAW, use the term MINIMUM

to refer to the duration of the sentence which the
accused shall serve as a minimum, and
MAXIMUM to refer to the maximum period that
he may be held in jail.
 Revised Penal Code:

 MINIMUM TERM – One degree lower than penalty

prescribed (Sec. 1);
 Only privileged mitigating circumstances considered.

 MAXIMUM TERM – Penalty prescribed, taking into

account mitigating and aggravating circumstances (Art.
64, RPC).

 Special Laws:

 MINIMUM TERM – Not less than the minimum

prescribed;

 MAXIMUM TERM – Not more than the maximum

prescribed;
 No attendant circumstances considered.
 Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 2):

 Convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty

or life imprisonment;
 Convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to
commit treason;
 Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition, espionage;
 Convicted of piracy;
 Habitual delinquents (not recidivists);
 Those who escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
 Those granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive and shall have violated the term thereof;
 Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
not exceed one year; and
 Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do
not involve imprisonment, like Destierro.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Angeles (2002):
 In determining the “penalty next lower in
degree” for purposes of the Minimum term, the
same should be based on the penalty
prescribed by the RPC without considering any
modifying circumstance.
 The determination of the minimum penalty is
left by law to the sound discretion of the Court
and can be anywhere within the range of the
penalty next lower without any reference to
the periods into which it might be subdivided.
 People vs. Asuela (2002):
 The provisions of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL) are not applicable to
persons convicted of offenses punished
with death or life imprisonment.
 Herein, the appellants were convicted of
murder, punishable by Reclusion Perpetua
to Death. As such, the ISL is not
applicable.

[Relate this case to the Anti-Death Penalty Law]

XII. EXTINGUISHMENT
OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Article 89

How criminal liability is totally extinguished.

Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal

penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence.

How is criminal liability extinguished?

1.TOTAL
2.PARTIAL

• Extinction of criminal liability does

not automatically extinguish the civil
liability.
Causes of extinction of criminal
liability:

BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT

- the death of the convict whether before or

after final judgment extinguished criminal
liability.

- civil liability is extinguished only when death

occurs before final judgment.
- death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguished his criminal liability
as well as the civil liability based solely on
the offense committed; except, the claim for
civil liability survives if the same may also
be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict such as law, contracts,
quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts.

- death of the offended party does not

extinguish the criminal liability of the
offender.
BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE

- crime is a debt incurred by the offender

as a consequence of his wrongful act
and the penalty is but the amount of his
debt. When payment is made, the debt
is extinguished. Service of sentence
does not extinguish civil liability.
BY AMNESTY

- amnesty is an act of the sovereign

power granting oblivion or a general
pardon for a past offense, and is rarely,
if ever, exercised in favor of a single
individual, and is usually exerted in
behalf of certain classes of persons, who
are subject to trial but have not yet been
convicted.
BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
- It is an act of grace proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of
the law that exempts the individual
granted said pardon from the punishment
the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed.
BY PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME

- the forfeiture or loss of the right of the

State to prosecute the offender after
the lapse of a certain time.
BY PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY

- the loss or forfeiture of the right of the

government to execute the final
sentence after the lapse of a certain
time.

Requisites:

a)that there be final judgment

b) that the period of time prescribed by

law for its enforcement has elapsed.
BY THE MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED
WOMAN

- applicable in the crimes of rape,

seduction, abduction or acts of
lasciviousness. Marriage must be
made in good faith.
 PROBATION LAW
(Presidential Decree No. 968)
 Probation : 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))
 SUSPENDED SENTENCE

 After conviction and sentencing, a qualified

defendant may APPLY FOR PROBATION within the
period for perfecting an appeal. (Sec. 4)
 APPEAL INCONSISTENT WITH PROBATION

 APPLYING FOR PROBATION = WAIVER OF

RIGHT TO APPEAL
 See RA 9344 as regards probation of children in

conflict with the law.

 When Granted:
 Sentence imposes imprisonment or fine (Sec. 4)

 Not available in case of Destierro

 Order Granting/Denying Probation

 Not appealable (Sec. 4)

 Guidelines: Deny Probation When (Sec. 8)

 Offender needs correctional treatment;

 Undue risk he will commit another crime;

 Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the

offense
 Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9)
 Sentenced to a maximum term more than 6
yrs.;
 Crime committed against national security or
public order;
 Previously convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of not less
than 1 mth 1 day and/or fine not less than P
200;
 Previously granted probation;

 Effectivity of Probation Order (Sec. 11)

 Upon the time of its issuance
 Mandatory Conditions (Sec. 10)
• Offender must present self to designated
probation officer within 72 hrs. from
receipt of Probation Order;
• Report to the Probation Officer at least
once a month at the designated time and
place;

 Optional Conditions (Sec. 10):

 Any condition relative to rehabilitation

(e.g. find employment, meet family

responsibilities, etc.)
 Effect of Violating Mandatory Conditions
 (Sec. 15)
 Court may issue Arrest Warrant;

 Summary hearing conducted;

 If serious violation proven, Probation will be

revoked and the accused ordered to serve the
original sentence.

 Final Discharge (Sec. 16)

 After period of probation and upon
recommendation of the Probation officer, Court
may order a Discharge.
 Discharge fully discharges accused from crim.
liability.
 CASE/S
 Pablo vs. Castillo (2000):
 For purposes of probation, the term “previous
conviction” in Sec. 9(c) of P.D. 869 refers to a
conviction of any offense.
 The law does not qualify. Hence, “previous
conviction” may cover a conviction for a crime
that is entirely different from that for which the
offender is applying for probation or a crime
which arose out of a single act or transaction as
petitioner would have the court to understand.
 Lagrosa vs. People (2003):
 Generally, a person who appeals his
conviction can no longer apply for
probation.
 However, there is an exception to the
general rule:
 A person who appeals his conviction for
purposes of reducing the penalty to that which
is within the probationable limit may still
apply for probation.
 Determine what is being appealed:
 FINDING OF GUILT? Or
 MERE CORRECTNESS OF THE PENALTY
IMPOSED? (Tolentino vs. CA)
XIII. FALSIFICATION
OF
PUBLIC AND/OR
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
 Article 171
Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prisión
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall
be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or
notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing
any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,

signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in

an act or proceeding statements other than those
in fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of

facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document

purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such
a copy a statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to

the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any
ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of
the offenses enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs of this article, with respect to any
record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
Falsification by public officer,
employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister
Elements

1.Offender is a public officer, employee, or

notary public;

2.He takes advantage of his official

position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing
any of the following acts:

a.Counterfeiting or imitating any

handwriting, signature or rubric;
b.Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made
by them;
d.Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;

e.Altering true dates;

f. Making any alteration or intercalation in

a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
g.Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such
original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine
original; or

h.Intercalating any instrument or note

relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
4. In case the offender is an
ecclesiastical minister who shall
commit any of the offenses
enumerated, with respect to any
record or document of such character
that its falsification may affect the civil
status of persons.
 Article 172
Falsification by private individuals and use of
falsified documents. — The penalty of prisión
correccional in its medium and maximum periods
and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the

falsifications enumerated in the next preceding
article in any public or official document or letter of
exchange or any other kind of commercial
document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or
with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any
private document commit any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in

evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage
of another or who, with the intent to cause such
damage, shall use any of the false documents
embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of
the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be
punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
 Falsification by Private
Individual and Use of Falsified
Documents
Acts punished

1.Falsification of public, official or

commercial document by a private
individual;

2.Falsification of private document by any

person;

3.Use of falsified document.

Elements under paragraph 1

1. Offender is a private individual or

public officer or employee who did not
take advantage of his official position;

2. He committed any act of

falsification under Art 171;

3. The falsification was committed in a

public, official, or commercial document
or letter of exchange.
Four kinds of documents:

(1) Public document in the execution of

which, a person in authority or notary
public has taken part;
(2) Official document in the execution of
which a public official takes part;

(3) Commercial document or any document

recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and

(4) Private document in the execution of

which only private individuals take part.
• Private document may acquire the
character of a public document when it
becomes part of an official record and is
certified by a public officer duly authorized
by law.
Elements under paragraph 2

• Offender committed any of the acts of

falsification except Article 171(7), that is,
issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original;
• Falsification was committed in any
private document;

• Falsification causes damage to a third

party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such
damage.
 There is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of a private
document because the immediate effect
of falsification of a private document is
the same as that of estafa.

 The crime is falsification of a public

document, even if the falsification took
place before the private document
becomes part of the public records, if the
document is intended by law to be part of
the public or official record.
 Generally, falsification has no
attempted or frustrated stage. But there
may be a frustrated falsification if the
falsification is imperfect.
Falsification of a Public Falsification of a Private
document document

Mere falsification is Prejudice to 3rd person

enough or intent to cause it is
enough
Committed by any of the Cannot be committed by
8 means under Art 171 the ways in par 7 & 8 of
Art 171

Principal thing punished

is violation of public
faith and destruction of
truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed
 CASE/S
 Santos vs. Sandiganbayan (2000):
 Under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code,
any public officer or employee who, taking
advantage of his official position, makes
untruthful statements in a narration of facts,
commits the crime of falsification of public
documents.
 This kind of falsification requires the concurrence
of the following requisites: (a) the offender
makes in a document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
and (c) the facts narrated by the offender are
absolutely false.
 Acuna vs. Deputy Ombudsman (2005):
 In prosecutions for perjury, a matter is
material if it is the "main fact which was
the subject of the inquiry, or any
circumstance which tends to prove that
fact . . .“.

 People vs. Choa (2003)

 It is not necessary that the proceeding in
which the perjury is alleged to have been
committed be first terminated before a
prosecution for the said crime is
commenced. At the time he filed his
petition for naturalization, he had
committed perjury.
XIV. MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC PROPERTY
 Article 217
Malversation of public funds or property;
Presumption of malversation. — Any public officer
who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate
or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take
such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, if the amount involved in
the misappropriation or malversation does not
exceed two hundred pesos.

2. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and

medium periods, if the amount involved is more
than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six
thousand pesos.

3. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum

period to reclusión temporal in its minimum
period, if the amount involved is more than six
thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand
pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusión temporal, in its medium
and maximum periods, if the amount involved is
more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than
twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds
the latter, the penalty shall be reclusión temporal in
its maximum period to reclusión perpetua.

In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also

suffer the penalty of perpetual special
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the
funds malversed or equal to the total value of the
property embezzled.
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, shall be prima facie evidence that
he has put such missing funds or property to
personal uses. (As amended by RARepublic Act No.
1060)., approved June 12, 1945.)
Acts punishable:

1.Appropriating public funds or property;

2.Taking or misappropriating the same;

3.Consenting, through abandonment or

negligence, and/or permitting any other
person to take such public funds or
property; and

4.Being otherwise guilty of the

misappropriation or malversation of
such funds or property.
Elements common to all acts of malversation
under Article 217

1. Offender is a public officer;

2. He had the custody or control of
funds or property by reason of the duties
of his office;
3. Those funds or property were public
funds or property for which he was
accountable;
4. He appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented or,
through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
 Private property may be involved
malversation. This article applies to
administrators or depositories of funds or
property attached, seized, or deposited by
public authority, even if such property
belongs to a private individual.

 Presumption from failure to have duly

forthcoming public funds or property upon
demand is prima facie evidence that the said
funds have been put to personal use. This
may be rebutted.
 Demand not necessary in malversation in
spite of the last paragraph in Art. 217 as the
latter provides only for a rule of procedural
law, a rule of evidence and no more.

 Damage to Government not necessary.

Penalty is based on the amount involved, not
on the amount of damage to the government.
 CASE/S
 Quinon vs. People (2002):
 An accountable public officer, within the
purview of Article 217 of the RPC, is one who
has custody or control of public funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office.
 To be liable for malversation, an accountable
officer need not be a bonded official.
 The name or relative importance of the office
or employment is not the controlling factor.
What is decisive is the nature of the duties
that he performs and that as part of, and by
reason of said duties, he receives public
money or property which he is bound to
account.
 Sarigumba vs. Sandiganbayan (2005):
 Malversation consists not only in
misappropriation or converting public funds
or property to one's personal use but also by
knowingly allowing others to make use of or
misappropriate the same. The felony may
thus be committed by dolo or by culpa.

 MWD vs. Deputy Ombudsman (2000):

 Demand merely raises a prima facie
presumption that missing funds have been
put to personal use. The demand itself,
however, is not an element of, and not
indispensable to constitute, malversation."
XV. PARRICIDE
 Article 246
Parricide. — 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 and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusión perpetua to
death. (Restored by Section 5, Republic Act No.
7659.)
Elements:

1. A person is killed;

2. The deceased is killed by the accused;

3. The deceased is the father, mother,

or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate; or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse, of the accused.
 Relationship of the offender with the
victim is an essential element of this crime.

 GENERAL RULE: only relatives by blood

and in the direct line are considered in
parricide. EXCEPTION: spouse

 The father, mother or child may be

legitimate or illegitimate. However, the
other ascendants or descendants must be
legitimate.
 The spouse must be legitimate.

The best proof of marriage is the

marriage certificate;
The best proof of filiation is the birth
certificate of the child or any other
evidence accepted for proving filiation.

 Relationship must be alleged in order

that the accused may be convicted of
parricide.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Ayuman (2004):
 The key element in the offense of
parricide is the relationship between the
offender and his victim.
XVI. MURDER
 Article 248
Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusión
perpetua in its maximum period to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:

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 of the calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic
or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly

augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse. (As amended by
Section 6, Republic Act No. 7659.)
Elements:

1. A person was killed;

2. The accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the
following qualifying circumstances –

a. With treachery, taking advantage of

superior strength, with the aid or armed men,
or employing means to weaken the defense, or
of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity;
b. In consideration of a price, reward or
promise;

c. By means of inundation, fire, poison,

explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any
other means involving great waste and
ruin;
 d. On occasion of any of the
calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption
of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamity
e. With evident premeditation
f. With cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse
 The killing is not parricide or
infanticide.

 Murder is the unlawful killing of any

person which is not parricide or
infanticide, provided any of the qualifying
circumstances are present.

 Murder will exist with only one of the

circumstances described in this article.
When more than one of the circumstances
is present, the others must be considered
as generic aggravating.
 However, when the other
circumstances are absorbed or included in
one qualifying circumstance, they cannot
be considered as generic aggravating.
(example: abuse of superior strength is
absorbed by treachery)

 The qualifying circumstance must be

alleged, in order to qualify the killing to
murder. If not alleged, it is only a generic
aggravating circumstance.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Mallari (2003):
 The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that
Rufino deliberately bumped Joseph with the truck
he was driving. The evidence shows that Rufino
deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph.
Upon catching up with him, Rufino hit him with
the truck, as a result of which Joseph died
instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was
the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the
killing of Joseph.
 Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a
person who kills another "by means of a motor
vehicle" is guilty of murder. Thus, the use of
motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder.
 People vs. Whisenhunt (2002):
 The mere decapitation of the victim's
head constitute outraging or scoffing at
the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying
the killing to murder. In this case,
accused-appellant not only beheaded
Elsa. He further cut up her body like
pieces of meat. Then, he strewed
dismembered parts of her body in a
deserted road in the countryside,
leaving them to rot on the ground.
XVII. HOMICIDE
 Article 249
Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without
the attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by
reclusión temporal.
Elements:

 A person was killed;

 The accused killed him without any

justifying circumstance;

 The accused had the intention to kill,

which is presumed;

 The killing was not attended by any of

the qualifying circumstances of murder,
or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill
- is conclusively presumed when
death resulted. (crime is consummated)

Evidence of intent to kill

- is important only in attempted or
frustrated homicide (to differentiate it
from physical injuries). In such cases,
intent to kill must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
Corpus delicti
– the actual commission of the crime
charged, means that the crime was
actually committed. In crimes
against persons in which death of the
victim is an element of the offense,
there must be satisfactory proof of
the fact of death, and the identity of
the victim.
 CASE/S
 Rivera vs. People (2006):
 An essential element of murder and homicide,
whether in their consummated, frustrated or
attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to
kill the victim immediately before or
simultaneously with the infliction of injuries.
 Intent to kill is a specific intent which the
prosecution must prove by direct or
circumstantial evidence, while general criminal
intent is presumed from the commission of a
felony by dolo.
On ROBBERY WITH RAPE
AND HOMICIDE

(Article 294, Par. 1 of the

Revised Penal Code)
 Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code:
 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua [to death], when

for any reason of or on occasion of the robbery, the

CRIME OF HOMICIDE SHALL HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED, or when the robbery SHALL HAVE
BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY RAPE or intentional
mutilation.
 According to the Regala-Sultan rulings, in case
of robbery with homicide and rape or robbery
with multiple rape, the rape or additional rapes
should not be considered generic aggravating
circumstances.
 Hence, one may be charged with either robbery
with homicide or robbery with rape. There is no
crime of robbery with homicide and rape.
 Justice F.D. Regalado’s solution:

 The Regala and Sultan cases, though favorable to the

accused, are quite unfair and unjust to the victims of
the rapes/homicides committed;

 In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

or robbery with rape, the additional rape or homicide
may be considered as aggravating circumstances,

 Rape in the occasion of robbery with

homicide constitutes IGNOMINY; or
 Homicide in the occasion of robbery with

rape constitutes CRUELTY.

 CASE/S:
 People v. Regala (April 2000)

 In special complex crimes of robbery with

homicide or robbery with rape, there is no law
providing that additional rapes or homicides
committed on the same occasion should be
considered generic aggravating circumstances.

 Unlike in mitigating circumstances, the Revised

Penal Code does not provide for “analogous
circumstances” when appreciating aggravating
circumstances.
 People vs. Sultan (2000):

 The Court reiterated the Regala Rule,

though conceding that the same results in
an anomalous situation wherein a person
guilty of robbery attended by multiple
rapes is penalized as if he committed only
one rape on the occasion of said robbery.

 Nevertheless, unless and until Congress

passes a law providing that additional
rapes/homicides may be considered
aggravating, courts should construe penal
law in favor of the offender.
XVIII. RAPE
 Article 266-A
Rape is committed —

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted

more than five days. ) By a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or

otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above
be present.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.) By any person who,
under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into
another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person. (As added by
Republic Act No. 8353, approved Sept. 30,
1997.)
When and How Rape is Committed

Elements under paragraph 1:

 Offender is a man;
 Offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman;
 Such act is accomplished under any of
the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation;

b. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority; or

d. When the woman is under 12

years of age or demented.
Elements under paragraph 2:

 Offender commits an act of sexual assault;

 The act of sexual assault is committed by
any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into
another person's mouth or anal orifice;
or
b. By inserting any instrument or
object into the genital or anal orifice
of another person;
 The act of sexual assault is accomplished
under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation; or

b. When the woman is deprived of reason or

otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age
or demented.
• Force employed against the victim of the
rape need not be of such character as
could be resisted. It is enough that the
force used is sufficient to consummate the
purpose of copulating with the offended
woman.

• When the offender in rape has an

ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is
not necessary that she put up a
determined resistance.
• There is no crime of frustrated
rape (see Orita case).

• Character of the offended woman

is immaterial in rape.
266-C. Effect of pardon

 Subsequent valid marriage between

the offender and the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed.

 In case it is the legal husband who is

the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by
the wife as the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty, provided that their marriage is not
void ab initio.
266-D. Presumptions

Evidence which may be accepted in the

prosecution of rape:

 any physical overt act manifesting

resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party.

 where the offended party is so situated

as to render him/her incapable of giving
consent.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Oga (2004):
In reviewing rape cases, the Court has
established the following principles as guides:

 (1) an accusation of rape can be made with

facility, difficult to prove but more difficult for
the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove;
 (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature of rape, the
testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and
 (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand
or fall on its merits and cannot draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.
 People vs. Jalosjos (2001):
 In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a
woman below twelve years of age consummates
the crime of statutory rape regardless of her
consent to the act or lack of it.
 The law presumes that a woman of tender age
does not possess discernment and is incapable of
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.

 People vs. Plurad (2002):

 In cases of multiple rape, each of the defendants
is responsible not only for the rape committed by
him but also for those committed by the others.
 People vs. Dela Torre (2004):
 An accused may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a
woman, provided of course a man is charged
together with her.
 In two cases, the Court convicted the woman as a
principal by direct participation since it was proven
that she held down the complainant in order to help
her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.

 People vs. Soriano(2002):

 Inserting a finger inside the genital of a woman is
rape through sexual assault within the context of
paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC
 A “finger” is considered an object.(Pp vs. Fetalino,
2007).
 People vs. Arnaiz (2006)
 The delay in reporting the rape incident does not
weaken the case for the prosecution. It is not
uncommon for a young girl to conceal assaults on her
virtue, especially when the rapist is living with her.

 People vs. Teodoro (2006):

 The medical examination of the victim is merely
corroborative in character and is not an element of
rape. Likewise, a freshly broken hymen is not an
essential element of rape and healed lacerations do
not negate rape.

 People vs. Lining (2002):

 Forcible abduction is deemed absorbed in the rape
committed.
 People vs. Bautista (2004):
 A romantic relationship does not
necessarily establish consent. It has been
consistently ruled that "a love affair does
not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be
sexually violated against her will."
 The fact that a woman voluntarily goes out
on a date with her lover does not give him
unbridled license to have sex with her
against her will.
 Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual
gratification from a fiancee and, worse,
employ violence upon her on the pretext of
love. Love is not a license for lust."
RAPE VICTIM ASSISTANCE
AND PROTECTION ACT
OF 1998
Republic Act No. 8505
 Establishment of RAPE CRISIS CENTER (Sec.
3)
 Located in government hospitals or health
clinics;
 Provide victims with counselling and therapy;
 Assist them in securing legal representation;
 Protect their privacy and safety, etc.

 Establishment of PNP WOMEN’S DESK

(Sec. 4):
 Medico-legal examination should be conducted
by a physician of the same gender as the
offended party;
 Female police officers/prosecutors preferred in
handling rape investigations.
 Protective Measures (Sec. 5):
 Closed-door investigations/hearings;
 Victim’s identity and personal
circumstances should not be disclosed to
the public.

 Rape Shield (Sec. 6):

 No evidence pertaining to the victim’s past
sexual conduct shall be introduced, unless
the same is relevant and material to the
case.
 CASE/S:
 People vs. Agsaoay (2004):
 In rape cases, the victim’s moral character
is immaterial since there is no nexus
between it and the offense committed.

 People vs. Cabalquinto (2006):

 Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 and its
implementing rules, the real name and personal
circumstances of the victim, together with the
real names of her immediate family members,
should be withheld to protect her privacy.
 Fictitious initials instead are used to represent her
and other family members concerned.
 XIX. ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
 Elements under Art. 336
 That the offender commits any acts of
lasciviousness or lewdness
 That it is done under any of the
following circumstances:
 By using force or intimidation;
 When the offended party is deprived or

reason or otherwise unconscious;

 When the offended party is under 12 years

of age;
 That the offended party is another
person of either sex.
 Amployo v. People (2005)

 The term “lewd” is commonly defined as

something indecent or obscene. It is
characterized by or intended to excite crude
sexual desire.

 That an accused is entertaining a lewd or

unchaste design is necessarily a mental
process the existence of which can be inferred
by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e.,
by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd
or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd
designs is inferred from the nature of the acts
themselves and the environmental
circumstances. What is or what is not lewd
conduct, by its very nature, cannot be
pigeonholed into a precise definition
 Acts of Lasciviousness v. Lascivious
Conduct under RA 7610

Case: Cabila v. People (2007)

 The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5,
Article III of Rep. Act No. 7610 that must be
proven in addition to the elements of acts of
lasciviousness are the following:
(1) The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2) The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below
18 years of age.
XX. THEFT
 Article 308
Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any
person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall

fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to
its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged
the property of another, shall remove or make use of
the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and

3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a

field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner, shall
hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits,
cereals, or other forest or farm products.
 Article 309
Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be
punished by:

1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and

medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000
pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the
latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period
of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year
for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total
of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with
the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code,
the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or
reclusión temporal, as the case may be.

2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium

and maximum periods, if the value of the thing
stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos.

3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its

minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not
exceed 6,000 pesos.
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión
correccional in its minimum period, if the value of
the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not
exceed 200 pesos.

5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is

over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.

6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium

periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
if the theft is committed under the circumstances
enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding
article and the value of the thing stolen does not
exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount,
the provisions of any of the five preceding
subdivisions shall be made applicable.

8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not

exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing
stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall
have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or
the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of
himself or his family.
 CASE/S
 People vs. Dela Cruz (2000):
 Possession of the stolen goods creates a
disputable presumption that the
possessor stole the same.

 Valenzuela vs. People (2007):

 There is no such thing as frustrated
theft. Once there is unlawful taking,
theft is deemed consummated.
 Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft.
ANTI-FENCING LAW
of 1979
 Presidential Decree No. 1612

 Fence, defined:
 Any person engaging in fencing (Sec. 2(b)).

 Fencing, defined:
 Any act of buying, receiving, possessing,
keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling and
disposing any article, item, object or anything
of value which he knows, or be known to him,
to have been derived from the proceeds of
robbery and theft (Sec. 2(a)).
 CASE/S

 Francisco vs. People (2004):

 While PD 1612 creates a prima facie
presumption of fencing from the
evidence of possession by the accused of
stolen goods, the presentation of the
same during trial is not necessary.
 Fencing can be proven even without the
stolen article itself.
XXI. QUALIFIED THEFT
 Article 310
Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished
by the penalties next higher by two degrees than
those respectively specified in the next preceding
article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is
motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists
of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation,
or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property
is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A.
120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).
Theft is qualified if:

1. Committed by a domestic servant;

2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;

3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail

matter, or large cattle;
4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a plantation;

5. The property stolen is fish taken from a

fishpond or fishery; or

6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire,

earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
 Penalties for qualified theft are now next
HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES.
 Theft by domestic servant is always qualified.
it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of
confidence.
 The abuse of confidence must be grave.
 There must be allegation in the information
and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship or vigilance, between the accused
and the offended party, that has created a high
degree of confidence between them, which the
accused abused.
 Take Note of the ff:

 Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539);

 Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD
533);
 Heavier Penalties for Thefts by
Employees and Laborers (PD 133);
 Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832);
 NB: Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft
Ordinances.
 Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330);
 Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);
 CASE/S
 Roque vs. People (2004):
 If the bank teller appropriates the money
for personal gain then the felony
committed is theft and not estafa.
 Further, since the teller occupies a
position of confidence, and the bank
places money in the teller's possession
due to the confidence reposed on the
teller, the felony of qualified theft would
be committed.
 Astudillo vs. People (2006):
 Mere circumstance that petitioners were
employees of Western does not suffice to
create the relation of confidence and
intimacy that the law requires.
 The element of grave abuse of confidence
requires that there be a relation of
independence, guardianship or vigilance
between the petitioners and Western.
 People vs. Bustinera (2004):
 The “joyride case”;
 Carnapping is essentially the robbery or
theft of a motorized vehicle, the concept of
unlawful taking in theft, robbery and
carnapping being the same.
 From the foregoing, since appellant is being
accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo
sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not
the provisions of qualified theft which
would apply.
XXII. ESTAFA
 Article 315
Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum

period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
Three general ways of committing Estafa:

 with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence

 by means of false pretenses or fraudulent

acts

 through fraudulent means

Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL:

1. That the accused defrauded another by

a. abuse of confidence or
b. by means of deceit

2. That damage or prejudice capable of

pecuniary estimation is caused to

a. the offended party or

b. third person
* DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of estafa
with abuse of confidence

* As to second general element of DAMAGE, it

should be capable of pecuniary estimation, since
amount of the damage is the basis of the penalty.

* intent of defrauding another is always an

element

* no estafa through negligence

-Estafa through Abuse of Confidence-
Article 315, Paragraph 1
(a): Estafa with unfaithfulness by altering
the substance, quantity, or quality of
anything of value
Elements:

 That the offender has an onerous obligation

to deliver something of value
 That he alters its substance, quantity, or
quality
 That damage or prejudice is caused by
another
• There must be an onerous obligation

• Even though such obligation be based on an

immoral or illegal consideration. Estafa may
arise even if the thing to be delivered is not
subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium)
Article 315, Paragraph 1

(b): misappropriating or converting money,

goods, or other personal property OR
denying having received such money,
goods, or other personal property

Elements:

1. That money, goods, or other personal property

be received by the offender in
a. trust (Trust Receipts Law)
 b. on commission
c. for administration
d. under any obligation involving duty to
return the very same thing
2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of
such property by the offender OR (b) denial of
such receipt
3. There is prejudice to another
4. Demand was made by the offended to the
offender

 The 4th element is not necessary where there is

evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant
Estafa with abuse of Theft
confidence

Offender acquires the Offender acquires only

juridical possession of material possession of
the property the property
Offender receives the Offender takes the
thing from the offended thing from the offended
party party

 Additional test: In theft, upon delivery of the thing to

the offender, the owner expects an immediate return of
the thing to him
 Estafa with abuse of confidence Malversation

The offenders are entrusted with funds or property

Both are continuing offenses
The funds or property are
always private
The offender is a private
individual or a public officer
who is not accountable for
public funds or property
The crime is committed by
misappropriating, converting
or denying having received
money, goods or other
personal property
Involves public funds or
property
Offender is usually a public
officer who is accountable for
public funds or property
The crime is committed by
appropriating, taking or
misappropriating or
consenting, or through
abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person
to take the public funds or
property
Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by taking
undue advantage of the signature of the
offended party in blank

Elements:

 That the paper with the signature of the

offended party be in blank
 That the offended party should have delivered
it to the offender
 That above the signature, a document is
written by offender without authority to do so
 That the document so written creates a
liability of, or causes damage to the
offended party or any third person

-The paper with the signature in blank

MUST BE DELIVERED by the offended party
to the offender (otherwise, crime is
falsification of instrument)
Estafa by Deceit-

Elements

 There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or

fraudulent means;
 Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud;
 The offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he
was induced to part with his money or property because of
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Article 315, par 2, (a)

Three ways of committing estafa under this

provision:

1. using fictitious name

2. falsely pretending to possess

-power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions

3. other similar deceits

Article 315, Paragraph 2 (c): pretending
to have bribed any Government
employee

 Person would ask money from another for

the alleged purpose of bribing a government
employee but just pocketed the money after

 "without prejudice to an action for

calumny" : the offender may also be charged
with defamation which the government
employee allegedly bribed may deem proper
to bring against the offender
Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had
no funds in the bank, or his funds were not
sufficient to cover the amount

Elements:

1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued

a check in payment of an obligation

2. That such postdating or issuing was done

when:
a. offender had no funds or
b. funds deposited were not sufficient
 check must be genuine and not falsified,
otherwise, it is estafa under paragraph 2(a), not 2(d)

 the issuance of a check is NOT for a pre existing

obligation. It MUST be for an obligation contracted at
the time of the issuance or delivery of the check.

a. When check is issued in substitution of a promissory

note, it is in payment of a pre existing obligation

b. When the check is issued by a guarantor, there is no

Estafa because it is not in payment of an obligation.
Prima facie evidence of deceit:

Failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the

amount necessary to cover his check within 3
days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or
the payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by obtaining food
or accommodation at a hotel, etc
Three ways of committing estafa under the this
provision:
 By obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a
hotel, etc. without paying therefor, with intent to defraud
the proprietor or manager thereof.

 By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the

use of false pretenses

 By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of

his baggage from any of said establishments after
obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation
therein, without paying therefor.
Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by
inducing another to sign any document
Elements:

 That the offender induced the offended party

to sign a document.
 That deceit be employed to make him sign
the document
 That the offended party personally signed the
document
 That prejudice be caused
Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by
removing, concealing, or destroying
documents

Elements:
 That there be court record, office files,
documents or any other papers
 That the offender removed, concealed or
destroyed any of them

 That the offender had intent to defraud another

If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court
record will be malicious mischief
 Estafa under Infidelity in the
par. 3 (c) custody of documents

Manner of committing offenses is the same

The offender is a private The offender is a public
individual or even a officer who is officially
public officer who is not entrusted with the
officially entrusted with document
the documents
There is intent to Intent to defraud not an
defraud element in this crime
 CASE/S
 Lee vs. People (2005)
 The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as
used in the aforequoted law connote an act of
using or disposing of another's property as if it
were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or
use different from that agreed upon.
 In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not
necessary where there is evidence of
misappropriation or conversion. However, failure
to account upon demand, for funds or property
held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.
 People vs. Hernandez (2002):
 A person who is convicted of illegal
recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of
estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code provided the elements of estafa
are present.
 Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed by any
person who defrauds another by using a
fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits
executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
 Pablo vs. People (2004):
 Deceit is defined as the false
representation of a matter of fact,
whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment
of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive
another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury.

 False pretense is any deceitful practice or

device by which another is led to part with
the property in the thing taken.
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
(Economic Sabotage)
 Presidential Decree No. 1689
 SYNDICATED ESTAFA (Sec. 1)
 Estafa or swindling (Arts. 315-316, RPC)
committed by a syndicate and the fraud results
in misappropriation of:

 Moneys contributed by stockholders or

members of rural banks, cooperatives,
samahang nayons or farmers’ associations;
or
 Funds solicited by corporations/associations

from the general public.

 Syndicate, defined:
 Formed by five or more persons with the
intention of carrying out an unlawful or
illegal act, transaction, scheme or
enterprise.

 When the defraudation results in

misappropriation of funds mentioned in
Sec. 1 but is not committed by a
syndicate, the penalty is reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua if the
amount of the fraud exceeds P100,000.
 Illustrations:
 Ponzi Scheme:
 Promoted by Charles Ponzi in 1920.
 An investment program that offers highly

impossible returns and pays these returns to

early investors out of the capital contributed
by the latter investors.
 Works only if there is an increasing number

of new investors joining the scheme (People

vs. Balasa, 2004).

 Pyramiding or Pyramid Scam (e.g.

Multitel Int’l Case; Panata Foundation
Case - - People vs. Balasa, et. al.)
 CASE/S
 People vs. Balasa, et. al. (1998):
 To defraud the general public, the appellants
established a non-stock, non-profit foundation
and registered with the SEC. While the Articles of
Incorporation stated that the Board may collect
dues and fees from members to finance Panata
Foundation, Inc., the officers and employees of
the same openly solicited money and investments
from members under a “double or treble your
deposit scheme”.
 The appellants promised the credulous public
quick financial gains on their investments. To
bolster the illusion, Panata’s officers claimed that
the deposits would be invested in a “world bank”
to double or treble the interests in 21 and 30
days, respectively.
XXIII. GRAVE COERCION
 2 WAYS OF COMMITTING GRAVE
COERCION (ARTICLE 286)

 By preventing another by means of

violence from doing something not
prohibited by law.
 By compelling another by means of

violence to do something against

his will, whether it be right or
wrong
Case: Sy v. Sec. of Justice (2006)
• The elements of grave coercion under Article
286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:
• 1) that a person is prevented by another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or
compelled to do something against his will, be it
right or wrong;
• 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and
• 3) that the person who restrains the will and
liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other
words, that the restraint is not made under
authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful
right.
 Respondents, together with several men armed with
hammers, ropes, axes, crowbars and other tools arrived
at the petitioners' residence and ordered them to vacate
the building because they were going to demolish it.
 Intimidated by respondents and their demolition team,
petitioners were prevented from peacefully occupying
their residence and were compelled to leave against
their will.
 Thus, respondents succeeded in implementing the
demolition while petitioners watched helplessly as their
building was torn down.
 From the facts alleged in the complaint, as well as the
evidence presented in support thereof, there is prima
facie showing that respondents did not act under
authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
XXIV. BOUNCING
CHECKS LAW
(Batas Pambansa No. 22)
 Modes of Violating BP 22 (Section 1):

 MODE NO. 1:
 Person makes or draws and issues a check to apply
on account or on value;
 Maker/Drawer knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment;
 Check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of
funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
 MODE NO. 2:
 A person has sufficient funds in or credit with the

drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a

check;
 He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within 90 days from the date appearing;
 The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
 Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised
Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:

 Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
there is criminal liability if the check is drawn for non-pre-
existing obligation. If the check is drawn for a pre-existing
obligation, there is criminal liability only under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.

 Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against property

while Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime against public
interest. The gravamen for the former is the deceit
employed, while in the latter, it is the issuance of the check.
Hence, there is no double jeopardy.

 In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), deceit and damage
are material, while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, they are
immaterial.

 In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), knowledge by the

drawer of insufficient funds is not required, while in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, knowledge by the drawer of insufficient
funds is required.
RULE OF EVIDENCE #1:

 There is a prima facie evidence of

knowledge of insufficient funds when the
check was presented within 90 days from
the date appearing on the check and was
dishonored (Sec. 3).
 Exceptions:

1. When the check was presented after 90 days from

date;
 2. When the maker or drawer pays the holder of the
check the amount due or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such check within five
banking days after receiving notice that such check
has not been paid by the drawee.
RULE OF EVIDENCE #2:
 The prima facie evidence of making and
issuance of a check, due presentment and
dishonor thereof arises when the dishonored
check, duly stamped as “dishonored for
__________” or “dishonored for insufficient
credit” by the drawee bank, is presented as
evidence (Sec. 4).

 NOTE: Sections 3-4 in BP 22 prosecutions

relate to evidentiary rules and presumptions.
These do not relate to the elements per se of
BP 22 violations.
 CASE/S

 Bernardo vs. People (2007):

 As clarified by Administrative Circular 13-
2001, the clear tenor and intention of
Administrative Circular 12-2000 is not to
remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty, but to lay down a rule of
preference in the application of the
penalties provided for in B.P. 22.
 Macalalag vs. People (2006):
 Only a full payment of the face value of
the second check at the time of its
presentment or during the five-day
grace period could have exonerated her
from criminal liability.
 A contrary interpretation would defeat
the purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
that of safeguarding the interest of the
banking system and the legitimate
public checking account user, as the
drawer could very well have himself
exonerated by the mere expediency of
paying a minimal fraction of the face
value of the check.
XXV. DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
(Republic Act No. 9165)
 Definitions (Art. I, Sec. 3):
 Take note of the following terms:

 Dangerous Drugs [DD] (par. j), compare

with Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals [CPAEC](par. h), ;
 Chemical Diversion (par. d), contrast with
Controlled Delivery (par. g) and Illegal
Trafficking (par. r);
 Den, Dive or Resort (par. l);
 Drug Dependence (par. m);
 Drug Syndicate (par. o); and
 Financier (par. q) vs. Protector/Coddler
(par. ee).
 Prohibited Acts (Art. II, Secs. 4-19):

 Importation of DD or CPAEC;
 Cultivation of plants known to produce DD
or CPAEC;
 Sale, Trade, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
of DD or CPAEC;
 Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort;
 Den, Dive or Resort shall be confiscated and
escheated in favor of the government;
 Knowingly working at or visiting the Den, Dive or
Resort is punishable.
 Manufacturing DD or CPAEC or tools and
instruments used for the same;
 Illegal Chemical Diversion of DD or or CPAEC;
 Unlawful or unnecessary prescription of DD or
CPAEC;
 Failure to keep proper records of legal
importation/distribution of DD or CPAEC;
 ILLEGAL POSSESSION:
 DD or CPAEC;

 Tools/Instruments used for the same;

 DD or CPAEC during social gatherings (at least

2 people)
 ILLEGAL USE OF DD or CPAEC (2nd Offense or
more);
 Violation of any Dangerous Drugs Board [DDB]
regulation.
 [LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS]
 Misappropriation or failure to account for

DD/CPAEC or paraphernalia confiscated/used as

evidence;
 PLANTING DD/CPAEC as EVIDENCE;

 Attempt or Conspiracy (Sec. 26):

 An attempt or conspiracy to commit the following are punishable.
Penalty same as if consummated:
 IMPORTATION OF DD/CPAEC;

 SALE, TRADE, ADMINISTRATION, DISPENSATION,

DISTRIBUTION OF DD/CPAEC;
 MAINTAINING DEN, DIVE OR RESORT;

 MANUFACTURE OF DD/CPAEC;

 CULTIVATION OF PLANTS KNOWN TO BE SOURCES OF

DD/CPAEC;
 Plea Bargain (Sec. 23):
 Any person charged with a violation of RA
9165 cannot avail of plea bargaining.

 Probation (Sec. 24):

 Convicted drug traffickers or pushers cannot
apply for probation.

 Drug Use as a Qualifying Aggravating

Circumstance (Sec. 25);
 Commission of an offense by a culprit under
the influence of dangerous drugs.
 There must be a positive finding of drug use.
 Drug Tests Administered:
 Screening Test (Art. II, Sec. 3 (hh)):
 A rapid test that establishes a potential or presumptive
positive result.
 Confirmatory Test (Art. II, Sec. 3 (hh)):
 A more specific test that will validate or confirm the
results of the screening test.

 When Drug Tests Are Required (Sec. 36):

 Applications for Driver’s License;
 Applications for Firearms License/Permit;
 Secondary/Tertiary School students;
 Officers/Employees in Private companies;
 Public Officers/Employees, incl. Members of law enforcement
units;
 Persons charged with an offense punishable by a minimum of
6 years imprisonment;
 Candidates for public office, appointed or elected.
 Drug Rehabilitation Programs (Art. VIII):

 Voluntary Submission Program (Sec. 54):

 File Application For Voluntary Rehabilitation with
the DDB or its representative;
 Board transmits the application to the Court,
which shall order the applicant to undergo drug
testing.
 If the applicant is found to be drug dependent,
Court shall order him to undergo treatment for
6m-1yr.
 Participants in the VSP are EXEMPT from criminal
liability, if qualified under Sec. 55:
 Complied with the rules and regulations of the Center;
 First-time Offender (DD Use);
 No record of escape from rehabilitation center or
surrendered within one week from escape;
 Does not pose a serious danger to himself or to the public.
 Compulsory Submission Program (Sec.
61):
 DDB files a Petition to Rehabilitate a
drug dependent with the Court, which
shall order the applicant to undergo
drug testing.
 APPLIES TO DRUG DEPENDENTS
CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE (SEC. 62)
 If the applicant is found to be drug
dependent, Court shall issue a
Commitment Order charging him to
undergo treatment and rehabilitation.

 Minors found to be first time offenders

entitled to suspended sentence
(superseded by RA 9344).
 CASE/S
 People vs. Tiu (2003):
 In illegal possession prosecutions, it must be shown
that 1) the appellants were in possession of an item or
object identified to be a prohibited drug; 2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and 3) the
appellants were freely and consciously aware of being
in possession of the drug.
 Violation of the DDA is malum prohibitum; Good faith
or lack of criminal intent is not relevant.

 People vs. Balag-ey (2004):

 Possession of prohibited drugs is a necessary
element in the sale of prohibited drugs, except
where the seller is found to be in possession of
another quantity of drugs not included in the sale
and probably intended for some future dealings or
use by the seller.
 Suson vs. People (2006):
 Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of
dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money
does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous
drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject
of the transaction is presented before the court.

 People vs. Jubail (2004):

 The general rule is that the buy bust money or the
informant need not be presented during trial. However,
where the informant is the only eyewitness to
the illegal transaction, his testimony is essential
and his non-presentation would be fatal to the
prosecution’s cause.
 People vs. Nicolas (2007):
 Settled is the rule that the absence of a
prior surveillance or test-buy does not
affect the legality of the buy-bust
operation.