Criminallaw Loanzon

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
r Pointers in Criminal Law

Ba 2015 Bar Examinations
e s
l
bWith the Assistance of DLSU College of Law Central Bar Operations
R o
n
a I. Preliminaries a r
h B Law?
s
C A. (1) Generality will apply toepeople who commit any criminal act committed within the territory of
Q. What is the nature and scope of Criminal
b l deal with the characteristic of the person accused of committing the

the Philippines and will generally
crime;
R o will have jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its territory except as
n and laws of preferential application and r
(2) Territoriality Philippines
a the crime was committed; and a

provided for in treaties will normally deal with the characteristic
h
of the place where
B
C the date of the passage of the law andegive s it retroactive effect (a) if it is favorable to the
(3) Prospectivity based on Art.22 of RPC, the appreciation of the crime committed must take into
accused; and (b) if the accused is not a habitual l

consideration
b delinquent.
Roare relevant to Criminal Law?

an r
Q. What provisions of the Bill of Rights
B a
h protection clause;
A. The Bill of Rights
C
Sec. 1: due process and equal
s
e to admission in evidence of
extrajudicial admissions, warrantless arrest, warrantless search andl
Sec. 2: right against illegal arrest, illegal search and seizure (in relation
o b seizure and planted evidence);
Ra religion);
Sec. 3: privacy of communications (in relation to Wire Tapping Law);
n
Sec. 5: freedom of religion (in relation to crime offending
a a r
detention committed by a public officer or ah B
Sec. 6: liberty of abode (in relation to restraint of travel (issuance of Hold Departure Order; illegal
Sec.11: free access to courts (in relationCto right to appropriate legal representation); es
private individual);
Sec. 12: (1) and (3) Miranda rights (in relation to extrajudicial confessions and when
b l one can become a
Human Torture Act of 2009;
R o
state witness), (2) and (4) Rights while under detention (in relation to Human Security Act of 2007 and
n Rebellion, etc. Please attention ar

abail);
Sec. 13: Right to bail (in relation to non-bailable offenses like Plunder,
to JPE v. Sandiganbayan where a new ground was invoked to grant
h B
C
Sec. 14: Presumption of innocence (in relation to degree of proof required to convict);
e s
Sec. 15: Limitation on the privilege of habeas corpus;
b l
Ro
Sec. 16: Right to speedy trial;
anRPC, Probation
Sec.17: Right against self-incrimination;
Sec. 18: Nature of penalty of imprisonment (in relation to imposition of penalties under
Law, Indeterminate Sentence Law, Diversion and Rehabilitation);
Sec. 19: Nature fines and physical detention in case of conviction (in relationC h
to appreciation of attending
circumstances in the commission of the crime, suspension of death penalty);
Sec. 20: Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax;
Sec. 21: Prohibition against double jeopardy; and
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
Sec. 22: Prohibition against ex post fact law/ bill of attainder.
Q. Fr. Robert Gonzales was undergoing preliminary investigation and was about to attend an
r
engagement abroad. Will the writ of amparo lie to a petitioner who is undergoing preliminary
a
investigation for rebellion? De Castro, J.
B
A. No. Citing Manalo v. President Arroyo, the Court said: xxx As the Amparo Rule was intended to
e s
address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its
l
present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. "Extralegal killings" are "killings
o b
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings." On the
other hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention
R
or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with
n r
the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or
a a
whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places
B
C h such persons outside the protection of law." Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, 606 SCRA 580 (2013)
s
e
l by theofadministration.
b
Q. The Senate requested the appearance certain military officers to attend its congressional inquiry
o
on alleged election fraud committed The President did not allow them to attend
R
such hearing. Is the freedom of movement violated if the President restricts the appearance of key
A. No. The commander-in-chief provision in the Constitution isr

n
military officers to attend congressional inquiries?
which beginsa a denominated as Section 18, Article VII,
h B
with the simple declaration that "[t]he President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
C5, Article XVI, the commander-in-chief clause

armed forces
e s
of the Philippines x x x" Outside explicit constitutional limitations, such as those found in
lthe travel, movementtheandarmed

Section vests on the President, as commander-in-chief,
absolute authority over the persons and actions
b of the members of forces. Such authority
Ro under civilian law.

includes the ability of the President to restrict speech of military officers,
activities which may otherwise be sanctioned
anwho was ordered arrested by the Sandiganbayan. a r His plea for

B charged with plunder
Ch
Q. JPE is one of the senators
provisional liberty was denied
s
by the trial court. May such public officer
ex x [U]nless allowance of bail is
l
punishable with reclusion perpetua and when evidence of guilt is strong still be entitled to bail?
A. Yes. Citing Dela Rama v. The Peoples Court, the Court said:
b
is a circumstance, and the humanity of the law makes it ao
forbidden by law in the particular case, the illness of the prisoner, independently of the merits of the case,
R to exercise its discretion to admit the prisoner
consideration which should, regardless of the
to bail; n
charge and the stage of the proceeding, influence the court
a x x
a r x
condition be properly addressed and betterh
B
It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical
C preparation of his defense but, moreeimportantly, s

attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his
guarantee his appearance in court for the trial. Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan,lAugust 18, 2015
choice. This will not only aid in his adequate will
o b
R
Q. What is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of
drug-related case? De Castro, J.
a n innocence of the accused in a
a r
h
innocence in favor of the accused, it should, in drug-related cases, prove not only the acquisition of the s
A. In order for the prosecution to successfully overturn the constitutionally mandated presumption of B
C e
subject specimens through a legitimate buy-bust operation, but likewise the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti by a substantially unbroken chain in the custody of said specimens from their acquisition
b lto
the necessary laboratory examination. People v. Meriam Guru, 684 SCRA 544 (2012)
R o
Q. Accused-appellant appealed his conviction alleging that prosecution largely hinged
a nits evidence on
legitimate method of apprenhending criminals? De Castro, J.
C h
the buy-bust operations conducted by the law enforcers. Is entrapment sanctioned by law as a
A. Yes. Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its
purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their plan. People v. Legaspi, 710 SCRA
284 (2013)
Q. Distinguish entrapment from instigation. De Castro, J.

A. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission
r
of the offense. In such case, the instigators become co-principals themselves. Where the criminal intent
a
originates in the mind of the instigating person and the accused is lured into the commission of the
B
offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is instigation and no conviction may be had. People v.
s
Legaspi, 710 SCRA 284 (2013)
l e
b
Q. Fernando appealed his conviction for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He said the
o
R
prosecution failed to show with moral certainty that the law enforcers proved his guilt. How should
inculpatory facts be appreciated to establish the guilt of the accused? De Castro, J.
n
a and another with his guilt, the evidence thusa
A. Where the inculpatory facts admit of several rinterpretations, one consistent with accuseds innocence
h B one fact, and that fact a material one, cannot be safely relied
adduced failed to meet the test of moral certainty. An honest
C upon s
witness, who has sufficient memory to state
eSuch a witness may be honest, but his testimony is not reliable. People
l
as such weakness of memory not only leaves the case incomplete, but throws doubt upon the
b
accuracy of the statements made.
o
v. De los Reyes, 656 SCRA 417 (2011)
Q. What are then

R
a
elements of double jeopardy?
a r
and (3) ah Bfirst. A first jeopardy attaches only after the
A. Double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached; (2) it has been validly terminated;
s
Chas been acquitted or convicted, or the caseehas been dismissed or otherwise terminated without
second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the
lv. indictment
accused
b
his express consent, by a competent court in a valid for which the accused has entered a valid
Ro
plea during arraignment. Saturnino C. Ocampo Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830,
February 11, 2014
anfor violation of an ordinance, may beBheld araccountable again

under a national law? h
Q. If one has been convicted
C
A. No. Requisites of Double Jeopardy (Ivler v. San Pedro, e
s
b l G.R. No. 172716, November 17,
Ro as set forth in the information.

2010):
1. Identity of the elements of the crime committed
2. Accused has entered his plea.
a npresented evidence. a r
B
3. Prosecution and the defense have
h
4. The court has ruled on the merits.
C s
e
5. The decision has become final and executory.
Other relevant Supreme Court rulings: b l

R o
Court explained the general rule that the grant of a demurrer ton r
People v. Dante Tan G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010: In People v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme
a evidence operates as an acquittal
B a
C h
and is, thus, final and unappealable. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases is "filed after the
it calls "for an appreciation of the s
e
prosecution had rested its case," and when the same is granted,
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal ofl
evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable
o b the
R
accused.
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, October 19, 2011: It is a

n
h
well-settled that in
C of the offense, the

criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the
private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution
complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, only the OSG, and not the private offended
party, has the authority to question the order granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal
case.
It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal
of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the
ar
State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal
B
only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.
s
The exception where the acquittal may be questioned based on denial of the State's right to due
l e
process can be found in Galman v. Sandiganbayan (1986)
o b
R
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18, 2011:
a n a r
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished
for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this provision of the
h B
Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused.
C e s
b l tree doctrine?
Q. What is the fruit of the poisonous
houses, papers and R

o in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
A. The Constitution enshrines
n r
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
aagainst warrantless searches and seizures isBnotaabsolute and inthatanywarrantless

purpose. To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that any
h
evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose proceeding. However,
C s
the interdiction searches and
seizures have long been deemed permissible by
e
jurisprudence
l
in the following instances:
(1) search of moving vehicles;
b
Ro
(2) seizure in plain view;
(4) waiver or consented searches;n r

(3) customs searches;
(5) stop and frisk situationsh

a B a
C
(Terry search); and
e s
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
b l
o valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of
The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for,
Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: R

while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a
an r
(1) arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in
a
hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No.
h B
198452, February 19, 2014.
C
Q. Is a hearing necessary to determine probable cause in the issuance of a warrant? e
s
A. No. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that no search warrantb
l
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge o
or warrant of arrest shall
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. R

after examination under oath
Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall ben r

a determined by the judge after an
B a
ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination h
examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, the Supreme Court has
C and indispensable for determining thees
thereof. In fact, the judges personal
aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest. Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R.l
examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory
b No.
Ro
176830, February 11, 2014 citing People v. Grey G.R. No. 180109, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 523, 535
Q. Explain how a judge determines probable cause before issuing a warrant.

a n
A. It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutors report and
C h supporting documents
showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of
arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the prosecutors
resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its
existence. De los SantosReyes v. Montesa, Jr., 317 Phil. 101, 111 (1995).
Q. Can the accused move for the dismissal of the case against them based on the political
offense doctrine prior to determination that certain criminal acts have been absorbed in
furtherance of rebellion?
A. No. The political offense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the charge against petitioners
ar
prior to a determination by the trial court that the murders were committed in furtherance of
B
rebellion.
s
Under the political offense doctrine, common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
e
offense, are divested of their character as common offenses and assume the political
l
b
complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be
o
punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the
R
imposition of a graver penalty. People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 541 (1956).
a n a r
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus,
when a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder.
h B
Rather, the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must
C e s
be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone. People v. Lovedioro, 320 Phil. 481, 489 (1995).
b l
But when the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense in the trial court, it becomes
crucial for the court to determine whether the act of killing was done in furtherance of a political
Ro
end, and for the political motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated.
an B a r
h
Q. Cite the distinction between mala en se and mala prohibitum.
C
A. The distinctions are:
(1) in mala en se by itself the act is inherentlye
s
prohibitum the act is merely prohibited by lawl
wrong (ex. killing another person) while in mala
(2) good faith is a defense in mala en se o

b (ex. smoking or jay walking);
Rof RPC is considered in mala en se but not in mala prohibitum;

but not in mala prohibitum;
n
(3) stages of commission under Art.6
(4) degree of participation a
r
under Title II of RPC is considered in malaaen se but not in mala
h B
C s
prohibitum;
l e
(5) in mala en se, modifying circumstances are considered in determining imposable penalty but
not mala prohibitum; and
b
Ro
(6) in mala en se, generally, the crimes are punished under RPC while generally, crimes considered
mala prohibitum are punished under special penal law.
a n a r
h B drugs
[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
prohibitum, that is, the act is made C

during parties, social gatherings or meetings
e s it. x x x
under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of malum
l
wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting
b
participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated
R othe prohibited act are
Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of
a n and the penalty on all of them ar

penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. In short,
the degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability,
h
are the same whether they are principals or merely accomplices or accessories. Citing Boado, Notes and
B
Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2008 edition.
C e s
b l
II. Circumstances Affecting the Appreciation of Commission of a Crime
R
Attending circumstance in the commission of crimes: justifying, mitigating, exempting and
o
a n liability and
aggravating (generic and qualifying), alternative circumstances ; appreciation of each circumstance
will depend on the facts surrounding the criminal act as it would affect the criminal
Ch
extent of liability of the accused. MEMORIZE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RPC.
Q. How is the qualifying circumstance of treachery appreciated in criminal prosecution?

A. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime 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. People of the Philippines v.
Wilfredo Gunda Alias Fred, G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014.
r
Q. What are the elements to establish treachery? De Castro, J.
B a
A. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
e s
to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. People v. Vergara 700
l
SCRA 412 (2013); People v/ Hastero G.R. No. 192179, July 3, 2013; People v, Vilbar, 664 SCRA 749
o b
(2012); People v. Sabangon, 712 SCRA 522 (2013); People v. Jadap, 617 SCRA 179 (2010); People v.
Asilan, 669 SCRA 405 (2012); People v. Rosas, 570 SCRA 117(2008)
R
n armurder?
a A. To successfully prosecute the crime ofBmurder,
Q. How is intent to kill establish in the crime of De Castro, J.
h
C qualifying circumstances mentionedesin Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is
the following elements must be established: (1) that a
person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the
b l v. Las Pinas 730 SCRA 571, 23 July 2014

not parricide or infanticide. People
R o
Other relevant Supreme Court ruling:
a r and number of wounds sustained by
nintent to kill was clearly established by the anature
h B
The petitioners
Cmeans used by the malefactors; the conduct s of the malefactors before, at the time of, or
their victims. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other things,
immediately after the killing of the victim; and thee

of the
the victim. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra

b l v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462,
nature, location and number of wounds sustained by
Ro
February 5, 2014
Q. What is the probative valuea

n
of out-of-court identification of the accused? a
r
A. The following ruling h B on the conduct of
C s
of the Court in People v. Teehankee, Jr. is instructive
e
l
and test for a valid outofcourt identification: Outofcourt identification is conducted by the
b
chanRes
police in various ways. It is done thru showups where the suspect alone is brought face to face
witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thruo

with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the
R lineups where a witness identifies the
n identification during the trial of thearcase,
suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of outofcourt
identification contaminates the integrity of a
B of
incourt
h s
courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements
C
identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstancesetest where they
constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on outofcourt
consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness opportunity to view the b lcriminal at the time
of the crime; (2) the witness degree of attention at that time; (3) o the accuracy of any prior
identification; (5) the length of time between the crime andn

R by the witness at the
r
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated
a the identification; and, (6) the
B a
C h
suggestiveness of the identification procedure. (Citation omitted.)
s
l e
Q. What is conspiracy? De Castro, J. b
o of a
R
n
A. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
a
felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the
action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity ofh
conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted
C
design and objective, is
sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of
participation of each. People v. Milan, Chua and Carandang, 653 SCRA 607 (2011)
Other Supreme Court ruling:
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a
felony. While direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective
acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which point to a joint purpose,
r
design, concerted action, and community of interests. People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y
a
Avellano, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014
B
e s
Q. What is the principle of criminal conspiracy? De Castro, J.
b
A. Citing Peoplelin v.thisNelmida, the Court elaborated on the principle of criminal conspiracy and its
R o concerning the commission of a felony and then decide to commit it. It arises on the
ramifications
agreement
manner: There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
cnobl
n r one of the conspirators is made criminally liable

very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide
a toforpursue a
the crime actually committed byB
it. Once established, each and every
h
C the offense or inferred from actsesthat deduced
agreement to commit a crime may be
any one of them. In the absence of any direct proof, the
from the mode and manner of the commission of
community of interest. Asb l it doespoint

such,
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and
not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as each of the
actors incurs the sameo
R People v. Regalario, 582 SCRA 738 (2009)
criminal liability, because the act of one is the act of all. People v. Dadao
n r
714 SCRA 524 (2014);
a B a
h
CConspiracy may be deduced from the mode,
Q. Is proof
s
of previous agreement necessary to establish conspiracy?
A. No. e
l when those acts point to a joint purpose and design,
method, and manner in which the offense was
concerted action, and community of interests.b

perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused
RoAlvinmalefactors
Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the
crime is not essential, but the fact that the acted in unison pursuant to the same objective
an r
suffices. People of the Philippines v. John Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013
a
Q. What is the rule onh the admission of extrajudicial confession toB
C s appreciate the element of
e of Court to the rule allowing the
l
conspiracy?
admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of b

A. The exception provided under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules
o the conspiracy by evidence other than the
R not suffice. Relationship, association and
confession. The Supreme Court, however, has previously stressed that mere association with the
principals by direct participation, without more, does
a n a r an
B
companionship do not prove conspiracy. It must be shown that the person concerned has performed
h
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or
C Court of Appeals, Gov. Jum Akbar, eandsNor-Rhama J.
approval of the act, without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove
conspiracy. Gerry A. Salapuddin v. The
Indanan, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.
b l
R o
Q. What are elements to establish self-defense? De Castro, J.
a n essential elements had to be ar

B
A. Anent accused-appellants claim of self-defense, the following
h s
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; C
proved:
l e
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and b
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.o
R A person
who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof.
The accused must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the mosta
n
h must be proved
important of all the
elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression
first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether Ccomplete or incomplete.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent
injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the
wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger -
not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces
real and immediate threat to ones life. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011,
639 SCRA 496, 502-503; People v. Laurio, 680 SCRA 560; People v. Escleto, 671 SCRA 149
(2102); David v. People, 562 SCRA 22; People v. Regalario, 582 SCRA 738 (2009; People v.
r
Tabarnero, 613 SCRA 492); People v. Punzalan, 687 SCRA (2012)
a
B
e s
Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, to successfully invoke avoidance of
l
greater evil as a justifying circumstance, the following requisites should be complied with:
b
o
(1) the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
R (2) the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
an (3) a
there be no other practical and less
B(2012)
rharmful means of preventing it.
C h People v. Punzalan, 687 SCRA
s
e
lis that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the
b
The settled rule in jurisprudence
oaggression and the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for the person
right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the
R
cessation of the unlawful
an r
invoking self-defense to attack his adversary ceases. People v. Regalario, 582 SCRA 738 (2009)
B a
C h s
e
Other relevant rulings of the Supreme Court:
b l
were charged, albeit under circumstanceso
By invoking self-defense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the commission of the acts for which they
following circumstances: (1) unlawfulR

that, if proven, would have exculpated them by invoking the
the means employed to prevent orn repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient r
aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of
a Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, a provocation on the part
h aggression. Rodolfo Guevarra and JoeyB

of the persons resorting to self-defense. the most important of
C February 5, 2014
all is the element of unlawful
e s Guevarra v. People of the
l
Philippines, G.R. No. 170462,
o b
R Simon A. Flores v. People of the
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful
Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013. n r

aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.
a B a
h
C what elements must the prosecution establish? s De Castro, J.
Q. Where evident premeditation is alleged,
e
l a) the time when
the accused determined to commit the crime; b) an act manifestly indicating thatb
A. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proved:
his determination; and, c) sufficient lapse of time between the determinationo

the accused has clung to
the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection n

R and execution to allow him
to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of
aupon the resolution to carry out the

a r
h
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. People v. Gary Alinao, .
B
G.R. No. 191256, September 18, 2013; People v. Delpino, G.R.
C No. 171453, June 18, 2009
e s
b l
o
Q. How is the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength and generic aggravating
R
circumstance of scoffing at the victim appreciated in the crime of murder? De Castro, J.
person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it must be clearly shown

a n that there was
A. To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the
aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the body of the victim was manifestedh

deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage thereof. The presence of the generic
did not just kill the victim. They tied him hog-style after rendering him C immobilized.
when accused-appellants
This action
constituted outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. . People v. Regalario, 582 SCRA 738 (2009)
In order to be appreciated, the circumstance must not merely be premeditation; it must be evident
premeditation. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the
confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of
r
time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
a
consequences of his act. Evident premeditation, like other circumstances that would qualify a killing as
B
murder, must be established by clear and positive evidence showing the planning and the preparation
s
stages prior to the killing. Without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how
e
logical and probable, will not suffice.
l
o b
A.R
Q. What is alibi?
napprobation, the accused must adduce clear andr

Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit
a situs a convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the
B committed.
h criminis at the time the crime was committed,
s
such that it was physically impossible for him to have
C the Philippines v. Jonathan UtoeVeloso y Rama, G.R. No.that188849,

been at the scene of the crime when it was Alibi cannot prevail over and is worthless in the
l
face of the positive identification by a credible witness an accused perpetrated the crime. People of
b
February 13, 2013
Rofothe defense of alibi? De Castro, J.

r the accused must prove not only that
ndoctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper,
Q. What is the nature
a
A The established
B a
h
he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically
C People v. Baroquillo, 656 SCRA 250 (2011); s

e People v. Tejero, 674 SCRA 244 (2012)
impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. People v. Asis, 624 SCRA
209 (2010);
b l
Q. When is alibi applicable as a defense?
R o
he was present at another placea
n
at the time of the perpetration of the crime; anda
r
A. It has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove the following: (i) that
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.B
h
(ii) that it was physically
C s
People of the Philippines v.
Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014
l e
o
Q. When is intoxication appreciated as considered as an aggravating b circumstance? De Castro, J.
A. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken intoR
n r
consideration as a mitigating circumstance when
a Ba
the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to
h
the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance.
C e sconsideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime andl
ART. 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into
b the other conditions
Ro
attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender. x x x. People v. Andres Fontanillas, 638 721 (2010)
Q. What is the probative value of an affidavit if the affiant is nota

n a r
h presented in court?
A. An affidavit is hearsay unless affiant presented in court. It is settled that while affidavits may be s
B
C e
considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer
l
b to
authorized to administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless the affiants themselves
are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity
R o
cross-examine them. With the prosecutions failure to present the affiant to affirm his statement should be
an
treated as hearsay and, thus, inadmissible to establish the truth or falsity of the relevant claims.
Q. How is circumstantial evidence appreciated in establishing ones culpability

C h in a special crime of
rape with homicide? De Castro, J.
A. It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide
must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, we have held that the crime of rape is
difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for
herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed
because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, resort to circumstantial
evidence is usually unavoidable. People v. Alfredo Pascual, 576 242 (2009)
ar
Q. What will support a conviction based circumstantial evidence? De Castro, J.
B
A. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
e s
b
(a) l
There is more than one circumstance;
o
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
R
(c) The combination of all the circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the
n r
exclusion of all others, is the one who has committed the crime.
a a
BCircumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a
h
C fact or series of facts from which
In People v. Mansueto, the Court held:
s
e
l factsandandobserved
the facts in issue may be established by inference. Such
o
between the known and proven b
evidence is founded on experience facts and coincidences establishing a connection
the facts sought to be proved.
Hence, to justifyRa conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of
circumstances n r
a People v. Lagat and Palalay, 657 SCRAB713(2011)
must be interwoven in such a way as to leave
a no reasonable doubt as to the guilt
h
of the accused.
C e s
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of b
Other relevant rulings l of the Supreme Court:
in issue may be inferred based on reasono

collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact
there is more than one circumstance; R

and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a)
n r
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
a a
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
B
Ch
Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188694, February 12,
s
2014
l e
Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence that indirectly b
owhich the inferences are derived are proven;
proves a fact in issue through an
R
inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established. It is sufficient for conviction if: [a]
there is more than one (1) circumstance; [b] the facts from
a non circumstantial evidence, it is essential a

and [c] the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
r
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one toB
h
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based that the
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guiltys
C
a fair and
l
to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convicte the accused is
person. The test
circumstance must be consistent with the accusers guilt and inconsistent with b
that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every
R o the accusers innocence.

People of the Philippines v. P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, et al, G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013.
a n a r
h
Q. What is the best evidence to establish minority to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance?
B
A. To establish minority ones Certificate of Birth may beC introduced as evidence.
e s
Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and under
b l18in
the proper period. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is thato
years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always
his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment. This is regardless of R
because of
minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedlyn
the fact that his
a thepresented for our
Ch
consideration, since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state, victim and his
heirs. People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013
On Minority as qualifying circumstance (People v. Padigos, 687 245 (2012), De Castro, J.):
10
In People v. Pruna, we formulated a set of guidelines that will serve as a jurisprudential

rll
benchmark in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance

in order to address the seemingly conflicting court decisions regarding the sufficiency of
evidence of the victims age in rape cases. The Pruna guidelines are as follows:
ar
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of
B
the certificate of live birth of such party.
e s
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
age.
b l
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove
R o
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
n r
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a member of
a a
the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
B
C h pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule
s
e
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
b l
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
o to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is

less than 7 years old;
R
b. If the victim is alleged
anis alleged to be below 12 years of ageBandawhat r is sought to be proved is that she

less than 12 years old;
h
c. If the victim
C
is less than 18 years old.
e sauthentic document, or the testimony of the
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
b
victims mother or relatives concerning the victimsl age, the complainants testimony will suffice
o
5. It is the prosecution that has the R
provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
a n
the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken
a r against him.
burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of
6. The trial court shouldh Bof the victim. (Citation

C s
always make a categorical finding as to the age
e
rll
omitted.)
b l
o
A. Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession andR
Q. Can an accused claim insanity as a defense? De Castro, J.
a n r
avoidance. As such, it must be adequately proved.
in the killing, insisted that he is exempt froma
h
Garchitorena who never denied his participation
B criminal
C that the defense of insanity cannot be given swas

liability because he was suffering from a mental disorder before, during and after the commission of the
crime. CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC
l e merit when the
b
expert witness herself attested that accused Garchitorena was experiencing remission and even aware
o
of his murder case in court. People v. Gatchitorena, 687 SCRA 420 (2009)
R
an a r
Q. Will the delay in charging the accused of murder raise serious doubt on the testimony of an eye
A. No. Well settled is the rule that Delay in making criminalh B

witness to the crime? De Castro, J.
C It has been established that the delay ines

accusations will not necessarily impair the
filing a criminal complaint is attributed to his confusion and desire to consult his sister-in-law who islthe
credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained.
wife of deceased Danilo. People v. Adallom, 667 SCRA 652 (2012)

o b
R
Q. What is flight from justice? De Castro, J.
a n
even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escapeh
A. Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and
strongly illustrative of guilt while others may remain in the same vicinityC
or flee a circumstance
so as to create a semblance of
regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the community. Non-flight does not
necessarily connote innocence. People v. Dadao, 714 SCRA 524 (2014)
11
PLEASE MEMORIZE all attending circumstances BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE FACED WITH
QUESTIONS WHICH WILL CALL FOR THE APPLICATION OF THESE DISTINCTIONS IN
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES, ACTORS IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES, STAGES
ar
OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, APPRECIATION OF ATTENDING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND AVAILMENT OF PROBATION.
B
e s
lof crimes; see your RPC on crimes against persons, national security, committed by
III. Felonies and other related matters
b
Classification
can beo
public officers etc. and those under Special Penal Laws; concept of impossible crime and when one
R held liable for it;
anStages of commission of a crime and actors

a rinvolved: attempted, frustrated and consummated;
Bbe multiple offenders and may be covered under any of the

h
Principal, accomplice and accessory. Please note the stage and degree of participation will
C element and nature of aggravating s

determine the penalties; actors may also
e
l circumstances are factors which are considered if the defendant
following - recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habituality, habitual delinquency( nature of crime, time
b
Q. What is the liability o
is covered)
R of conspirators?
Philippines v.a
n all the assailants equally liable as co-principals
A. Conspiracy makes
a r by direct participation. People of the
h B
Erwin Tamayo y Bautisa, G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014.
C s
A. The crime of frustrated homicide is committedewhen: (1) an accused intended to kill his victim, as
Q. What are the elements of frustrated homicide?
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in hisl

b assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s
murder under Article 248 of the Revised o

but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for
R Penal Code is present. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v.
an homicide? a r
People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
A. The crime of homicideh

Q. What are the elements of consummated
B
C s
eoftomurder,
is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the accused killed that person
without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention
the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
b l kill, which is presumed; and (4)
or by that of parricide or
Ro
infanticide. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People , G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
Q. Accused-appellant Camat appealed his conviction

anandforimprobable
murder arguing that that his conviction
a rwas
Bwitnesses
witnesses who were among the surviving h
erroneous because it was based on contradictory testimonies made by prosecution
Cwith moral certainty as one of the gunmenesbecause it was

victims of the massacre. He maintains that these
l they were more

could not have possibly identified him
concerned with taking cover for their safety. What elements must be provedbto hold one liable for
unlikely that they were able to see the faces of the assailants firing at them since
murder? De Castro, Jr.

R o
was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended byn r
a a
A. As encapsulated in jurisprudence, to be liable for Murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person
B
any of the qualifying circumstances
h
instance. With regard to the first element, the s
mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide
All the elements of the crime of murder concur in this C
.
l e
death certificates as well as the autopsy reports which clearly indicate that the common cause b
prosecution was able to establish the fact of death of Marcelina and Elmer Hidalgo as shown by their
untimely demise is massive hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds that they sustainedo
of their
shooting incident in question. The fourth element is present as well since both the victimsR
during the
n of classifying
are adults and
a(2012)
not related by consanguinity or affinity to appellant Camat which forecloses any possibility
h
their fatal shooting as either parricide or infanticide. People v. Camat, 677 SCRA 640
Q. What are the elements of murder?

C
A. To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the
accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
12
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. People v.
Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013.
r
Q. Is intent to kill essential to establish homicide?
B a
A. The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage, may be before or
simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter
e s
alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct
l
of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim. Accuseds intent to
o b
kill was simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest. Despite a
bloodied right upper torso, the latter still managed to run towards his house to ask for help. Nonetheless,
R
accused continued to shoot at the victim three more times, albeit unsuccessfully. These belie the absence
n r
of petitioners intent to kill the victim. Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo v. People, G.R. No. 188551, February
a 27, 2013
Ba
C h s
e
ltobecommit
Q. How is evident premeditation proven as an aggravating circumstance in murder? De Castro, J.
b
A. For evident premeditation to established, the following requisites should be proven: (1) the time
determination; and (3) o

when the offender determined the crime; (2) act manifesting that the offender clung to his
crime to allow him R

a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the
18, 2009
a n a r
to reflect upon the consequences of the act. People v. Delpino, G.R. No. 17153, June
h B
s
C are the elements of frustrated homicide? eDe Castro, J.
l persons may consist, inter alia, of the means used by
Q. What
b
A. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against
o after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under
the malefactors; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the
R
malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately
anare: a r
which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused.
1) the accused intended to h

The elements of frustrated homicide
B
C s
eof timely medical assistance; and
kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault;
b l
2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because
3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article
amended, is present. People v. Lanuza, 565 SCRA 293(2011)
R o 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
n
a must establish in robbery with homicide? a rDe
h
Q. What is the essential evidence which the prosecution
B
Castro, J.
C e s robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to l
A. In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or b
commit robbery must
accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is burdened to o

after the robbery. For the
following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed withR

prove the confluence of the
a n lucrandi; and (4) by reason of ar

violence or intimidation against
B
persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo
h
the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. People v. Dui et al., 695 SCRA 229 (2013)
C s
l e
Homicide on occasion of robbery, victim is immaterial. People v. Welvin Diu, et al., April 3, 2013.
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as b
ofelony of
principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible
R
the n
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that
they endeavored to prevent
arobbery, he is guilty
same.
only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspireh
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the
C to commit robbery with

homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery.
One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer
repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was
committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the
13
culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate
witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the
homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.
ar
Q. AAA was first raped by her stepfather when she was eight years old in 1987. The other five rape
B
incidents kept on until 1999. She did not disclose the incidents out of fear but was impelled to share her
s
horrendous experience when his stepfather started to rape her younger sister. Arpon, the stepfather,
e
was found guilty of qualified rape. What must the prosecution prove to establish statutory rape? De
l
b
Castro, J.
o
A. Rape under paragraph 3 of [Article 335] is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of
R
committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below
n r
twelve years old. Hence, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the
a a
age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does
B
C h not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the childs consent is immaterial
s
because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from good. People v. Arpon, 662 SCRA 506 (2012)
l e
b
o rape cases, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not
Other relevant rulings of the Supreme Court:
R
In the prosecution of statutory
knowledge tookn rand cannot have a will of her own on

relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal
a a
place. The law presumes that the victim does not
B
C h
account of her tender years; the childs consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to
s
e
discern good from evil People v. Padilla, 651 SCRA 571 (2011)
.
b l
R o would suffice.
De Castro, J.: In incestuous rape of a minor,
the overpowering moral influence of the father
actual force or intimidation need not be employed where
a r occurred when
n of the private offended party. All the rapeaincidents
Accused-appellant was indicted for four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape, all qualified by
the victim was only 12 years old. The prosecution presented four witnesses,B
his relationship with and the minority
C h s to the sexual abuse, CCC;

namely, the private offended
e
party, AAA; her mother, BBB; her relative who claimed to be an eyewitness
and the medico-legal who physically examined her for signs of sexual
SCRA 134 (2010)
b l abuse. People v. Dominguez, 636
R o
De Castro, J.: In incestuous rape of a minor, it is not necessary that actual force and intimidation be
force and intimidation. People v. Ortega 664 SCRAn r

employed. The moral ascendancy of appellant over the victim renders it unnecessary to show physical
a a
273
h B
Q. Can Abella be convicted of statutoryC
e
rape when the victim is a 38-year mental retardate?s De Castro,
J.
b l
R o rape with or without the
A. Yes. Citing People v. Andaya, it was held that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental
retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory
force, threat or intimidation. AAA was psychiatrically evaluated a

reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of nAAA, a demented person, through ar
attendance of force, threat, or intimidation. The Court said that the prosecution has established beyond
h as an adult woman with the mental age

B
Cof sexual abuse. AAA also identified withoutes
of a 7 to 8-year old child and that she gave birth to a child despite her mental inability to give her consent
uncertainty the accused-appellant as her attacker and related distinctly that he forcibly laid her down, l
to a sexual relationship. These facts support the allegation
her at knifepoint, and sexually abused her. People v. Abella, 610 SCRA 19 (2010)
o b held
R
Other relevant ruling of the Supreme Court:
a n
C h or (b) when the
The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim; and (2) said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation,
victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or
is demented. People v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February 12, 2014
De Castro, J.: The ability of mentally deficient rape victims to communicate their ordeal capably and
consistently does not undermine the gravity of the complainants accusations, but even lends greater
14
credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and
explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC provides for two circumstances when having carnal knowledge
of a woman with a mental disability is considered rape: (1)when the offended party is deprived of
r
reason,and (2) when the offended party is demented. People v. Caoile, 697 SCRA 638 (2013)
a
B
e s
Q. Can a grand uncle be held liable for qualified rape? De Castro, J.
b l
A. No. In order that qualified rape under Article 266-B of the RPC to exist, xxx the victim should be
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
R o
consanguinity or affinity within the third (3rd) civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of
the victim. xxx Absence of the acts enumerated in the above-stated provision would only amount to
n
a The
simple rape.
a rof the victims grandfather, is a relative of the victim in
h B by Article 266-B, paragraph 5(1). People v. Deligro, 696
granduncle, or more specifically the brother
C s
the fourth civil degree, and is thus not covered
e
l
SCRA 822 (2013)
o b
A. Under Article 6 R
Q. When can one be accused of attempted rape? De Castro, J.
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the actsr
n of the RPC, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
a of some cause or accident other than hisBown a spontaneous
of execution which should produce the
h
felony by reason
C must have commenced the act of penetrating

desistance. In the crime of
s his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but
e
rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. For there to be an attempted rape,
l134 (2010)desistance, the penetration, however slight, is

the accused
not completed. People v. Dominguez, 636 SCRA

o b
for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
Q. A 67-year old woman was a n

R
a victim a rbecause theguilty
of rape. The trial court found the accused-appellant as
h Is this legal defense tenable? De Castro,

charged. In his appeal, Jastiva
B
argued that rape could have not taken place 67-year
C
woman never offered resistance.
s J.
e in rape prosecutions: (1) an
accusation of rape is easy to make, and difficult to prove, but itl
A. No. The Court said that it is worthy to recall the three guiding principles
o
bearing in mind the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony b is even more difficult to disprove; (2)
of the complainant must be scrutinized
R So, whenmusta woman

with utmost care and caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution stand or fall on its own merits;
a n
and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
rline
says that she has been
a
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime of rape was committed. In a long
h victims testimony. This is because no decent B

of cases, this Court has held that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible, a conviction
Cand, thus, run the risk of public contempt unless

for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the
s and sensible
ewhether is,a woman
l
woman will publicly admit to being raped she in fact,
o
involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Some may offer strong resistance b while others may be
a rape victim. More to the point, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine
R
too intimidated to offer any resistance at all, just like what happened in this case. Thus, the law does
prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in n

not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs
a
only to be proved by the
having sexual intercourse with the
a r
.
victim People v. Jastiva, 716 SCRA 125 (2014)
h B
.
C e s
Q. What is sweetheart theory appreciated in the crime of rape?
b l
the existence of the supposed relationship must be presented by the proponent of the theory.
R oFor the
A. For the sweetheart theory to be believed when invoked by the accused, convincing evidence to prove
a
substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving n and of no
[sweetheart] theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing
Ch
probative value. People v. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.
De Castro, J : The sweethearts defense does not necessarily preclude rape. Even if it were true, such
relationship would not, by itself, establish consent, for love is not a license for lust. A love affair could
not have justified what Buban did -- subjecting complainant to his carnal desires against her will. People
v. Buban, 603 SCRA 205 (2009)
15
De Castro, J. The sweetheart theory as a defense necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element
of rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation, the coupling
element of rape. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an
affirmative defense that needs convincing proof; after the prosecution has successfully established a
r
prima facie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence that the
a
intercourse was consensual. People v. Alcober, 709 SCRA 479
B
e s
Q. Is pregnancy an essential element of rape? De Castro, J.
A. Pregnancylis not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim
o bis thatbythetheaccused
bore was fathered accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important
R
and decisive had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latters will or without her
an(2014) r
consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner People v. Paras, 724 SCRA 691
.
De Castro, J.: It is well-entrenched inB

a
h
C element of the crime of rape. Whether s
our case law that the rape victims pregnancy and resultant
e
childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential
or by some unknown individual,

b l the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused,
is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had
R o
carnal knowledge of the victim against the latters will or without her consent, and such fact was testified
to by the victim in a truthful manner. People v. Gahi, 717 SCRA 2009 (2014)
a n a r
h B
Crime of Rape Complex crime of rape with homicide may result if after the incident of rape, the
victim was
s
C nocturnity disguise and if alcohol was eused to embolden the offender may be appreciated
killed where there was no original intent to kill her. Aggravating circumstances of
l
dwelling,
by the court in imposing the penalty.
o b
R
Rape; elements of statutory rape; carnal knowledge of a female without her consent is the essence of
statutory rape. The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is
a nof a female without her consent, neither a r

demented; and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Considering that the essence of
h B unconscious, nor the

statutory rape is carnal knowledge the use of force, threat or
intimidation on the female, nor the females deprivation of reason or being otherwise
employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse ofsauthority is necessary to commit
C e G.R. No. 175876, February 20,
statutory rape. People of the Philippines v. Tomas Teodoro y Angeles,
2013
b l
R o
n or obscene; it is characterized by or intended
Q. How is the crime of acts of lusciousness committed? De Castro, J.
a a r to
be inferred by overt acts showing suchC
h
A. The term lewd is defined as something indecent

B
intention. What is lewd cannot fit into a precisesdefinition. The
excite crude sexual desire. An accused committing lewd acts is necessarily a mental process. Such can
l esome compulsion
equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of theb
intimidation applied in acts of lasciviousness need not be irresistible. It is sufficient that
was threatened by a gun at her forehead. Sombilon v. People, 601 SCRA 405 o
victim. Here, the victim
R
(2009)
an B a r
h
Q. What are the elements of Qualified Theft?
A. The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310
C property; (b) the said property belongs toeit s
in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the
land
Revised Penal Code (RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal
b
another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e)
Ro
be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
(f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse
n
of confidence. Zapanta v. People, March 20, 2013
a
Q. What are the elements to establish kidnapping?
C h
A. In order for the accused to be convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267
w
of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements
of the crime, namely: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in
16
the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious
physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d)
the person kidnapped and kept in detained is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial.
r
Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the
a
duration of his detention is immaterial. People v. Betty Salvador, April 10, 2013
B
e s
Q. What are the elements of kidnapping under Article 270 of the RPC? De Castro, J.
A. Article 270l
b the custody of a minor person. The second is that the offender deliberately fails to restore
of the RPC on kidnapping has two essential elements: The first is that the offender is
o
entrusted with
R failure of that person to restore the minor to his parents or guardians. People v. Marquez, 648
the said minor to his parents or guardians. What is actually being punished is not the kidnapping but the
n r
deliberate
a SCRA 694
B a
C h s
Q. What constitutes kidnapping?
e
l of kidnapping, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable
De Castro, J.
b
A. For the accused to be convicted
omanner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping
doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or
must be illegal; andR

detains another, or in any
a nor detention lasts for more than three days;ar(2) it is committed by simulating public
(1) the kidnapping
(d) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present:
h B is a minor, female, or a public officer. If the

authority; (3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats
to kill him
s
Cof kidnapping and serious illegal detention eis a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial.
are made; or (4) the person kidnapped or detained
l detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the

victim
duration of his detention is immaterial.

o b
Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally
R
The essential elements for this crime is the deprivation of liberty of the victim under any of the above-
a n or knowing action by the accused to forciblya r restrain the victim

mentioned circumstances and the same is coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect
coupled with intent. People v. Niegas, G.R. No. 194582, November 27, 2013B
the same. There must be a purposeful
Ch e s
Q. What are the elements of the crime of libel? De Castro, J.
b l
o
imputation of a discreditable act or condition toR
A. The following elements constitute libel:
an r
another;
B a
identity of the person defamed; and h
publication of the imputation;
C e s
existence of malice.
b l
Ro
Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of
the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Yambot v. Tuquero,
n r
646 SCRA 249
a B a
complex crime proper (when an offense is a necessaryC
Distinguish compound crime (when a single act constitutes h
means for committing the other); composite s
two or more grave or less felonies);
l e
indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse); continuedb
crime (special complex crime composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as single
o
crime
R
(3 elements must concur: plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of
n
criminal intent and purpose; and unity of penal provision violated).
a
Distinguish libel, internet libel and oral defamation malice is an essential
under Art. 361, RPC proof of truth shall be admissible only if the sameC
h element in libel and
imputes a crime or is made
against a public officer with respect to facts related/published.
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014.
17
The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b)
publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. There is actual
malice or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is
false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here
r
requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.
a
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014.
Cyber libel is actuallyB
already punishes it.sIn effect, Section 4(c) (4) of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code,
l e online
merely affirms that defamation constitutes similar means for committing libel. But the Supreme
o b
Courts acquiescence
statement or article.
goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes only the author of the libelous
R
n
a IV. Penalties a r
h B
s
C General principles; purpose whyepenalty is imposed; classification of penalties; duration and effect
of penalties.
b l
Under Section 2, Rule 120o
R offense
of the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if it was of conviction, state: "(1)
n its commission; (2)r

the legal qualification of the constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating
a a (3) the penalty imposed upon the

or mitigating circumstances which attended the participation of the accused in the
accused;h and (4) the civil liability or damages caused byB

offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact;
fromC s
his wrongful act or omission to be recovered
l e
the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a
b
separate civil action has been reserved or waived."
R o of two indivisible penalties? De Castro, J.

Q. What is the general rule on the imposition
n consisting of two indivisible penalties,
attended by any aggravatingacircumstance, the lesser penalty shall be imposed
A. When the law prescribes a penalty
a rand the crime is not
h B . People v. Aleman,
C
702 SCRA 118 (2013)
On computation of penalties It is important to relate the felonye
s
penalty prescribed for such felony, then consider the attendingl
committed with the corresponding
lengthen the service sentence and if ISLaw applies, then theb

circumstances which may shorten or
be made. o corresponding adjustments will have to

R v. Felipe, November 11, 2013.If acquittal
is based on reasonable doubt, will not relieve thea
n
Effect of Acquittal on Civil Liability. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas
a r
h
accused of the corresponding civil liability.
B
C
A. Probation Law: nature and purpose of the law; when may defendant avail ofe
s
isl
probation after
conviction and no appeal is made during the period perfecting an appeal; itb
ohe can no longer avail of
error on the part of
the court to issue a Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation because defendants right
to appeal has not yet prescribed; conversely, if defendant filed an appeal, R
a n also applies even if penalty is ar
probation and if defendant files an application for probation, he can no longer appeal; individuals
h B
found guilty of drug trafficking cannot avail of probation; probation
C s
only a fine; probation shall not exceed six years; consequences for violating the terms of probation;
when probation is deemed terminated.
l e
Q. If one avails of the benefits of probation, can he still appeal his conviction? b
o for the
R
ntheonjudgment.
A. Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused, the rationale
a
treatment of appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest diametrically
application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for h

opposed legal positions. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have accepted The
C
the crime which led to the
judgment of conviction. This was the reason why the Probation Law was amended: precisely to put a stop
to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable for the
purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his
bid. Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. People of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014.
18
PLEASE READ SEC. 9 OF THE PROBATION LAW AS TO WHO CANNOT AVAIL OF THE
BENEFITS OF PROBATION.
r
B. Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw): purposes of the law; where a special law adopted
a
penalties from RPC, ISLaw will apply just as it would in felonies. PLEASE READ SEC.2 OF
B
ISLaw WHEN BENEFITS OF ISLaw MAY NOT BE AVAILED OF BY THE DEFENDANT. For
s
example, a person convicted of plunder which is punishable by life imprisonment cannot avail of
ISLaw.
l e
o b
Q. Who are the persons not eligible for Parole?
A. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
R of Appeals correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the
There being no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
n
a two
Court
a r however, that appellant is not eligible for parole
pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. 9346B
indivisible penalties. It must be emphasized,
h
C shall not be eligible for parole under
which states that persons convicted of offenses punished
sAct No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
e
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act,
b l v. Wilfredo Gunda Alias Fred, G.R. No. 195525, February 5,

as amended. People of the Philippines
Ro
2014.
C. Graduationn r appreciated as follows stage of

a of Penalty: graduation of penalties may be
a
B homicide, parricide or murder, 1 to 2
h
execution: for frustrated, 1 degree; for attempted stage, 2 degrees except: for frustrated homicide,
s
C nature of execution as an accomplice,e1 degree and as accessory, 2 degrees; privileged
parricide or murder, 1 to 2 degrees and for attempted
l
degrees;
accident), 1 or 2 degrees.
o b
mitigating circumstance for minority, 1 degree and incomplete justification or exemption(except
R
Q. How is minority as mitigating circumstance in the imposition of penalty?
n being a minor, must be accordingly amodified.
murder is reclusion perpetua toadeath. A degree lower is reclusion temporal. There
A. The penalty imposed upon Franklin, rbeingTheno aggravating
penalty for
h the penalty to be imposed on Franklin Bshould be reclusion temporal

in its medium period, C
and ordinary mitigating circumstance,
e s
l
as maximum, which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
b ranges from eight (8) years and one

day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty
(1) day to ten (10) years. Due to the seriousness of the o

next lower in degree is prision mayor, the medium period of which
Rv. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013.

crime and the manner it was committed, the
n r
penalty must be imposed at its most severe range. People
a B a
h
C to Section 20, Article IV, of the Dangerous
Q. When can the court impose of two indivisible penalties?
s Drugs Act of
A. Under Section 15, Article III, in relation e
l more of shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death andb
1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the unauthorized sale of 200 grams or
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The total weight of the shabu
R o a fine ranging from five
confiscated in this case is
penalty of reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of a

n was correctly meted the lesser ar
983.5 grams. Hence, the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua to death. But since the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death consists of two indivisible penalties, appellant
h the Revised Penal Code which provides

B
C
that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
e s
l
penalty shall be applied. People v. Seraspe, January 9, 2013
Q. Is the penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua composed of three periods? o

b
Ran inhabited
A. No. The information specifically alleged that the house burned by the accused was
dwelling. Pursuant to Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613 (Amending the Law
a n on Arson), the
C
to reclusion perpetua. Not being composed of three periods, however, such penaltyh should be divided into
penalty to be imposed if the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling is from reclusion temporal
three equal portions of time, and each portion forms one period of the penalty. Yet, reclusion perpetua,
being an indivisible penalty, immediately becomes the maximum period, leaving reclusion temporal to be
divided into two in order to fix the medium and minimum periods of the penalty. The three periods of the
prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua are then as follows:
19
Minimum period 12 years and 1 day to 16 years;

Medium period 16 years and 1 day to 20 years;
Maximum period reclusion perpetua.
ar
Accordingly, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty in this case should be within the range of the
medium period of the penalty, i.e., from 16 years and 1 day to 20 years, because neither aggravating nor
B
mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime; and the minimum of the indeterminate
e s
sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime,
l
without regard to its periods. Bacolod v. People, July 15, 2013. Graduating Death Penalty Death
o b
penalty is still the penalty to be reckoned with. With the suspension of death penalty, the next
imposable penalty shall apply.
R
n
a fine) from successive rule (ex. where therea
r simultaneous service (ex. imprisonment and
D. Three-fold and 40-year limitation rule: distinguish
h B40-year limitation rule.

is multiple penalties of imprisonment); three-fold rule on
C E. Subsidiary Imprisonment: when

maximum period of imprisonment; and
s
e defendant shall be subjected to subsidiary imprisonment after
final conviction; imposition oflcivil liability
b
o Liability under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act: Distinguish
between Diversion R
F. Exemption from Criminal
G. Modes and n r Branch: acts of clemency by

and Rehabilitation; how it can be availed of;
a a
Extinction of Criminal Liability: 1. from the Executive
B
C h
the President; 2. from the Legislative Branch: amnesty; 3. Prescription of crimes; 4. Prescription of
s
e
penalties; and 5. pardon by offended party, where allowed.
b l
General Rule: In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must be considered, namely: (1) the
period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time when the period of prescription starts to run;
Ro
and (3) the time when the prescriptive period is interrupted.
a n are likely to be asked under Special Penal a rLaws:

B
V. The following are matters which
C
1. R.A. 3019 Anti-Graft hand Corrupt Practices Act: A public officer
of the RPC ex. when a Mayor and the Citys
may be charged both under
funds not for the purpose intended, they may also be held fore
l
this law and a provision Treasurer connive to use public
b
malversation of funds under the
o
RPC; or when a Sheriff alters a date of execution of a court order, he may also be charged with
R IS A DISTICNTION
falsification of public documents under the RPC; there is complex crime under R.A.3019 under
n r
both circumstances; PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IN PRESCRIPTION
review the participation of private individualsa a

OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER THE RPC AND R.A.3019;
h B
and relatives under this law.
C
Q. What are the elements of Corruption under Sec.4 (a) of R.A. 3019?
e s4(a) of R.A. No.
A. The sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section
3019 is similarly upheld. The elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No.
b l 3019 are: that the
advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectlyo
offender has family or close personal relation with a public official; that he capitalizes or exploits or takes
R requesting or receiving any
application, request, or contract with the government; that the publicn r
a a
present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business, transaction,
B
official with whom the offender has
h
family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction, application, request, or
C s
e
contract with the government. Disini v. Sandiganbayan
b l
Q. What characterizes direct bribery and indirect bribery?
A. The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised PenalR
o
nthatthatthewilloffersmakeor
Code are: that
a
the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
Ch
promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances
the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. Disini, ibid.
Q. What are the offenses under Section 3(e) of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019)?
A. In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that there are two (2) ways by which a public
official violates section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing
20
undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. The
disjunctive term or connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.In other
words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. To be found guilty under the second mode, it
r
suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official,
a
administrative and judicial functions. The element of damage is not required for violation of section 3(e)
B
under the second mode. Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public
s
officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under section 3 of R.A.
e
3019. Considering that all the elements of the offense of violation of section 3(e) were alleged in the
l
b
second information, the SC found the same to be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
o
conviction. Isabelo A. Braza v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (1st Division), G.R. No. 195032, February
R
20, 2013.
n
a Q.andCanCorrupt a r with a public officer be held liable under Anti-Graft
B
a private individual acting in conspiracy
h Practices Act?
C may be indicted. The only question s
A. Yes. Under Section 3(g) of R.
e
l that needs to be settled in the present petition is whether herein
A. No. 3019, private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers
o
respondent, a private person, b may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even
R
if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the
officer who wasn r against respondent may not prosper.

Information. Respondent contends that by reason of the death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public
The SupremeaCourt was not persuaded and it said that theaonly thing extinguished by the death of
charged in the Information and, as such, prosecution
Secretaryh Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not B

of theC s
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis
l e
charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary
b
Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who allegedly violated Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
o
People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014.
R
n
A. Under Section 3(g) of R.A.a3019, private persons acting in conspiracy with a
Q. What is the basis for the indictment of the private person under Sec.3 (g) of R.A. 3019?
rpublic officers may be
indicted. The requirementh B of Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019, among others, isC that such private person must be alleged to haves
before a private person may be indicted for violation
l ein all instances, be indicted together

acted in conspiracy with a public
with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public b

officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must,
o
officer may no longer be charged in court,
R
as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted
n is not essential. The third element of theaoffenser

alone. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014.
a
R.A. 3019; Section 3(e); proof of the extent of damage
B
private party unwarranted benefit, advantageh
that the act of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any
C of damage is not essential, it being sufficient e sthat the injury
or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused
suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merelyl
was established here. Proof of the extent
o b negligible. Danilo O.
Garcia and Joven SD. Brizuela v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197204, March
26, 2014.
R
elements must concur to be liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019:a
n
Liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Plameras v. People, September 4, 2013. The following
a r
h B
C
The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
e s
He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
b l
That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving o
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. R
any private
Laws Governing Liability of Public Officers

a n
1. Republic Act No. 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
CLawh of Public Officers
2. Republic Act No. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
3. Revised Penal Code Crimes Committed by Public Officers:
Article 209Revelation of Secrets, 210-Direct Bribery, 2
21
Article 11-Indirect Bribery, 211A-Qualified Bribery

Article 212-Corruption of Public Officials
Article 213-Frauds against public treasury and similar offenses
r
Article 214- Other frauds
a
B
Article 215-Prohibited Transactions
e s
Article 216-Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer
l Article 217- Malversation of public funds or property
ob
Article 218-Failure of accountable officer to render account
R Article 219-Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the
a n country
a r
h B
Article 220-Illegal use of public funds or property
C s
ebreaking seal
Article 226-Removal, concealment or destruction of documents
b l
Article 227-Officer
R o
Article 231-Open disobedience
Article 232-Disobedience to order of superior officer, when said order was suspended by
n
a Article 234-Refusal to discharge elective office
an inferior officer
a r
h B
C Article 238-Abandonment of officeeor position
Article 237-Prolonging performance of s duties and powers
b l
o
Article 239- Usurpation of legislative powers
Rof executive functions

n of judicial functions r
Article 240-Usurpation
a
Article 241-Usurpation
B a
C h
Article 242- Disobeying request for disqualification
s
Definition of Public Officer under Article 203, RPCl
Article 244-Unlawful appointments
e
o b
R
THE PLUNDER LAW Republic Act No. 7080, as amended: Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
n r
No.148560, November 19, 2001
a B a
C h s
l e
o b
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 (R.A. 9165) Reviewn
R
acaseof the(Sec.concept of chain of custody
a r
aggravating circumstances will be appreciated under law h
as it relates to the evidence and eventual prosecution of the 21); no mitigating and
B
Cmust be established by the prosecution thates
because mere possession or any other act
l
under the law is considered mala prohibita but knowledge
b
the offender freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority (animus
o
possidendi).
R
Q. What is the chain of custody rule?
a n
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
C h the accused by the
A. There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy bust situation, namely: first,
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution established clearly the
22
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y
Balverde, et al, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.
r
Exception to the chain of custody rule: People v. Romeo Ong et. al., July 3, 2013. Prosecution should
a
establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and
B
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
s
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
e
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
l
b
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.
R o
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required linkimmediate
seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and othersnamely, that (a) there
a n a r
must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary
B
value of the seized items are properly preserved.
C h s
l e
Q. What purpose does the chain of custody serve? De Castro, J.
b
Ro
A. The law recognizes that, while the presentation of a perfect unbroken chain is ideal, the realities and
variables of actual police operation usually makes an unbroken chain impossible. With this implied
an r
judicial recognition of the difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement,
a
substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
h
properly preserved by the apprehending police officers.
B
C e
The chain of custody requirement has a twofold purpose:
s of the seized items, and
b l
1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
Ro
2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. People v. Morate, 715 SCRA 115
(2014)
Q. Magundayao appealed a
n r
her conviction for illegal sale of shabu. Aabuy-bust operation was
h The accused-appellant asked the sposeur-buyer B how much he was
C
thereafter planned and conducted.
eher pocket one transparent plastic
l
going to buy and he answered that he would buy only P200 worth of shabu. He handed to her the P200
sachet containing white crystalline powder and gave it to him.b

marked money and she accepted the same. She then pulled out from
o
She was then arrested. She claimed that
A. Yes. Citing People v. Hernandez that [t]o secure a R

she was framed up. Will the Supreme Court affirm her conviction? De Castro, J.
a n rsale
conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following
a
Bv. Naquita
essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
h
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. People
C coupled with the presentation in court of eevidence
further adds that [w]hat is material to the prosecution
s of corpus
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place,
delicti.
b l
R o
nlike shabu, the following elements ar
Q. What are elements of illegal possession of drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act?
a
h B
A. With regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
C s
must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
the said drug. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014 e
possesses
l
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. In a successful prosecution for illegal b
dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of theo
sale of
R
buyer and
therefor. Place. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y Balverde, et al, G.R. No.n
the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
a 190621. February
h
10, 2014.
C
Q. To be held liable for transporting illegal drugs under the Dangerous Drug Act, how must the
prosecution prove it?
23
A. Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means to carry or convey from one place to
another. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is
punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous
drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge. People of the
r
Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014
a
Bentrapment and instigation to support the legal apprehension of criminals in
s
Q. Distinguish between
the former.
e
A. A buy-bustloperation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the
culprit. It b
crime o
is distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the
In R
is enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not.
nwhen the buy-bust team is accompanied to ther

entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially
a informant
accused in view of the need to protect theB
a target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an
h
C efforts.
as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing
sthe informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the

informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his
conviction of the culprit shouldl

Only when the testimony of
e
Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R.b
the need to protect his security is disregarded. People of the Philippines v.
o
No. 191726, February 6, 2013.
Q. What are then

R
a the crime of illegal sale of shabu as defined r
aand punished under section 5, Article II of
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act?
h
A. To establish
B
buyerC e sconsideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the
R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following: (a) the identity of the
thing sold and of the payment for the thing. Thelcommission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous
and the seller, the identity of the object and the
o b
drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the
moment the buyer receives the drug from
R the seller. In short, the Prosecution must show that the
anArnold Tapere y Polpol, G.R. No. 178065,BFebruary ar 20, 2013

transaction or sale actually took place, and present in court the thing sold as evidence of the corpus
delicti. People of the Philippines v.
C h s 2562) Nature of violence is

3. Anti-violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A.
l e
b
not limited to physical but may cover economic and psychological acts. Review S.C. ruling in People
o
v. Genosa on battered woman syndrome which consists of three phases: tension-building phase;
R
acute battering incident and tranquil, loving or non-violent phase. Battered woman syndrome is a
n r
valid defense that will exonerate a woman from killing her spouse/partner.
Q. How is violence established under the VAWC law?
a a
the pursuit of the declared policy of the C
A. The Court will not read into Republic Act h(RA) No. 9262 a provision that would renders itandBtoothless in
l equalifications for
State to protect women and children from violence threats to
any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against womenbthrough physical harm,
their personal safety and security. The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting
R o
namely: 1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offenders wife, former
wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the a

n
2) it results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably, while it is required that the
a r
h B
offended woman, for RA 9262 to be
C s
applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. Dabalos
v. RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, January 7, 2013
l e
4. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22): elements of the crime; an offender can be charged both with b
ocovered
estafa for each party offended and violation of B.P.22 for each count of checks dishonored
R
200 vendors for which 6 posted dated checks were issued to each vendor to payn
by the prohibition (ex. A pyramiding scam committed by Zebra was uncovered which victimized
a interest on their
of violation of B.P. for each check dishonored upon presentment.); relate situation
C h with definition of
capital investment. Zebra shall be held on 200 counts of estafa under the RPC and as many counts
continued crime or delito continuado.
Q. What are the elements to establish ones liability under B.P. 22?
24
A. To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the
r
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the
a
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Since there is insufficient proof that
B
San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of
s
her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of
e
B.P. 22. San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013
l
o b
A.R
Q. What is the gravamen of the offense punished under B.P. 22? De Castro, J.
n rmust
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless
a obligation.
check or a check that is dishonored upon its
that the check was dishonored, and that B

a presentation for paymentnot the nonpayment of an
h
C notice,
Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution also establish that the accused was actually notified
s the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment.

he or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the
e
l notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot
to pay the holder of the check
b
Absent proof of the receipt of such
o
prosper. Such notice must be in writing. People v. Ambito, 579 SCRA 69 2009)
Q. What would n
R
constitute estafa under paragraph 2(d) of Article r
a of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315Bofathe RPC are:
315 of RPC? De Castro, J.
C h
A. The elements
postdating or issuance of a check in payment ofsan obligation contracted at the time the check was
1) the
l e
b
issued;
Ro
2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
3) damage to the payee . (People v. Montaner, 656 SCRA 605 (2011)
a n a r
h
Q. What are the essential elements of the crime of estafa? De Castro, J.
B
C s
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false pretense orefraudulent act must be committed
A. Damage and deceit
l
are essential elements of the crime of estafa and must be established with
prior to, or simultaneous with, the issuance of the bad check. Itb
o
is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance
R by words or conduct by false or misleading

of a check which is made punishable under the RPC, and not the non-payment of a debt.
allegations or by concealment of that which shouldn r to

Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to hisalegal injury. Lopez v. People, 555 SCRA 525 a
have been disclosed which deceives or is intended
h B
C e s
5. Syndicated estafa; elements.
b l
Q. What are the elements of syndicated estafa?
R o as defined in Article 315
n isofcommitted r
A. The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling
a
and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling by a syndicate
B a
h
of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation moneys contributed by
C public. Rafael H. Galvez and Katherinees

stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations or
l
of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general
b
L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v. Gilbert, et al./Gilbert Guy, et al v. Asia Untied Bank,
o
G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No. 187979/G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013
R
an
Q. How is illegal recruitment committed? De Castro, J
h
A. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants
C 6 of Republic Act No.

the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. Section
8042 enumerates particular acts which would constitute illegal recruitment whether committed by any
person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Among such acts, under
Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, is the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
25
deployment does not actually take place without the workers fault. People v. Ocden, 650 SCRA 124
(2011); People v. Calimon, 577 SCRA 116 (2009)
ar
Q. Can an accused be held liable for violation of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042 and estafa under
B
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code? De Castro, J.
e s
A. Yes. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under
b l
Republic Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of
the RPC. In the case of People v. Yabut, the Court reiterated that, in this jurisdiction, it is settled that a
R o
person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC. The offense of illegal
a n a r
recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction,
B
while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction
C h s
for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.
e
Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC does not bar a conviction for
b l
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa w not
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa. People
Ro
v. Ocden, 650 SCRA 124 (2011)
an a r
De Castro, J.: It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
B
Ch
under Republic Act No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph
s
e
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
bl
offenses punishable by other laws. People v. Ochoa, 656 SCRA 382 (2011)
Ro
De Castro, J.: Citing People v. Cortez and Yabut, the Court said that in this jurisdiction, it is settled that a
an r
person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
a
under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of
B
Ch
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
s
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.
e
l
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other
b
laws. People v. Gallemit, 724 SCRA 359 (2014)
R o
an r
6. Anti- Fencing Law: Being a crime considered as malum prohibitum, mere possession of a stolen
a
good gives rise to prima facie presumption of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. A question
h
involving sale of Ukay-ukay items might be asked.
B
Q .What are the elements of Fencing?
C e sor theft has been
b l of the crime of
A. . The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery
o
committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission
R
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells,
or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
a n
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article,
a r
h B
item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
C s
(4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another. Ong v. People, April 10,
2013 hanr
l e
b
7.
7. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294): elements ofo
differentiate criminal intent from intent to possess; how will a person be treated if R
the crime;
nofviolation
found to have
possessed an illegal firearm in a COMELEC check point, will he be charged for
a of the
Ch
Omnibus Election Law or for illegal possession of firearm, or both; review concept absorption in
criminal law and when it will and will not apply.
8. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001: define suspicious transactions, covered transactions,

covered institution, and covered persons; knowledge of the culprits identity is not essential; effect
of freeze order (only the Court of Appeals may issue this order)
26
9. Anti-Hazing Law: definition of hazing; requisites under Sec. 2 of the law; liability of persons
under Sec.4 of the law who may held principals and accomplices; Read the Lenny Villa case and
latest decision penned by Justice Mendoza on the fraternity rumble inside the U.P. campus
resulting to death of a U.P. student. See the dissenting opinion of Justice Peralta.
ar
B
e s
10. Carnapping
b l
o
Q. What is carnapping?
R to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of

A. Section 2 of RA 6539 defines carnapping as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
nbelonging
a persons, or by using force upon things." Ther
a
BSection 20 of RA 7659. To prove the special complex crime of
crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under
h s of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
Section 14 of the said law, as amended by
C that it was the original criminal design
e
carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also
commission of the carnappinglor on the occasion thereof." Thus, the prosecution in this case has the
o
burden of proving that: (1) b Mallari took the Toyota FX taxi; (2) his original criminal design was
R or on the occasion thereof." People v. Nocum, April 1, 2013

carnapping; (3) he killed the driver, Medel; and (4) the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
n
commission of the carnapping
a matters which may be taken up in Criminal a rLaw
h B if not known right after its commission
VI. Other possible
mayC
1. On prescription
s
e by an eyewitness on October 17, 2003 and the
of a crime: The reckoning date of crime
l
be computed from the date of discovery. Example: If a crime was committed 10 years from its
2003 and not from October 17, 1993. o

culprit was arrested only on October 17, 2013, b
commission on October 17, 1993 was only reported
prescription will be counted only from October 17,
R
oblesvirtu
a n a r
B
365 In cases of criminal negligence, courts
without considering anyh
2. Crimes covered under Art. may impose a penalty
C s
mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Thus, voluntary surrender will
not be appreciated.
e
l prove by competent evidence. An
action upon medical negligence whether criminal, civil or b
Negligence; Medical negligence; four elements the plaintiff must
prove by competent evidence each of the following fouro

administrative calls for the plaintiff to
R (b)relationship,
elements, namely: (a) the duty owed by the
n rbe a
physician to the patient, as created by the physician-patient to act in accordance with the
failing to act in accordance with the applicablea a

specific norms or standards established by his profession; the breach of the duty by the physicians
h B
standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must
C
reasonably close and causal connection between
s
the negligent act or omission and the resulting
e
injury;
l
and (4) the damages suffered by the patient. Dr. Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines,
bthe doctrine of res ipsa

G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
o
Res ipsa loquitor; applicability in medical negligence cases. The applicability of
Appeals, where the Court saidMedical malpractice cases do not escapeR

loquitur in medical negligence cases was significantly and exhaustively explained in Ramos v. Court of
n the application of this doctrine.

r
of such a character as to justify an inference of negligence as thea a
Thus, res ipsa loquitur has been applied when the circumstances attendant upon the harm are themselves
h cause of that harm. The application of

B
determine whether a certain set of circumstances does, as Ca matter of law, permit a given inference. Resort s
e
res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law since it is a judicial function to
to res ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no other way, under usual and ordinary conditions,lby
which the patient can obtain redress for injury suffered by him. Dr. Fernando P. Solidum v. Peopleb
Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
R o of the
anelements of each
crime; can crime be considered as complex with robbery, complex withh
3. Distinction between crime of rebellion and that of sedition who may liable;
damage to property? C homicide, complex with

Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014.
Under the political offense doctrine, common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense,
are divested of their character as common offenses and assume the political complexion of the main
27
crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty. Thus, when
a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder but the killing
assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished
r
as rebellion alone
a
BPersons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208) ; Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
s
4. Anti-Trafficking in
Act (R.A. 7610,e

(R.A.9775), Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
b
9775, may theyl as amended) acts punishable and who are liable; In case of aliens, violating R.A.
be subjected to both deportation proceedings and a criminal action? YES; Read the
R o
conviction of Judge Adoracion Angeles judge was not suspended from judicial duties while
conviction was pending appeal; issuance of Protection Order even at the barangay level
nBalois Alberto et. al. v. C.A. et. al. As held r
a older, the offender should be charged with a in People v. Pangilinan: [I]f the victim is 12 years or
h B of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot

either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
C beprejudiced. s
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d])
esubjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise,
l
accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be
b
A person cannot be
o
rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised
R
Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
nJune 10, 2013. Section 5(b), Article III ofaRAr7610 pertinently reads: SEC. 5. Child
complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
a
Cabalo v. People,
B
h
Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any
s
Cintercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemede to be children exploited in prostitution and other
other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual
b l the actv. ofCAsexual

sexual abuse. As determined in the case of Olivarez (Olivarez), the elements of the foregoing
o
offense are the following: (a) The accused commits intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b)
The child, whether male or female, is R

The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c)
a n below 18 years of age.

a r
h B
4. Illegal Use of Alias
C s
efamilyhisnametrueinnames,
joined with an erroneous middle or second name, or a misspelled
b l
Illegal use of aliases. A person who uses various names and such contained albeit at times
one instance is not
guilty of violating the Anti-Alias Law when he was not also
o shown to have used the names for
R v. Eugenio Juan Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205,
unscrupulous purposes, or to deceive or confuse the public. The Court that the dismissal of the charge
a n
against him was justified in fact and in law. Revelina Limson
a r
B
March 31, 2014.
C h s
l e
b
Ro
an B a r
C h s
l e
b
Ro
an
Ch
28

Criminallaw Loanzon

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminallaw Loanzon

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r Pointers in Criminal Law

b l deal with the characteristic of the person accused of committing the

a the crime was committed; and a

accused; and (b) if the accused is not a habitual l

Roare relevant to Criminal Law?

o b seizure and planted evidence);

n Rebellion, etc. Please attention ar

Sec. 22: Prohibition against ex post fact law/ bill of attainder.

A. No. The commander-in-chief provision in the Constitution isr

which beginsa a denominated as Section 18, Article VII,

C5, Article XVI, the commander-in-chief clause

lthe travel, movementtheandarmed

Ro under civilian law.

anwho was ordered arrested by the Sandiganbayan. a r His plea for

C preparation of his defense but, moreeimportantly, s

Q. Distinguish entrapment from instigation. De Castro, J.

Q. What are then

anfor violation of an ordinance, may beBheld araccountable again

Ro as set forth in the information.

Other relevant Supreme Court rulings: b l

Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, October 19, 2011: It is a

C of the offense, the

houses, papers and R

aagainst warrantless searches and seizures isBnotaabsolute and inthatanywarrantless

(4) waiver or consented searches;n r

(5) stop and frisk situationsh

Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: R

or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. R

Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall ben r

Q. Explain how a judge determines probable cause before issuing a warrant.

(2) good faith is a defense in mala en se o

Rof RPC is considered in mala en se but not in mala prohibitum;

prohibitum, that is, the act is made C

a n and the penalty on all of them ar

Q. How is the qualifying circumstance of treachery appreciated in criminal prosecution?

b l v. Las Pinas 730 SCRA 571, 23 July 2014

immediately after the killing of the victim; and thee

the victim. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra

Q. What is the probative valuea

witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thruo

identification; (5) the length of time between the crime andn

a the identification; and, (6) the

Other Supreme Court ruling:

n r one of the conspirators is made criminally liable

community of interest. Asb l it doespoint

concerted action, and community of interests.b

admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of b

a n essential elements had to be ar

following circumstances: (1) unlawfulR

a Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, a provocation on the part

h aggression. Rodolfo Guevarra and JoeyB

Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013. n r

his determination; and, c) sufficient lapse of time between the determinationo

the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection n

aupon the resolution to carry out the

person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it must be clearly shown

aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the body of the victim was manifestedh

napprobation, the accused must adduce clear andr

a situs a convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the

C the Philippines v. Jonathan UtoeVeloso y Rama, G.R. No.that188849,

Rofothe defense of alibi? De Castro, J.

C People v. Baroquillo, 656 SCRA 250 (2011); s