Você está na página 1de 17

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Reviewer under Fiscal Freddie Nojara


San Sebastian College of Law-Recoletos Manila
Prepared by: Ms. Monica May R. Ramos/Ariane Aquino

I. Nature and Concept

II. Mala in se v Mala Prohibita


A) Distinguish between crimes mala in se and mala prohibita.
B) May an act be both mala in se and mala prohibita? (MALA IN SE AND MALA
PROHIBITA)

Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or culpa as defined in the Revised Penal
Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except when the crime results from criminal
negligence. On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those considered wrong only because
they are prohibited by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to
secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.

Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v.Sunico, et
aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll
clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it
is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered
malum prohibitum.

III. SPL vs Felonies

IV. RPC Applicability


Part II.
I. Against National Security
A. Human Security Act

B. Anti-Piracy Act

C. ANTI-HIJACKING LAW REPUBLIC ACT 6235


a. ACTS PUNISHED:
i. 1. usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry
while it is in flight; compelling the pilots thereof to change its course
or destination
ii. 2. usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry, while
within Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land in
any part of Philippine territory
iii. 3. carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public
utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines flammable, corrosive,
explosive or poisonous substances; and
iv. 4. loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft
operating as a public utility in the Philippines, flammable, corrosive,
or poisonous substance if not done in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Air Transportation Office.
MEANING OF aircraft is in flight From the moment all exterior doors are closed
following embarkation until the same doors are again opened for disembarkation.
b. Case:

i. The accused hijacked an airplane and at gunpoint ordered the pilot to


fly to Peking instead of to Davao, which was the plane's destination.
Since the pilot refused, the accused shot him to death. Afterwards,
the accused was overpowered by the crew and the co-pilot was able
to fly the plane safely to Davao. What crime or crimes did the
accused commit? Why?

Answer: The accused is liable for the offense of hijacking which is


an act inimical to civil aviation, since he compelled unlawfully a
change in the course of the plane to Davao, which was its
destination, to Peking, while the plane was in flight. Under the law, it
is not essential that the hijacker should succeed in his purpose. The
offense is punishable by death since the accused fired upon the pilot
causing his death, and therefore the offense is accompanied by
murder as the pilot did not have any chance to defend himself. It is
assumed that the plane is an aircraft of Philippine registry. (Secs, 1
and 2, Rep. Act No. 6235).

ii. A boarded a plane at the Manila Domestic Airport bound for Davao
City. While the plane was still on the tarmac, its doors still open and
waiting for the last passenger to board, A ordered the pilot P at
gunpoint, to take the plane to Singapore. When P refused, A shot him
to death. What offense/offenses did A commit? Discuss with reasons.

Answer: Frustrated coercion and murder. When the crimes were


committed, the plane was not "in flight" as the doors were still open
for embarkation. So, hijacking was not committed (Rep. Act No.
6235, Sec. 1). The facts are almost similar to the facts of the case of
People vs. Ang Chio Kio, 95 Phil. 475, where the accused was
convicted of frustrated coercion because of the refusal of the pilot to
comply with the order of the accused to take the plane to Amoy,
China instead of to Aparri and murder, because the accused shot the
pilot to death.

Alternative Answer: Murder because when the pilot was shot the
plane was still in the tarmac and the engine had not yet started.
Coercion could not be committed, or if all, would be incidental to the
killing.
II. Against Fundamental Law of State
a. Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism
i. Terrorism- Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the
following provisions of the Revised Penal Code
1. Penalty for the crime of terrorism
1) 40 years of imprisonment
2) NO Parole as provided for under Act No. 4103
Note:
Includes accomplices and accessories
EXEMPTION: Accessories who are spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees are
exempt (EXCEPT: if they profit by the crime or assisted the
principal to profit)
2. Conspiracy to commit terrorism
1) Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall
suffer the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment
2) Conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of the crime as
defined in Sec3 and decide to commit the same
3. Accomplice
1) Any person,who not being principal or a conspiratot in the
execution of the crime or conspiracy to commit terrorism by
prevous or simultaneous act = 17years, 4 months 1 day to
20 yrs of imprisonment

b. Anti-Torture Act
i. (a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person
in authority or agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her custody
that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body, such as:

1. systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with


truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;

2. food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human


excreta and other stuff or substances not normally eaten;

3. electric shock;

4. cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the
rubbing of pepper or other chemical substances on mucous membranes, or
acids or spices directly on the wound(s);

5. the submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement,


urine, vomit and/or blood until the brink of suffocation;
6. being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position;

7. rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign bodies into the
sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;

8. mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body such as the


genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;

9. dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;

10. pulling out of fingernails;

11. harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;

12. the use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the
point of asphyxiation;

13. the use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory,


alertness or will of a person, such as: (i) the administration of drugs to induce
confession and/or reduce mental competency; or (ii) the use of drugs to
induce extreme pain or certain symptoms of a disease; and

14. other analogous acts of physical torture; and

(b) Mental/Psychological torture refers to acts committed by a person in


authority or agent of a person in authority which are calculated to affect or
confuse the mind and/or undermine a persons dignity and morale, such as:

1. blindfolding;

2. threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s) with bodily harm, execution


or other wrongful acts;

3. confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;

4. prolonged interrogation;

5. preparing a prisoner for a show trial, public display or publichumiliation


of a detainee or prisoner;

6. causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one


place to another, creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily executed;

7. maltreating a member/s of a persons family;

8. causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the persons family,


relatives or any third party;

9. denial of sleep/rest;
10. shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her in
public places, shaving the victims head or putting marks on his/her body
against his/her will;

11. deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member of


his/her family; and

12. other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.


ii. Penalty.
1. penalty of reclusion perpetua upon the perpetrators of the following
acts:
1. Torture resulting in the death of any person;
2. Torture resulting in mutilation;
3. Torture with rape;
4. Torture with other forms of sexual abuse and, in consequence
of torture, the victim shall have become insane, imbecile,
impotent, blind or maimed for life; and
5. Torture committed against children.

2. reclusion temporal shall be imposed on those who commit any act of


mental/psychological torture resulting in insanity, complete or partial
amnesia, fear of becoming insane or suicidal tendencies of the victim
due to guilt, worthlessness or shame.

3. prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed


if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have lost the power of
speech or the power to hear or to smell; or shall have lost an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a leg; or shall have lost the use of any such
member; or shall have become permanently incapacitated for labor.

4. prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its


minimum period shall be imposed if, in consequence of torture, the
victim shall have been ill or incapacitated for labor for more than
thirty (30) days but not more than ninety (90) days.

5. prision correccional in its maximum period shall be imposed on the


immediate officer who, either deliberately or by inexcusable
negligence, failed to do an act even if he/she has knowledge or,
owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts
of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment shall be committed, is being committed or has been
committed by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of
responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive
or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its
commission, when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate
allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment.
6. prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be
imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have been ill
or incapacitated for labor for thirty (30) days or less.

7. arresto mayor shall be imposed for acts constituting cruel, inhuman


or degrading treatment or punishment

c. Custodial Investigation
i. Custodial investigation involves any questioning by law enforcement people
after a person is taken into custody or deprived of his freedom in any
significant manner. That includes "inviting" a person to be investigated in
connection of a crime of which he's suspect and without prejudice to the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law

ii. The rights of a person under custodial investigation are the following:

1. 1.) To be assisted by counsel (and you can demand it!)


2. 2.) To be informed by the arresting officer, in a language he can
understand, of his right to remain silent and to counsel (and if he
can't afford one, he'll be provided one)
3. 3.) The custodial investigation report will be null and void if it hasn't
been read and explained to him by counsel before he signed (or
thumbmarked if he's illiterate) it
4. 4.) Extrajudicial confessions must be put in writing and must be
signed by him in the presence of counsel or, if there's a valid waiver,
any one of his parents, older siblings, spouse, municipal mayor,
municipal judge, district school supervisor or a priest or religious
minister chosen by him
5. 5.) The waiver of a person under custodial investigation or detained
under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code (delay in delivering
detained persons to the proper judicial authority) must be put in
writing and signed by the detainee in the presence of counsel or it
will be null and void
6. 6.) To be visited by, or have conferences with, members of his
immediate family, counsel, doctor, priest or religious minister or any
national NGO duly accredited by the CHR or international NGO
duly accredited by the office of the President

Note: The immediate family includes the following: spouse, parents, children,
siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, guardians,
wards and girlfriends and boyfriends.
iii. If the assisting counsel is a private practitioner, he is entitled to the following
amounts for his services in the custodial investigation:
1. Php150 if the crime in question is a light felony
2. Php250 if it's a grave or less grave felony
3. Php350 if it's a capital offense
iv. Penalties
1. If the arresting officer fails to inform the detainee or arrested person
of his rights, he will be sentenced to 8 to 10 years' imprisonment
and/or a fine of Php6,000. And if he was previously convicted for a
similar offense, he gets perpetual absolute disqualification as well.

2. Obstructing counsel, immediate family members, doctors, priests or


religious ministers from visiting or conferring with the detainee at
any time of the day (or night in urgent cases, like when the detainee
needs to have the sacrament of anointing the sick administered to
him) will be penalized by 4 to 6 years' imprisonment and a fine of
Php4,000.

Note: A person under a normal audit investigation is not considered to be


under custodial investigation since a COA audit examiner isn't considered an
arresting officer under RA 7438

d. Anti-Wire Tapping Law


i. Who are subject A police or law enforcement official and the members of his
team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept
and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or
other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the
use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written
words:
1. Between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons
2. Any person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism
3. Any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism
EXCEPT: Communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and
patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business
correspondence

ii. Case
1. C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the criminal case he filed against
L, and so Atty. T called up through telephone L, and informed him
that C is willing to have the case dismissed provided that L pays P8,
000.00 and makes a public apology. L told Atty. T to call him up the
following day as he would consult his lawyer. The following day
when Atty. T called up L, the latter requested his lawyer Atty. X, who
was in his (L's) office at that time, to secretly listen to the telephone
conversation through a telephone extension. When the P8, 000.00
agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. T at the
appointed place and time, he (Atty, T) was arrested by the police for
Robbery/Extortion on complaint of L who was accompanied by his
lawyer, Atty. X. Atty. X executed an affidavit stating that he heard
Atty. T demanding P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the criminal
complaint through a telephone extension. On the basis of this
affidavit, Atty, T filed a criminal complaint against Atty. X and L for
violation of sec. 1 of RA. No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-
Wire Tapping Act. which says: "It shall be unlawful for any person
not being authorized by all the parties to any private conversation or
spoken word to tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known
as Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone, walkie talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described." If you were the Judge,
would you convict or acquit L and his lawyer, Atty. X? Support your
decision with reasons.

Answer: No, because it is a telephone extension and those


enumerated by law means an extension with permanent recording of
which a telephone extension is not. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA
112)
III. Against Public Order
a. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
b. Human Security Act (Punishable acts; Absorption Principle)
IV. Against Public Interest
a. RA 9194 Anti-Money Laundering Act
b. Bank Secrecy
c. Foreign Currency Deposit
d. RA 9160 Anti-Money Laundering
V. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act and IRR
a. Case:
i. Rodolfo is an informer who told the police authorities that Aldo is a drug
pusher. Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and persuaded Aldo to sell
marijuana worth P10.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He delivered the goods
and so was apprehended with the marked money. He is now prosecuted for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. a) Aldo's defense is that he was the
victim of an instigation of the police who persuaded him to sell the goods to
him. Decide the case with reasons. b) Suppose policeman Taba told Aldo that
he (Taba) has a supply of marijuana and he persuaded Aldo to sell it to him
because he (Taba) needed the money badly. Aldo succeeded in selling P20.00
worth of marijuana to Moye, What is the criminal liability of Aldo if
apprehended in the act? Explain.

Answer: b) Aldo is liable for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA No,
6425, as amended) in performing the act of selling narcotics.

ii. Manny was apprehended In a buy-bust operation during which one (1) deck
of shabu (methamphetamine hydro-chloride) was delivered by him to the
policeman posing as buyer and another deck of shabu was taken from his
pocket after his body was frisked before he was actually brought to the police
precinct. Convicted of violating sections 15 (sale and distribution of
regulated drugs] and 16 (possession or use of regulated drugs] of the
Dangerous Drugs Law, he was sentenced to thirty (30) years of life
Imprisonment and payment of a fine of P20,000.00 (for violating sec. 15) and
to imprisonment of eight (8) years and payment of fine of P6,000.00 (for
violating sec. 16). He then sought the reversal of the decision, on the
following grounds:
First, he could not be convicted of having violated sec. 15 because he
has not yet received the money from the buyer and the sale is not yet
consummated;
Second, his conviction under sec. 16 is erroneous because his possession
of shabu Is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale or delivery; and
Third, it is unbelievable that he would sell the confiscated shabu in a
sari-sari store near the national road open to the public view and to a stranger.
1) If you were the Solicitor General, how would you rebut the arguments
of the accused? Discuss fully.
2) Give your comment with regard to the penalties imposed.

Answer:
1) Manny is liable. The law provides, "shall sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute".
2) Yes. he is also liable because the shabu taken from his
possession or pocket is different from the shabu he was to
deliver to the seller.
3) As to the third reason, it is not unbelievable because
although it is a public place, this kind of sale can always be
clandestinely be made. [People vs. Rey Bernardino, Jan. 28,
1991)

With respect to the penalty imposed, life imprisonment


should not be limited to 30 years; and 8 years is wrong, it
should be indeterminate. (People us. Angeles, because of
Eliginio vs. Alvarez (1992)

iii. Superintendent Al Santiago, Chief of the Narcotics Division, Western Police


District, received information that a certain Lee Lay of-No. 8 Tindalo Street,
Tondo, Manila is a member of the 14K Gang selling shabu and marijuana.
SPOl Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta were instructed to conduct surveillance and
buy-bust operations against Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a
meeting was arranged at T. Pinpin Restaurant at 2:00 in the afternoon on
February 14, 1993. SPO1 Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta, acting as poseur-
buyers, purchased from Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500. Later, Lay
agreed to sell to them one kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops which he gave
them at his residence. The policemen arrested Lay and a search was
conducted. Found were 356 grams of marijuana seeds, 932 grams of
marijuana fruiting tops and 50 sticks of marijuana cigarettes. What offense or
offenses did Lay commit? [5%]
Answer: Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs which should be made subject of
separate informations. The crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is
committed as regards the 10 sticks of marijuana and as regards the one (1)
kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops, which should be subject of two (2)
separate informations because the acts were committed at different times and
in different places. The crime of Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is
committed as regards the marijuana seeds, marijuana fruiting tops and
marijuana cigarettes which are not the subject of the sale. Another
Information shall be filed for this.

iv. At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to entrap and
apprehend A, a long suspected drug dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation.
At the appointed time, the poseur-buyer approached A who was then with B.
A marked P100 bill was handed over to A who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer
one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The members of the team, who were
then positioned behind thick leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift
enough since A and B were able to run away. Two days later, A was arrested
in connection with another incident. It appears that during the operations, the
police officers were not able to seize the marked money but were able to get
possession of the marijuana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act, During the trial, the marked money was not
presented. Can A be held liable? Explain.

Suggested Answer: Yes. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked
money will not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as long as the
sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. There was a perfected contract of
sale of the drug (People vs. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos,
241 SCRA 625).

v. Edgardo was charged with importation of prohibited drugs in an information


filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City on June 4, 1994. The
offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Can Edgardo avail of
plea-bargaining? [2%]

Answer: No, Edgardo cannot avail of plea-bargaining because the imposable


penalty for his violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425. as
amended) is reclusion perpetua to death. Section 20-A expressly provides
that plea-bargaining shall not be allowed where the imposable penalty for the
violation of said law is reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No.
6425, as amended).

vi. Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached Ronnie, a suspected drug


pusher, and offered to buy P300 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came back
five minutes later and handed Pat, Buensuceso an aluminum foil containing
the shabu. However, before Pat, Buensuceso was able to deliver the marked
money to Ronnie, the latter spotted a policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie
knew to be connected with the Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon
seeing the latter, Ronnie ran away but was arrested thirty minutes later by
other policemen who pursued him. Under the circumstances, would you
consider the crime of sale of a prohibited drug already consummated?
Explain.

Answer: Yes, the sale of prohibited drug is already consummated although


the marked money was not yet delivered. When Ronnie handed the
aluminum foil containing the shabu to Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to their
agreed sale, the crime was consummated. Payment of the consideration is not
an element of requisite of the crime. If ever, the marked money is only
evidentiary to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

vii. A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when they met a group of
policemen who had earlier been tipped off that A was in possession of
prohibited drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and sensing that they were after
him, A handed a sachet containing shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide
it in her handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet inside her
handbag. If B was unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or that what was
inside the sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless liable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. B will not be criminally liable because she is


unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or of the content of the sachet
handed to her by A, and therefore the criminal intent to possess the drug in
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act is absent. There would be no basis to
impute criminal liability to her in the absence of animus possidendi.

VI. Crimes against Public Morals


a. Anti- Trafficking in Persons
b. Anti- Sexual Harassment
c. Anti- Gambling
d. Anti- Photo and Video Voyeurism
VII. Crimes Committed by Public Officers
a. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
b. Anti- Graft and Corruption Practices
i. Case:
1. A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act in an Information that reads: That from 01
to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the
Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public Works and
Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative
functions, did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and
facilitate the approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his
land which the government had expropriated, and after the claim was
approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the approved claim
of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the
balance of P4,000, thus causing undue injury to B and the
Government."
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it
does not charge an offense. Is he correct?

Answer: Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to


allege that the undue injury to B and the government was caused by
the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
Inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense
charged, ie., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District
Engineer of the DPWH. which has nothing to do with the
determination and fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and
for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to
pay. There is no allegation In the information that the land was
overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to
the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the
accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the
Government has already appropriated, and that the accused
eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the
amount of P4,000 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused should be
merely charged administratively

Alternative Answers:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information
because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 applies only to
officers and employees of government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions, and not to
DPWH, which is not a government corporation.

2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs. Sandiganbayan. 151


SCRA 399, which involves a substantially identical information
as the Information quoted in the question, the Supreme Court
held that the Information was valid. While it is true that the
information quoted In the question, failed to allege evident bad
faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality, said
Information Is nevertheless adequate because it averred the three
(3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when
it stated (1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of the
commission of the crime, being employed in the Office of the
District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused undue
Injury to B and the Government, with the statement that BT the
owner of the land, received only P1,000.00 instead of the full
value of P5,000.00; and (3) that in the discharge of A's official
administrative functions, he "did then and there willfully and
unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx
and "willfully and unlawfully appropriate for himself the balance
of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or use the
very words or language of the statute. It may also use words or
language of similar import.
c. Anti Plunder
i. Case:
1. Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other
fraudulent schemes /conveyances and taking advantage of his
position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets
amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his
lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and despite
knowledge by the authorities of his Ill-gotten wealth, he was charged
with the crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his
defeat in the last elections he participated in. 1) May Andy still be
held criminally liable? Why? 2) Can the State still recover the
properties and assets that he illegally acquired, the bulk of which is
in the name of his wife and children? Reason out.

Answer; 1) Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of


RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable under this Act shall
prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can
still be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years,
2) Can the State still recover? Yes, because Section 6 provides that
recovery of properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from
them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches or estoppel.

d. Punishing Public Officials/ Employees who Receive and Private Persons who Give
Gifts on any Occasion, including Christmas
i. Case:
1. Gino was appointed Collector of Customs and was assigned at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Gerry, an importer, hosted a
dinner for 100 persons at the Westin Philippine Plaza in honor of
Gino. What are the offense or offenses committed by Gino and
Gerry?

Answer; Both Gino and Gerry are liable for violation of Presidential
Decree No. 46, which punishes any public official or employee who
receives, directly or indirectly, and for private persons who give,
offer any gift, present or valuable thing on any occasion, including
Christmas, when such gift or valuable thing is given by reason of his
official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past
favor or favors, or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or
better treatment in the future. Being an importer, Gerry reasonably
expects future favor from Gino.

Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or


entertainment in honor of the official or employee or of his
immediate relatives.
2. A, who is the private complainant in a murder case pending before a
Regional Trial Court Judge, gave a judge a Christmas gift, consisting
of big basket of assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive
wines, easily worth P10.000.00. The judge accepted the gift knowing
it came from A. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed?
Answer: The Judge committed the crime of Indirect bribery under
Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code. The gift was offered to the
Judge by reason of his office. In addition, the Judge will be liable for
the violation of P.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts by
public officials and employees on occasions like Christmas.

e. Anti Red Tape


f. Anti- Torture
VIII. Crimes Against Persons
a. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children
b. Anti-Child Abuse
c. Anti- Child Pornography
i. Case
d. Anti-Hazing
i. Case
1. What is hazing as defined by law? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation


rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a
fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities
or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or
injury.

B. What does the law require before initiation rites may be


performed? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-


Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation rites may be
performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations
shall be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites. The
written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the initiation activities,
not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected
to such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no physical violence
shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

IX. Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security


a. Section 29
b. Anti-trafficking in Persons
c. Anti- Wire-Tapping
d. Section 59
X. Crimes against Property
a. Estafa by means of Deficit
b. Syndicated Estafa
c. Illegal Recruitment
i.
d. New Anti- Carnapping
i. Case
1. Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car
with the key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away,
intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner of the car, arrived.
Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy,
who In his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently
collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned
and was wrecked. One passenger was killed; the leg of the other
passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car of Ting was
damaged to the tune of P20,000.00. What offense or offenses may
Dodoy be charged with? Discuss.

Answer: Consummated carnapping. Homicide, Serious Physical


Injuries and Damage to Property resulting from reckless imprudence.

Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the
object is enough to consummate the crime; although in the Dirio
case, it is still frustrated because there is inability to dispose freely
the object.

2. Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda


motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening. Raul rode on the sidecar,
poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge.
Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and
suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul fled
from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or
crimes did Raul commit? |5%]

Answer: Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with


homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended,
considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion of a
carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A
motorcycle is included in the definition of a "motor vehicle" in said
Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is
no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul
to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was
killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Alternative Answer: The crime committed by Raul is carnapping,


punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. The killing of Samuel
is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance
e. The Law on Arson
f. Bouncing Checks
g. Anti- Electricity Pilferage
h. Forestry Code
i. Illegal Fishing
i. Case:
1. Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNP) officers. X and Y, on board
on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motor-man, arrested A and B who
were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter's banca was towed
towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was
intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D, and E, tried to
negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP
officers refused and instead shouted at C, D. and E that they are all
under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite
sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B
also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its
explosion killed Y and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E
commit?

Suggested Answer: C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of


Murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault for the death of X.
A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder Qualified by
explosion as to death "of Y, and simple Murder qualified by
explosion for the death of Z. No crime of direct assault can be filed
insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian. This, of
course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E,
otherwise all would have the same criminal liability as the act of one
becomes the act of all.

Additional Answer: Firstly, A and B committed a violation of Pres.


Decree No. 534 (on illegal fishing] as amended by Pres. Decree Nos.
704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is punishable under
said Decree.
j. Access Devise
k. Anti- Cattle Rustling
XI. Crimes against Chastity
a. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
b. Anti-Child Abuse
i. Case
1. Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating
the first year of his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, had in his company a fourteen (14) year-old girl
whose parents were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and being
totally orphaned has been living or fending for herself in the streets
in Manila, They were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed
there for two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between
them. Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl
P1,000.00 for her services. She gladly accepted it. 1) What crime
may the retired colonel be charged with, if any? Discuss. 2) What
possible defenses can he interpose? Explain.

Answer:
1) The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in
violation of Rep. Act 7610, a law providing special
protection against child abuse, exploitation, and
discrimination. One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation
penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of keeping
company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger
than the offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint,
pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor, beach
resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col. Agaton is
a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child
he kept company within a private room in the beach resort, is
only 14 years old, there must be an age difference of more
than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance
that Lt. Col. Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room
at such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter he gave
her P1,000.00 "for her services", constitutes the very evil
punished, among other acts, in said law.

2) The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may Interpose are


that the child is related to him by affinity, or by
consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond
recognized in law, or local customs and traditions, or that he
was only acting in pursuance of a moral, social, or legal duty
(Sec. 10(b), Art. VI, RA 7610),
c. Anti- Trafficking in Persons
d. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children
XII. Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons
a. RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172
b. Law Regulating Aliases
c. Domestic Adoption Act
XIII. Crime against Honor
a. Cybercrime Prevention
XIV. Criminal Negligence
a. Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving
b. Land Transportation and Traffic Regulation Code

Você também pode gostar