UPDATES IN SUBSTANTIVE AND

PROCEDURAL LAWS AND

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW
Including R.A. 9165
Prepared by:
Judge CYNTHIA MARTINEZ FLORENDO
RTC BRANCH 39 SAN JOSE CITY
EXECUTIVE JUDGE
 R.A. 10951 an act adjusting the amount of the value of property
and damage on which a penalty is based and the fines imposed
under the revised penal code amending for the purpose act no.
3815, otherwise known as “the revised penal code”, as
amended

 Section 102. R.A. 10951”shall take effect

within fifteen (15) days after its publication in
at least two newspapers of general
circulation.”
 August 29, 2017, R.A. 10951 was circulated
online on www.ofiicialgazette.gov.ph.*
 On 01 September 2017, it was published by
the Manila Bulletin. It then later appeared in
other broadsheets.*

 *OCA CIRCULAR No. 245-2017

 OCA Circular No. 19-2018
Application of Transitory Provision of
R.A. No. 10951
The term “trial” in Section 101 which in part states,
“where trial has already started, the courts having
such cases shall not lose jurisdiction over the same”
is deemed to include arraignment.
Hence, effective 16 Sept. 2017, where arraignment
has already been conducted, the court presiding
over the case shall continue to have jurisdiction
over the same until it is resolved and terminated.
This is also consistent and in accordance with the
Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal
Cases.
 Art. 309 rpc amended by
section 81of ra10951: THEFT

AMOUNT PENALTY
 1. <1.2 MILLION but  1. prision mayor in its
minimum and medium
does not exceed 2.2 periods
million pesos;
 2. one year for each
 2. more than 2.2 million additional 1 million pesos
pesos
 Total penalty shall not
exceed 20 years – shall
be termed as prision
mayor or reclusion
temporal as the case
may be.
Ra 10951 : Theft
Amount stolen
 3. <600,000.00 to 1.2
million
4. <20,000.00 to 600,000.00
5. Over 5,000.00 but not
more than 20,000.00
6. 500.00 but does not
exceed 5,000.00
Penalty
 3.prision correccional –
medium and maximum
periods
 4. prision correccional –
minimum and medium
periods
 5. arresto mayor in its
medium period to prision
correciional in its
minimum period
 6. arresto mayor to its full
extent
Ra 10951: Theft
Amount stolen
 7. does not exceed 500.00
 8. does not exceed 500.00
(property of the National
Library and National
Museum)
 9. not over 500.00 and the
offender shall have acted
under the impulse of hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of
earning livelihood for the
support of himself or his
family
Penalty
 7. arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium
periods
 8. arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding 20,000.00
pesos.
 9. arresto menor in its
minimum period or a fine
not exceeding 5,000.00
Section 85: Art. 315 of the same act
as amended by Ra 4885, pd no.
1689 and pd no. 818, is hereby
further amended
Amount Penalty
 1st. amount of fraud is  1st. prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision
over 2.4 million pesos mayor in its minimum period
but does not exceed  -penalty shall be imposed in
4.4 million its maximum period adding
1 year for each additional of
 -More than 4.4 million 2 million pesos but the total
penalty which may be
pesos imposed shall not exceed 20
years.
 -penalty shall be termed as
prision mayor or reclusion
perpetua as the case may
be.
estafa

Amount Penalty
 2nd. amount of fraud is  2nd. prision correccional
over 1.2 million pesos in its minimum and
medium periods
but does not exceed
2.4 million
 3rd. over 40,000.00  3rd. arresto mayor in its
maximum period to
pesos but does not prision correccional in its
exceed 1.2 million minimum period
pesos
 4th. arresto mayor in its
 4th. does not exceed medium and maximum
40,000.00 pesos periods
 Estafa falling under the
jurisdiction of RTC
 “2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud:
 xxx
 (d) by postdating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no
funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The
failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (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 shall be prima facie
evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent acts.
“Any person who shall defraud another by
means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
as defined in par. 2(d) shall be punished
by:

Amount Penalty
 1st. Fraud is over 4.4  1st. Reclusion temporal
million pesos but does in its maximum period
not exceed 8.8 million
 - reclusion perpetua
pesos
 2nd. Reclusion temporal
 -amount exceeds the
in its minimum and
latter
medium periods
 2nd. Fraud is over 2.4
million pesos but does
not exceed 4.4 million
pesos
Estafa: section 85 2(d)

Amount Penalty
 3rd. Over 1.2 million but  3rd. Prision mayor in its
does not exceed 2.4 maximum period
million pesos
 4th. Prision mayor in its
 4th. Over 40,000.00 but medium period
not over 1.2 million
 5th. Prision mayor in its
pesos
minimum period
 5th. Amount does not
exceed 40,000.00
VALEROSO, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE, G.R.
No. 164815, Feb. 22, 2008

Ang batas ay tumitingin sa hinaharap,

hindi sa nakaraan. Gayunpaman, ang
parusa ng bagong batas ay iiral kung ito
ay pabor sa taong nagkasala na hindi
pusakal na kriminal.
 Oca circular no. 245-2017 re:
Hernan v. sandiganbayan, in
relation to ra no. 10951
 “ we have here a novel situation wherein the
judgment convicting the accused, petitioner herein,
has already become final and executory and yet
the penalty imposed thereon has been reduced by
virtue of the passage of said law. Because of this, not
only must petitioner’s sentence be modified
respecting the settled rule on the retroactive
effectivity of laws, the sentencing being favorable to
the accused, she may even apply for probation, as
long as she does not possess any ground for
disqualification. x x x
As long as favorable to the
accused
“ on a final note, judges, public
prosecutors, public attorneys,
private counsels, and such other
officers of the law are hereby
advised to similarly apply the
provisions of RA No.
10951whenever it is, by reason of
justice and equity, called for by
the facts of each case. xxx”
 Recent legislation shall find
application in the following
cases:
 1. theft  And such other
 2. qualified theft crimes, the
penalty of which
 3. estafa is dependent
 4. robbery with upon the value of
force upon things the object in
 5. malicious consideration
mischief thereof, have
been reduced.
 6. malversation
application

 “for as long as it is favorable to the

accused, said recent legislation shall
find application regardless of whether
its effectivity:
 a) comes after the time when the
judgment of conviction is rendered
and
 b) even if service of sentence has
already begun.’
 Reopening of a final and
immutable judgment
 “Indeed, when exceptional
circumstances exist, such as the
passage of the instant amendatory
law imposing penalties more lenient
and favorable to the accused, the
Court shall not hesitate to direct the
reopening of a final and immutable
judgment, the objective of which is to
correct not so much of the findings of
guilt but the applicable penalties to
be imposed.”
What to do

 1. Accused serving final  3. Under preventive

sentence: imprisonment having
 Directors of National served the minimum
Penitentiary and penalty:
Correctional to coordinate
with PAO to represent and  Counsels are ordered to
file the necessary pleading file the necessary
before this Court (SC); pleading for their
immediate release;
 2.Under preventive
imprisonment:  4. All courts, including
 Respective counsels are appellate courts, are
ordered to file the ordered to give priority
necessary pleading before to cases covered by RA
the proper courts, whether No. 10951 to avoid any
undergoing trial or appeal prolonged
and apply for bail; imprisonment.
R.A. 9165 Updates
 Constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,"

SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. -

Any person charged under any
provision of this Act regardless of
the imposable penalty shall not be
allowed to avail of the provision on
plea-bargaining.
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366,
13 December 2010

The ruling of the Supreme Court in this

case manifested the relaxation of an
otherwise stringent application of Republic
Act No. 9165 in order to serve an intent for
the enactment of the law, that is, to
rehabilitate the offender. (Resolution of
Judge Lobrigo of the Motion of Estipona)
However, by case law, the Supreme Court
allowed rehabilitation for accused
charged with possession of paraphernalia
with traces of dangerous drugs, x x x
 People v. Martinez, G.R. No.
191366,
13 December 2010
 Indeed, the accused is estopped from
assailing the legality of his arrest if he
fails to raise such issue before
arraignment. However, this waiver is
limited only to the arrest. The legality of
an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
the court over the person of the
accused. A waiver of an illegal
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during the illegal warrantless
arrest
 People v. Martinez, G.R. No.
191366,
13 December 2010
 This Court notes the practice of law enforcers
of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where
the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for
possession is only and solely in the form of
residue, being subsumed under the last
paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect,
it would be more in keeping with the intent of
the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead
in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of
drug use, provided that there is a positive
confirmatory test result as required under Sec.
15
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366,
13 December 2010

To file charges under Sec. 11

on the basis of residue alone
would frustrate the objective
of the law to rehabilitate drug
users and provide them with
an opportunity to recover for
a second chance at life.
Purpose of R.A. 9165

The Court sees merit in the

argument of the accused that
it is also the intendment of the
law, R.A. No. 9165, to
rehabilitate an accused of a
drug offense.
 Plea bargaining in criminal
cases

 Refresher:
 Plea bargaining, as a rule and a practice,
has been existing in our jurisdiction since July
1, 1940, when the 1940 Rules took effect.
Section 4, Rule 114 (Pleas) of which stated:
 SEC. 4. Plea of guilty of lesser offense. - The
defendant, with the consent of the court and
of the fiscal, may plead guilty of any lesser
offense than that charged which is
necessarily included in the offense charged
in the complaint or information.
Refresher

 When the 1964 Rules became effective

on January 1, 1964, the same provision
was retained under Rule 118 (Pleas).
Subsequently, with the effectivity of the
1985 Rules on January 1, 1985, the
provision on plea of guilty to a lesser
offense was amended. Section 2, Rule
116 provided:
 Refresher: Rules on January 1, 1985,
Section 2, Rule 116 provided:

 SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. -

The accused with the consent of the
offended party and the fiscal, may be
allowed by the trial court to plead guilty
to a lesser offense, regardless of whether
or not it is necessarily included in the
crime charged, or is cognizable by a
court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial
court. No amendment of the complaint
or information is necessary.
Refresher

 As well, the term "plea bargaining" was first mentioned

and expressly required during pre-trial. Section 2, Rule
118 mandated:
 SEC. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. - The pre-trial
conference shall consider the following:
 (a) Plea bargaining
 (b) Stipulation of facts
 (c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties
 (d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
 (e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and
expeditious trial
Refresher

 The 1985 Rules was later amended. While

the wordings of Section 2, Rule 118 was
retained, Section 2, Rule 116 was
modified in 1987. A second paragraph
was added, stating that "[a] conviction
under this plea shall be equivalent to a
conviction of the offense charged for
purposes of double jeopardy."
 Refresher

 When R.A. No. 8493 ("Speedy Trial Act of

1998") was enacted, Section 2, Rule 118 of
the Rules was substantially adopted. Section
2 of the law required that plea bargaining
and other matters that will promote a fair and
expeditious trial are to be considered during
pre-trial conference in all criminal cases
cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and the
Sandiganbayan.
 Refresher:Currently, the pertinent
rules on plea bargaining under the
2000 Rules are quoted below:
 RULE 116 (Arraignment and Plea):

SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - At

arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed
by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may
still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense
after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No
amendment of the complaint or information is
necessary. (Sec. 4, Cir. 38-98)
 RULE 118 (Pre-trial)

 SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In

all criminal cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and
within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in
special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court,
order a pre-trial conference to consider the
following:
Refresher: pre-trial conference
to consider the following:

 a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the
parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of
evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the
accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense; and
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and
expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects
of the case. (Sec. 2 & 3, Cir. 38-98)
Plea Bargaining: 4 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). See also Neypes v.
Court of Appeals, 506 Phil. 613, 626 (2005) and San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. v.
CA, supra note 38, at 415-416.

48See Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (1978); Blackledge v. Allison, 431
U.S. 63 (1977); and the Majority Opinion and Mr. Justice Douglas'
Concurring Opinion in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).
the provision of a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases in all courts that the
rules on plea bargaining was introduced.
As a way of disposing criminal charges by
agreement of the parties, plea bargaining
is considered to be an "important,"
"essential," "highly desirable," and
"legitimate" component of the
administration of justice. Some of its
salutary effects include:
 Salutary Effects of plea
bargaining
 For a defendant who sees slight
possibility of acquittal, the
advantages of pleading guilty and
limiting the probable penalty are
obvious, his exposure is reduced,
the correctional processes can
begin immediately, and the
practical burdens of a trial are
eliminated.
 Salutary Effects of plea
bargaining
 For the State there are also advantages - the
more promptly imposed punishment after an
admission of guilt may more effectively attain
the objectives of punishment; and with the
avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and
prosecutorial resources are conserved for
those cases in which there is a substantial issue
of the defendant's guilt or in which there is
substantial doubt that the State can sustain its
burden of proof. (Brady v. United States, 397
U.S. 742, 752 [1970])
mutuality of advantage

 Plea bargaining operates as a means to

implement an existing right by regulating
the judicial process for enforcing rights
and duties recognized by substantive
law and for justly administering remedy
and redress for a disregard or infraction
of them.
Essence of Plea bargaining

 The essence of the agreement is that

both the prosecution and the defense
make concessions to avoid potential
losses. (Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S.
411 (1990).
Properly administered, plea bargaining
is to be encouraged because the chief
virtues of the system - speed, economy,
and finality - can benefit the accused,
the offended party, the prosecution,
and the court.
 On whether Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165 violates the equal protection
clause
 G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 - SALVADOR
ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA, Petitioner, v. HON. FRANK E.
LOBRIGO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 3, LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY, AND PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 - SALVADOR
ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA, Petitioner, v. HON. FRANK E.
LOBRIGO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 3, LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY, AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

 We deem it proper to declare as

invalid the prohibition against plea
bargaining on drug cases until and
unless it is made part of the rules of
procedure through an administrative
circular duly issued for the purpose.
Estipona Case

 Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is declared

unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making
authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5),
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
 Oca Circular no. 215-2017
October 23, 2017
Enjoining all judges to refrain
from acting on motions and
requests for plea bargaining in
drug cases until the Court has
decided the case of Estipona
v. Judge Lobrigo with finality.
 Oca Circular no. 09-2018
January 17,2018 Subject: Plea Bargaining in Drug
Cases Pursuant to Estipona v, Judge Lobrigo, G.R.
No. 226679, 15 August 2017

 In view of the issuance of the Entry

of Judgment in Estipona v. Judge
Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, 15 August
2017, all concerned are INFORMED
that the Decision of the Court in
the instant case has become final
and executory on 7 November
2017.
 Accordingly, OCA Circular No.
215-2017, dated 23 October 2017,
enjoining all judges to refrain from
acting on motions and requests for
plea bargaining in drug cases until
the Court has decided the case of
Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo with
finality is hereby REVOKED.
DOJ guidelines: Department
Circular No. 061
GUIDELINES ON PLEA BARGAINING
AGREEMENT FOR R.A. NO. 9165
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
“COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2000”
R.A. 9165
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165-
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002
“It is the policy of the State to
safeguard the integrity and well
being of its citizenry particularly the
youth, from the harmful effects of
dangerous drugs on their physical
and mental well-being, and to
defend the same against acts or
omissions detrimental to their
development and preservation.”*
*
by Judge Rowena Adlawan, RTC Davao
On Selling (Sec. 5) (Pp vs
Malakas, Dec. 8, 1993 and Pp vs
Uson, July 5, 1993)*
** even regular **although
buyers and users negotiation need
inform, impliedly or not be lengthy nor
expressly, the drug is there a need for
merchant on the the haggling of the
quantity they are price, the drug
buying so that he peddler should be
will know how given the slightest
much to deliver hint at least on the
quantity and the
costs of the drug
being purchased
 What to establish

** Identification of the drugs in open court by the poseur-buyer

Chain of Custody must be established with clarity.

** Preserve and maintain the

integrity of the drug from the

time it has come to the possession

of the poseur-buyer up to the time it

was examined by the forensic chemist.*

 Raid by virtue of Search
Warrant
it must be shown that the requirement in the conduct of a raid by
virtue of a search warrant is complied.
“No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be
made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or
any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality. (Sec. 8, Rule 126)
Two witness rule

The 2-witness rule applies only in the absence of

the lawful occupants of the premises
searched.(Al-Ghoul vs Court of Appeals, 364
SCRA 363)*
What happens to specimen
after trial?
Whether it is for acquittal or conviction,
the law mandates that after the
promulgation, the trial prosecutor is
duty bound to request by leave of
court to turn over the drugs to the PDEA
for their proper disposition.
 Is the presentation of the buy bust money an
indespensable exhibit?
Ans: No. “As to the non-presentation of
the buy-bust money, neither law nor
jurisprudence require the presentation
of any of the money used in a buy-
bust operation” (People vs Willy Yang,
Feb. 16, 2004)*
What is a “decoy solicitation”?
Is it allowed?

“A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs

from the accused during a buy-bust
operation, or what is known as “decoy
solicitation”, is not prohibited by law and
does not render invalid the buy-bust
operations.xxx” (People vs Botanes, June
17, 2008)
 Does the absence of a prior
surveillance affect the validity of an
entrapment operation
Ans: No. “Settled is the rule that prior
surveillance is not a pre-requisite for
the validity of an entrapment
operation especially so if the buy-
bust team is accompanied by the
informant. The police officers may
decide that time is of the essence
and dispense with the need of prior
surveillance”.(Norgie Cruz vs People,
Feb. 6, 2009)*
 Property or income derived from
Illegal drugs Sec. 20 R.A 9165

During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial

Court, no property, or income derived therefrom, which
may be confiscated and forfeited, shall be disposed,
alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodia
legis and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the
same. (PDEA v. Brodett, et al., G.R. No. 196390, Sept. 28,
2011)
Buy bust money

The genuine money used in the buy bust

operation as well as the genuine money
confiscated from both accused are
ordered escheated in favor of the
government and accordingly transmitted
to the National Treasury for proper
disposition. (emphasis supplied)*
 Strict compliance with Sec.
20 R.A. 9165
We rule that henceforth the Regional Trial Courts shall
comply strictly with the provisions of Section 20 of R.A.
No. 9165, and should not release articles, whether
drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and
before the rendition of the judgment, even if owned
by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.
 Sec. 20: After conviction

After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the

appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall
immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation and
forfeiture of all the proceeds of the offense and all the
assets and properties of the accused either owned or held
by him or in the name of some other persons if the same
shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion to his/her
lawful income
Sec. 20 : Vehicles

That if the forfeited property is a vehicle,

the same shall be auctioned off not later
than five (5) days upon order of
confiscation or forfeiture.
 Every
link
should be established Sec. 21
The purpose of the law in requiring the prosecution
to present the testimony of the police officers who
handled the substance in court is to ascertain that
the integrity and identity of the substance is
preserved; that the police officers and laboratory
technician who handled the seized substance,
undertook precautionary measures to preserve the
identity and integrity of the substance. (People v.
Balibay, G.R. No. 202701, Sept. 10, 2014) *
 RODRIGO (BONTOS) y BELA TORRE
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
188024, June 05, 2013
 Inventory of dangerous drugs seized. The procedure
set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is intended precisely
to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs
seized. This provision requires that upon seizure of
illegal drug items, the apprehending team having
initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical
inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs
thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom
these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a
representative from the media and the Department of
Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all
be required to sign the inventory and be given copies
thereof.*
 Section 21, RA 9165- matter
of substantive law
 This Court has emphasized the import of Section
21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates
strict compliance. It was laid down by Congress
as a safety precaution against potential abuses
by law enforcement agents who might fail to
appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by
those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or
possession of illegal drugs. Under the principle that
penal laws are strictly construed against the
government, stringent compliance therewith is
fully justified.*
 *TRENDS & ISSUES on
DRUGS CASES

Number 1: No textbook method

of conducting a buy-bust. The Court has
left to the discretion of police authorities
the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug dealers. (Pp vs Botanes,
G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008)
*Trends and Issues…

Number 2: Prior surveillance or

a test buy is not a prerequisite for the
validity of an entrapment operation
especially if the buy-bust team is
accompanied by an informant (Norgie vs
Cruz, Feb. 6, 2009)
*Trends and issues…

Number 3: Presumption of Regularity.

Credence is usually given to prosecution witnesses
who are police officers for they are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner
unless there is evidence to the contrary. (Pp vs
Llamado, March 13, 2009)
When challenged by the evidence of a flawed
chain of custody, the presumption of regularity
cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence
of the accused. (People v. Peralta, G.R. No.
173477, February 26, 2010)
*Trends and issues…

Number 4: The presentation of the

marked money is not
indispensable but only
corroborative

Number 5: The failure of the PDEA

to record the marked money or
boodle money is not fatal.
*Trends and issues…

Number 6: The failure to present

the asset does not prejudice
the case of the State for as long
as all the elements of sale is duly
proven (People v. Clemente)
*Trends and issues…

Number 7: The simultaneous

exchange of the marked money
and the drug not necessary. There
is no rule of law which requires
that there must be a simultaneous
exchange of the marked money
and the drug between the
poseur-buyer and seller. (Pp vs
Clemente et.al., June 27, 2008)
*Trends and issues…

Number 8: The non presentation

of the pre-operation and post operation
report is not fatal as they are not
indispensable in a buy-bust operation. (Pp
vs Dumlao, August 20, 2008)
Trends and issues…

Number 9. People v. Sanchez (590 Phil.

214, 240-241 (2008)
explains that RA 9165 does not specify a
time frame for “immediate marking,” or
where said marking should be done

Marking upon immediate confiscation

contemplates even marking at the
nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team.
 People vs Marissa Marcelo,
G.R. No. 181541, August 18,
2014.
The Presentation of the Poseur-Buyer is not
Indispensable.

SC: His testimony can therefore be

dispensed with since the illicit transaction
was actually witnessed and adequately
proved by the prosecution witnesses.
People vs Andaya, G.R. No.
183700, October 13, 2014
Non-presentation of the asset – FATAL to the case of the
prosecution

SC: “x x x However, if the arresting lawmen arrested

the accused based on the pre-arranged signal
from the confidential informant who acted as the
poseur buyer, his non-presentation must be
credibly explained and the transaction established
by other ways in order to satisfy the quantum of
proof beyond reasonable doubt because the
arresting lawmen did not themselves participate in
the buy-bust transaction with the accused.”
 *What if there is lack of proper
coordination with the PDEA?

PP vs Figueroa, April 11, 2012

It is settled that Section 86 of

Republic Act No. 9165
does not invalidate
operations on account of
the law enforcers’ failure
to maintain close
coordination with the
PDEA.
Sec. 86 R.A. 9165

Section 86, as well as the IRR is silent as to the

consequences of the failure on the part of the law
enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to
conducting a buy-bust operation.

“xxxx This Court consequently held that “this silence

[cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make
an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or
evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest is
inadmissible.
Section 86

 This Court has ruled in other cases that

nothing in Section 86 states that non-
coordination with the PDEA renders the
buy-bust operation invalid. (People v.
Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 403-405 (2014) as
cited in the case of People v. Caiz, G.R.
No. 215340, July 13, 2016)
Absence of marked money
 People vs Manuelita Ampatuan, Mastor
Sarip et.al., G.R. No. 188707, July 30, 2014

The absence of marked money does not

run counter to the presented proof of
illegal sale of shabu. Lack of marked
money is not an element to the crime of
illegal sale of shabu. The marked money
used in the buy-bust operation, although
having evidentiary value, is not vital to the
prosecution of the case.
Evidentiary value of marked
money
It is merely corroborative in nature. What is
material to the prosecution of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
illegal sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti as evidence. In the case at
bar, the prosecution duly established both
(Ibid)
Case on Rights of CICL
 RA 10630

R.A. 10630 (October 3, 2013): AN ACT

STRENGTHENING THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE “JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006” AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
RA 10630

This Act strengthened the Juvenile Justice System in

the Philippines. The Act maintained the exemption
from criminal liability of children aged fifteen (15)
years old. However, a child who is above 12 years
of age up to 15 years of age and who commits
parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and
serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or
raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive
arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or
occupant is killed or raped or offenses under
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than 12
years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a
neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603,
as amended *
 R.A. 10630 (October 3, 2013

 the child shall be mandatorily placed in a

special facility within the youth care faculty or
Bahay Pag-asa called Intensive Juvenile
Intervention and Support Center. Moreover,
repeat offenders, or children who have
committed crimes more than three times, would
also be considered as neglected children and,
as such, must undergo intervention programs
supervised by the local social welfare and
development officers. The law would impose the
maximum penalty for those who exploit children
such as syndicates, for the commission of
criminal offenses.*
Section 68. Children Who Have Been
Convicted and are Serving
Sentences. (R.A. 9344 as amended)
Persons who have been convicted and are
serving sentence at the time of the effectivity
of this Act, and who were below the age of
eighteen (18) years at the time of the
commission of the offense for which they were
convicted and are serving sentence, shall
likewise benefit from the retroactive
application of this Act. They shall be entitled to
appropriate dispositions provided under this
Act and their sentences shall be adjusted
accordingly. They shall be immediately
released if they are so qualified under this Act
or other applicable laws.
Age of criminal responsibility; Section
3, R.A. 10630 amended Section 6,
R.A. 9433
- 15 y/o or under at the time of the
commission of the offense:

- exempted from criminal liability but

subjected to intervention program;

- Not exempt from civil liability borne by

parents/child. Sec. 6, R.A. 9344; Sec. 3
R.A. 10630 (See Art. 219 FC)
 RA 9344, Jurisprudence: Sierra v.
People, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009

x x x this law modifies as well the minimum age

limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor
offenders; it changed what paragraphs 2 and
3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended, previously provided - i.e.,
from "under nine years of age" and "above
nine years of age and under fifteen" (who
acted without discernment) - to "fifteen years
old or under" and "above fifteen but below 18"
(who acted without discernment) in
determining exemption from criminal liability
 RA 9344, Jurisprudence: Sierra v.
People, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009

In providing exemption, the new law - as the old

paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the RPC did -
presumes that the minor offenders completely lack
the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, so
that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for
which they cannot be held accountable. The
current law also drew its changes from the principle
of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers
the ages 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives
minors of these ages a chance to right their wrong
through diversion and intervention measures.
Section4,q
Jurisprudence: Sierra v. People,
G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009

In tackling the issues of age and

minority, we stress at the outset
that the ages of both the
petitioner and the complaining
victim are material and are at
issue.
 *Serious crimes committed
by children
 (1) parricide  (6) destructive arson
 (2) murder  (7) rape
 (3) infanticide  (8) carnapping where
the driver or occupant
 (4) kidnapping and
was killed or raped
serious illegal detention
where the victim is  (9) offenses under RA
killed or raped No. 9165 punishable by
more than than12 years
 (5) robbery with
of imprisonment
homicide or rape
*Serious crimes committed by
children exempt from criminal
responsibility
(1) Deemed  (2) Mandatorily
placed in a
neglected special facility
child under within the youth
Presidential care faculty or
Decree No. ‘Bahay Pag-asa’
called the
603, as Intensive Juvenile
amended Intervention and
Support Center
(UISC)
 Repetition of Offense of Children
above 12 up to 15
Provided that
the child was
previously  (1) Deemed
subjected to neglected child
community- under P.D. No. 603, as
based amended, and
intervention  (2) Undergo an
program intensive intervention
program supervised
by by the LSWDO
Jurisprudence:Ortega v. People,
G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008

On appeal, R. A. 9344 took

effect, hence an issue was
raised as to whether the
pertinent provisions of R.A. No.
9344 apply to petitioner's case,
considering that at the time he
committed the alleged rape, he
was merely 14 years old.
 Jurisprudence:Ortega v.
People (Ibid)
“Although there is a crime committed, no
criminal liability attaches. Sec. 6 of RA
9344 exempts a child below fifteen from
criminal liability if at the time of the
commission of the crime he is below
fifteen (15) years of age. Upon
assessment, the offender will be released
to the custody of his parents or be
referred to intervention programs.”
 SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been
Convicted and are Serving Sentence

1. Persons who have been convicted and are serving

sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act;
2. who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the
time the commission of the offense for which they were
convicted and are serving sentence;
3. shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of
this Act;
4. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions
provided under this Act and their sentences shall be
adjusted accordingly;
5. They shall be immediately released if they are so
qualified under this Act or other applicable law.
 Jurisprudence: Robert Sierra v.
People, G.R. No. 182941, July 03,
2009
That the petitioner committed the
rape before R.A. No. 9344 took
effect and that he is no longer a
minor (he was already 20 years old
when he took the stand) will not bar
him from enjoying the benefit of
total exemption that Section 6 of
R.A. No. 9344 grants.
 Jurisprudence: Burden of
Prosecution:People v. Villarama, G.R. No.
139211, February 12, 2003
If the prosecution
has a burden
related to age,
this burden relates
to proof of the
age of the victim
as a circumstance
that qualifies the crime of
rape.
 People vs. Tundag (345 SCRA 453
[2000] as cited in People v. Villarama

The Court declared that, in cases calling

for a conviction of rape in its qualified
form, the age of the victim, without
qualification, is not a matter of judicial
notice, whether mandatory or
discretionary. Judicial notice of the issue of
age without the requisite hearing under
Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules on
evidence would not be sufficient to
establish the age of the victim to warrant
the imposition of the death penalty.
RA 8294 as amended by
R.A. 10591
R.A. 10591OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
“COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT
 R.A. 10591 (May 29, 2013):
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT
A comprehensive law regulating
the ownership, possession, carrying,
manufacture, dealing in and importation
of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof,
in order to provide legal support to law
enforcement agencies in
their campaign against crime, stop the
proliferation of illegal firearms or
weapons and the illegal manufacture of
firearms or weapons, ammunition and
parts thereof.*
CELINO, SR., VS. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.,
G.R. No. 170562, June 29, 2007)

In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those

enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal
possession of firearm should be quashed because the
illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried
together with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or
absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d'etat. Conversely, when the
other offense involved is not one of those enumerated
under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal
possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
 Jurisprudence: (Ibid)

Failure to offer an unlicensed

firearm as evidence is not fatal
provided there is competent
testimony as to its existence.
Jurisprudence: (Ibid)

We hasten to add that there may also be conviction

where an unlicensed firearm is presented during trial but
through inadvertence, negligence, or fortuitous event
(for example, if it is lost), it is not offered in evidence, as
long as there is competent testimony as to its existence.
R.A. 10591 Salient Features

“Among the salient features of the new firearms law is its

repeal of the sweeping “no other crime” clause under
the Sec.1 of P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294. A
person is not liable for violation of the old firearms law,
(say, illegal possession of firearm) if he also committed
another crime (like violation of COMELEC gun ban or
even a lighter offense of Alarms and Scandals under the
Revised Penal Code). “
Salient Features

SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the

Commission of a Crime. – The use of a
loose firearm, when inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under
the Revised Penal Code or other special
laws, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance:
Section 29

:Provided, further, That if the crime

committed with the use of a loose firearm
is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed
under the preceding section for illegal
possession of firearms, the penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum period shall
be imposed in addition to the penalty for
the crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws of which
he/she is found guilty.
SEC. 30. Liability of Juridical
Person
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum to prision
mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon the
owner, president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of/any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity who shall willfully or knowingly allow
any of the firearms owned by such firm, company,
corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons
found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
section, or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use
unregistered firearm or firearms without any legal
authority to be carried outside of their residence in the
course of their employment.
SEC. 31. Absence of Permit to
Carry Outside of Residence

The penalty of prision correccional and a fine of Ten

thousand pesos (P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person who is licensed to own a firearm but who shall
carry the registered firearm
outside his/her residence
without any legal authority therefor.
RA10591

 Section 29 (2nd  Section 29 (3rd Par.)

Par.)  If the crime is
 If the violation of committed by the
this Act is in person without
using the loose
furtherance of, or
firearm, the
incident to, or in
violation of this Act
connection with shall be considered
the crime of as a distinct and
rebellion of separate offense.
insurrection, or
attempted coup
d’ etat, such
RA 10932: An act strengthening the anti-
hospital deposit law by increasing the
penalties for the refusal of hospitals and
medical clinics to administer appropriate
initial
 Sectionmedical
1. treatment and support
 Prohibited Acts: in
emergency
 or,serious
It shall be unlawful for: cases amending BP
 -request
702
 as amended by ra 
-proprietor 8344
-solicit
 -director  -demand or accept
any deposit or any
 -manager or any other
other form of advance
officer
payment as a
 -medical practitioner or prerequisite for
employee of hospital or administering basic
medical clinic emergency care
 -refuse to administer
medical treatment
Section 4: Penalties

 Persons liable:  (1) Not less than 6

(1) Any official, months and 1
medical day but not more
practitioner or than 2 years and
employee of the 4 months or a fine
hospital or of not less that
medical clinic 100k but not
(2) Director or officer more than 300k or
who formulate the both at the
policy discretion of the
court;
 (2) if committed
RA No. 10906 Anti-Mail Order
Spouse Act-lapsed into law on July
21, 2016 without the signature of
the
 President in
Section 3. accordance
 (b) with
Exhibit,
Art. VI, SecActs:
Prohibited 27(1) –Constitution
advertise, publish,
 (a) engage in print, or distribute,
any business or or cause the
scheme for exhibition,
money, profit, advertisement,
material, publication,
economic, or printing or
other distribution of
consideration brochures, flyers
which has for its or propaganda
purpose the materials which
Section 3 Prohibited Acts

 (c) Solicit, enlist, or in  (d) to use the postal

any manner, attract service of any
or induce any Filipino website on the
to become a internet to promote
member in any club the prohibited acts
or association whose under this section.
objective is to match
Filipino nationals to
foreign nationals for
the purpose of
marriage or common
law partnership for a
fee
Penalties

 Imprisonment of 15  Syndicated or
years and a fine of committed on a
not less than large scale:
P500,000.00 but not  20 years
more than 1 million imprisonment and
pesos. a fine of not less
 Persons: than 2million pesos
 -committed but not more than
5 million
 -abet or cooperate
in the execution
 Civil indemnity: People v.
Jugueta, Gr. No. 202124,

April 5, 2016
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious
Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes
involving death of a victim where the penalty consists
of indivisible penalties:
 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
 A. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
 Civil Indemnity

Where the crime committed was not consummated:

a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
ii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
Civil Indemnity

 B. Attempted:
 i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
 ii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
 iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
Civil Indemnity

 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,

other than the above-mentioned:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
Civil Indemnity

 2.2 Where the crime committed was not

consummated:
 a. Frustrated:
 i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
 ii. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
 iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
Civil Indemnity

 b. Attempted:
 i. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
 ii. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
 iii. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
 Civil Indemnity: II. For Simple
Rape/Qualified Rape:
 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages111 – ₱100,000.00
 Civil Indemnity: II. For Simple
Rape/Qualified Rape:
 1.2 Where the crime committed was not
consummated but merely attempted:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
Civil Indemnity: II. For Simple
Rape/Qualified Rape:
 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
 Civil Indemnity: II. For Simple
Rape/Qualified Rape:
 2.2 Where the crime committed was not
consummated, but merely attempted:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
 III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse results,
the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence
and sexual abuse; and the number of victims where the
penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
 III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse results,
the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence
and sexual abuse; and the number of victims where the
 1.2 Where penalty consists
the penalty of indivisible
imposed is reclusionpenalties:
perpetua, other than
the above-mentioned:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00

 The above Rules apply to every victim who dies

as a result of the crime committed. In other
complex crimes where death does not result, like
in Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil
indemnity, moral and exemplary damages
depend on the prescribed penalty and the
penalty imposed, as the case may be.
 Civil Indemnity

 IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery

with Homicide,Robbery with Rape,Robbery
with Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with
Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with
Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or
Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery
with Homicide Qualified Piracy, Arson with
Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape,
Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes with
death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the
composite crimes, where the penalty
consists of indivisible penalties:
 1.1 Where the penalty imposed
is Death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because
of RA 9346:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00

 In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,

the amount of damages is the same as
the above if the penalty imposed is
Death but reduced to reclusion
perpetua although death did not occur.
 1.2 For the victims who suffered
mortal/fatal wounds and could have
died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
awarded:
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages –
₱75,000.00
1.3 For the victims who suffered
non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00

b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages –
₱50,000.00
 2.1 Where the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua, other than
the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages –
₱75,000.00
In Robbery with Intentional
Mutilation, the amount of
damages is the same as the
above if the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua.
 2.2 For the victims who suffered
mortal/fatal wounds and could have
died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
awarded:
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages –
₱50,000.00
2.3 For the victims who suffered
non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

 a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00

 b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
 In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the
amount of damages shall likewise be
dependent on the nature/severity of
the wounds sustained, whether fatal
or non-fatal.
Civil Indemnity

 Where the component crime is rape,

the above Rules shall likewise apply,
and that for every additional rape
committed, whether against the
same victim or other victims, the
victims shall be entitled to the same
damages unless the other crimes of
rape are treated as separate crimes,
in which case, the damages
awarded to simple rape/qualified
rape shall apply.
Civil Indemnity

V. In other crimes that result in the

death of a victim and the penalty
consists of divisible penalties, i.e.,
Homicide, Death under Tumultuous
Affray, Infanticide to conceal the
dishonour of the offender,Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide,
Duel, Intentional Abortion and
Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
 1.1 Where the crime was
consummated:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
 1.2 Where the crime committed was not
consummated, except those crimes
where there are no stages, i.e., Reckless
Imprudence and Death under
 a. Frustrated:
tumultuous affray:
 i. Civil indemnity – ₱30,000.00
 ii. Moral damages – ₱30,000.00
 b. Attempted:
 i. Civil indemnity – ₱20,000.00
 ii. Moral damages – ₱20,000.00
 If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the
trial, even if not alleged in the Information,128 in addition
to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and
moral damages, the amount of ₱50,000.00 exemplary
damages for consummated; ₱30,000.00 for frustrated;
and ₱20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded.
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the
imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua and death occurs in the course
of the rebellion, the heirs of those who
 a. Civil
died indemnity – ₱100,000.00
are entitled to the following:
 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
 B. For the victims who suffered
mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the
rebellion and could have died if not for a
timely medical intervention, the following
 a. Civil indemnity
shall– ₱75,000.00
be awarded:
 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
 C. For the victims who suffered
non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

 a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00

 b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
 c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
Civil indemnity

 VII. In all of the above instances, when no

documentary evidence of burial or funeral
expenses is presented in court, the amount
of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages shall
be awarded.
 Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that
the minimum amount for awards of civil
indemnity is P3,000.00, but does not provide
for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum
amount cannot be changed, increasing the
amount awarded as civil indemnity can be
validly modified and increased when the
present circumstance warrants it