Você está na página 1de 153

SAMPANG, JMM | 2C | ATENEO LAW

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018


CASE MATRIX | ATTY. ABITRIA
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS A PENAL LAW
To determine whether a statute is a penal law, the ff. elements1 should be present:
(1) The law must define the criminal act
(2) It must prescribe a penalty
(3) It must be an act of the Legislature
Special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing violations of the law not included in the Penal Code (Sec. 3, Act 3326)

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Filoteo Jr. v Filoteo was part of a W/N 1987 Constitution NO. While Penal laws (ART 22, RPC) shall have
Sandiganbayan custodial investigation in should be applied retroactive effect insofar as they are favourable to
1983. He made an retroactively the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual
extrajudicial confession criminal, what is being construed here is a
without a counsel. He constitutional provision. A constitutional
claims that the 1987 provision specifically is contained in the Bill of
Constitution provisions on Rights which is obviously not a penal statute.
Bill of Rights should be
retroactively applied to him Penal laws - are those imposing punishment for an
since those were favourable offense committed against the state which the
to him as an accused. executive of the state has the power to pardon.
Lacson v Kuratong Baleleng gang W/N Sec 4 and 7 of RA 8249 NO. Generally, an ex post facto law prohibits
Executive shoot out – None of the are ex post facto laws retrospectivity 2 of penal laws. However, R.A. 8249 is
Secretary principal accused had a not a penal law. It is a substantive law on
rank of at least SG 27. jurisdiction which is not penal in character.
Hence the Sandiganbayan
transferred the case to the

1
Boado, Notes and Cases on SPL
2
Art. 4, CC – Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
The following are the instances where a law may be given retroactive effect (Sta. Maria, Persons 2015)
 When the law explicitly provides for retroactivity
 When the law is curative or remedial
 When the law is procedural
 When the law is penal in nature and favourable to the accused, provided he is not a habitual delinquent (Art. 22 of the RPC)

Page 2 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

RTC. Subsequently, RA Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which
8249 was passed, expanding prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
SB’s jurisdiction by deleting violations; or those that define crimes, treats of their
the word “principal” from nature, and provide for their punishment.
“principal accused”. The
accepted the OSG’s appeal.
Thus, the case went back to
the SB pursuant to this law.
Lacson claims that Sec 4
and 7 RA 8249 are ex post
facto laws
Llamado v CA Probation law was amended W/N Llamado’s right to apply YES. Probation Law is not a penal statute.
as follows: for probation was lost when
PD 968 – Court may he perfected his appeal from Courts, have no authority to invoke “liberal
suspend the sentence any the judgment of conviction. interpretation” or “the spirit of the law” where the
time after it shall have words of the statute themselves, and as illuminated
convicted and sentenced a by the history of that statute, leave no room for
defendant doubt or interpretation.
PD 1257 – Court may place
defendant on probation
after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant
but before he begins to serve
his sentence
PD 1990 – Probation – after
conviction, within the period
for perfecting an appeal
*Note: Perfecting an appeal
is a bar to application for
probation

SPECIAL PENAL LAW


NOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE PENAL CODE

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Page 3 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

US v Parrone Falsification: “Parrone” W/N accused may avail of the YES. Article 7 of the RPC does not mean to exclude
Jan. 7, 1913 changed to “Partacio”. At benefits of Art 22 provided application of Article 22 of the RPC to special laws.
the time of commission of that the punishment under Article 22 also applies to special laws, and accused
RPC: Jan. 1, the offense, it was punished the amendment is more shall be punished with penalty most favorable to
1932 by Act 1189. However, Act favourable to him, despite him.
2126 was passed amending art. 7 ("offenses punishable
it, providing for a lesser under special laws are not *It must necessarily relate:
penalty. Defendant seeks subject to the provisions of (1) to penal laws existing prior to the Penal
application of art. 22 of this Code.") Code, in which the penalty was less severe
RPC, saying that he should than those of the Penal Code; or
be punished by the lesser Note: Art 7 is now Art 10 (2) to laws enacted subsequent to the Penal
penalty embodied in the Code, in which the penalty was more
later law. favorable to the accused.
Taer v CA Two men stole two male W/N Taer should be convicted NO. He should be convicted only as an accessory for
carabaos and left them at as a principal in violation of all he did was profit from the effects of the crime.
Taer’s house. Taer was Anti Cattle Rustling Law of
convicted as principal in 1974 (PD533) Note: RPC provisions on principals, accomplices,
violation of PD 533 (Anti- accessories were applied notwithstanding the fact
Cattle Rustling) that he was convicted under PD 533, a special penal
PD 533 amended RPC law. Court also ruled that there’s conspiracy.
Articles 308, 309 and 310

SPL AND MALUM PROHIBITUM3

Mala in se Mala prohibita


Wrong from its very nature Wrong because prohibited by law
The basis of criminal liability is the moral fiber of the offender; The basis of criminal liability is the offender’s voluntariness, hence,
hence good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense good faith or lack of criminal intent is not accepted as a defense,
unless this is an element of the crime. The act prohibited is not
inherently evil but made evil only by the prohibition of the statute. 4
Modifying circumstances are taken into account in imposing Modifying circumstances are not considered since the intention of
penalties because the offender’s moral trait is the basis of the the law is to discourage the omission or commission of the act
crime. Thus the penalty is increased or decreased depending upon especially prohibited; also since the act or omission is made evil
the offender’s degree of perversity only by the special law.

3
Boado, Notes and Cases on SPL and San Beda Crim I reviewer
4
Boado, Notes and Cases on SPL

Page 4 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation Degree of participation do not affect the liability – penalty on all of
of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account. them are the same for they are all considered principals, unless the
law expressly considers them otherwise.
Intent is an element Intent is immaterial (generally)5

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Quijada shot Iroy in the W/N Quijada should be YES. Murder is malum in se. Qualified Illegal
Quijada head with an unlicensed convicted of two separate Possession of Firearms is malum prohibitum.
firearm. The trial court crimes, namely Murder and
convicted Quijada of two Qualified Illegal Possession There is conceded wisdom in punishing illegal
separate offenses: Murder of Firearms possession of firearms without taking the criminal
and Qualified Illegal intent of the possessor. All that is needed is the
Possession of Firearms intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the law
coupled by animus possidendi.
Estrada v Plunder case- Erap claims W/N Plunder as defined in NO. The crime of plunder is mala in se. The element
Sandiganbayan that the facts do not RA 7080 is a malum of mens rea must be proven in the crime of plunder.
constitute an offense prohibitum
because the law suffers The legislative declaration in RA 7659 that plunder
from vagueness. He claims is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se.
that Plunder Law abolished For when the acts punished are inherently immoral,
the element of mens rea in they are mala in se, and it does not matter that such
crimes already punishable acts are punished in a special law, especially since in
under the RPC, all of which the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly
are violations of the rights mala in se.
of the accused to due
process.
ABS-CBN Corp GMA aired a footage that W/N GMA is guilty of YES. Copyright infringement is a mala prohibita
v. Gozon was originally owned by copyright infringement under crime. Acts mala in se require presence of criminal
ABS CBN. GMA claims that the Intellectual Property intent and the person's knowledge of the nature
it does not know of the Code? of his/her act, while in acts mala prohibita,
agreement of exclusivity presence of criminal intent and the person's
between ABS and Reuters. knowledge is not necessary. The Court also
stated that Philippine laws on copyright

5
Note: Estrada v Sandiganbayan (GENERALLY, intent is immaterial, BUT some crimes under SPLs - like the Plunder Law, are mala in se.)

Page 5 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

infringement does not require criminal intent (mens


rea) and does not support good faith as a defense.
Thus, the act of infringement and not the intent is
the one that causes the damage.
Dungo v People Dungo and Sibal were W/N Dungo and Sibal could YES. Hazing law is malum prohibitum, therefore
found guilty of the crime of be found guilty of hazing intent is immaterial. What is important is the result
violating Sec. 4 of the Anti- even though malicious intent of the act of hazing.
Hazing Law for the death of was absent.
Villanueva.

SPL AND INTENT

General Intent Specific Intent


Presumed to exist upon the mere doing of a wrongful act Existence of the specific intent is not presumed since it is an
element of the crime
An intention to do a wrong An intention to commit a definite wrongful act (w/ its
consequences)
The burden of proving the absence of intent is upon the accused The burden of proving the presence of specific intent is upon the
prosecution as such intent is an element of the crime

GENERAL INTENT V. SPECIFIC INTENT6

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Delim Three perpetrators hog-tied, W/N accused should be liable Murder. When specific intent is an element of the
kidnapped and eventually for kidnapping or murder crime, it must be specified in the information. In this
killed their adopted brother case it was specified that there was intent to kill.

If the primary and ultimate purpose of the


accused is to kill the victim, the incidental
deprivation of the victim’s liberty does not
constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is merged

6
Table from San Beda Criminal Law Reviewer Book 1

Page 6 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

into, or absorbed by, the killing of the victim. The


crime committed would be homicide or murder.

The hog-tying did not show intent to deprive Modesto


of his liberty (which would be kidnapping) because it
was only a preparatory act for the primary intent to
kill him.
Recuerdo v Recuerdo bought jewelry W/N Recuerdo is guilty of YES. In estafa, the prima facie evidence of deceit is
People from Floro and issued Estafa established upon proof that the drawer of the check
checks as payment. The failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
checks were dishonoured for check within three (3) days from receipt of the notice
having been drawn against of dishonor for lack or insufficiency of funds.
insufficient funds. Recuerdo
claims that the specific Specific intent may be shown by the nature of the
intent to deceit was not act, the circumstances under which it was
proven. committed, the means employed and the motive of
the accused.

INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT


Mala prohibita – crimes punishable by special laws whereby criminal intent is not necessary as a rule, it being sufficient that the offender
has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. It is punishable because the prohibited act is so injurious to the public
welfare that it is the crime itself.7 The acts are made evil because there is a law punishing it.8

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Dela The accused surrendered to W/N accused is liable under NO. While possession without criminal intent, is
Rosa Kagawad Rigor claiming PD 1866 sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a
they want to lead a new life. firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus
They informed him that possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of
Kumander Tamang, a the accused.
member of the NPA was
shot by one of them. There is a difference between intent to commit the
Accused had in their crime and intent to perpetrate the act. A person

7
Reyes, Book 1
8
Boado, Notes and Cases on SPL

Page 7 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

possession a shotgun and a may not have consciously intended to commit a crime
bag containing several but he intended to commit an act, and that act would
sticks of dynamite. constitute a crime. Intent to commit a crime has
criminal intent while intent to perpetrate an act is
done freely or consciously

SPL AND PENALTIES

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Mercado v Accused was guilty of W/N the penalty was proper NO. Unless otherwise specified, if the SPL imposes
People carnapping. RTC imposed its own penalty, it is error to designate the terms of
the penalty of reclusion the RPC because the penalties in the RPC apply only
temporal to crimes which fall under the RPC and not to a SPL.

Although the penalty of 14 years and 8 months


under the Anti-Carnapping Act falls within the
range of reclusion temporal, the technical term
cannot be similarly applied, but it is different if the
offense committed is coupled with the death of the
owner, driver, or occupant because the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death in accordance
with the said SPL.

PRESCRIPTION OF SPL
ACT NO. 3326

Penalty Prescription
Violation of municipal ordinances After 2 months
ONLY a fine (regardless of the amount) / Imprisonment of not more After 1 year
than 1 month / BOTH
Imprisonment of more than 1 month but less than 2 years After 4 years
Imprisonment of 2 years or more but less than 6 years After 8 years
Imprisonment of 6 years or more EXCEPT treason After 12 years
Treason After 20 years

Page 8 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

 Prescription period begins to run from the day of the commission of the offense if it be known.
 If not known, prescription starts to run from the discovery of the offense and the institution of judicial proceeding for its
investigation and punishment.
 Prescription period is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against a guilty person and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constitution jeopardy.
 Act 3326 applies ONLY to acts NOT included in the RPC.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Republic v UNICOM increased its W/N action has prescribed Sec. 2 of Act 3326 – prescription of SPLs
Cojuangco capitalization by increasing (1) if the commission is known, it begins to run from
authorized capital stock the day of the commission of the violation is known;
Feb. 8, 1980 (Amended (2) if it is not known, prescription starts to run from
Articles of Incorporation) the discovery and the institution of judicial
OSG filed a complaint proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
(Violation of RA 3019) on
March 1, 1990 against the Main decision:
respondents alleging that YES. It had prescribed. (In this case, No. 1 applies -
their acts were grossly from the commission)
disadvantageous to the Prescription should be reckoned from the filing of the
government. (Feb 8, 1980) Amended Articles of Incorporation
– because it’s a public document, hence subject
to public scrutiny
Republic v W/N action has prescribed YES. It had prescribed.
Cojuangco Prescription should be reckoned from the filing of the
(Bersamin) (Feb 8, 1980) Amended Articles of Incorporation
in the SEC and NOT from the filing of the General
Information Sheet.

The AAI is the only trustworthy piece of evidence


that proved dilution
Republic v W/N action has prescribed NO. It has not prescribed.
Cojuangco Prescription should be reckoned from the filing of the
(Brion) General Information Sheet (which should be
much later than Feb 8, 1980 – did not specify a
particular date)

Page 9 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

While AAI is of public notice, the disclosure did not


establish or at least give reasonable notice to the
public any undue injury to the government which is
the gravamen of RA 3019
Republic v W/N action has prescribed NO. It has not prescribed.
Cojuangco Prescription should be reckoned from the issuance of
(Perlas-Bernabe) then President Cory Aquino of EO 1 (PCGG) on
Feb. 28, 1986 which spurred the investigation on
the UNICOM investment, NOT from the filing of the
AAI.

Amendments in the AAI were couched in general


terms w/o reference to the specific shares of
UNICOM’s investors. Public’s knowledge of a
transaction is not equal to knowledge of an
anomalous transaction.

RPC IS SUPPLETORY
ART. 10, RPC. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be suppletory to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary.

General Rule: When the special law uses the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code, the RPC applies suppletorily.
Exceptions:
(1) When the special law explicitly says that the RPC does not apply suppletorily
(2) When there is physical or legal impossibility (People v. Simon)
a. If the SPL does not make use of RPC nomenclature, then RPC does not apply suppletorily9
There will always be legal impossibility if the RPC nomenclature was not used.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Simon Simon was convicted for W/N this is the proper NO. The SC modified the penalty to 6 months of
violating RA 6425 penalty arresto mayor minimum to 6 years of prision
(Dangerous Drugs Act of correccional as maximum.

9
People v Simon

Page 10 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

1972). The RTC imposed a


penalty of life The special law has unqualifiedly adopted the
imprisonment penalties under the RPC in their technical
terms. As such, there are technical significations
and effects.
People v Abay Abay was charged with W/N Abay is guilty of simple Simple Rape only. Court did not appreciate RA 7610.
Feb 24, 2009 rape for sexually abusing a rape or Article 335 of the The victim was more than 12 years old when the
minor in a span of 6 years. Revised Penal Code in crime was committed against her. Therefore,
RTC found him guilty of relation to Section 5 Article appellant may be prosecuted either for violation of
Article 335 of the Revised III of RA 7610 Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-
Penal Code in relation to A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 5 Article III of RA
7610 Rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Sec
5(b) of RA 7610. Under Sec. 48 of the RPC, a felony
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a
special law.

Felonies under the RPC cannot be complexed


with an offense penalized by a special law.

SPECIAL LAWS AFFECTING LIABILITIES


PROHIBITION ON THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346
2 In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised
Penal Code; or

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code,

Page 11 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

3 Persons convicted of reclusion perpetua or reduced to reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole10 / ISL
4 WHO: Board of Pardons and Parole
WHAT: shall cause the publication of the list of names of persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment who are being recommended for commutation 11 or pardon1213
WHEN: At least one week, for 3 consecutive weeks
WHERE: In a newspaper of general circulation
*The President may still grant Executive Clemency14
5 This act shall take effect immediately after publication in TWO newspapers of general circulation

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v. Quiachon raped his W/N the penalty of death YES.


Quiachon daughter. Aggravating should be reduced to RP Penalty of death was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Aug. 31, 2006 circumstances: Minority However, persons convicted of reclusion perpetua or
and relationship. Hence the reduced to reclusion perpetua are not eligible for
RA 9346 penalty should be death. In parole.
June 24, 2006 view of the enactment of RA
9346 the penalty to be
imposed should be reduced
to reclusion perpetua
People v Abellera was convicted of W/N the lower courts Modified:
Abellera statutory rape, two counts imposed the proper penalty Statutory rape – DEATH reduced to reclusion
of simple rape and perpetua w/ no eligibility for parole pursuant
to RA 9346

10
Parole - conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he has served the minimum of his prison sentence. (Revised Rules and
Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole)
11
Commutation of Sentence – reduction of the duration of a prison sentence of a prisoner (Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole)
12
Absolute Pardon - total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it is granted without any condition. It restores to the individual his civil and
political rights and remits the penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted (Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and
Parole)
13
Conditional Pardon – refers to the exemption of an individual, within certain limits or conditions from the punishment which the law inflicts for the offense he
had committed resulting in the partial extinction of his criminal liability (Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole)
14
Executive Clemency – refers to Reprieve, Absolute Pardon, Conditional Pardon with or without Parole Conditions and Commutation of Sentence as may be
granted by the President of the Philippines (Reprieve- refers to the deferment of the implementation of the sentence for an interval of time; it does not annul
the sentence but merely postpones or suspends its execution) (Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole)

Page 12 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

attempted rape, for raping


his minor daughters Affirmed:
Simple rape – RP
Attempted rape – two counts lower than the penalty
imposed for consummated rape
People v Sarcia Rape of a 5-year-old minor, W/N the lower courts Under Art 335, rape of a minor is punishable with
Sarcia: 18 at the time of imposed the proper penalty death penalty.
commission. Pending the However, accused herein was a minor at the time of
case: 24 the commission of the offense. Hence, he was given a
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority

Article 68, RPC – When the offender is a minor, the


penalty should be one degree lower than the
penalty imposed by the law.

In determining the proper penalty, start with the


penalty imposed by the law, notwithstanding RA
9346 which automatically reduces the penalty to RP

One degree lower from death (imposed by law) is


reclusion perpetua.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW


ACT NO. 4103
1 In imposing prison sentence for an offense
If punished by the RPC
Maximum term – “that which in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said
Code”
Minimum term – “shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense”

If punished by SPL (which did not adopt the nomenclature of the RPC)
Maximum term – “shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law”
Minimum term – “shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed” by the law
 Graduation of penalties does not apply in SPL. Thus, the penalty under the SPL cannot be lowered by 1 degree 15

15
From Judge Boomsri S. Rodolfo’s CRIM 1 Handouts

Page 13 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

In applying ISLAW, Courts must impose a minimum and maximum based on the range of the penalty imposed under
the SPL
Ex: SPL imposed the penalty of 3 to 6 years
Courts can impose the ff. indeterminate sentences:
3 years as minimum to 4 years as maximum
3 years as minimum to 5 years as maximum
3 years as minimum to 6 years as maximum
 HOWEVER, the Court may impose a straight penalty up to 1 year if the same is within the minimum provided under the
SPL
Ex: SPL imposed the penalty of 6 months to 3 years.
The Court is allowed to impose a straight penalty and need not apply the ISLAW as long as the straight penalty
imposed is within the minimum provided under the SPL and will NOT EXCEED one year.
Courts may impose the ff. straight penalties:
6 months
8 months
11 months
1 year
Etc. (as long as the penalty will not exceed 1y
*Should the court impose a penalty exceeding one year, it is required to apply ISLAW.
2 Who are disqualified
(1) Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment
(2) To those convicted of
Crimes against National Security Crimes against the Law of Nations Crimes against Public Order
Treason Piracy16 Rebellion
Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason Sedition
Misprision of Treason
Espionage
(3) To those who are habitual delinquents (Note: Recidivists are entitled to ISLAW – People v. Jaranilla)
(4) To those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
(5) Those who, having been granted conditional pardon by the President and shall have violated the terms thereof
(6) Those whose MAXIMUM term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
(7) Not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of this Act except as provided under Sec.
517 hereof

16
All other crimes under Crimes against the Law of Nations are NOT included in the disqualification (1) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art 118), (2)
Violation of Neutrality (Art. 119), (3) Correspondence w/ hostile country (Art 120) (4) Flight to enemy’s country (Art 121)
17
Sec. 5, Act 4103 “ x x x Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence, x x x that such prisoner is fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty

Page 14 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(8) To those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or whose penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua
(from RA 9346)
(9) When application of ISLAW will not be favourable to the accused18
(10) Pendency of another case (Adonis v Tesoro)19
(11) If the sentence does not impose imprisonment. (Ex. If sentence is destierro only, then ISLAW does not apply)
3 Creation of a Board of Pardons and Parole
4 Board of Pardons and Parole
 Authorized to adopt necessary rules and regulations
 Majority vote of ALL the members shall constitute a quorum and is necessary to arrive at a decision
5 Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in accordance with the rules
and regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is fitted by his
training for release, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the
law, and that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in
its discretion, and in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the release of such prisoner on
parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein prescribed and as may be prescribed by the Board.
6 Every prisoner released from confinement in parole by virtue of this act shall:
 Report personally to such government officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Inderminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the MAXIMUM sentence imposed upon him
OR until finals release or discharge
 The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner may be fixed and changed by the Board from time to time in its discretion.
 Final certificate of release – issued if during the period of surveillance, such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a
law-abiding citizen and shall not violate the laws of the Philippine Islands.
8 Whenever any prisoner released on parole x x x during the period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for his re-arrest x x x.
In such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which
he was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to
the said prisoner.

without violating the law, and that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of the society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its
discretion, x x x authorize the release of such prisoner on parole upon such terms and conditions prescribed by the Board.
18
ELC
19
ELC

Page 15 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PHILOSOPHY AND INTENT

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

De Joya v Jail Violation of Bouncing W/N SC Admin circular NO. Even if the SC Circular will apply retroactively,
Warden Checks Law. She was guilty should apply to her it won’t apply to her in view of her bad faith.
but she remained at large. (1) Philippine Penal Law is based from Spanish
She wants the new SC penal code and adopted the positivist theory
Circular to apply to her (2) Positivist theory: the basis for criminal
where it was said that liability is the sum total of the social
Bouncing Checks Violations economic phenomena to which the offense is
should be punished only expressed. This is exemplified in ISLAW
with fines and not (3) The Phil. Penal law looks at the convict as a
imprisonment member of the society
(4) Factors to be considered
a. His relationship towards his
dependents, family, and their
relationship with him
b. His relationship towards the society
at large and the State
(5) State’s concern
a. To protect the social organization
against criminal acts of destructive
individuals
b. To secure justice
(6) Penalties should not only be retributive but
also reformative.
(7) Court has to consider
a. Primary elements of punishment –
moral responsibility of the offender
b. Also the secondary elements –
reformation

Page 16 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

DETERMINING THE SENTENCE

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Frustrated murder, Ducosin How to properly apply ISL? In ISLAW, the Court must determine TWO
Ducosin pleaded guilty (1- DEATH penalties, instead of just one.
mitigating), there are no RP
aggravating circumstances. Maximum – determined by the RPC, as if ISLAW
While on appeal, ISL was RT MAX was never passed (note: in view of the attending
passed (1ST case where ISL circumstances). Shall not be greater than the
was applied) Penalty prescribed by the law maximum prescribed by the law
for consummated murder Minimum – shall not be less than the minimum
Note: The penalty for period of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
consummated murder is RT MED the said Code for the offense.
reclusion temporal MAX to RT MIN
death Frustrated murder – one degree lower than the
PM MAX consummated
Ruling: SC modified as - 1 Ordinary Mitigating circumstance (OM) – plea of
Ducosin is hereby sentenced One degree lower because it’s guilty
to a maximum penalty of 10 frustrated murder No Aggravating circumstance
years and 1 day of
prision mayor in its PM MED Penalty: PC Max to PM Med in any of its
maximum degree and to a PM MIN periods as minimum to PM Max to RT Med in
minimum imprisonment of its minimum as the maximum
7 years. PC MAX
*MAXIMUM term is in its minimum because of 1
Steps in applying ISLAW:20 OM (plea of guilt)
One degree lower to
(1) Identify if the penalty is Now to determine the duration, use the table of
determine the range of
divisible. If divisible, duration of divisible penalties
penalty w/ ISLAW
divide into three periods
(MIN, MED, MAX) Duration Min Med Max
(2) Lower the penalty by RT 12y and 12y and 14 y 8mo 17y 4mo
one degree to determine 1d to 20y 1d to 14y and 1d to and 1d to
the range of the penalty and 8mo 17y and 20y
4mo

20
From Judge Boomsri S. Rodolfo’s CRIM 1 Handouts

Page 17 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(3) Determine the presence PM 6 y and 1d 6y and 1d 8y and 1d 10y 1d to


of modifying to 12y to 8y to 10y 12y
circumstances. This is PC 6mo and 6mo and 2y and 4y 2mo
relevant in determining 1d to 6y 1d to 2y 4mo and and 1d to
and 4mo 1day to 4y 6y
the maximum sentence
2mo
that may be imposed.
Etc.
(No GA21 or OM22 or all
GAs and OMs offset
MAX TERM: PM Max to RT Med in its minimum
each other = MED; 1GA
PM Max is the minimum of the MAX term.
and no OM =MAX; 1OM,
10 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its
and no GA = MIN)
maximum as MAX
Determine the imposable
range of penalty then
MIN TERM: PC Max to PM Med in any of its
impose the minimum and
periods23
maximum.
Court imposed 7 years in its discretion as the MIN
People v Illegal recruitment in large What is the correct penalty? The prescribed penalty for estafa is prision
Temporada scale and 5 counts of PM MED correccional in its maximum to prision mayor
Estafa. Temporada PM MIN in its minimum.
swindled the amount P57k, PC MAX
P66K P88k, P69k,P69k Applying ISLAW:
from 5 different people Penalty prescribed by the law MIN – The minimum term is taken from the penalty
next lower (anywhere within PC MIN to PC MED –
Note: ESTAFA (Art 315) PC MED i.e. 6mo and 1d to 4y and 2mo)24
The penalty of prision PC MIN (RTC correct)
correccional in its
maximum period to Lower the penalty by one MAX – crux of the case
prision mayor in its degree (ISLAW) What the RTC did was it divided Prision Mayor (in
minimum period, if the its full extent- PM MIN, PM MED, PM MAX) to
fraud shall not exceed three periods. The SC said this is wrong.
22,000 pesos, and if such
amount exceeds the latter The RTC should have divided the MAX penalty
sum, the penalty provided prescribed by the law into three periods
shall be imposed in its

21
Generic aggravating circumstance
22
Ordinary mitigating circumstance
23
Atty Abitria: for purposes of exams, assume you are the judge. You will impose the penalty
24
Refer to Duration of Divisible Penalties in People v Ducosin

Page 18 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

MAXIMUM period, adding PC MIN to PC MAX in its MAX


ONE YEAR for each PC MIN to PC MAX in its MED
additional 10k pesos x x x PC MIN to PC MAX in its MIN

In computing for the incremental penalty, the


amount defrauded shall be subtracted by 22,000 and
then divided by 10,000. Any fraction of a year shall
be discarded
People v Cesar Cesar, a minor stabbed the W/N the imposed penalty is (1) Start with the penalty imposed by the
acting principal. correct Revised Penal Code (i.e. reclusion temporal)
(2) Then apply the privileged mitigating
Charge: Direct Assault w/ RT MAX circumstance of minority
Murder RT MED (3) Determine the penalty next lower in degree
Cesar pleaded guilty to a RT MIN (ISLAW) to determine the range
lesser offense: Direct Penalty prescribed by the
Assault w/ Homicide RPC

1PM: Minority PM MAX


1OM: Plea of guilty PM MED
PM MIN
The RTC erred in applying One degree lower because of
first the imposable penalty the priv. mitigating
in its MAX degree
PC MAX
PC MED
PC MIN
Penalty next lower in degree
-ISLAW

Bacasmas v Violation of RA7610, W/N the SB applied the YES. Under the ISLAW, if the offense is punished
Sandiganbayan PD1445, RA 3019 correct penalty by a special law, such as RA3019, the trial court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
ISLAW as applied to SPLs penalty, the maximum term of which shall not
The Sandiganbayan found exceed the MAX fixed by the law, and the MIN term
them guilty of beyond shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the
reasonable doubt for law.
violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act and

Page 19 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

sentences them to an The penalty prescribed by the law for violating Sec
indeterminate penalty of 12 3(e) of RA 3019 is:
years and 1 month to 15 6 years and 1 month – 15 years
years
Imposed penalty
12 years and 1 month – 15 years
(Still within the range fixed by law)
People v Mantalaba is a minor W/N ISLAW should be YES.
Mantalaba arrested during a buy-bust applied to Mantalaba’s case
operation. If there is an attending circumstance that converts
DEATH the penalty from INDIVISIBLE to DIVISIBLE,
He violated Sec 5 of RA LI ISLAW will STILL apply
9165 which merits the Penalty prescribed by the law
penalty of life
imprisonment to death. DEATH
RP
Under Sec 98 of RA 9165, Sec 98 of RA 9165
when the offender is a
minor, the penalty of acts RT MAX
punishable by life RT MED
imprisonment to death RT MIN
shall be reclusion perpetua Priv. Mit. Circ. of minority
to death.
PM MAX
The penalty is further
PM MED
lowered to reclusion
PM MIN
temporal because of the
Next lower - ISLAW
priv. mitigating
circumstance of minority

DISQUALIFICATION

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Guinhawa, engaged in the W/N ISLAW is applicable if NO. If the court opts to impose a penalty of
Guinhawa business of selling brand the max term of imprisonment of one year or less, it should not
new cars. One of his drivers

Page 20 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

suffered from a heart attack imprisonment does not impose an indeterminate penalty, but a straight
while working. The car was exceed one year. penalty of one year or less instead.
damaged. Guihawa
repaired the car and sold it Guinhawa was sentenced to straight penalty of 6
as “brand new”. He was months
found guilty for violating
Art 318 of the RPC and *If ISLAW is not applicable, the sentence should only
imposed the penalty of 2 impose a straight penalty
mos and 1d to 4 mos.
People v Manlulu and Samson W/N ISLAW applied to NO. Habitual delinquents cannot avail of the
Manlulu murdered Alfaro. Samson is Samson, a habitual provisions of ISLAW-
a habitual delinquent –he delinquent
was convicted once of Art. 62 (5d.) Habitual delinquents - WITHIN 10
robbery and thrice of theft years from the date of last release or last conviction
within 10 years prior to this of the crimes of (1) serious physical injuries (2) less
case. serious physical injuries (3) robbery (4) theft (5)
estafa (6) falsification, he is found guilty of ANY of
the crimes a third time or oftener

(See: Comparison table B)


People v Gardon Gardon – 2 counts of rape W/N Gardon is entitled to Persons convicted of reclusion perpetua or whose
for raping his parole sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua are
granddaughter. He was disqualified from applying for parole. RP has no
sentenced with reclusion minimum or maximum. It’s an indivisible penalty
perpetua for each count of
rape. RP is in indivisible
penalty without a minimum
or maximum period.
People v Simon Simon was convicted for W/N ISLAW applies to YES. ISLAW applies to CDD since the RPC
violating RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs act. A nomenclature was used. The graduation of penalties
(Dangerous Drugs Act of special penal law which uses applies notwithstanding that CDD is a special penal
1972). The RTC imposed a the RPC nomenclature law.
penalty of life
imprisonment

Page 21 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

ISL AND COMPLEX CRIME

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Fransdilla v Yrevrre was robbed by W/N the lower courts NO. The SC ruled that the crime was complex crime
People Fransdilla and 4 other men. imposed the proper penalties of Robbery in an inhabited house by armed men
The RTC and CA convicted under Art 299, RPC and Robbery with violence
them of Robbery ONLY. against and intimidation of persons under Art 294.

Under the ART. 48, RPC, the penalty in complex


crimes is that for the more serious felony. The
penalty of the graver offense shall be the reckoning
point in determining the MAX of ISLAW.

In complex crimes, the MAXIMUM term shall


always be imposed in its MAXIMUM.

ISLAW AND ACCESSORY PENALTY

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Villareal v Lenny Villa was a victim of W/N the accessory penalties YES. In applying accessory penalties, refer to the
People hazing. that will apply are those principal penalty prescribed by the law before the
which are attached to the application of ISLAW
principal penalty before the
ISLAW was used

SERVING MINIMUM

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Board of Barredo was convicted of W/N he finished serving NO. While he has already served the minimum
Pardons and 30y for Carnapping and 18y sentence penalty in the carnapping case, he has not yet served
Parole, Barredo (reduced by the SC) for the minimum in the illegal possession case.
v Vinarao illegal possession. He filed a

Page 22 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

petition for the issuance of Main issue: W/N he’s entitled Doctrine: to be eligible for parole, one has to serve
a writ of habeas corpus to a Writ. NO. – WRIT the minimum of the first crime, and then the
asking that be released on applies to those ILLEGALLY minimum of the second crime. 25
the ground that he has confined.
already finished served for
18 years (minimum of
carnapping)

PAROLE AND LIABILITY

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v. 1994, Abesamis murdered W/N the grant of parole NO. His release only meant that he has already
Abesamis Ramon, a spotter who put rendered the case moot served the minimum penalty and that he was fitted
the wrong score in a for training fror release. But parole does not
billiards game. extinguish criminal and civil liability.

2007, the assistant director Parole - conditional release of an offender from a


of prisons and security of correctional institution after he serves the minimum
BuCor informed the court term of his prison sentence. Note: Parole does not
that Abesamis was granted extinguish criminal and civil liability
parole

PROBATION LAW
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 968
(as amended by P.D. 1257 and R.A. 10707 – [A] = amended)
2 Purpose:
(a) Promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment
(b) Provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison
sentence.
(c) Prevent the commission of offenses
3 Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the
court and to the supervision of a probation officer.

25
NOTE: Atty. Abitria notes that in practice, the convicted has to serve the WHOLE sentence of the first crime before he can be eligible for parole.

Page 23 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

4 Grant of Probation26.
[A]  WHAT: Court may after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty27 and upon
application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and
place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best.
 WHEN TO FILE: No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal of
judgment
o PROVIDED, when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed and
such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty the defendant shall be allowed to
apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final.
 WHERE TO FILE: The application for probation based on the modified decision shall be filed
o In the trial court where judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered OR
o In the trial court where such case has been reraffled.
 In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for
probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction.
 The accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek a review of the modified decision which already
imposes a probationable penalty
 Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only.
 FILING OF AN APPLICATION = WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
 An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable
8 Section 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the
court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the
offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed
9 Section 9. Disqualified Offenders. The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
[A] (a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of any crime against national security2829
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months
and one (1) day or a fine of more than Php 100030
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and

26
Amended by 1257 and Amended further by 10707
27
It’s probationable penalty! Not probationable crime!
28
968- any offense against the security of the State;
29
Treason, Conspiracy and proposal to commit Treason, Misprision of Treason, Espionage
30
968 - of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos;

Page 24 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to
Section 33 hereof.
10 Section 10. Conditions of Probation. Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the
probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order
within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written approval of the
probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution,
when required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(i) permit to probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place or work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or
incompatible with his freedom of conscience.
11 A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance at which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequences
thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of
another offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation.
12 The court may upon application of either the probationer or the probation officer revise or modify the conditions of the period of
probation
14 Period of probation
(a) Term of imprisonment is not more than 1 year, PROBATION: shall not exceed 2 years
Term of imprisonment – in all other cases, PROBATION: shall not exceed 6 years
(b) Sentence imposes a fine only + offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, PROBATION:
shall not be less than nor more than 2X the total number
16 Section 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of
[A] the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.

Page 25 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his
conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense from which probation was granted.31
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.

NATURE OF PROBATION

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Villareal v Lenny Villa was a victim of W/N the accused applied for No, the applicants are not at liberty to choose where
People hazing. RTC Caloocan Br. probation in the correct to file the application for probation.
121 found the several court.
accused to have conspired PD 968 [OLD LAW] – Sec 4. Grant of Probation –
so it convicted ALL of them Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial
of homicide. CA lowered the court, may, after it shall have convicted and
crime based on liability of sentenced a defendant x x x
each and lowered penalty
from homicide (not This means that the court of origin – (Court which
probationable) to slight sentenced and convicted) has the jurisdiction over the
physical injury (a case. In this case, RTC Br. 121. Hence, the
probationable offense). application made in Br. 130 is invalid.
After this, the Aquilans RA 10707 [CURRENT RULE: BY VIRTUE OF THE
immediately applied for AMENDMENT]
probation with RTC Sec. 4 x x x The application for probation x x x shall
Caloocan Br. 130 which be filed with In the trial court where the
granted their application. judgement of conviction imposing a non-
probationable penalty was rendered OR in the
trial court where such case has since been
reraffled.
Santos To v Santos To was convicted of W/N Judge Pano was correct NO. Sec. 9 of the Probation law provides for the kind
Pano Estafa for issuing bouncing in denying the application of offenders which are disqualified from availing the
checks. CA reduced his notwithstanding the benefits of probation:
penalty to a probationable recommendation from a (1) Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
one. Santos To immediately probation officer? imprisonment of more than 6 years
applied for probation. The
probation officer

31
968 fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted.

Page 26 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

recommended for his (2) Those convicted of any offense against the
probation but Judge Pano security32 of the State
did not denied the (3) Those who have previously been convicted by
application for probation for final judgment of an offense punished by
two reasons: (1) to grant the imprisonment of not less than one month and
probation will depreciate one day and/or a fine of not less than P200
the seriousness of the [NOTE: Amended by RA 10707. x x x
offense (2) Petitioner is not convicted by final judgment of an offense
a penitent offender punished by imprisonment of more than six
(6) months and one (1) day or a fine of
more than Php 1000.00]
(4) Those who have been on probation under the
provisions of the decree, and
(5) Those who were already serving sentence at
the time the substantive provision of the
decree became applicable, pursuant to Sec.
33.
In expressly enumerating the offenders not
qualified to enjoy the benefits of the probation law,
the clear intent is to allow said benefits to those not
included in the enumeration.
OCA v Librado Public officer, suspended W/N Librado should be YES. While the purpose of the Probation Law is to
and charged with violation dismissed from office save valuable human material, it must not be
of RA 6425 for selling forgotten that unlike pardon, probation does not
drugs. He was found guilty obliterate the crime of which the person under
and sentenced to 6y probation has been convicted. The reform and
imprisonment. He pleaded rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his
guilty and is now on retention in the gov’t service.
probation hoping that he
could be given a 2nd chance

32
Note crimes against security only, crimes against the law of nations is not included although the latter are also under Title One of RPC. Crimes against national
security:
(1) Treason (Art 114)
(2) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art 115)
(3) Misprision of Treason (Art 116)
(4) Espionage (Art 117)

Page 27 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(he didn’t want to leave his


post)
Amandy v Amandy charged with W/N Amandy is entitled to NO.
People violation of Dangerous probation Originally, benefits of probation were NOT extended
Drugs. He was sentenced to to those sentenced to serve MAX term of more than 6
a penal servitude of SIX years.
YEARS and ONE DAY.
The law was amended by BP 76, changing it to: “the
benefits of probation shall NOT extend to those
sentenced to serve a MAX term of more than 6 years
and one day” [this is supposedly favourable to
Amandy]

Marcos further amended the law via PD 1990 and


reinstated the old rule. [making Amandy not eligible
for probation again]

Probation DENIED. No need for harmonization


when there is a clear amendment of the law
Llamado v CA Violation of BP 22 When should an application Original -PD 968:
for probation be applied Sec. 4 the trial court could grant application for
probation at any time after it shall have
convicted and sentenced the defendant and
certainly after an appeal has been taken from the
sentence of conviction.

PD 968 amended by PD 1257:


Sec. 4 the trial court could grant application for
probation after it shall have convicted and sentenced
the defendant but before he begins to serve his
sentence.

Further amendment by PD 1990 [current rule]


Sec. 4 the trial court could grant application for
probation at any time after it shall have convicted
and sentenced the defendant, and upon
application by said defendant and within the
period for perfecting and appeal

Page 28 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Baclayon v Teacher convicted by Judge W/N the questioned condition YES. Probation statutes are liberal in character and
Mutia Mutia of serious oral should be deleted enable the courts to designate practically any
defamation for insulting the condition it chooses as long as the probationer’s
principal. Mutia granted constitutional rights.
probation. One of the
conditions was that Baclayo
was not allowed from
continuing her teaching
profession. Baclayon alleges
Soriano v CA Soriano was convicted of W/N the revocation of the YES. Conditions imposed by the trial court should be
the crime of Reckless probation was lawful followed by the probationer.
Imprudence resulting to
homicide, serious physical
injuries and damage to
prop. He was granted
probation the ff. conditions
were set for him to follow
(1) He shall meet his family
responsibilities (2) He shall
devote himself to a job (3)
Indemnify the heirs of the
victim. Soriano’s father (car
owner) received payment
for insurance of the car but
Soriano did not turn over
the proceeds to the victim’s
heirs. Soriano’s probation
was revoked.

Page 29 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

RECOMMENDATION OF PROBATION OFFICER

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Bernardo v Bernardo convicted of W/N a judge is bound by the NO. A judge is not bound by the recommendation of
Balagot Estafa in the MTC. He favourable recommendation the Probation Officer.
applied for probation while of a Probation Officer
his motion for new trial was
pending before the MTC.
The Probation Officer
approved it but it was
subsequently denied by the
MTC Judge Balagot

TERMINATION OF PROBATION

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Bala v Martinez Bala was convicted with W/N his probation should be YES. Sec. 16 of PD 968. Termination of Probation –
falsification and was revoked after the period of probation and upon the
granted probation for one consideration of the report and recommendation of
year. A year passed but the the probation officer, the court of an order of final
order of final discharge discharge based on the report and recommendation
wasn’t issued because Bala of the probation officer. Only from such issuance can
failed to submit his final the case of the probationer be deemed terminated.
report. This is a violation of He was sentenced to serve the original sentence.
the terms of the probation

COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Suyan v People Suyan convicted for W/N the revocation of his YES. The Court’s discretion to grant probation is to
violating RA 6425 (DDrugs probation was proper be exercised primarily for the benefit of the
Act). He was granted

Page 30 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

probation but he was again organized society and only incidentally for the
arrested for violating the benefit of the accused.
same law.
People v Salazar Salazar convicted of RA W/N her being on probation NO. That she was on probation would not erase the
6425. Salazar alleges that is material to her subsequent fact of her conviction even though service of her
the trial court relied on her conviction sentence was suspended.
previous conviction for
violation of the same law.
She said that her being
under probation was not
alleged in the Information.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Francisco v CA Francisco was convicted of 4 W/N he’s disqualified from YES. He’s disqualified. The law expressly required
counts of oral defamation. applying for probation since that an accused must not have appealed his
He appealed but all of his the law prohibits one from conviction before he can avail of probation.
appeals were denied applying for probation is one
has already chosen to appeal
Rura v Lopena Rura convicted of 5 counts W/N Rura is disqualified NO. When he applied for probation he had no
of Estafa and tried under a previous conviction by final judgement. When he
single decision which applied for probation, the only conviction against
sentenced him to 17mo 25d. him was the judgement which was the subject of his
Rura appealed to the RTC application.
which affirmed the lower
court. Rura applied for
probation which was
opposed by a probation
officer because under Sec 9
of PD968, probation does
not apply to those who
have previously been
convicted by final
judgement of
imprisonment of not less

Page 31 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

than 1 month and one day x


xx
Pablo v Castillo Violation of BP 22 in three W/N Pablo is disqualified YES. Previous conviction – she was already convicted
separate informations from applying? in Br. 41 when she applied for probation in Br. 43.
which were NOT
consolidated. Two cases
were raffled in Br. 43 while
the third was in Br. 41. Br.
41 convicted Pablo and
imposed a fine of Php 4648.
Pablo was also convicted in
Br. 43 so she applied for
probation

PROBATION AND APPEAL

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Colinares v At first he was found guilty W/N Colinares may apply for YES. He may still apply since the penalty of the new
People of frustrated homicide in probation conviction qualifies him to apply for probation.
the RTC but the SC found Technically he made no appeal to such conviction
him guilty of only since it is a new conviction by the SC.
attempted homicide
(probationable)
Yusi v Morales Spouses Yusi were W/N after applying for YES. The right to appeal should not be irrevocably
convicted of Estafa. They probation, an accused may lost from the moment a convicted accused filed and
applied for probation. A few withdraw the application and application for probation
days later (within the within the reglamentary
reglamentary period) they period, appeal the judgment
filed a notice of appeal. of conviction

SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Art 39. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine x x x he shall be subject to subsidiary personal liability (rate: 1d/highest
MIN wage at the time of judgment)

Ex: Fine is P20,000. 20,000/P512 (Highest MIN wage now) = 39 days subsidiary imprisonment

Page 32 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

 PRINCIPAL PENALTY: prision correccional OR arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine x x x is satisfied,
but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case shall it continue for more
than 1 year. No fraction or part of the day shall be counted against the prisoner
 PRINCIPAL PENALTY: Fine only
o SI shall NOT EXCEED 6mo if culprit has been convicted for a grave/ less grave felony
o SI shall NOT EXCEED 15d if for a light felony only.
 PRINCIPAL PENALTY: HIGHER than prision correccional = NO MORE SI.
 Prisoner is not relieved of subsidiary personal liability in case his financial circumstances should improve

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591


WHEN APPLIED

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Narte v CA Delia sold buses to Narte. W/N CA erred in ordering NO. RPC is applied to special laws which adopt its
Narte used PDC worth subsidiary imprisonment in nomenclature such as BP 22
2.2M to pay for the buses. case of non-payment of fine
Checks bounced.

REASON FOR THE LAW

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Toledo v Toledo was sentenced in 9 W/N Toledo is required to NO. No prisoner shall be held in jail for more than 6y
Superintendent criminal cases with a total undergo subsidiary detention by reason of insolvency; the aggregate penalties
Correcional imprisonment of 10 y. She to pay for the indemnities should be considered in bulk, not separately.
has already served the 10 y.
Art 39(3) says that when
the principal penalty is
higher than PC (6y) no
more subsidiary
imprisonment. Supt. Of the
institution appealed, saying
that none of each crime
exceeded 6 years

Page 33 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

CANNOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT JUDGMENT

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Ramos v Gonong Ramos was convicted of W/N Ramos should be made No. Subsidiary liability must be expressly stated. No
Damage to Property with to suffer a subsidiary liability one should be made to suffer a subsidiary liability of
Multiple Physical injuries imprisonment if it is not expressly stated.
through reckless
imprudence. The judge
failed to put “subsidiary
imprisonment in case of
insolvency” in the
dispositive portion
Bagtas v Dir. Of Bagtas was convicted of W/N penalty of subsidiary NO. Art. 70 contemplates that the convict shall not
Prisons Estafa in 17 criminal cases liability should be deleted serve the excess of the maximum of the threefold of
and was sentenced to the most severe penalty
6y4m26d w/ Php 43,436 in
case of insolvency. He
contends that the
subsidiary liability should
be deleted because Art 70
states (three fold rule) that
no other penalty to which he
may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total
of those have been imposed

BP22

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Jao Yu v People Petitioner contends that he W/N an accused found guilty YES. Article 10- suppletory application.
should not be meted with of violations of BP22 should
subsidiary liability because be made to suffer the
BP 22 only says “shall be subsidiary imprisonment in

Page 34 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

punished with case he fails to pay the fines


imprisonment or fine or imposed by the trial court
both”
Diongzon v CA Diongzon convicted of BP 22 W/N CA was correct NO. The rule on subsidiary penalty applies to Special
but CA did not impose Penal Laws such as BP 22 which adopt the
subsidiary penalty nomenclature of the RPC.

PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Preventive Imprisonment is imposed upon a person before he/she is convicted if he/she cannot afford bail, or his/her criminal
case is non-bailable.33
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592
APPLIES TO ARTICLES OF WAR

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Garcia v ES Garcia was found guilty of W/N Garcia should be NO. Offenders who have undergone preventive
lying about his SALN. After confined for two more years imprisonment shall be credited the service of their
6 years and 2 months of sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty.
preventive confinement,
Garcia was released. Who are not qualified:
President Aquino affirmed (a) When they are recidivists or have been
the AFP and directed that convicted previously twice or more times of
Garcia is to serve 2 years of any crime
preventive imprisonment. (b) When upon being summoned for execution of
Garcia contends that he has their sentence they have failed to surrender
served more than 2 years voluntarily.
already so he should not be
arrested and confined
anymore

33
Sen. Francis Escudero –Author of the amendment

Page 35 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

ALLOWANCES
WHEN ENTITLED

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Baking v Dir. Of Accused have been under W/N the accused could NO.
Prisons detention for more than 18 benefit from Art 97 The allowance for good conduct “for each month of
years. They were convicted good behaviour” refers to a good behaviour of a
July 28, 1969 of rebellion and were prisoner while he is serving his term as a convict and
sentenced to 10 y not otherwise
RA 10592 imprisonment. They
July 23, 2012 contend that they should be CURRENT RULE:
released by virtue of Art 29 Art 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability-
(1/2 of preventive criminal liability is extinguished partially:
imprisonment should be 1.)By conditional pardon
deducted) and Art 97 – 2.) By commutation of sentence
allowance for good conduct 3.) For good conduct allowance which the
of any prisoner culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment

WHO GIVES CREDIT

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Tan Fidel was sentenced to W/N the warden has NO.
penalty of 2y and 4mo as authority to credit the time The release was premature. Fidel has an unserved
min to 4y and 2mo as max. allowance for good conduct portion of 11 months and 5 days. Art. 99 of the RPC
Provincial warden did not dictates that time allowance for good conduct can
commit him to national only be given by Director of Prisons. Not anyone else,
penitentiary but only such as the warden.
retained him in the
Provincial Jail. He was
released after 2y 8mo 21d
crediting him for good
conduct by the warden.

Page 36 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

City Warden v Phil. National Committee Who has the authority to Art. 99 of the RPC dictates that time allowance for
Mla City Jail on Legal Aid visited the grant good conduct time good conduct can only be given by Director of
prison and found that 34 allowances? Prisons.
prisoners are entitled to be
released after deducting CURRENT RULE:
time allowances for good AMENDMENT OF ART 99:
conduct. NCLA filed for a The ff. may grant good conduct time allowances:
writ of habeas corpus before (1) Dir. Of Bureau of Corrections
the court. Jail Warden (2) Chief of the BJMP
opposes saying that only (3) WARDEN of a provincial district,
the Director may give time municipality, or city jail
allowance for good conduct

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1829
ELEMENTS

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Padiernos v DENRO apprehended a W/N the accused are liable as NO. But they are liable under Obstruction of Justice
People truck and discovered that it accessories (PD1829)
was carrying lumber
illegally. They left the truck Art. 19, par. 2 defines accessories as those who with
on the road. The following knowledge of the commission of the crime and
day, petitioners agreed to without having participated therein, either as
take the truck to the police principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to
station. While on the way to its commission by concealing or destroying the
the Police STN, Mesina, the body of the crime, its effects or instruments in
driver and sped off and order to prevent its discovery
carried the truck to the
wrong direction. In the present case, the illegal possession of lumber
had already been discovered at the time the
Padiernos took the truck.

Page 37 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PD 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts


which obstruct or frustrate the successful
apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders

OBSTRUCTION AND ILLEGAL SEARCH

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Posadas v Dennis Venturina of Sigma W/N petitioners violated PD NO. Generally, a criminal prosecution cannot be
Ombudsman Rho died in a rumble with 1829 enjoined but one of the exemptions is to protect the
Scintilla Juris frat. Posadas constitutional rights of the accused. (Brocka v.
(UP Chancellor) asked NBI Enrile)
to assist in the
investigation.

A group of NBI men went to


UP one day and attempted
to arrest some members of
SJ.

Posadas et al. objected on


the ground that the NBI did
not have warrants of arrest
in their possession. Posadas
promised to take them the
following day to the police.

OSP filed a case of PD 1829


against Posadas et al.

Page 38 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

FENCING
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612
ELEMENTS

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Ong v People Azajar owns 44 tires. 38 W/N Ong is guilty of Fencing YES.
were stolen from his place, Elements of Fencing:
the gate was forcibly (a) A crime of robbery or theft has been
opened. He chanced upon committed
Ong’s store and found that (b) The accused who is not a principal or an
Ong was selling his tires. accomplice in the commission of the crime of
They conducted a buy-bust robbery or theft buys, receives, possesses,
keeps or sells in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value
which has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft
(c) The accused knew or should have known that
said items has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft
(d) There is on the part of the accused intent to
gain for oneself or for another
Dimat v People Delgado bought a car from W/N Dimat is guilty of YES. PD1612 is malum prohibitum. Criminal intent
Dimat. Dimat was found to Fencing is immaterial.
have stolen the car from
Jose Mantequilla. Dimat The accused should have known that the car was
claims that he did not know stolen from the irregularity of the documents when
Mantequilla and he bought he “bought” the car from Tolentino
the car from a certain
Manuel Tolentino (despite
the fact that it was not
documented properly). He
also claims that he had no
criminal intent to steal
Capili v CA Several pieces of jewelry W/N Capili is guilty of YES. Mere possession is enough to give rise to a
were stolen from Diokno. It Fencing presumption of fencing.
turns out Michael Manzo

Page 39 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

stole them and sold them to Since the elements of fencing are present and Capili
Gabriel Capili and his wife was not able to rebut the presumption, he is guilty.
for 50k. Capili contends
that the lower courts were
not able to prove the value
of the stolen items.

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344
(as amended by RA 10630)
INTENT OF THE LAW

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Sierra v People Sierra convicted of qualified W/N he is exempted YES. Minority is an EXEMPTING
rape He was 15 at the time CIRCUMSTANCE
of the commission Intent is to protect the rights of the child in conflict
with the law

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Ortega v People Offender was 14 years old W/N he is exempted YES. What is controlling is the age of the CICL at
when he raped an 8 year the time of the commission of the offense
old. 9344 was passed 6
years later
Madali v People AAA was killed in an W/N he is exempted YES. But exemption from criminal liability does not
initiation process to join include exemption from CIVIL liability
“Rugby Boys”. The offender
was 14 years old

Page 40 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

MITIGATING

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Jacinto Jacinto raped a 5 year old W/N he is guilty of rape YES. RA 9344 exempts a child above 15 but BELOW
when he was 17 years old W/N may benefit from the 18 UNLESS it is proved that he acted with
and he did so with provisions of RA 9344 on discernment.
discernment. When the suspension of sentence
decision was promulgated, YES. The suspension of sentence shall still be
he was already 25 applied even if he was not a minor at the time of the
pronouncement of his guilt. What matters is that he
committed the crime at a tender age (Sec 38)

SUSPENDED SENTENCE

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Declarador v Frank was 17, a minor Was the RTC correct? NO. Frank Bansales is disqualified. His sentence
Gubaton when he stabbed Yvonne should not be suspended
Declarador his teacher at
the back. The victim The disqualification is based on the nature of the
sustained 15 stab wounds crime charged and the imposable penalty therefor
and died. RTC suspended (RP), and not on the penalty imposed by the Court
his sentence after trial (RT)

Sec 32 of AM 02-1-18
Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition
Orders – the benefits of suspended sentence shall not
apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has
once enjoyed the suspension of sentence, or to one
who is convicted of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imp or at the time of
promulgation of judgment the juvenile is already 18
or over.

Page 41 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

People v Sarcia Rape was allegedly W/N he could avail of benefits YES. He is entitled to confinement of convicted
committed by an 18 year old from RA9344 children because he committed the crime when he
towards a 5 year old girl. was 18.
RTC found Sarcia guilty of
rape but applied a priv. mit Sec 38. 34 of RA 9344
of minority. He was 31 y/o Automatic Suspension of Sentence – once a child is
already at the time of under 18 years at the time he committed the offense,
promulgation the court, instead of pronouncing the judgment
of conviction, place the CICL under suspended
sentence without need of application.
PROVIDED, the suspension of sentence shall
still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18
years OR MORE at the time of the
pronouncement.

Sec 40 of RA 9344 limits the suspension of sentence


until said child reaches 21

Sarcia is now 31 so the application of 38 and 40 are


now moot and academic.

However, he may avail of Sec 51 Confinement of


Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other
Training Facilities

AGRICULTURAL CAMP

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Mantalaba was arrested Is Mantalaba entitled to a NO.


Mantalaba through a buy-bust RA suspension?
9165 – He was then 17 only. Sec 40 of RA 9344 limits the suspension of sentence
RTC promulgated its until said child reaches 21
decision when he was not a
minor anymore

34
Sec 38 v Sec32 of the AM, Sec 38 of 9344 prevails!

Page 42 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Mantalaba is now beyond 21 so the application of 38


and 40 are now moot and academic.

However, he may avail of Sec 51 Confinement of


Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other
Training Facilities

IMPRISONMENT

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

Hubilla v People Hubilla attacked Espinola’s W/N CA applied the correct RA 9344 does not allow the courts the discretion to
neck with a knife. He was penalty (w/ Islaw) YES reduce the penalty further even for the sake of
found guilty of homicide. W/N he is entitled to enabling the CICL to qualify for probation.
probation and suspension of While Sec 5c of 9344 bestows on CICL the right not
sentence – NO. to be unlawfully or arbitrarily deprived of their
liberty, imprisonment as a proper disposition of a
case is duly recognized, subject to restrictions on the
imposition of imprisonment
(1) That the detention or imprisonment is a
disposition of last resort
(2) The detention or imprisonment shall be for
the shortest appropriate period of time

HUMANITARIAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW


CHILD ABUSE
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610
ARTICLE III, SECTION 5(a)
RA 7610 Art 3
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
SEC 5(a) /5(b)
People v Dulay 12 year old girl introduced W/N Dulay is guilty of rape Not guilty of rape but guilty under 7610. To be guilty
by Dulay to co-accused as a co-principal by as principal by indispensable cooperation in rape,
indispensable cooperation one must participate in the criminal resolution.

Page 43 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Speed, in exchange of Nevertheless, he’s liable under RA 7610 , Sec. 5(a)


money. Speed raped her. Children whether male or female who for money,
profit or any consideration or due to coercion or
influence x x x are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Malto v People 17 year old college student W/N RTC and CA erred in NO. Unlike in rape, consent is immaterial in
and her Philo prof became finding him guilty of cases involving violation of Sec 5 Art III of RA
sweethearts. Prof induced violating RA 7610 Art. III, 7610. The mere act of sexual intercourse / lascivious
her to have sex with him. Sec. 5(b) considering that the conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution
She refused but since she’s sex was consensual by reason or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense.
scared that he’ll end their of their “sweetheart It is malum prohibitum.
relationship, she agreed. relationship”
Prof contended that the sex
was consensual.
People v Larin Larin, a lifeguard in UPLB W/N Larin is liable under RA YES. RA 7610 covers not only a situation in which a
performed cunnilingus on 7610 notwithstanding the child is abused for profit but also one in which a child
Carla, a highschool student fact that he did not “profit” through coercion and intimidation engages in
against her will. Larin from the act any lascivious conduct.
contends that he is not
covered under RA 7610
because he did not “profit”
from the act.
Amployo v Amployo touched, mashed W/N Amployo’s acts YES. Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art.
People and played with the breast constitute acts of 336 of the RPC:
of an 8-year-old several lasciviousness as penalized (1) Offender commits any act of lasciviousness /
times against her will. The under Sec. 5 Art III of RA lewdness
incident happened not only 7610 (2) That it is done under any of the ff.
once. circumstances
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the offended party is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machinations
or grave abuse of authority
d. When the offended party is under 12
YEARS OF AGE
(3) When offended person is another person of
either sex.
Elements of Sexual Abuse under RA 7610

Page 44 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(1) Sexual intercourse/ Lascivious conduct


(2) Act performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse
(3) The child, whether male or female is
BELOW 18 years old
All elements are present.
NOTE: Before an accused can be convicted of child
abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below
12 years of age, the requisites for acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC must be
met IN ADDITION to the requisites for sexual abuse
under RA 7610
Olivares v CA Olivares embraced Elitiong, W/N Olivares should be Main decision: He’s liable under Acts of
a 16 year old, held her convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness under RA 7610.
breast, took her to the Lasciviousness under RPC or All the elements under RA 7610 Art III, Sec 5 are
kitchen kissed her against AoL under RA 7610 present. In RA 7610 3(b) abuse may be habitual or
her lips. not.

CARPIO, dissenting opinion:


Olivares should have been guilty of AoL under the
RPC (PC) and not AoL under the RA 7610 (RT
med)
The records are bereft of any shred of evidence
showing that Cristina was subjected to other sexual
abuse. The absence of the allegation that Cristina
was subjected to other sexual abuse should make
Olivares only liable for AoL under RPC.
Caballo v People 17 year old female and 23 W/N Caballo is guilty of YES.
year old male were violating RA 7610, Art III., Influence: improper use of power or trust in any
sweethearts. Female got Sec 5(b) way that deprives the person of free will and
pregnant. Male contends substitute another’s objective.
that they were sweethearts
and that the “withdrawal Coercion: improper use of power to compel another
method” does not constitute to submit to the wishes of the one who wields it.
coercion or influence under
RA 7610 His continued promise of love and marriage and the
use of withdrawal method effectively influenced

Page 45 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

AAA. He was 6 years her senior which placed him in


a stronger position to assert his will on her.
People v. Chingh Chingh inserted his index W/N Chingh is indeed liable YES, but SC modified the penalty imposed.
finger and then later his under the RPC for Rape First Count of Rape: SC affirmed the imposition of
penis to VVV, a 10 year old. under Art. 266-A RP for Rape under Art 266-A Para 1(d)
VVV was threated to be Second Count of Rape: Rape through Sexual Assault.
killed if she tells anyone. Instead of prision mayor, SC used the penalty
Chingh was charged with 2 provided under RA 7610 which is reclusion
counts of rape under Art temporal in its medium.
266-A of the RPC
VVV was 10 years old only at that time. This
calls for the application of RA 7610.
Notwithstanding the passage of RA 8353
amending the RPC provisions on RAPE, RA
7610 is still good law and must be applied as
needed.

Ricalde v People 31-year old man inserted W/N Ricalde is liable under YES. Ricalde was convicted of Rape through sexual
his penis inside a 10 year the RPC for Rape through assault, but since the victim is a child, the SC
old while he was spending sexual assault imposed the penalty under RA 7610.
the night in the child’s Lascivious conduct (as defined IRR of RA 7610) :
house. RTC and CA held Note: PENALTIES The intentional touching either directly or through
that Ricalde was guilty of Rape – Reclusion Perpetua clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
rape through sexual thigh, or buttocks or the introduction of any object
assault. Rape through sexual assault into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person,
- Prision Mayor whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
RA 7610, Art III, Sec 5(b) – gratify the sexual desire of any person…
Provided, that when the
victim is UNDER 12, the Leonen: In enacting RA 7610, the legislature
perpetrators shall be intended to impose a higher penalty when the victim
prosecuted under Article 355, is a child.
Para 3 for rape (Amended by
RA 8353 – Now Art 266) and VELASCO, dissenting opinion:
Article 336 of RPC for rape or He implies that there should be other acts of sexual
lascivious conduct, as the abuse other than rape itself that will characterize
case may be: rape as child abuse. One count of rape is not enough.

Page 46 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Provided that the penalty for Child abuse in his view is not yet present with one
lascivious conduct when the count of rape.
victim is UNDER 12, shall be
RT MED Leonen’s response: If we adopt this view, we are
subscribing to the idea that a single act of rape is not
debilitating to a child.
Quimvel v Quimvel, a caretaker of the W/N Quimvel should be The crime is Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Sec
People victim’s grandma’s ducks, convicted of 5(b), Art III of RA 7610.
inserted his right hand in AoL in relation to Sec 5(b) of
the panty of the 7 year old RA 7610 Sec 5(b) covers not only a situation where a child is
victim and caressed her OR abused for profit but also one in which a child,
private part. AoL under Art. 336 of the through coercion, intimidation or influence,
Quimvel claims that he RPC ONLY engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious
cannot be liable under RA conduct.
7610 because it’s necessary
under that law that the Note: It’s in this case where Leonen posited the
child is subjected to theory that Acts of Lasciviousness ceased to be a
prostitution or other sexual crime under the RPC following the Art 335’s express
abuse repeal.

Main opinion: RA 8353 did not EXPRESSLY repeal


Article 336 of the RPC for if it were the intent of the
law, it would have explicitly done so.
People v Caoili Caoili inserted his finger W/N Caoili may be convicted NO, but Caoili is liable under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610
repeatedly in the vagina of of rape by sexual assault because it is subsumed under Rape.
his 14-year-old daughter. even when the information
He was charged with Rape charged rape through sexual Considering that AAA was over 12 but under 18
through sexual intercourse intercourse years of age at the time of the commission of the act,
RTC convicted him of rape the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its
by sexual assault because *Variance doctrine (Sec 4 in medium to reclusion perpetua
this was what was proven relation to Sec 5 of Rule 120
in trial of the Rules of Court) - the Atty. Abitria’s observation:
CA refused to convict Caoili accused can be convicted of The penalty if victim is UNDER 12, reclusion
of Rape through sexual the crime proven during trial temporal in its medium
intercourse as alleged in the even if there is variance with
info what was proven in the offense charged for as The penalty if the victim is OVER 12 but UNDER 18
trial is Rape by sexual long as it is necessarily is reclusion temporal in its medium to
assault. reclusion perpetua

Page 47 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Prosecution argues that included in the offense


Caoili may still be convicted charged. *Weird that the latter is graver than the former.
under the latter because the
former may be subsumed
under the latter.
Fianza v People Fianza asked an 11 year old What should be the proper The proper nomenclature should be “Acts of
to masturbate him and he nomenclature of the crime Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC in relation
gave her P20 pesos after. to Section 5(b), Art III of RA 7610.”
Fianza did this several This is because the same section contain a proviso:
times. Fianza was charged Provided, that when the victim is UNDER 12, the
with two counts of violation perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 355,
of Sec 5(b) of Art III, RA Para 3 for rape (Amended by RA 8353 – Now Art
7610 266) and Article 336 of RPC for rape or lascivious
Fianza claims that he conduct, as the case may be: Provided that the
cannot be charged with the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is
offense because there is no UNDER 12, shall be RT MED
proof that AAA is a child
exploited in prostitution or
subjected to sexual abuse.
People v Dagsa Dagsa fondled a 4-year-old’s W/N accused is guilty of Rape NO. But he is convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness
vagina and inserted his under the RPC in relation to Sec 5(b) of RA 7610.
penis inside her. AAA was
too shy to testify so her RA 8353 did not repeal RPC Art. 336 but merely
friends/classmates who saw modified it. If the victim is under 18, RA 7610 still
the incident testified. The applies.
victim’s mother also
testified. SC says carnal
knowledge was not proven
since those testimonies
were only hearsay
People v Abello Perpetrator mashed the W/N accused should be Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC ONLY. Not
(Not in the case breasts of a sleeping person convicted of AoL in relation Liable under RA 7610.
list - from with polio (incapable of to RA 7610
Boado) protecting himself) OR In RA 7610, Sec 5(b) covers not only a situation
Note: In the IRR, disability AoL under Art. 336 of the where a child is abused for profit but also one in
includes mental or RPC ONLY which a child, through coercion, intimidation or
physical disability influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.

Page 48 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Neither is present in the case. A sleeping person


cannot be coerced or intimidated.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 10(a)


RA 7610
Facts Issue Doctrine
ART 3,SEC. 10(a)
De Guzman v De Guzman got Aberde W/N RA 7610 can be used NO. While petitioner can be indicted for violation of
Perez pregnant. De Guzman sent against De Guzman Sec 59(4) of PD 603 (neglects the child by not giving
money for Robby’s (son) him the education which the family’s station in life
schooling only twice and and financial conditions permit), he cannot be made
gave him 7k when he got liable under Sec 10(a) of RA 7610.
sick. Other than these
instances, De Guzman Sec. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty
never gave support. A case or Exploitation and Other Conditions
of neglect of child Prejudicial to the Child's Development. –
punishable under Sec 59(4) 1.) Any person who shall commit any other acts
of PD 603 in relation to Sec of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be
10(a) of RA 7610 was filed responsible for other conditions prejudicial to
by Aberde against De the child's development including those
Guzman covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree
No. 60335, as amended, but not covered by the
Revised Penal Code.

35
PD 603, Article 59. Crimes. - Criminal liability shall attach to any parent who:
1. Conceals or abandons the child with intent to make such child lose his civil status.
2. Abandons the child under such circumstances as to deprive him of the love, care and protection he needs.
3. Sells or abandons the child to another person for valuable consideration.
4. Neglects the child by not giving him the education which the family's station in life and financial conditions permit.
5. Fails or refuses, without justifiable grounds, to enroll the child as required by Article 72.
6. Causes, abates, or permits the truancy of the child from the school where he is enrolled. "Truancy" as here used means absence without cause for more than
twenty schooldays, not necessarily consecutive.
7. It shall be the duty of the teacher in charge to report to the parents the absences of the child the moment these exceed five schooldays.
8. Improperly exploits the child by using him, directly or indirectly, such as for purposes of begging and other acts which are inimical to his interest and welfare.
9. Inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon the child or deliberately subjects him to indignation and other excessive chastisement that embarrass or humiliate
him.
10. Causes or encourages the child to lead an immoral or dissolute life.

Page 49 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Neglect of child punished under Article 59(4) of PD


603 is also a crime known as indifference of parents
(277, second para, RPC) Hence, it is excluded from
the coverage of RA 7610

Araneta v Araneta has been courting W/N Araneta is guilty of YES.


People this 17 year old girl since violating RA 7610 Section 10 punishes 4 distinct acts:
she was only 13. One day (1) Child abuse
Araneta forcibly embraced (2) Child cruelty
AAA and threatened to kill (3) Child exploitation and
her if she would not accept (4) Being responsible for conditions prejudicial
his love for her. Araneta to the child’s development
claims that he is not liable Araneta’s devious act must have shattered AAA’s self
under RA 7610 because an -esteem and womanhood virtually debased, degraded
act or word can only be or demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity.
punishable if such be Araneta who was old enough to be her grandfather
prejudicial to the child’s traumatized her and gravely threatened her normal
development. He claims development
that such is absent here.
Bongalon v Bongalon, the father saw W/N Bongalon is liable under NO. Slight physical injuries only.
People two boys throwing rocks at RA 7610 Sec. 3(b) defines child abuse as “maltreatment,
(compared with his daughters. Bongalon whether habitual or not, of the child by [means of]
Rosaldes) slapped Jayson (one of the any act, either by deeds or words, which debases,
boys) on the face and the degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
boy suffered contusions and of a child as a human being”
bruises.
It was not established that Bongalon’s act of laying
Atty. Abitria: his hands on Jayson has been intended to debase the
Why is intent important? “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human
Take note of the injuries being.
inflicted.
In Bongalon – slap only His actions were merely the product of his fatherly
concern.

11. Permits the child to possess, handle or carry a deadly weapon, regardless of its ownership.
12. Allows or requires the child to drive without a license or with a license which the parent knows to have been illegally procured. If the motor vehicle driven by
the child belongs to the parent, it shall be presumed that he permitted or ordered the child to drive.
"Parents" as here used shall include the guardian and the head of the institution or foster home which has custody of the child.

Page 50 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

In Jabalde – the child


fainted
*Nonetheless, in both cases,
the SC did not hold either
liable under RA 7610
Rosaldes v A 7 year old bumped the W/N Rosaldes is liable under YES. Maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or
People knee of his teacher while RA 7610 by words that debases, degrades or demeans the
she was sleeping. The intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
teacher demanded that he being.
apologize but he did not so
the teacher held him by the The act need not be habitual.
armpits and pushed him to
the floor. The child hit a
desk and became
unconscious
Jabalde v A 7 year old, Lin was W/N Jabalde is liable under NO. Jabalde lost the strength of her mind and lacked
People playing langit lupa with RA 7610 the specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the
Nova. Nova hit her head on intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
the ground. Nova’s mother, being
Jabalde, choked Lin out of
anger
Del Poso v Del Poso, a 7 year old’s W/N Del Poso is guilty of YES.
People legal guardian, saw VVV violation of Sec 10(a) of RA Elements of the violation of Sec 10, RA 7610
asleep while tending the 7610 (1) The minority of the victim
photocopying business. Del (2) The acts constituting physical abuse
Poso got mad and placed a committed by the accused against the minor
heated flat iron on the (3) The said acts are clearly punishable under
forehead, elbow, left check, RA 7610 (labo daw)
left buttock and back of
VVV No mitigating circumstance of passion/ obfuscation
because such applied only if the act of the victim is
both UNLAWFUL and SUFFICIENT to produce
such condition of mind.

Page 51 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

RA 7610 Art. III, Sec. 5a/b Sexual Abuse RPC Art. 336 Acts of Lasciviousness RPC Art. 339 AoL with consent of the
Offended Party
(1) Sexual intercourse/ Lascivious (1) Offender commits any act of (1) That the offender commits acts of
conduct lasciviousness / lewdness Lasciviousness or lewdness
(2) Act performed with a child exploited (2) That it is done under any of the ff. (2) That the acts are committed upon a
in prostitution or subjected to other circumstances woman who is a virgin, single,, or a
sexual abuse a. By using force or widow of good reputation, under 18
(3) The child, whether male or female is intimidation years of age but over 12 years, or a
BELOW 18 years old b. When the offended party is sister or descendant regardless of
deprived of reason or her reputation or age,
Provided, that when the victim is otherwise unconscious (3) That the offender accomplished the
UNDER 12, the perpetrators shall be c. By means of fraudulent acts by abuse of authority,
prosecuted under Article 355, Para 3 machinations or grave abuse confidence, relationship or deceit.
for rape (Amended by RA 8353 – Now of authority
Art 266) and Article 336 of RPC for d. When the offended party is
rape or lascivious conduct, as the case under 12 YEARS OF AGE
may be: Provided that the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is
UNDER 12, shall be RT MED

Application:
Victim is UNDER 12: Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC, in relation to RA 7610 Art III, Sec 5.
(Which means, the CRIME is Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 but the PENALTY for AoL under RA 7610 Art III, Sec. 5 is applied)

Victim is 12 to UNDER 18: Lascivious conduct under RA 7610, Art. III, Sec. 5.
(Since AoL under Art. 336(d) of RPC governs if the victim is under 12, RPC does not apply anymore if the victim is 12 to under 18)
RA 8353 RA 8353
Corruption of Minors
RPC Art. 266-A (1) RPC Art. 266-A (2)
Rape by Sexual Intercourse Rape through sexual assault
(1) That the offender is MAN (1) The offender commits an act of
(2) That the offender had carnal sexual assault
knowledge of a woman (2) That act of sexual assault is
(3) That such act is accomplished under committed by any of the following
any of the following circumstances: means
a. By using force or a. By inserting his penis into
intimidation another person’s mouth or
anal orifice

Page 52 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

b. When the offended party is b. By inserting any instrument


deprived of reason or or object into the genital or
otherwise unconscious anal orifice of another
c. By means of fraudulent person.
machinations or grave abuse (3) That the act of sexual assault is
of authority accomplished under any of the
d. When the offended party is circumstances enumerated under
under 12 YEARS OF AGE the first act of committing rape.
or demented

Review also: Rape, Statutory Rape, Seduction, Acts of Lasciviousness, Corruption of Minors + other related special laws (RA 8353, RA 9231)

Art Employment of Children. – Children below fifteen (15) years of age shall not be employed EXCEPT:
8, 1.) When a child works directly under the sole responsibility of his/her parents or legal guardian and where only members of
Sec his/her family are employed: Provided, however, That his/her employment neither endangers his/her life, safety, health
12 and morals, nor impairs his/her normal development; Provided, further That the parent or legal guardian shall provide
the said minor child with the prescribed primary and/or secondary education; or
*Atty Abitria: Intent of the law here is that the child is under the direct supervision of the parents (e.g. family business/ sari-sari)
2.) Where a child’s employment or participation in public entertainment or information through cinema, theatre, radio or
television is essential: Provided, That employment contract is concluded by the child’s parents or legal guardian, with the
express agreement of the child concerned if possible, and the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment:
Provided, further, That the following requirements in all instances are strictly complied with:
a. That employer shall ensure the protection, health, safety, morals and normal development of the child;
b. That employer shall institute measures to prevent the child’s exploitation or discrimination taking into account
system and level of remuneration and the duration and arrangement of working time; and
c. The employer shall formulate and implement, subject to the approval and supervision of competent authorities, a
continuing program for training and skills acquisition of the child
*DOLE permit is required

Art 8, Sec 12-A: Hours of Work of a Working Child (From R.A. No. 9321) Child Labor
AGE HOURS OF WORK
A child BELOW 15 years of age -NOT MORE THAN 20 hours per WEEK; work NOT MORE THAN 4 HOURS per DAY

Not allowed to work between 8:00PM and 6AM of the following day
A child 15 years of age but -NOT MORE THAN 40 hours per WEEK; work NOT MORE THAN 8 HOURS per DAY
BELOW 18

Page 53 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Not allowed to work between 10:00PM and 6AM the following day

CHILD ABUSE (RA 7610) VAWC (RA 9262)


Intent: to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and Intent: to cause substantial emotional or physical distress to a
dignity of a child as a human being woman

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine

People v Genosa Marivic Genosa suffered W/N Marivic Genosa acted in NO. Only an incomplete self defense- the requisite of
(Jan 15, 2004) maltreatment form her self-defense for her unborn unlawful aggression in complete self defense was
husband Ben. When Ben child and due to her Battered absent at the time she killed her husband.
Passage of would get drunk, he would Woman Syndrome.
VAWC: March 8, batter her while she was 8 The existence of the syndrome in a relationship does
2004 mos. preganant. Ben got not itself establish the legal right of the woman to
furious about her nagging kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be
one night and tried to open considered in the context of self-defense.
a drawer where the gun
was but he failed to open it. Genosa convicted of PARRICIDE with two mitigating
Marivic escaped from Ben circumstances: (1)“psychological paralysis” leading to
by hitting him with a pipe. “dimunition of freedom of action, intelligence or
While her husband was intent” and (2) Passion and obfuscation
sleeping, she “distorted” the
drawer, took the gun and People v Genosa characterized BWS as an
shot him with it. She incomplete form of self-defense (absent the element
admitted the killing and of unlawful aggression) and if invoked, entitled the
was found guilty of female victim to a MITIGATION of the penalty but
parricide. Her defense: she NOT an ACQUITTAL.
acted only in self-defense
and she has Battered People v Genosa: BWS – mitigating circumstance
Woman Syndrome only

Page 54 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

In VAWC – Victim survivors who are found by the


courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any
elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the RPC. BWS is now treated as a complete
self-defense, notwithstanding the absence of
immediate unlawful aggression.

BWS is neither a justifying nor an exempting


circumstance. It’s an absolutory cause.

Battered woman – woman who is repeatedly


subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behaviour by a man in order to coerce her to so
something he wants her to do without concern for
her rights.

Battered women include wives or women in any


form of intimate relationship with men.

In order to be classified as battered the couple must


go through the battering cycle (i.e. – tension building
phase, acute battering incident, tranquil loving
phase) AT LEAST TWICE.
Ang v CA Rustan, an ex-lover of Irish W/N the photos sent by YES.
who got his live-in partner Rustan to Irish inflicted Elements of the crime of violence against women
pregnant kept on pursuing anguish, psychological through harassment - Sec. 5(h) of RA 9262:
Irish. Irish rejected Rustan distress, and humiliation on (1) The offender has had sexual or dating
repeatedly and told him to her in violation of Sec 5(h) of relationship with the woman;
take responsibility of the RA 9262 (2) The offender, by himself or through another,
child. Rustan sent Irish commits and act or series of acts of
photos of a naked woman harassment against the woman
(via cellphone MMS) with (3) The harassment alarms or causes
Irish’s face superimposed on substantial emotional or psychological
the image. Rustan distress to her.
threatened Irish that he
Rustan and Irish were in a dating relationship.

Page 55 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

will send the photos to the Rustan’s acts constitutes harassment


chatrooms of Tarlac The harassment caused substantial emotional and
psychological distress to the victim.

*RELATIONSHIP is very important in VAWC.


-One count of sex/ One night stand covered as
“sexual relationship”
-Romance is not required
-Homosexual relationship between WOMEN –
covered in VAWC
- The perpetrator may be a man or a woman but
the victim can never be a man.
Go-Tan v Tan Barely 6 years into the W/N RA 9262 covers parents- YES. The RPC may be applied suppletorily.
marriage, Sharica Go-Tan in-law of the victim.
alleged that her husband The Court applied the principle of conspiracy.
Steven, in conspiracy with Can conspiracy apply in  Sec 47 of VAWC – RPC and other applicable
his parents, verbally, VAWC? laws shall have suppletory application. Thus,
psychologically and the concept of conspiracy under Art 8 of the
economically abused her in RPC is applicable.
violation of RA 9262  Sec 5(h) of VAWC – “Engaging in purposeful,
(VAWC) knowing or reckless conduct, personally or
through another, that alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological
distress to the women or her child x x x.
 Parents-in-law of the victim may be
considered accomplices.

Page 56 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Del Soccoro v Del Soccoro and Van W/N Wilsem, a foreigner may YES.
Brinkman van Wilsem got married in be held liable for violation of By virtue of the doctrine of processual
Wilsem Holland and had a son. VAWC presumption the laws in the Philippines will be
They later got divorced in presumed to be the law governing Wilsem’s country.
Holland. Del Soccoro went
back to Ph with their son. Even if Wilsem successfully presents the laws
Despite his promises, Van governing Holland on support (Holland’s laws
Wilsem failed to provide provide that he is not obliged to give support after
financial support for the the decree of divorce is issued), they cannot be
child. 16 years later Wilsem appreciated by the Philippine Court. When the
went back to the PH and national laws of foreigners are contrary to public
remarried. Del Soccoro filed policy, they shall not be appreciated by the courts.
a case against him under
VAWC saying that their Depriving a child of support is contrary to public
child was devoid of support policy and will bring injustice.
which amounts to
economic abuse. Wilsem Wilsem is liable under VAWC
cannot be sued since his
national law prevails. NOTE: Depriving a woman of economic support
under VAWC is a continuing offense, VAWC is a
public crime

Page 57 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

POST-MIDTERMS

TRAFFICKING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208
(As amended by RA 10364)
Section. 3(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the :
[ACT] - recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders

BY [MEANS] OF - threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person

FOR THE [PURPOSE] OF exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is
induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.36

*Atty. Abitria: As you read the prohibited acts, take note of the ACT, MEANS and PURPOSE. Some prohibited acts do not indicate the
means. But for purposes of CRIM, look at the punishable act. Before they do not follow the A[acts], M[means], P[purpose] formula

Keyword Sec Acts of Trafficking in Persons. – It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of
4 the following acts:37
Recruit A To recruit, transport, transfer; counsel, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
Mail B To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided for
Order under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of
Bride acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation,
forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

36
Sec 3, Ra 10364
37
Mnemonic: “R MoMa Tries Many Awesome Fruits On Sandwiches and Salad Diets” (Recruit- MailOrder - Marriage– Travel - Maintain – Adopt- Facilitates –
Organs – Soldiers – Slavery –Direct)

Page 58 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Atty. Abitria’s comments:


VICTIM: Filipina WOMAN
PERSON LIABLE: The one who introduced for match, money etc.

*Dating website – members pay to get matched. The site matches Filipina women with foreign nationals. Pedro
(foreigner) was matched with Petra (Filipina). They got married. Petra made Pedro her sexual slave. Is Juan (the
owner of the site/ introducer) liable under RA 9208?
NO. Because the law explicitly says that the victim has to be a FILIPINA WOMAN. However, Petra may be liable
under Sec 4(e) of RA 9208. Furthermore, the facts did not indicate the purpose of the matchmaking. Hence, Juan did
not commit human trafficking. If Pedro and Petra were matched for money, profit or consideration for the purpose of
sexual exploitation, pornography then Juan may be held liable under RA 9208.

*TV program where a Filipina and a foreigner goes on dates (?) for 90 days (You’re road!!). Are the producers liable?
No. The purpose is not for sexual exploitation.

*What if the purpose of the marriage is for sexual exploitation but it all happened in the US? Is the person who
introduced still liable? YES. Because the victim is a Filipina. (Legal Basis: Sec. 17(c)- committed against Fil.)
Marriage C To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading
them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;

Note the absence of the means


VICTIM: Any person
PERSONS LIABLE: Those who contracted marriage or offered marriage
Travel & D To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of
Tours utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
Maintain E To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;

Atty Abitria’s comment:


Note the absence of the means
People v Casio
Adopt F To adopt persons by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes or to facilitate the same for purposes of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

Atty. Abitria’s emphasized on:


PERSONS LIABLE: Those who adopted

Page 59 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Note: It becomes qualified trafficking when the adoption is effected through RA No. 8043 (Inter-Country Adoption Act
of 1995) and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage.
Facilitate G To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
Adoption labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

Atty. Abitria emphasized on:


PERSONS LIABLE: Those who facilitated the adoption
Sale of H To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
organs coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person; and
Child I To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, counsel, maintain, offer, hire, provide, receive or adopt a child to engage in
Soliders armed activities in the Philippines or abroad;

*Maute group recruits a CHILD and trains him for combat. Is the Maute group liable under RA 9208? YES.
*Maute group recruits an ADULT and trains him for combat. Is the Maute group liable under RA 9208? NO. The law
explicitly says “child”
Slavery J To recruit, transport, transfer, counsel, obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or receive a person by means defined in
Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor, slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person either:
(1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint; or
(2) To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes; and

Example: People v Nangcas


Child K To recruit, transport, counsel, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or receive a child for purposes of
Slavery exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to, the act of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration
or for barter for purposes of exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of children shall include:
(1) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt bondage and forced labor, including
recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(2) The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography, or for pornographic
performances;
(3) The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of drugs; and
(4) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by its nature or the circumstances in
which it is carried out, is likely to harm their health, safety or morals; and
Direct L To organize or direct other persons to commit the offenses defined as acts of trafficking under this Act.

Page 60 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Section 4-A. (There is Attempted Trafficking in Persons)

Section 4-B. (There is Accomplice liability)

Section 4-C. (Accessories are liable also)

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. – The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
CASAM2A – 1E (Child-Adoption-Syndicate-Authority-Military1-prostitution 2-offender-AIDS -1 or more –Exploitative)

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;


(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995”
and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by
a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked
person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement
agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers
mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS).
(h)38 When the offender commits one or more violations of Section 4 over a period of sixty (60) or more days, whether those days
are continuous or not; and
(i)39 When the offender directs or through another manages the trafficking victim in carrying out the exploitative purpose of
trafficking.

Section 7. Confidentiality – (Right to privacy of the trafficked person. x x x Law enforcement officers prosecutors, and judges to whom the
complaint has been referred to may x x x order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial.)

Section 11. (Probation Law does NOT apply – to any person who buys or engages the services of a trafficked person for prostitution)

38
(h) and (i) – inserted by 10364
39
(h) and (i) – inserted by 10364

Page 61 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Section 17. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE - Trafficked persons x x x shall not be penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking
enumerated in this Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto.

Jun-jun, a 16-year-old was hired to work in a videoke bar. Trafficking? No. Employment was not for the purpose of exploitation of the child.
(Though he might be liable under Art 8, RA 7610 for Child labor)40

Section 17-B. (The past sexual behavior x x x shall be considered inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving consent of the victim
to engage in sexual behavior, or to prove the predisposition, sexual or otherwise, of a trafficked person. Consent of the victim to
trafficking is IRRELEVANT)

Section 17-C. Immunity from Suit, Prohibited Acts and Injunctive Remedies. – No action or suit shall be brought, instituted or maintained
in any court or tribunal or before any other authority against any: (a) law enforcement officer; (b) social worker; or (c) person acting in
compliance with a lawful order from any of the above, for lawful acts done or statements made during an authorized rescue operation,
recovery or rehabilitation/intervention, or an investigation or prosecution of an anti-trafficking case: Provided, That such acts shall have
been made in good faith. x x x

Section 26-A. Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. - The State shall exercise jurisdiction over any act defined and penalized under this Act, even
if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not such act or acts constitute an offense at the place of commission, the crime being a
continuing offense, having been commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been committed in another country, if the suspect
or accused:

(a) Is a Filipino citizen; or


(b) Is a permanent resident of the Philippines;
(c) Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines.

No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized
by the Philippines, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the approval of the
Secretary of Justice.

The government may surrender or extradite persons accused of trafficking in the Philippines to the appropriate international court if any,
or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.

40
Child Trafficking – RA 9208-qualifying , RA 9344- aggravating (JJWC), RA 7610-aggravating (MAX if child is under 12)/ RA 7610 attempted child trafficking is also
punished, RA 9165- aggravating (Dangerous Drugs)

Page 62 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

TRAFFICKING
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
RA 9208
People v Casio Decoys pretended to be tour W/N Shirley Casio is liable YES.
guides looking for girls to under RA 9208 Human trafficking elements:
entertain their guests. (a) The act of recruitment, transportation,
Casio offered two girls, AAA transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons
and BBB. They reached the with or without the victim’s consent or
hotel and the decoys gave knowledge, within or across national borders.
Casio a consideration. They (b) By means of threat or use of force or other
entrapped her. forms of coercion, abduction, of fraud, of
deception, of the abuse of power or of a
position of vulnerability or of the giving or
receiving payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over
another
(c) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation
which includes at a minimum “exploitation
or the prostitution of others or other forms of
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs
People v Aguirre Arabit and Aguirre W/N the accused are liable YES.
convinced ten girls (3 were under RA 9208 Sec 3(a) of RA 9208: may be with or without the
minors) to swim, drink and consent or knowledge of the victim
have sex with foreigners in
exchange of money or shabu When the victim is a minor, the recruitment or
transportation need not involve “threat or use of
force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power, or the giving or receiving
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another

Sec 6(a) of RA 9208, the crime of trafficking in


persons is qualified “when the trafficked person is a
CHILD.

Page 63 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

BBB, CCC, DDD were proven to be minors in this


case. Hence, the accused are liable of qualified
trafficking
People v Nangcas offered W/N the accused is liable YES.
Nangcas employment to Judith and 3 under RA 9208 Deceit – false misrepresentation of a matter of fact
minors. She told them that whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
they will work in Cagayan allegations, or by concealment of that which should
De Oro but when they have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to
arrived, the employer was deceive another so he shall act upon it to his legal
not there. They were inquiry
instead sent to Marawi to
work. They were not paid Fraud – every kind of deception
and not fed and were
threatened to stay inside
the premises.
People v Accused charged with W/N the accused is guilty NO.
Villanueva violating Section 6 of RA Elements of trafficking in persons:
9208 (Qualified Trafficking) 1. "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing,
for having recruited AAA offering, transportation, transfer,
who was then only 13 years maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons
old as GRO, thereby with or without the victim's consent or
exploiting and taking knowledge, within or across national
advantage of her borders;" – Mere ownership of the bar does
vulnerability. RTC and CA not make the accused liable
convicted the accused 2. The means used include "by means of threat,
or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power
or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve
the consent of a person having control over
another person;" and
3. The purpose of trafficking includes "the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or
other forms of sexual exploitation, forced
labor or services, slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of organs."

Page 64 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

That AAA was exploited could not be proven


by her mere presence at the videoke bar
during the rescue operation.

VOYEURISM
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9995
Sec. Definition of terms:
3 “Broadcast” to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.
“Photo or video voyeurism” means the act of taking photo of video coverage of a person or group of persons performing
sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter’s
consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling,
copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing, or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written
consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by
such person/s
“Private area of a person” – means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an
individual.
“Under circumstances which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means believe that he/she could
disrobe in privacy without being concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or
circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
Sec. Prohibited Acts. (Take,Copy,Distribute,Publish)
4 (a) Elements:
1.) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to
capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area,
buttocks or female breast
2.) WITHOUT the CONSENT of the persons/s involved and
3.) Under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy.41
Ex. Anne Curtis, ASAP beach party, televised – Bikini malfunction.
Person A recorded the video of her. Is A liable under RA 9995?
NO. Anne was not in any position of doing a sexual act. It was unintended and merely accidental. There was no
reasonable expectation of privacy. It was a public event and she expected that she will be photographed.
Person A then sells the footage. Is A now liable under RA 9995?

41
Atty. Abitria: means circumstances where he/she believes that he/she can disrobe without his/her being taken a photo of.

Page 65 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

YES. The act of selling is a separate punishable act. Selling the footage is punishable under Sec 4(c) of RA 9995.
Person B uploads the video online. Is Person B liable under RA 9995?
YES. Taking the video without the consent of the person being captured is distinct from the act of distributing the
photo/video.

Ex. Celebrity child takes a video of herself masturbating.


Person A uploads the video online. Is Person A liable under RA 9995? YES. Liable for distributing the video
notwithstanding that the celebrity child was the one who took the video.
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar
activity with or without consideration
(c) To sell or distribute or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the
original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media or show or exhibit the
photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular
phones and other similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c), (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record to take photo or video coverage of
the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism.

Before the picture or video may be used as evidence, a written order must be issued or granted upon written application and
examination under oath of affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the
evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such crime.

Any record, photo or video or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.

Discussion:
Is intent material in voyeurism? It depends on the circumstances
Ex. Person A lives in Condominium A, 28th floor, adjacent to Condominium B. Person A sees Person B from 20 th floor, Condo B
undressing. Person A takes a photo. – check intent.

ANTI-TORTURE
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9745
Sec. "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
3(a) person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an
act he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third

Page 66 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority. It does not include pain or
Buffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

T/F – Anti-torture can be committed by private individuals. T – YES, if the private person commits it with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
Sec. "Order of Battle" refers to any document or determination made by the military, police or any law enforcement agency of the
3(d) government, listing the names of persons and organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State and that it considers
as legitimate targets as combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means allowed by domestic and international
law.
Sec. Acts of Torture – refer to the law.
4 (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 (some examples: systematic beating, food deprivation, electric shock, submersion of head in water,
being tied, rape, mutilation or amputation, dental torture)
(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 person's dignity and morale, (some examples:
blindfolding, confinement in solitary cells, prolonged interrogation)
Atty. Abitria: Torture is a results crime - the punishment depends on the amount/ gravity of the results
Sec. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. x x x not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted by
5 a person in authority or agent of a person in authority against another person in custody, which attains a level of severity
sufficient to cause suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter.
Sec. Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, An Absolute Right. - Torture and
6 other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as criminal acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state of
war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, or a document or any
determination comprising an "order of battle" shall not and can never be invoked as a justification for torture
and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
Atty. Abitria: This is the “non-derogability” nature of Anti-torture
Ex. Ticking bomb – Can the government inflict torture on the person who planted the bomb so he will divulge the passcode to
stop the impending explosion? NO. The Anti-torture has a non-derogable nature. No amount of emergency can serve as
justification for torture.
Sec. Prohibited Detention. Secret detention places x x x are prohibited.
7

Page 67 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Sec. Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any
8 proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture.
Sec. Disposition of Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data Proceedings and Compliance with a Judicial Order. - A writ
10 of habeas corpus or writ of amparo or writ of habeas data proceeding, if any, filed on behalf of the victim of torture or other
cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment shall be disposed of expeditiously and any order of release by virtue
thereof, or other appropriate order of a court relative thereto, shall be executed or complied with immediately.
Sec. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other
15 crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture
shall be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other
criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.
*Political offense doctrine, common crimes absorbs other crimes. (e.g. when killing is done in the furtherance of rebellion, the
killing is absorbed) Torture is an exception to the rule. It shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or
felony even if done in the furtherance thereof.
Sec. x x x persons who have committed any act of torture shall NOT benefit from any special amnesty law or similar measures
16 that will have the effect of exempting them from any criminal proceedings and sanctions.
Sec. Applicability of Refouler. No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial
17 grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Sec. (Victims of torture have the right to receive compensation – which in no case shall be lower than Php 10,000.00)
18

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Secretary of Manalo brothers were W/N the CA erred in granting NO. Writ of Amparo provides victims of extralegal
National abducted by military men the Writ of Amparo petition killings and enforced disappearances the protection
Defense v from CAGFU. Ten days they need and the promise of vindication for their
Manalo after their escape, they filed rights. This rule empowers courts to issue reliefs
a petition for prohibition, that may be granted through judicial orders of
injunction and TRO to stop protection, production, inspection and other reliefs to
the military officers from safeguard one’s life and liberty. The writ shall hold
depriving them of their public authorities to a high standard of official
right to liberty. While these conduct and hold them accountable to our people.
were pending, the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo took
effect. Manalo brothers filed

Page 68 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

a manifestation and Atty. Abitria: This case is not about the Anti-torture
omnibus motion to treat law but it was assigned to show you that torture
their existing petition as a really happens.
Writ of Amparo petition. CA
granted this and ordered
the Sec. of DND and AFP to
furnish the Manalos with
the official and unofficial
investigation reports

ANTI-ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353

Sec. (a) Agents of the State refer to persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent
3(a) authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the government, or shall perform in the government or in any
of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.
Sec. (b) Enforced or involuntary disappearance refers to
3(b) 1. the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty committed
2. by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the
State,
3. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the
disappeared person,
4. which places such person outside the protection of the law.
Sec. (c) Order of Battle refers to a document made by the military, police or any law enforcement agency of the government, listing the
3(c) names of persons and organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State and which it considers as legitimate targets as
combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means allowed by domestic and international law.
Sec. Nonderogability of the Right Against Enforced Involuntary Disappearance - The right against enforced or involuntary
4 disappearance and the fundamental safeguards for its prevention shall not be suspended under any circumstance including
political instability, threat of war, state of war or other public emergencies.
Sec. (Order of battle is prohibited)
5
Sec. Duty to Report Victims of Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. – Any person, not being a principal, accomplice or
7 accessory, who has an information of a case of enforced or involuntary disappearance or who shall learn of such information or
that a person is a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance, shall immediately report in writing the circumstances and

Page 69 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

whereabouts of the victim to any office, detachment or division of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG),
the Department of National Defense (DND), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or any
human rights organization and, if known, the victim’s family, relative, or lawyer.
Sec. Duty to Certify in Writing on the Results of Inquiry into a Reported Disappeared Person’s Whereabouts. –In case a family member,
8 relative, lawyer, representative of a human rights organization or a member of the media inquires with a member or official of
any police or military detention center, the PNP or any of its agencies, the AFP or any of its agencies, the NBI or any other
agency or instrumentality of the government, as well as any hospital or morgue, public or private, on the presence or whereabouts
of a reported victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance, such member or official shall immediately issue a certification in
writing to the inquiring person or entity on the presence or absence and/or information on the whereabouts of such
disappeared person, stating, among others, in clear and unequivocal manner the date and time of inquiry, details of the
inquiry and the response to the inquiry.
Sec. Duty of Inquest/Investigating Public Prosecutor or any Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Official or Employee. –Any inquest or
9 investigating public prosecutor, or any judicial or quasi-judicial official or employee who learns that the person delivered for
inquest or preliminary investigation or for any other judicial process is a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall
have the duty to immediately disclose the victim’s whereabouts to his or her immediate family, relatives, lawyer/s or to a human
rights organization by the most expedient means.
Sec. (All proceedings pertaining to the issuance of the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data shall be dispensed with
12 expeditiously.)
Sec. (Liability of a Commanding Officer - The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate
14 senior official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal x x x If such commanding
officer has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that an enforced or involuntary
disappearance is being committed, x x x and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or coercive action either
before, during or immediately after its commission x x x
Sec. Section 15. Penal Provisions. – (a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties shall be imposed upon the
15 following persons:

(1) Those who directly committed the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;
(2) Those who directly forced, instigated, encouraged or induced others to commit the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance;
(3) Those who cooperated in the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance by committing another act without which
the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance would not have been consummated;

Page 70 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(4) Those officials who allowed the act or abetted in the consummation of enforced or involuntary disappearance when it is
within their power to stop or uncover the commission thereof; and
(5) Those who cooperated in the execution of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance by previous or simultaneous
acts.

(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall be imposed upon those who shall commit the act of enforced
or involuntary disappearance in the attempted stage as provided for and defined under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.

(c) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall also be imposed upon (accessories) x x x

(d) The penalty of prision correctional and its accessory penalties shall be imposed against persons who defy, ignore or unduly
delay compliance with any order duly issued or promulgated pursuant to the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data or
their respective proceedings.

(e) The penalty of arresto mayor and its accessory penalties shall be imposed against any person who shall violate the provisions
of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this Act.
Sec. Government officials and personnel who are found to be perpetrators x x x shall be preventively suspended or summarily
16 dismissed from the service, depending on the strength of the evidence x x x
Sec Independent Liability. –The criminal liability of the offender under this Act shall be independent of or without prejudice to
18 the prosecution and conviction of the said offender for any violation of
 Republic Act No. 7438, - Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation
 Republic Act No. 9745, - Anti-Torture
Sec. Nonexclusivity or Double Jeopardy Under International Law. – Any investigation, trial and decision in any Philippines court, or
19 body for any violation of this Act shall; be without prejudice to any investigation, trial, decision or any other legal or
administrative process before any appropriate international court or agency under applicable international human rights and
humanitarian law.
Sec. (State Witness)
20 Exemption from Prosecution. – Any offender who volunteers information that leads to the discovery of the victim of enforced or
involuntary disappearance or the prosecution of the offenders without the victim being found shall be exempt from any criminal
and/or civil liability under this Act: Provided, That said offender does not appear to be the most guilty.
Sec. Continuing Offense. – An act constituting enforced or involuntary disappearance shall be considered a continuing offense as long
21 as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person and such circumstances
have not been determined with certainty.

Page 71 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Sec. Action does NOT PRESCRIBE unless the victim surfaces alive. In which case, the prescriptive period shall be twenty-five (25)
22 years from the date of such reappearance.
Sec. Persons who are changed with and/or guilty of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall not benefit from any special
23 amnesty law or other similar executive measures that shall exempt them from any penal proceedings or sanctions.
Sec. Applicability of Refouler. –No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial
24 grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to enforced or involuntary disappearance. For purposes
of determining whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of the Department, of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant considerations
including where applicable and not limited to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or
mass violations of human rights.

CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851

Section 3(c) "Armed conflict" means any use of force or armed violence between States or a protracted armed violence between
governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within that State: Provided, That such force or armed
violence gives rise, or may give rise, to a situation to which the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, including their common Article 3,
apply. Armed conflict may be international, that is, between two (2) or more States, including belligerent occupation; or non-international,
that is, between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a state. It does not cover internal
disturbances or tensions such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

Section 3(i) "Extermination" means the international infliction of conditions of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and
medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a population.

Section3(k) "Hors de Combat" means a person who:


(1) is in the power of an adverse party;
(2) has clearly expressed an intention to surrender; or
(3) has been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and therefore is incapable of defending himself:
Provided, that in any of these cases, the person form any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

Section 3(o) "Perfidy" means acts which invite the confidence of an adversary to lead him/her to believe he/she is entitled to, or is obliged
to accord, protection under the rules of International Humanitarian Law, with the intent to betray that confidence, including but not
limited to:
(1) feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce;

Page 72 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(2) feigning surrender;


(3) feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(4) feigning civilian or noncombatant status; and
(5) feigning protective status by use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of a neutral or other State not party to the
conflict.

Section 3(p) "Persecution" means the international42 and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason
of identity of the group or collectivity.

Section 3(r)" Superior" means:


(1) a military commander or a person effectively acting as a military commander; or
(2) any other superior, in as much as the crimes arose from activities within the effective authority and control of that superior.

Section 4. War Crimes. - For the purpose of this Act, "war crimes" or "crimes against Interntional Human Humanitarian Law" means:
(a) In case of an international armed conflict, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the
following acts against persons or property protected under provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(1) Willful killing;
*LOOK AT THE ACTUS REUS 43Ex. Nagsurrender na, pinatay mo pa. Wilful na yun
(2) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(3) Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(4) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly;
(5) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(6) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population or unlawful confinement;
(7) Taking of hostages;
(8) Compelling a prisoner a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power; and
(9) Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or other protected persons.
(b) In case of a non-international armed conflict, serious violations of common Article 3 to the four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including member
of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other
cause;
(1) Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and

42
Yes, international talaga.
43
Atty Iyok

Page 73 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(4) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.
(c) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict, within the established framework of international
law, namely:
(1) Internationally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct
part in hostilities;
(2) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, object which are not military objectives;
(3) x x x
MANY OTHER MEANS: REFER TO THE LAW
(25) x x x
Any person found guilty of commiting any of the acts specified herein shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.

Atty. Abitria’s discussion:


In war crimes, distinguish first if the war is:
1. International Armed Conflict
a. Involves two international states
2. Non-international Armed Conflict
a. Involves a group within that same state
i. State against NPA? State against Kuratong Baleleng Gang? State against Magdalo?
ii. ABUSAYYAF, MAUTE GROUP, NPA – Invasion? NO. Only “common crime”. To call it an invasion would be to
elevate it to a non-international armed conflict. By nature, these can actually qualify as non-international armed
conflict but the State chooses not to call it such. WHY? The State will be liable to the international community. This
is why the State is very cautious when it comes to fighting the NPA.
b. Indicators of an Non-international armed conflict
i. Organized armed group
ii. Ability to negotiate (e.g. ceasefire)
iii. Ability to gain access to weapons
iv. Command structure
v. Also look at the intensity of the conflict caused
1. Did it attract the attention of UN?
2. Seriousness of attacks
3. How many civilians were forced to evacuation zones?

Section 5. Genocide - (a) For the purpose of this Act, "genocide" means any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and permanent group as such:
(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Page 74 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide.

Atty. Abitria’s discussion:


Is genocide a war crime? It depends.
YES. When committed during times of armed conflict.
NO. When committed during times of peace.
How is genocide different from murder / homicide?
INTENT. The intent is to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and
permanent group”

Section 6. Other Crimes Against Humanity. - For the purpose of this act, "other crimes against humanity" means any of the following acts
when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Willful killing;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of
comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual
orientation or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act
referred to in this paragraph or any crime defined in this Act;
(i) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons;
(j) Apartheid; and
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or
physical health.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts specified herein shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.

Section 8. Individual Criminal Responsibilities. –


(a) In addition to existing provisions in Philippine law on principles of criminal responsibility, a person shall be criminally liable as
principal for a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she:
(1) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether
that other person is criminally responsible;

Page 75 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(2) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(3) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of person acting
with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or
purpose involves the commission of a crime defined in this Act; or
(ii) be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime.
(b) Accomplices - punished
(c) Attempted stage – punished

Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. - This Act shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In
particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a
government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a
ground for reduction of sentence. However:
(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under Philippine
law other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure,
shall not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction over such a person;

Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. - In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under
this Act, a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal x x x
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the subordinates were
committing or about to commit such crimes;
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or repress their
commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

Section 11. Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized under this Act, x x x shall not be subject to any prescription.

Section 12. Orders from a Superior. - The fact that a crime defined and penalized under this Act has been committed by a person pursuant
to an order of a government or a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless
all of the following elements occur:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
For the purposes of this section, orders to commit genocide or other crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.

Section 15. (Philippine courts shall be guided by other international laws such as 1948 Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Hague
Convention etc.)

Section 16. (RPC or other general special laws apply suppletorily)

Page 76 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Section 17. [EXTRA TERRITORIAL] Jurisdiction. – The State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian,
suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided any one of the
following conditions is met:

(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen


(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.

In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under
this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime.
Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to be the appropriate international
court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.
No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals suspected to have committed crimes defined and penalized in this Act if
they have been tried by a competent court outside the Philippines, in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or after having been
convicted, already serving their sentence.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Navia et al v RTC granted the Writ of W/N the issuance of the Writ NO. The elements of the Writ of Amparo:
Pardico Amparo filed by the wife of of Amparo was valid? 1.) Deprivation of liberty
Ben, the missing person. 2.) Government or private with gov’t authority
Lolita was awakened by or acquiescence [NOT PRESENT HERE]
Asion – he was looking for 3.) Refusal to acknowledge deprivation of liberty
Ben and Bong who were or info on whereabouts
allegedly involved in 4.) Intent is to remove him from the protection
stealing wires in the of law
subdivision. Respondent’s Even if there are probabilities of the fact that Ben
version: The security was indeed deprived of liberty that in itself is not
guards took Ben and Bong enough for a Writ of Amparo to issue without
forcibly, Navia beat up Ben. government involvement – proven by substantial
Lolita was made to sign evidence.
three affidavits saying that
Ben and Bong were Asion is a private person who is not related to the
released. Petitioner: they government in any way.
were released peacefully as
evidenced by Lolita’s
signature in the logbook.

Page 77 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Ocampo v A mass grave in Leyte W/N political offense doctrine NO. Under the political offense doctrine, “common
Abando contained skeletons of applies, thus warranting the crimes”, perpetrated in the furtherance of a political
persons suspected victims of dismissal of the murder cases offense, are divested of their character as “common”
“Operation Venereal offenses and assume the political complexion of the
Disease” launched by the main crime of which they are mere ingredients.
CPP-NPA to assassinate
suspected military Thus when a killing is committed in the furtherance
informers. Relatives of the of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder.
victims filed complaints Rather killing assumes the political complexion of
against 71 members of the rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be
CPP-NPA for murder. prosecuted as rebellion alone.
Judge Abando of RTC Leyte
issued arrest warrants Leonen’s Separate Opinion:
pursuant to this. Ocampo He concurred with the main decision that the case
argued that a case against should be remanded for the ascertainment if the
them for rebellion was separate charges of murder were committed in
pending in RTC Makati and furtherance of rebellion.
argues that common crimes
are absorbed in rebellion On the basis of International Humanitarian Law,
when committed as a inhumane acts should not be under the guise of
necessary means, in political doctrine.
connection with and in
furtherance of rebellion.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.–
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for
the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately
with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he
must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is
signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately

Page 78 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to
such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed
by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the
parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial
investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and
void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or
by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any
international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall
include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or
niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of
law.
Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting
preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;
(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with light felonies;
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided
that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided,
That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the
province pays said fees.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the
investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


People v Victoria found out that W/N her admissions are Only the first admission is admissible.
Cabanada their money and jewelry admissible in evidence [Excerpt] Sec 12 Art III, 1987 Constitution:
were missing. Cabanada

Page 79 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(maid) admitted to PO2 Any person under investigation for the


Cotoner that she took the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
missing money (first informed of his right to remain silent and to have
admission) Without being competent and independent counsel preferably his
apprised of her own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
constitutional rights, she counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
made another admission cannot be waived except in writing and in the
while in the Criminal presence of counsel.
Investigation Unit (2nd
Admission) She was She was not under custodial investigation when she
convicted of Qualified theft made the 1st admission. Hence this is admissible.
Ladiana v Ladiana admitted in his W/N the Sandiganbayan may YES.
People counter-affidavit to making convict the accused-petitioner Ladiana argues that the right to competent and
the fatal shots on Franciso beyond reasonable doubt of independent counsel also applies during preliminary
but he claims that he did so the crime of homicide even in investigations.
in self-defense. The the absence of any SC disagrees. A person undergoing preliminary
questioned statements were eyewitness who personally investigation before the public prosecutor cannot be
made during preliminary saw the shooting of the considered as being under custodial investigation.
investigation and not victim by the accused, basing Ladiana could not invoke his right to a counsel
during the custodial it only on the testimony of because he wasn’t in a custodial investigation
investigation. the prosecutor who had anymore.
Sandiganbayan ruled that administered the oath on the *However the SC did not consider the counter-
the counter-affdavit was Counter-affidavit filed by affidavit as an extrajudicial admission but merely a
admissible in evidence petitioner-accused. confession.
against him.

MENTAL HEALTH ACT


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11038
Sec. R.A. 11038 Mental Health Act
44 Unlawful acts
(1) Failure to secure informed consent of the service user, unless it falls under the exceptions provided under Sec 13
(2) Violation of the confidentiality of information
(3) Discrimination against a person with a mental health condition
(4) Administering inhumane, cruel, degrading or harmful treatment not based on medical or scientific evidence`

Page 80 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

DECRIMINALIZATION OF VAGRANCY
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158
Atty. Abitria’s discussion:
RA 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act – Decriminalized vagrancy for children
RA 10158 (enacted 2012) – Decriminalized vagrancy even for adults

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES


PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294
Sec. R.A. 8294
5 Section 5. Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. – The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
1) firearms with expired license; or
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9516


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
Sec. R.A. 10591 – Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Act of 2013
2 (a) Accessories refer to parts of a firearm which may enhance or increase the operational efficiency or accuracy of a firearm but
will not constitute any of the major or minor internal parts thereof such as, but not limited to, laser scope, telescopic sight and
sound suppressor or silencer.
(b) Ammunition refers to a complete unfixed unit consisting of a bullet, gunpowder, cartridge case and primer or loaded shell for
use in any firearm
(i) Confiscated firearm refers to a firearm that is taken into custody by the PNP, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and all other law enforcement agencies by reason of their mandate and must be
necessarily reported or turned over to the PEO of the PNP.
(j) Demilitarized firearm refers to a firearm deliberately made incapable of performing its main purpose of firing a projectile.
(k) Duty detail order refers to a document issued by the juridical entity or employer wherein the details of the disposition of
firearm is spelled-out, thus indicating the name of the employee, the firearm information, the specific duration and location of
posting or assignment and the authorized bonded firearm custodian for the juridical entity to whom such firearm is turned over
after the lapse of the order.

Page 81 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(l) Firearm refers to any handheld or portable weapon, whether a small arm or light weapon, that expels or is designed to expel a
bullet, shot, slug, missile or any projectile, which is discharged by means of expansive force of gases from burning gunpowder or
other form of combustion or any similar instrument or implement. For purposes of this Act, the barrel, frame or receiver is
considered a firearm.
(q) Imitation firearm refers to a replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially similar in coloration and overall
appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to believe that such imitation firearm is a real firearm.
*Sumpak- an improvised firearm, without serial number, is it an imitation firearm? / Aerosoft? Used for recreational purposes?
(r) Licensed citizen refers to any Filipino who complies with the qualifications set forth in this Act and duly issued with a license
to possess or to carry firearms outside of the residence in accordance with this Act.
(s) Licensed, juridical entity refers to corporations, organizations, businesses including security agencies and local government
units (LGUs) which are licensed to own and possess firearms in accordance with this Act.
(t) Light weapons are: Class-A Light weapons which refer to self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, assault
rifles and light machine guns not exceeding caliber 7.62MM which have fully automatic mode; and Class-B Light weapons which
refer to weapons designed for use by two (2) or more persons serving as a crew, or rifles and machine guns exceeding caliber
7.62MM such as heavy machine guns, handheld underbarrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns,
portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-
aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100MM.
(u) Long certificate of registration refers to licenses issued to government agencies or offices or government-owned or -controlled
corporations for firearms to be used by their officials and employees who are qualified to possess firearms as provider in this Act,
excluding security guards.
(v) Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been lost or stolen,
illegally manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of an individual other than the licensee and those with
revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations.
(y) Permit to carry firearm outside of residence refers to a written authority issued to a licensed citizen by the Chief of the PNP
which entitles such person to carry his/her registered or lawfully issued firearm outside of the residence for the duration and
purpose specified in the authority.
(z) Permit to transport firearm refers to a written authority issued to a licensed citizen or entity by the Chief of the PNP or by a
PNP Regional Director which entitles such person or entity to transport a particular firearm from and to a specific location within
the duration and purpose in the authority.
*Permit to carry is different from permit to transport.
(cc) Short certificate of registration refers to a certificate issued by the FEO of the PNP for a government official or employee who
was issued by his/her employer department, agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation a firearm covered by the long
certificate of registration.

Page 82 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(dd) Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use or that which is generally considered to
mean a weapon intended to be fired from the hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic bursts of discharge, such
as:
(1) Handgun which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand, which includes:
a. A pistol which is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or permanently aligned with the bore
which may be self-loading; and
b. Revolver which is a hand-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder containing chambers for individual
cartridges.
(2) Rifle which is a shoulder firearm or designed to be fired from the shoulder that can discharge a bullet through a rifled
barrel by different actions of loading, which may be classified as lever, bolt, or self-loading; and
(3) Shotgun which is a weapon designed, made and intended to fire a number of ball shots or a single projectile through a
smooth bore by the action or energy from burning gunpowder.
4 Section 4. Standards and Requisites for Issuance of and Obtaining a License to Own and Possess Firearms. – In order to qualify
and acquire a license to own and possess a firearm or firearms and ammunition, the applicant must be a Filipino citizen, at least
twenty-one (21) years old and has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding
year as proof of income, profession, business or occupation.
In addition, the applicant shall submit the following certification issued by appropriate authorities attesting the following:
(a) The applicant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
(b) The applicant has passed the psychiatric test administered by a PNP-accredited psychologist or psychiatrist;
(c) The applicant has passed the drug test conducted by an accredited and authorized drug testing laboratory or clinic;
(d) The applicant has passed a gun safety seminar which is administered by the PNP or a registered and authorized gun club;
(e) The applicant has filed in writing the application to possess a registered firearm which shall state the personal circumstances
of the applicant;
(f) The applicant must present a police clearance from the city or municipality police office; and
(g) The applicant has not been convicted or is currently an accused in a pending criminal case before any court of law for a crime
that is punishable with a penalty of more than two (2) years.
An acquittal or permanent dismissal of a criminal case before the courts of law shall qualify the accused x x x
Applicant shall pay licensing fees.
5 Section 5. Ownership of Firearms and Ammunition by a Juridical Entity. – A juridical person maintaining its own security force
may be issued a regular license to own and possess firearms and ammunition under the following conditions:
(a) It must be Filipino-owned and duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
(b) It is current, operational and a continuing concern;
(c) It has completed and submitted all its reportorial requirements to the SEC; and

Page 83 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(d) It has paid all its income taxes for the year, as duly certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
The application shall be made in the name of the juridical person represented by its President or any of its officers mentioned
below as duly authorized in a board resolution to that effect: Provided, That the officer applying for the juridical entity, shall
possess all the qualifications required of a citizen applying for a license to possess firearms.
(Other eligible officers: the vice president, treasurer, and board secretary.)
Security agencies and LGUs shall x x x be subject to additional requirements as may be required by the Chief of the PNP.
7 Section 7. Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence or Place of Business. – A permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall
be issued by the Chief of the PNP or his/her duly authorized representative to any qualified person whose life is under actual
threat or his/her life is in imminent danger due to the nature of his/her profession, occupation or business.
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that his/her life is under actual threat by submitting a threat assessment
certificate from the PNP.
For purposes of this Act, the following professionals are considered to be in imminent danger due to the nature of their profession,
occupation or business:
(a) Members of the Philippine Bar;
(b) Certified Public Accountants;
(c) Accredited Media Practitioners;
(d) Cashiers, Bank Tellers;
(e) Priests, Ministers, Rabbi, Imams;
(f) Physicians and Nurses;
(g) Engineers; and
(h) Businessmen, who by the nature of their business or undertaking, are exposed to high risk of being targets of criminal
elements.
9 Section 9. Licenses Issued to Individuals. – Subject to the requirements set forth in this Act and payment of required fees to be
determined by the Chief of the PNP, a qualified individual may be issued the appropriate license under the following categories;
Type 1 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of two (2) registered firearms;
Type 2 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of five (5) registered firearms;
Type 3 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of ten (10) registered firearms;
Type 4 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of fifteen (15) registered firearms; and
Type 5 license – allows a citizen, who is a certified gun collector, to own and possess more than fifteen (15) registered firearms.
For Types 1 to 5 licenses, a vault or a container secured by lock and key or other security measures for the safekeeping of
firearms shall be required.
For Types 3 to 5 licenses, the citizen must comply with the inspection and bond requirements.
10 Section 10. Firearms That May Be Registered. –

Page 84 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Small arms ONLY! may be registered by licensed citizens or licensed juridical entities for ownership, possession and concealed
carry.
Light weapons- exclusively for AFP, the PNP and other law enforcement agencies authorized by the President in the
performance of their duties: Those private individuals with licensed Class A light weapons upon the effectivity of this act may
have their license renewed.
12 Section 12. License to Possess Ammunition Necessarily Included. – The licenses granted to qualified citizens or juridical entities
as provided in Section 9 of this Act shall include the license to possess ammunition with a maximum of fifty (50) rounds for each
registered firearm
**Do you need a separate license for ammo? No. Before you need a separate license for firearms. Now you don’t need a separate
license.
18 Section 18. Firearms for Use in Sports and Competitions. – A qualified individual shall apply for a permit to transport his/her
registered firearm/s from his/her residence to the firing range/s and competition sites as may be warranted.
19 Section 19. Renewal of Licenses and Registration. – Firearm shall be renewed
All types of licenses to possess - every two (2) years. Failure to renew - revocation of the license and of the registration of the
firearm/s under said licensee.
The registration of the firearm shall be renewed every four (4) years. Failure to renew - revocation of the license of the firearm.
The said firearm shall be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government after due process.
Failure to renew a license or registration within the periods stated above on two (2) occasions shall cause the holder of the
firearm to be perpetually disqualified from applying for any firearm license. The application for the renewal of the license or
registration may be submitted to the FEO of the PNP, within six (6) months before the date of the expiration of such license or
registration.
26 Section 26. Death or Disability of Licensee. – Upon the death or legal disability of the holder of a firearm license, it shall be the
duty of his/her next of kin, nearest relative, legal representative, or other person who shall knowingly come into possession of
such firearm or ammunition, to deliver the same to the FEO of the PNP or Police Regional Office, and such firearm or
ammunition shall be retained by the police custodian pending the issuance of a license and its registration in accordance, with
this Act. The failure to deliver the firearm or ammunition within six (6) months after the death or legal disability of the licensee
shall render the possessor liable for illegal possession of the firearm.
*Can Pedro display his deceased father’s unlicensed firearm in his house?
Ownership of the gun can pass to Pedro, but Pedro has to secure a license to possess. Firearm has to be surrendered to the FEO if
he fails to obtain a license.
*Pedro after his father’s death brings the gun to crame. He gets intercepted while on his way. He could not produce a Permit to
transport firearm. Is he liable? NO. People v Dela Rosa – Pedro has no intent to possess
28 Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.

Page 85 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

*Separate information – Ex.38 cal – 1 info / .45 cal- 1 info. WHY? The law provides different penalties depending on the type of
gun.
29 Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. –
(1) The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other
special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance
Ex. Murder / Homicide results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is Murder aggravated by illegal possession
of firearm
(2) Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty
which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged:
(3) Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
Use of firearm is aggravating UNLESS lower penalty is imposed
Ex: New Year, Pedro uses a loose firearm and causes alarms and scandals. (Prision mayor – use of loose firearm + Arresto
mayor – for causing alarm)
(4) If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection,
or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d’ etat.
(5) If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a
distinct and separate offense.
Ex. Pedro caught selling drugs and carrying an unlicensed firearm (unused) – Separate crimes
31 Absence of Permit to Carry Outside of Residence.
32 Unlawful Manufacture, Importation, Sale or Disposition of Firearms or Ammunition or Parts Thereof, Machinery, Tool or
Instrument Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Parts Thereof
33 Arms Smuggling
34 Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of Firearms Identification
35 Use of an Imitation Firearm. – An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm
*Imitation gun used in a “pelikula”, covered? No. The gun must have been used in the commission of a crime.
36 Section 36. In Custodia Legis. – During the pendency of any case filed in violation of this Act, seized firearm, ammunition, or
parts thereof, machinery, tools or instruments shall remain in the custody of the court. No bond is admitted for the release of the
firearm

Page 86 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

37 Violation of this act carries an accessory penalty of confiscation and forfeiture of the firearm in favour of the Gov’t
38 Planting Evidence
40 Failure to Notify Lost or Stolen Firearm or Light Weapon (this includes failure of a licensee to inform the FEO that he changed
residence)
41 Illegal Transfer/Registration of Firearms

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


People v Dela Suspected members of the W/N they are liable under PD NO. Intent to possess must be proven (animus
Rosa NPA were in possession of No. 1866 possidendi)
firearms but with the Under the PD NO. 1866 is one where the accused
intention of surrendering possessed a firearm either physically or
them to the authorities constructively with animus possidendi or intention to
possess the same. It is not enough that the accused
was holding it temporarily for the purpose of
surrendering.
People v De Accused was charged for W/N De Gracia is guilty? YES. Ownership is not an essential element of illegal
Gracia illegal possession in possession of firearms and ammunition. What the
furtherance of rebellion, law requires is merely possession which includes not
and for attempted homicide. only actual physical possession but also constructive
He contends that he cannot possession or the subjection of the thing to one's
be held guilty for the reason control and management
that he did not have either
physical or constructive While mere possession, without criminal intent, is
possession thereof sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of
considering that he had no a firearm, it must still be shown that there was
intent to possess the same; animus possidendi44 or an intent to possess on the
he was merely employed by part of the accused. Such intent to possess is,
Col. Matillano as an errand however, without regard to any other criminal or
boy felonious intent which the accused may have
harbored in possessing the firearm.

Based on the facts, De Gracia has intent to possess.

44
Animus possidendi is a state of mind which may be determined on a case to case basis, taking into consideration the prior and coetaneous
acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances.

Page 87 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Padilla v CA Robin Padilla was involved W/N Robin Padilla is liable YES. The requisites are present in this case.
in a hit and run. Policemen under PD 1866 Requisites of illegal possession:
caught him in possession of (1) the existence of the subject firearm and
firearms. When asked to (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed
produce license, he was not such, did not have the license or permit to possess or
able to produce any. carry.

Palaganas v Ferrer v Palaganas bros. W/N use of unlicensed Use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating
People were involved in a fist fight. firearm in committing circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating
One of the Palaganas homicide or murder is a circumstance.
brothers went to the house qualifying or generic
of his uncle. Uncle then aggravating circumstance. Under PD 1866
shot the three Ferrer “If homicide or murder is committed with the use of
brothers, Servillano in the an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
abdomen area, Melton in firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
the head and Michael in the circumstance.”
right shoulder
But it was silent as to w/n it’s special or generic.
Lower courts applied generic since it’s more
favorable to the accused.

With the passage of Republic Act. No. 8294 on 6 June


1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or
homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL
aggravating circumstance and not a generic
aggravating circumstance. Special Aggravating
cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstances

Crime was committed 1998. The amendment applies


People v Enojas PO2 Gregorio and PO2 W/N the accused is guilty of Enojas is not guilty of murder but he’s guilty of
Pangilinan were taking taxi murder homicide with aggravating circumstance of use of
driver Enojas to the police unlicensed firearms.
station when a shootout
occurred in a 7-11 store on Use of unlicensed firearm does not qualify the crime
their way to the station. to murder
Pangilinan got killed and
when Gregorio was able to

Page 88 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

capture Enojas with the


help of Enojas’ mobile
phone which he left behind
his taxi. They used it to
entrap them, eventually
leading to their arrest. The
RTC found them guilty of
murder for the death of PO2
Pangilinan

PUBLIC MORALS
GAMBLING AND BETTING
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9287
Sec. 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who participates in any illegal numbers game shall suffer the following penalties:
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days, if such person acts as a bettor;
b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if such person acts as a personnel or staff of an
illegal numbers game operation;
The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any person who allows his vehicle, house, building or land to be used in the operation
of the illegal numbers games.
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such person acts as a collector or agent;
d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if such person acts as a coordinator,
controller or supervisor;
e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to ten (10) fourteen (14) years, if such person acts as a
maintainer, manager or operator; and
f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years, if such person acts as a financier or
capitalist;
g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, if such person acts as protector or
coddler.

Page 89 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

DANGEROUS DRUGS
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165

Sec. Prohibited Act Penalty Persons Liable

LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M) Importer of dangerous drug (DD) (Unless authorized)
Importer of controlled precursor and essential
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k)
chemical (CPEC)
Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Maximum penalty + Imports DD or CPEC using diplomatic passport,
4
Precursors and Essential Chemicals confiscation and cancellation of diplomatic facilities, official status to facilitate
passport unlawful entry
Maximum penalty Financier
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) Protector/Coddler
Persons who sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M)
transport any dangerous drug OR a broker in any of
such transactions (Unless authorized)
Persons who sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k)
transport any CPEC OR a broker in any of such
transactions (Unless authorized)
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, If sale etc. of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
5 Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs Maximum penalty precursor and essential chemical transpires within
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals one hundred (100) meters from the school
Pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated
Maximum penalty
individuals as runners, couriers and messengers,
Maximum penalty If victim is a minor / mentally incapacitated
Maximum penalty Financier

12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) Protector/Coddler

Any person or group of persons who shall maintain a


LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M) den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used
or sold in any form.
6 Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort
Any person or group of persons who shall maintain a
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor
and essential chemical is used or sold in any form

Page 90 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Where any dangerous drug is administered, delivered


Maximum penalty or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in
such a place.
Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of
Death and Fine (1M – 15M) the death of a person using the same in such den, dive
or resort,
Den/Dive shall be confiscated If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person,
and escheated in favor of the (Allege intent of the owner to use the place for such
government and owner is included as accused)

Maximum penalty Financier

12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) Protector/Coddler


(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is
aware of the nature of the place as such
Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. (b) Any person who, not being included in the
7 12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k)
provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is aware
of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly
visit the same

LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M) Manufacturer of dangerous drugs (unless authorized)

Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled


8 Manufacturer of controlled precursor and essential
Precursors and Essential Chemicals
chemical (unless authorized)
The presence of any controlled precursor and
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k)
essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the
clandestine laboratory is a prima facie proof of
manufacture of any dangerous drug
Maximum penalty Financier
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) Protector/Coddler
Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors
9 12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) illegally divert any controlled precursor and essential
and Essential Chemicals.
chemical.
Any person who shall deliver, possess with intent to
Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument, deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver
10 12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k)
Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, knowing, or

Page 91 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential under circumstances where one reasonably should
Chemicals. know, that it will be used to plant, propagate,
cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound,
convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze,
pack, repack, store, contain or conceal any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical
If it will be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise
6m1d to 4y and Fine (10k-50k) introduce into the human body a dangerous drug in
violation of this Act.
uses a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual to
Maximum penalty deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
Possession of 10g (opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine,
cocaine HCL, marijuana resin/marijuana resin oil,
LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M)
ecstasy, LSD, PMA, TMA, GHB), 500g marijuana, 50g
shabu
LI and Fine (400k-500k) If shabu is 10 to less than 50g
5-less than 10g of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine,
11 Possession of Dangerous Drugs cocaine HCL, marijuana resin/marijuana resin oil,
20y1d-LI and Fine (400k-500k)
ecstasy, LSD, PMA, TMA, GHB, shabu
300 to less than 500 of marijuana
Less than 5 g opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine,
12y1d to 20y1d and Fine cocaine HCL, marijuana resin/marijuana resin oil,
(300k-400k) ecstasy, LSD, PMA, TMA, GHB, shabu
Less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

Possession of any equipment, instrument, apparatus


and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body

For Medical Practitioners required to possess, the


Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Board shall prescribe guidelines
12 6m1d to 4y and Fine (10k-50k)
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs

Possession of abovementioned is prima facie evidence


that the possessor has smoked, consumed,
administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have
violated Section 15 of this Act

Page 92 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Possession of any dangerous drug during a party, or


Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Maximum penalties in Section
13 at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate
Gatherings or Meetings 11, (any qty and purity)
company of at least two (2) persons
Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Maximum penalties in Section consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
14 Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During
12 introducing any dangerous drug into the body, during
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings
parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the
proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
Any person who is found to be positive for use of any
1st offense - minimum of 6m dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test
rehab in a gov’t center (subject
15 Use of Dangerous Drugs to Article VIII) Provided, Sec 15 does not apply where the person
2nd offense – 6y1d to 12y and tested is also found to have in his/her possession such
Fine (50k-200k) quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under
Section 11
Cultivation of Marijuana, Opium Poppy or any other
plant regardless of quantity, which is or may
hereafter be classified as a dangerous drug or as a
source from which any dangerous drug may be
manufactured or derived
LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M)
Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Provided – for med labs, the Board shall provide
16 guidelines
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof

Land used for cultivation – escheated in favour of the


State UNLESS the owner can prove lack of
knowledge
Maximum penalty Financier
12 y -20y and Fine (100k-500k) Protector/Coddler
Any practitioner, manufacturer, wholesaler, importer,
distributor, dealer or retailer who violates or fails to
Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of 6m1d to 4y and Fine (10k-50k)
comply with the maintenance and keeping of the
17 Transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled +Revocation of license to
original records of transactions on any dangerous
Precursors and Essential Chemicals practice / business license
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical in accordance with Section 40 of this Act.
Criminal Liability of a Public Officer or Employee for Any public officer or employee who misappropriates,
Misappropriation, Misapplication or Failure to LI-Death and Fine (500k -10M) misapplies or fails to account for confiscated, seized or
Account for the Confiscated, Seized and/or + absolute perpetual surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
27
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of disqualification from any dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential public office chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or

Page 93 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Laboratory Equipment Including the Proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful acts as
Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act Committed. provided for in this Act.
Removed from office and
perpetually disqualified from
Elective local or national official found to have
holding any elective or
benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of
appointive positions in the
dangerous drugs, or have received any financial or
government, its divisions,
material contributions or donations from natural or
subdivisions, and
juridical persons found guilty of trafficking dangerous
intermediaries, including
drugs
government-owned or –
controlled corporations.
If those found guilty of such unlawful acts are
Maximum penalty + addition government officials and employees.
Criminal Liability of Government Officials and to absolute perpetual
28
Employees disqualification from public *What if through negligence? – RPC –Malversation of
office public property – misappropriation of government
property
"planting" any dangerous drug and/or controlled
29 Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence Death
precursor and essential chemical
Penalty provided for the A partnership, corporation, association or any
offense under this Act shall be juridical entity, the partner, president, director,
Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships,
30 imposed upon the partner, manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer who
Corporations, Associations or Other Juridical Entities
president, director, manager, consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall
etc. be held criminally liable as a co-principal.
After service of sentence, be
deported immediately without
31 Additional Penalty if Offender is an Alien Alien
further proceedings, unless the
penalty is death.
Liability to a Person Violating Any Regulation Issued
32 6m1d to 4y and Fine (10k-50k) Violator of the regulation
by the Board.

Section Other Provisions under RA 9165


23 DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL45 in 2017
Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not
be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
26 Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same
penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act: (ISMa2C)
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;

45
See Estipona v Lobrigo

Page 94 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
Atty. Abitria: Take note, not all of the prohibited acts are punished in an attempted stage or when in a conspiracy
27 (Liability of a public officer who misappropriates - any public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to
account for confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained
from the unlawful acts as provided for in this Act.)

*What if through negligence the public officer misappropriates? – He will be punished under RPC – Malversation of Public
Property because the articles involved in RA 9165 are public property.
33 Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment. – Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991,
any person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who voluntarily gives information
about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as well as any violation of the offenses mentioned
if committed by a drug syndicate, or any information leading to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the
members thereof; and who willingly testifies against such persons as described above, shall be exempted from prosecution or
punishment for the offense with reference to which his/her information of testimony were given, and may plead or prove the
giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided, That the following conditions concur:

(1) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the persons described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
(3) Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points;
(4) the informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, except
when there is no other direct evidence available for the State other than the information and testimony of said
informant or witness; and
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully comply without delay, any condition or undertaking,
reduced into writing, lawfully imposed by the State as further consideration for the grant of immunity from
prosecution and punishment.

Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not appear to be most guilty for
the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony were given: Provided, finally, That there is no direct
evidence available for the State except for the information and testimony of the said informant or witness.
54 Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation - A drug dependent or any person
who violates Section 15 of this Act may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the

Page 95 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly recognized representative, for treatment and
rehabilitation of the drug dependency
55 Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program. A drug dependent under the voluntary
submission program, who is finally discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability under Section 15
(subject to conditions)
66 RA 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act now applies.
Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. – An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when
judgment should have been promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits of a
suspended sentence
70 Probation or Community Service for a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640

R.A. 9165 Sec. 21- June 7, 2002 R.A. 10640 Sec. 21 (Amendment) – July 15, 2014
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an
representative from the media and the Department of elected public official and a representative of the National
Justice (DOJ), AND any elected public official who shall be Prosecution Service OR the media who shall be required to
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
thereof;
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant
is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures:
Provided finally, that noncompliance of these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/

Page 96 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

team shall not render void and invalid such seizures


and custody over said items46
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results,
which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the
the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous
volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors
and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing
the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report
laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory:
the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the
certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours; next twenty-four (24) hours;

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10586

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


People v Marlon and Noriel Lacerna W/N accused are guilty of Noriel ACQUITTED. Marlon GUILTY of Illegal
Lacerna were aboard a taxi when a violating Sec 4 of RA 6425 Possession
police officer signalled them Illegal possession is mala prohibita
to stop and asked Elements of Illegal Possession:
permission to search. The 1. The accused is in possession of an item or
police found 18 blocks of object which is identified to be a prohibited
marijuana in a bag that drug
Noriel was holding. Marlon 2. Such possession is not authorized by law
admitted that he gave the 3. The accused freely and consciously possessed
bag to Noriel but he denied the prohibited drug.
knowledge of the All the elements are present in this case.
marijuana.
Malilin v People Search and seizure – RTC convicted accused of RA NO. Accused – acquitted – due to the failure of the
accused was asked by a 9165. CA Affirmed. prosecution to prove the integrity of the evidence
police officer to run an
errand (buy cigarette) – W/N the lower courts were
which caused the accused to right

46
See People v Lim (Jan 2018) case for the application of this exception

Page 97 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

miss most of the parts of The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus
the search. Police alleged delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is
that 2 sachets of shabu fell vital to judgment of conviction.
from the pillow and 5 Chain of custody rule – required that the admission
sachets were found in the of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
bedroom support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be. It includes the
testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment that the item was picked up to the time it is
offered in evidence
People v Garcia Buy-bust – Police posed as RTC convicted the accused of NO. Not proven beyond reasonable doubt
poseur buyer, bought RA 9165. CA Affirmed SECTION 5 – Illegal Sale Elements:
Marijuana and gave 1. Identity of the buyer, seller, the object and
marked money. No physical W/N Accused is guilty? the consideration
inventory was made. No 2. The delivery of the thing sold and the
photos of the drug were payment therefor
taken. The police marked Corpus delicti – the body or substance of the
the crime that establishes that a crime has
actually been committed, as shown by
presenting the object
In the present case, the object is marijuana
which the prosecution must present and prove in
court to be the same item seized from the
accused. It is in this respect that the prosecution
failed.
Zalameda v The police received a tip W/N the accused are guilty of YES.
People that there was an ongoing violating Sections 11 and 12 SECTION 11 – Illegal Possession Elements:
pot session in Brgy. Tejeros, of the RA 9165 1. Possession by the accused of an item or object
Makati. The police found identified to be a prohibited drug.
Zalameda and Villaflor 2. The possession is not authorized by law
sniffing crystalline subs. In 3. The free and conscious possession of the
the bed. drug by the accused
SECTION 12 – Illegal Possession of Equipment and
other paraphernalia Elements:
1. The possession or control by the accused of
any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia for or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting,

Page 98 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug


into the body
2. Such possession is not authorized by law.
*This happens when separately, there was
paraphernalia
People v Pot session – Police formed W/N the accused are guilty of NO. ACQUITTED of SECTION 13 in relation to
Martinez a team and went to the Sec 13 in relation to Sec 11 SECTION 11
house. The accused tested *What if residue only? In the case, the presence of
positive for drugs but only Sec 13 – Illegal possession dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on
drug residue was found. during Parties, Social the drug paraphernalia, but the accused tested (+)
Gatherings or Meetings for use of drugs.
Sec 11 – Illegal Possession
Sec 15 – Illegal Use Court suggests to file charges under Sec 15 instead of
11 or 13 when only residue is present in order to
effectively fulfil the intent of the law to rehabilitate
drug users (since Sec 15 provides rehab for first time
offenders, provided that the confirmatory test
required in Sec 15 is (+).

Filing of charges for possession of dangerous drugs


should be done only when a separate quantity of ff
other than mere residue is found.
People v Policemen were tipped that W/N the RTC erred in YES. Police failed to comply with SECTION 21 of
Pagaduan a certain Pagaduan was convicting him of RA 9165 RA 9165
selling illegal drugs. Buy Chain of Custody requirement was not compiled
bust happened. RTC and with.
CA convicted him of RA
9165 Jurisprudence requires that the marking of the items
should be:
1. In the presence of the apprehended violator
2. Immediately upon confiscation
PDEA v Brodett Brodett and Joseph were W/N the car should be NO.
charged with Illegal Sale of returned The Order of Release was premature and it was in
Drugs. While the case was contravention of SECTION 20 of RA 9165.
pending, Brodett filed in the
RTC a Motion to Return a Para 1. x x x All the proceeds and properties
Non-Drug evidence derived from the unlawful act, including, but
(HONDA Accord car). RTC not limited to, money and other assets obtained

Page 99 of 153
SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

granted the Motion because thereby, and the instruments or tools with
it was shown that the car which the particular unlawful act was
belongs to a third party, committed, unless they are the property of a third
Mrs. Brodett who allegedly person not liable for the unlawful act, x x x shall be
had no knowledge of the ordered destroyed without delay pursuant to the
crime. provisions of Section 21 of this Act.”

Para 3. During the pendency of the case in the


Regional Trial Court, no property, or income derived
therefrom, which may be confiscated and forfeited,
shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the
same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall be
admitted for the release of the same

Although the car belongs to a third person, the


defense has yet to prove that this third person is not
liable for the unlawful act. Most importantly, the
case was still pending. Hence the car shouldn’t be
released.
People v Collado A buy-bust operation was W/N accused are guilty of Cipriano, Madarang, Sumulong, Latario, Apelo and
conducted after the police violating RA 9165 Abache – ACQUITTED
recived a tip that shabu was Ranada – GUILTY – because he was the only one
sold in Collado’s place. An RTC- even if Ranada was the actually caught possession of drug paraphernalia
entrapment operation was only person caught in
conducted. The defense possession, since accused Illegal possession of drug paraphernalia during
claims that they were in the were all gathered around in parties under SECTION 14 of RA 9165 is a crime of
ordinary course of business the table they are all deemed malum prohibitum.
(electronics and applicance principals.
repair shop). All of the CA- Ranada is a principal but Since it’s malum prohibitum, the degree of
accused were found guilty all the others are liable as participation of the offenders is not
in the RTC accessories. Conspiracy was considered. All who perpetrated the act are
not established. penalized to the same extent.

SECTION 98 of RA 9165 Provisions of RPC shall


not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the
case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life

Page 100 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

imprisonment to death provided herein shall


be reclusion perpetua to death.
Dela Cruz v Dela Cruz was subject of an W/N the drug test was valid NO.
People extortion case. He was and admissible In SECTION 15, “a person apprehended” does not
subjected to a urine mean any person. The accused must have been
examination and he tested apprehended or arrested for importation, sale,
positive for shabu. He was trading, administration, manufacture etc. of
charged with violation of dangerous drugs.
Sec 15 of RA 9165 (Ill. Use) Constitutional right against self-incrimination will
be violated if the urine test will be held admissible
because the urine sample is not material to an
extortion case.
People v Acting upon a search W/N accused are guilty of the Acquitted. Failure to maintain the integrity and
Holgado warrant, a buy-bust charges. identity of the drugs.
operation was conducted Compliance with the chain of custody requirement
against Holgado. Misarez provided by SECTION 21 of RA 9165 ensures the
was also apprehended integrity of the confiscated, seized or surrendered
because he was involved drugs in four respects:
with the selling of the 1. Nature of the items seized
drugs. They were charged 2. Weight of the items seized
with (1) selling of illegal 3. Relation of the substances to the incident
drugs, (2) possession of allegedly causing their seizure
illegal drugs, and (3) 4. The relation of the substances or items seized
possession of drug to the person/s alleged to have been in
paraphernalia. They were possession of or peddling them.
acquitted of the (2) and (3) -
the drugs introduced as
evidence were different
from those indicated in the
inventory
People v Dahil Dahil and Castro were W/N the law enforcement No. Chain of custody rule was not followed.
caught in a buy bust officers substantially 4 links in the chain:
operation. They were complied with the chain of 1. The seizure and marking, if practicable,
charged with illegal sale custody procedure as of the illegal drug recovered from the
and illegal possession of required by RA 9165 accused by the apprehending officer -
Marijuana under RA 9165. Marking was not immediately done at the
Dahil was not arraigned place of seizure as they were placed at the
which led to the reopening police station based on Corpuz’s testimony.

Page 101 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

of the case in the RTC and 2. Turnover of the drugs seized to the
the question of whether the investigating officer - No testimony from
officers substantially the witnesses as to the turnover of the items
complied with the custody to Jamisolamin, the investigating officer.
procedure required under 3. Turnover by the investigating officer to
RA 9165. the forensic chemist for lab examination
Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran the forensic
chemist did not appear in court despite
numerous subpoenas.
4. Turnover and submission by the
chemist to the court. No testimonial or
documentary evidence was given as to how
the drugs were kept while in custody of the
chemist until it was transferred to the court.

People v Pavia Police marked the plastic W/N the proper chain of Non-compliance with the procedural requirements
sachet he seized with "JP," - custody was observed under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody,
initials of Jeric Pavia while photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended
that taken from appellant persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void
Buendia was marked with the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust
"JB," representing the operation the preservation of the integrity and
initials of Juan Buendia. the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
The plastic sachets tested same would be utilized in the determination of the
positive for "shabu." The guilt or innocence of the accused."
appellants claim that the
apprehending team failed to
strictly comply with the
requirements of Sec. 21 (1)
of RA 9165.
People v Charged with illegal sale W/N the accused is guilty of No. The chain of custody should be established from
Santiago and illegal use. She was illegal sale and use the time the seized drugs were confiscated and
caught in a buy-bust eventually marked until the same is presented
operation. She challenged during trial.
the validity of her arrest
Estipona Jr. v Salvador Estipona is W/N 9165’s prohibition on NO. SECTION 23 OF RA 9165 IS DECLARED
Lobrigo charged for Possession of plea-bargaining is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Dangerous Drugs. He constitutional The Court explained that the power to promulgate
Aug 15 2017 moved to engage in a plea- rules concerning procedure in all courts is exclusive

Page 102 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

bargaining agreement in to the Judiciary and it cannot be exercised by the


order for him to plead guilty Legislative. It is also established that this
for the crime of Possession prerogative is exclusive to procedural laws and does
of Equipment, Instrument, not include substantive law. Plea bargaining, by its
Apparatus, and Other nature, does not fall under the realm of substantive
Paraphernalia for law because it presents a mutuality of advantage for
Dangerous Drugs. The all the parties in a criminal case. It is also not a
prosecution and the lower constitutional right because its exercise is subject to
court, however, denied his the consent of the private offended party and the
motion because Section 23 prosecutor and the discretion of the trial court. For
of RA 9165 prohibits plea- falling under the realm of procedural law, its
bargaining for people who promulgation is exclusive to the Judiciary. Section 23
committed violations of its of RA 9165 is therefore unconstitutional.
penal provisions.
People v Sipin Accused Sipin sold shabu to W/N the police complied with No. Investigating officer testified that the specimen
poseur-buyers in Sec. 21 of RA 9165? was in a stapled plastic container. Apprehending
consideration of P100.00. officer claims the specimen was in a mere bond
The policemen maintain paper.
that they were able to keep 4 links in the chain:
the integrity and 1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of
evidentiary value of the the illegal drug recovered from the accused
specimen and that they by the apprehending officer -
complied with SEC. 21 of 2. Turnover of the drugs seized to the
the Dangerous Drugs Act. investigating officer
Sipin contends that he was 3. Turnover by the investigating officer to the
framed. RTC and CA found forensic chemist for lab examination
him guilty of violating Secs. 4. Turnover and submission by the chemist to
5 and 11 of RA 9165. the court.
Amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, now only
requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the
conduct of the physical inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an
elected public official; and (b) either a representative
from the National Prosecution Service or the media
People v Lim Lim and his stepson, Eldie W/N Lim’s conviction for NO. No barangay officials or from media or DOJ was
Gorres were charged with illegal possession and sale of available during the conduct of inventory of the
violation of Section drugs correct? drugs the law provides for an exception but such is
not present in this case.

Page 103 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

5 and 11 of RA 9165.
Despite exerting efforts to Physical inventory should be conducted in the
secure attendance by presence of (1) an elected public official and (2) a
representative from representative of the National Prosecution Service or
media, barangay officials, the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
nobody arrived to witness the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
the inventory taking. Provided, That the physical inventory and
(required to under the IRR). photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
Lim’s urine sample yielded search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
positive for presence of station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
shabu, Gorres (-) officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures:

Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these


requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
People v Lim Noncompliance with the requirement only in
(Caguioa, exceptional cases, where the following
concurring) requisites are present:
(1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow
departure from the rule on strict compliance; and
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.

To warrant the application of this saving


mechanism, however, the Prosecution must
recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain
them

Page 104 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

NEW CASES (2018)

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


People v Mola A buy bust was done to WoN the chain of custody YES. Violations of chain of custody can only prove to
yield drugs from Mola. rule was violated? be non-fatal if the police justify the reasons for
Apparently the chain of procedural lapses and prove the integrity of the
custody was not met drugs was saved
therefore SC reversed the
conviction of Mola because
police was not able to justify
the procedural lapses nor
prove the integrity of the
drugs has been saved.
(Absence of the media/DOJ
rep and local officer in
marking at place of arrest
as well as absence of proof
in the link from the
investigating officer to
chemist)
People v Miranda was charged and W/N lower courts erred in YES. An appealed criminal case subject itself to over-
Miranda convicted of illegal drug convicting Miranda? all review not only the raised errors but the Court
sale and possession. motu proprio correct all errors even not raised.
Defense: Miranda said he Hence, the accused is not barred from impugning the
was installing a window integrity of the items seized is if fails to raise it
screen when he was during trial.
suddenly arrested RTC and
CA convicted him. CA held
that since the Miranda
failed to question the
integrity of the items seized
during trial he is precluded
from doing so first time on
appeal.

Page 105 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC


CARNAPPING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6539
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659
REPUBLIC ACT NO.10883

Section RA 10883 “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016”


2 (d) Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine number, chassis number, body tag number, plate number, and
any other identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck” or is beyond economic repair by concerned car
insurance companies and/or law enforcement agencies after its involvement in a vehicular accident or other incident and
registers the same into another factory-made body or vehicle unit, of the same classification, type, make or model;

(e) Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, except
1. road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks,
and cranes if not used on public highways;
2. vehicles which run only on rails or tracks; and
3. tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes.

Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be
classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating;

*Is a golf cart covered? No. it’s not used on public highways. In such case, the crime would either be theft or robbery.
* T/F All motorized vehicles are covered in the Anti-Carnapping Act – False. *Expns
* Taking of a pison? Covered? No. It does not have a plate number – not registered. It is not meant to be used on public hwy,
3 Section 3. Carnapping; Penalties.— Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

Elements of Carnapping:
1. Taking of a motor vehicle belonging to another
2. Without consent or by means of force and intimidation
3. Intent to gain.

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by
 Imprisonment for not less than twenty (20) years and one (1) day but not more than thirty (30) years, when the
carnapping is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by

Page 106 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

 Imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty (40) years, when the
carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and the
 Penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed when the owner, driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping.

Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or
syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things; or when the
owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping
shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.
14 Section 14. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis.— It shall be
unlawful for any person to deface or otherwise tamper with the original or registered serial number of motor vehicle engines,
engine blocks and chassis.

Atty. Abitria: “UNLAWFUL” but the law does not provide penalties.
15 Identity Transfer.— It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to cause and/or allow the sale, registration, and/or
transfer into another name, the chassis number, engine number and plate number of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck”
or beyond economic repair by concerned insurance company, and/or law enforcement agencies, due to its involvement in a
vehicular accident or for some other causes. The LTO shall cancel the registration of total wreck vehicle as reported by the
PNP and/or as declared by the Insurance Commission.
16 Transfer of Vehicle Plate.— It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to transfer or use a vehicle plate from one
vehicle to another without securing the proper authority from the LTO.
18 Section 18. Foreign Nationals.— Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately
after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Izon v People Izon et al were charged Is the stolen tricycle a “motor YES.
with Robbery w/ Homicide vehicle” under the Anti- “Public” means common to all or many; general; open
for stealing one motorized Carnapping Act of 1972? to public use
tricycle through violence “Highway” refers to a free and public roadway
and intimidation. They
were however sentenced It is clear that a street within a town is a public
with the penalty under the highway if it is used by the public. To limit the words
Anti-Carnapping Act of “public highways” to national roads connective
1972. In their appeal, they various towns would create a distinction which the
claim that the tricycle that statute itself does not make.
they stole was not a “motor

Page 107 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

vehicle” under the law since Elements of Carnapping:


it was not licensed to use 4. Taking of a motor vehicle belonging to
the “public highway” nor another
was it actually using the 5. Without consent or by means of force and
public highway intimidation
6. Intent to gain.
People v Mejia Driver Landingin(died) and W/N the crimes murder and YES.
passenger Catugas frustrated murder absorbed The killing merely qualifies the crime of carnapping
(survived) were attacked by in violation of RA 6539 which for the lack of a specific nomenclature may be
Mejia et al. The accused known as qualified carnapping in the aggravated
argued that there was no form.
intent to gain as the
incident was only a hold-up In short, the carnapping and the killing may be
and that the jeepney was considered as a single or indivisible crime or a
taken to be used only as an special complex crime which is not covered by Art 48
escape vehicle. They were of the RPC.
charged with Murder,
Frustrated Murder and
violation of RA 6539
People v Ellasos Ellasos and Obillo rode a W/N the accused are guilty of YES.
tricycle after their drinking Carnapping with Homicide Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, as an element of
session. They rode a tricycle the carnapping is an internal act and is hence
and killed the driver. Obillo presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle
took the wheel of the without the consent or by means of violence and
tricycle can. They were intimidation.
convicted of Carnapping
with Homicide in the trial In the case, the tricycle was unlawfully taken by the
court. The accused argues two accused and the driver was killed. Three hours
that intent to gain was not later they were found in possession of the tricycle
proven since the taking of and the following morning the wheel was found in
the wheel was a mere their possession.
afterthought.
If what is intended is the taking of a part of the
vehicle only (i.e. spare tire) then the crime is
robbery or theft.

But if what is intended is the taking of the vehicle,


then the crime is carnapping.

Page 108 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

People v Bustinera, a taxi driver did W/N this is a case of Carnapping.


Bustinera not return the taxi to the Qualified theft or Carnapping Carnapping is now covered under RA6539 and not
Operator since according to under the provisions of the RPC on qualified theft.
him, he hasn’t completed
his boundary yet. He was Unlawful taking is deemed complete the moment the
found guilty of Qualified offender gains possession of the thing even if he has
theft no opportunity to dispose of the same.

When one takes the vehicle without consent, even if


the motor is later returned, accused is still liable.
There being intent to gain. The use of the thing
unlawfully taken constitutes gain.

ARSON
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1613
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 (amending A-320 of the RPC)
ARTICLES 320-326B
Three kinds:

1. Simple Arson (PD 1613 is controlling)


a. Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another
b. Any person who sets fire to his own property which exposes to danger the life or property of another
2. Destructive Arson (Currently controlled by A-320 RPC - as amended by RA 7659); Destructive Arson under PD 1613 is not followed
anymore

Article 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:

1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings,
committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually gather or congregate
for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce,
trade, workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels,
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge
that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is
actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use,
entertainment or leisure.

Page 109 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public
utilities
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials.

3. Other Cases of Arson (PD 1613)

Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of
the following:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse. [italics and emphasis ours]

*There is no frustrated stage in Arson


*Arson is an intent crime, it is not a results crime 47

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


People v Macabando burned his own W/N Macabando is guilty of No. SIMPLE ARSON only
Macabando house. His neighbors tried destructive arson Article 320 (Destructive Arson) contemplates the
to stop the fire but malicious burning of structures, both public and
Macabando fired three private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels,
gunshots in the air to aircraft, factories and other military, government or
threaten anyone who tries commercial establishments by any person or group of
to stop him. The Brgy Capt persons.
alleges that other houses in PD 1613 governs simple arson. It contemplates the
the barangay were malicious burning of public and private structures,
gutted.CA convicted him of regardless of size, not included in Art 320 of RPC (as
amended by RA7659)

47
See People v Macabando

Page 110 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Destructive Arson under


Article 320 THE DIFFERENCE: PD 1613 punishes simple arson
with a lesser penalty because the acts that constitute
it have a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness.
Simple arson contemplates crimes with less
significant social, economic, political, and national
security implications than destructive arson

Elements of Simple Arson:


1. There is intentional burning
2. What is intentionally burned is an inhabited
house or dwelling
Atty. Abitria:
Macabando case clearly distinguished between
Destructive and Simple Arson. Note that both
constitute malicious burning – difference lies in the
degree of perversity and viciousness
Arson is not a results crime. It’s an intent crime.
People v Soriano Due to a heated exchange W/N the RTC was correct in No. SIMPLE ARSON only
between Nestor and his convicting Soriano of Nestor’s case falls under Sec. 3, para 2 of PD 1613 for
wife Honey, the former Destructive Arson other cases of arson as the properties burned by the
burned the house (owned by accused are specifically described as houses
Honey’s aunt and occupied contemplating inhabited houses or dwellings under
by Honey) which resulted to the said law.
the destruction of 5 more
houses including the house The classification is based on the kind, character
of Honey’s uncle. RTC and location of the property burned, regardless of
convicted Soriano of the value of the damage caused.
Destructive Arson.
Ex: Pedro burns Juan’s house. This caused the
burning of all the houses in the barangay. –Simple
Arson only – regardless of the value of the damage
caused.
People v The Separa house was W/N CA was correct in No. SIMPLE ARSON only
Malngan reportedly on fire and convicting Edna with Arson
adjoining houses also with Multiple Homicide To determine what crime/crimes was/were
caught fire which lead to perpetrated, it is de reigeur to ascertain the main
the death of the whole objective of the malefactor.

Page 111 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Separa family (6 members).


Edna, the house help was Edna’s intent was merely to destroy her employer’s
caught with a disposable house through the use of fire. She’s guilty of SIMPLE
lighter. She confessed to the ARSON for having deliberately set fire upon Separa
crime and claimed that she house knowing the same to be an inhabited house.
had not been given a year’s
worth of salary and that she There is no complex crime of Arson with Homicide.
wanted to go home but she
was taunted by her boss.
CA convicted her of Arson
with multiple homicide
People v The12-year old Jovelyn W/N the lower court is No. The crime should be Arson only. It was not
Baluntong awakened by the heat correct in finding the accused proven that Baluntong’s main objective was to kill
emanating from the walls of guilty of the complex crime of Celerina and her grandchildren.
the house. She saw the Double Murder with In cases where both burning and death occur:
accused putting dry hay Frustrated Murder. 1. Arson and the resulting homicide is absorbed
around the house. The –if the main objective is the burning of the
grandmother and Alvin building but death results by reason of it.
(grandson #1) died due to 2. Murder only – if the main objective is to kill
the fire while Joshua a person who may be a building and fire is
(grandson #2) sustained resorted to as the means
second degree burns. The 3. Homicide/Murder and arson – two separate
RTC convicted the accused and distinct crimes – of the objective is to kill
of Double Murder with a person and the offender had already done
Frustrated Murder so, but fire is resorted to as the means to
cover up the killing.

ACCESS DEVICES
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8484
Sec. RA 8484
2 (a) Access Device – means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification
number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrumental identifier, or other means of account
access that can be used to obtain money, good, services, or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of
funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument);
(b) Counterfeit Access Device – means any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged, or an identifiable
component of an access device or counterfeit access device;

Page 112 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(c) Unauthorized Access Device – means any access device that is stolen, lost, expired, revoked, canceled, suspended, or obtained
with intent to defraud;
(d) Access Device Fraudulently Applied for – means any access device that was applied for or issued on account of the use of
falsified document, false information, fictitious identities and addresses, or any form of false pretense or misrepresentation;
(f) Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods,
property, labor or services or any thing of value on credit;
(g) Device Making or Altering Equipment – means any equipment, mechanism or impression designed or primarily used for
making or altering or reencoding an access device or a counterfeit access device;
(l) Trafficking – means transferring, or otherwise disposing of, to another, or obtaining control of, with intent to transfer or
dispose of.
Prepaid card is an access device
PLDT account number is an access device.
9 Prohibited Acts. – The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices;
(b) trafficking in one or more unauthorized access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;
(c) using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized access device;
(d) using an access device fraudulently applied for;
(e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;
(f) producing, trafficking in, having control or custody of, or possessing device-making or altering equipment without being in
the business or employment, which lawfully deals with the manufacture, issuance, or distribution of such equipment;
(g) inducing, enticing, permitting or in any manner allowing another, for consideration or otherwise to produce, use, traffic in
counterfeit access devices, unauthorized access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;
(h) multiple imprinting on more than one transaction record, sales slip or similar document, thereby making it appear that the
device holder has entered into a transaction other than those which said device holder had lawfully contracted for, or
submitting, without being an affiliated merchant, an order to collect from the issuer of the access device, such extra sales slip
through an affiliated merchant who connives therewith, or, under false pretenses of being an affiliated merchant, present for
collection such sales slips, and similar documents;
(i) disclosing any information imprinted on the access device, such as, but not limited to, the account number or name or
address of the device holder, without the latter's authority or permission;
(j) obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud or with intent to gain and
fleeing thereafter;
(k) having in one's possession, without authority from the owner of the access device or the access device company, an access
device, or any material, such as slips, carbon paper, or any other medium, on which the access device is written, printed,
embossed, or otherwise indicated;
(l) writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval numbers from the issuer of the access device of the fact of approval,
where in fact no such approval was given, or where, if given, what is written is deliberately different from the approval actually
given;

Page 113 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(m) making any alteration, without the access device holder's authority, of any amount or other information written on the
sales slip;
(n) effecting transaction, with one or more access devices issued to another person or persons, to receive payment or any other
thing of value;
(o) without the authorization of the issuer of the access device, soliciting a person for the purpose of:
1) offering an access device; or
2) selling information regarding or an application to obtain an access device; or
(p) without the authorization of the credit card system member or its agent, causing or arranging for another person to present
to the member or its agent, for payment, one or more evidence or records of transactions made by credit card.
11 Conspiracy to commit access device fraud.
12 Frustrated and attempted access device fraud.
13 Accessory to access device fraud.
14 Section 14. Presumption and prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. – The mere possession, control or custody of:
(a) an access device, without permission of the owner or without any lawful authority;
(b) a counterfeit access device;
(c) access device fraudulently applied for;
(d) any device-making or altering equipment by any person whose business or employment does not lawfully deal with the
manufacture, issuance, or distribution of access device;
(e) an access device or medium on which an access device is written, not in the ordinary course of the possessor's trade or
business; or
(f) a genuine access device, not in the name of the possessor, or not in the ordinary course of the possessor's trade or business,
shall be prima facie evidence that such device or equipment is intended to be used to defraud.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Soledad v Soledad stole the personal W/N Soledad is guilty of YES.
People information of Yu and used violating Sec 9 (e) of RA 8484 Possession is the holding of the thing or the
it to apply for a credit card. enjoyment of a right.
In an entrapment
operation, the NBI arrested Elements of “holding”:
Soledad the moment she 1. Corpus or the material holding of the thing
signed the receipt. Soledad 2. Animus possidendi or the intent to possess.
argues that he was not “in
possession” of the card and
that it was not alleged in

Page 114 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

the info. RTC found him


guilty of RA 8484.
Da Silva Cruz v De Silva posed as “Gerry W/N De Silva is guilty YES. The corpus delicti of the crime is NOT the
People Santos” and tried to buy CK access device itself, but any evidence that proves that
perfumes using a it is counterfeit.
counterfeit credit card.
Informations were filed, No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and
pre-trial occurred without offered during the trial in support of a party’s
the actual credit card being evidence-in-chief other than those that had been
presented as evidence, and earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-
trial ensued with the actual trial, except those if allowed by the court for
credit card being used as good cause shown.
evidence. DSC filed a
Demurrer, arguing that the
credit card cannot be used
during trial as it was not
marked during pre-trial

BANK SECRECY
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1405 (LOCAL)
2 All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued
by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an
absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government
official, bureau or office except
1. Upon WRITTEN permission of the depositor
2. In cases of impeachment
3. Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials
4. In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6426 (FOREIGN)48


8 Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Acta as amended by PD No. 1035, as
well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034 are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely
confidential nature and except upon the WRITTEN PERSMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR, in no instance shall foreign
currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or
administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency

48
There are four exceptions in local deposits, but only ONE in foreign deposits: Written permission of the depositor

Page 115 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government
agency or any administrative body whatsoever.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Estrada v Estrada’s plunder case. W/N Estrada’s Trust Account GR: Absolute confidentiality of the deposit accounts
Sandiganbayan Prosecution Panel filed is covered by the word EXPN #3:
before the SC a Request for deposit – YES Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery
the Issuance of a Subpoena W/N Estrada’s Trust Account or dereliction of duty of public officials
Duces Tecum for the is covered by any of the
issuance of a subpoena exception of RA 1405 - YES Estrada contends that he committed neither bribery
directing the EI Bank to nor dereliction of duty. Plunder is necessarily
produce the accounts of included in Bribery. Hence the exception applies to
Erap Estrada. cases of plunder as well.
Intengan v CA Citibank ordered for the W/N RA 1405 is the NO. The accounts involved are US DOLLAR
investigation of anomalous applicable law accounts. Thus, RA 6426 governs foreign accounts.
transactions with two This law admits of a single exception: upon a
global companies. The WRITTEN PERMISSION from the depositor.
investigation lead to the
disclosure of Intengan, Neri
and Brawner’s Dollar
Accounts. Intengan asserts
that this is a violation of RA
1405

MONEY LAUNDERING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9194
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10167
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10927
SEC Money Laundering
3 a) "Covered institution" refers to:
1. banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised
or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

Page 116 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

2. insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission; and
3. (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities managing securities or rendering
services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust
funds, pre-need companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money
payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes
and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission
and Exchange Commission
(b) Covered transaction' is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in
excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. 49
"(b-1) 'Suspicious transaction' are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of
the following circumstances exist:
1. there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification;
2. the client is not properly identified;
3. the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client;
4. taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to avoid
being the subject of reporting requirements under the Act;
5. any circumstances relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the client's
past transactions with the covered institution;
6. the transactions is in a way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been
committed; or
7. any transactions that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing."
(c) "Monetary instrument" refers to:
1. coins or currency of legal tender of the Philippines, or of any other country
2. drafts, checks and notes;
3. securities or negotiable instruments, bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates, trust certificates, custodial receipts
or deposit substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction tickets and confirmations of sale or investments and
money market instruments; and
4. other similar instruments where title thereto passes to another by endorsement, assignment or delivery.
(g) "Supervising Authority" refers to the appropriate supervisory or regulatory agency, department or office supervising or
regulating the covered institutions enumerated in Section 3(a).
(h) "Transaction" refers to any act establishing any right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or legal relationship
between the parties thereto. It also includes any movement of funds by any means with a covered institution.
4 Money Laundering Offense. -- Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined
are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the
following:

49
Amended by RA 9194 – used to be P4M

Page 117 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds of
any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transacts said monetary instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to
in paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and
filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
*It is not illegal to transact Php 500,000.00, what is illegal is the failure to report or disclose of this fact.
10 Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property. – Upon verified ex parte petition by the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order, which shall be effective immediately. The freeze
order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court. In any case, the court should act on the
petition to freeze within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If the application is filed a day before a
nonworking day, the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period shall exclude the nonworking days.
A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before
the expiration of the twenty (20)-day original freeze order.
No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court.50
11 Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act
No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or
investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of
violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to
an unlawful activities as defined in Section 3(I) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof, except that no
court order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(I)1, (2) and (12).
"To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine any deposit of
investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution when the examination is made in the course of a
periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of examination of the BSP.

*Exception to the Bank Secrecy Law


13 Mutual Assistance Among States
(b) Powers of the AMLC to Act on a Request for Assistance from a Foreign State. - The AMLC may execute a request for
assistance from a foreign State by: (1) tracking down, freezing, restraining and seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any
unlawful activity under the procedures laid down in this Act; (2) giving information needed by the foreign State within the
procedures laid down in this Act; and (3) applying for an order of forfeiture of any monetary instrument or property in the
court: Provided, That the court shall not issue such an order unless the application is accompanied by an authenticated copy of
the order of a court in the requesting State ordering the forfeiture of said monetary instrument or property of a person who has
been convicted of a money laundering offense in the requesting State, and a certification or an affidavit of a competent officer of

50
As amended by 10167

Page 118 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

the requesting State stating that the conviction and the order of forfeiture are final and that no further appeal lies in respect of
either.
(c) Obtaining Assistance from Foreign States. - The AMLC may make a request to any foreign State for assistance in
1. tracking down, freezing, restraining and seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any unlawful activity;
2. obtaining information that it needs relating to any covered transaction, money laundering offense or any other matter
directly or indirectly related thereto;
3. to the extent allowed by the law of the foreign State, applying with the proper court therein for an order to enter any
premises belonging to or in the possession or control of, any or all of the persons named in said request, and/or search
any or all such persons named therein and/or remove any document, material or object named in said request:
Provided, That the documents accompanying the request in support of the application have been duly authenticated in
accordance with the applicable law or regulation of the foreign State; and
4. applying for an order of forfeiture of any monetary instrument or property in the proper court in the foreign State:
Provided, That the request is accompanied by an authenticated copy of the order of the regional trial court ordering the
forfeiture of said monetary instrument or property of a convicted offender and an affidavit of the clerk of court stating
that the conviction and the order of forfeiture are final and that no further appeal lies in respect of either.
(d) Limitations on Requests for Mutual Assistance. - The AMLC may refuse to comply with any request for assistance where
the action sought by the request contravenes any provision of the Constitution or the execution of a request is likely
to prejudice the national interest of the Philippines unless there is a treaty between the Philippines and the requesting
State relating to the provision of assistance in relation to money laundering offenses.
(e) Requirements for Requests for Mutual Assistance from Foreign States. - A request for mutual assistance from a foreign
State must (1) confirm that an investigation or prosecution is being conducted in respect of a money launderer named therein
or that he has been convicted of any money laundering offense; (2) state the grounds on which any person is being investigated
or prosecuted for money laundering or the details of his conviction; (3) give sufficient particulars as to the identity of said
person; (4) give particulars sufficient to identify any covered institution believed to have any information, document, material
or object which may be of assistance to the investigation or prosecution; (5) ask from the covered institution concerned any
information, document, material or object which may be of assistance to the investigation or prosecution; (6) specify the manner
in which and to whom said information, document, material or object obtained pursuant to said request, is to be produced; (7)
give all the particulars necessary for the issuance by the court in the requested State of the writs, orders or processes needed by
the requesting State; and (8) contain such other information as may assist in the execution of the request.

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Ligot v Republic There was gross W/N this violated Ligot’s The law is silent as to the duration of the extension.
disproportion in Ligot’s rights. The SC has the power to promulgate rules. To the
income and assets. CA SC, the six-month extension period is ordinarily
granted a freeze order and sufficient for the government to act against the
extended it for an suspected money launderer and to file the
indefinite period of time appropriate forfeiture case against him

Page 119 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

However, the factual complexities and intricacies of


the case and other matters that may be beyond the
government’s prosecutory agencies’ control may
contribute to their inability to file the corresponding
civil forfeiture case before the lapse of six months.
Given these considerations, it is only proper to strike
a balance between the individual’s right to due
process and the government’s interest in curbing
criminality.
Republic v AMLC officers applied for W/N an application for an A freeze order under Section 10 on the one hand is
Eugenio bank inquiry orders ex order authorizing inquiry aimed at preserving monetary instruments or
parte so that they could into or examination of bank property in any way deemed related to unlawful
examine the accounts of accounts or investments activities as defined in Section 3(i) of the AMLA.
these individuals. Alvarez under Section 11 of the (Can be applied for in an ex parte proceeding)
and Cheng questioned the AMLA is ex-parte in nature A bank inquiry order under Section 11 does not
ex parte applications. or one which requires notice necessitate any form of physical seizure of property
The SC distinguished and hearing – One which of the account holder. What the bank inquiry order
between a freeze order and requires notice and hearing. authorizes is the examination of the particular
a bank inquiry and deposits or investments in banking institutions or
discussed about the history non-bank financial institutions. (Cannot be applied
and nuances of the AMLA for in an ex parte proceeding)

BOUNCING CHECKS
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2001
SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001
Supreme Court Circulars laid down the rule of preference in imposing penalties in BP 22. The ff. are the alternative penalties:

1. Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than a year
2. A fine of not less but more than double of the amount of the check which fine shall not exceed P200,000
3. Or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court

Rationale of the rule of preference: It would best serve the ends of criminal justice in, in fixing philosophy underlying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is observed, i.e., that of redeeming value of human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and
economic usefulness with regard to the protection of the social order.

Page 120 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Griffith v People Lincoln issued two checks W/N petitioner has been YES.
to Phelps Dodge Philippines erroneously convicted and Phelps Dodge has, in our view, already exacted its
Inc. Phelps Dodge sentenced for violation of the proverbial pound of flesh through foreclosure and
presented the checks for BP 22? auction sale as its chosen remedy.
payment but was While we agree that the gravamen of violation of
dishonored - insufficient B.P. 22 is the issuance of worthless checks that are
funds. Because of their dishonored upon their presentment for payment, we
failure to make payment, should not apply penal laws mechanically.
Lincoln’s properties were
foreclosed. Two years after Atty. Abitria: Weird case – does not conform to the
the foreclosure, mala prohibita nature of BP 22.
informations for violation of
B.P. 22 were filed against
the petitioner
Ruiz v People Ruiz issued a check to W/N Ruiz violated BP 22 YES. The mere act of issuing a worthless check,
Mendoza in exchange of whether merely as an accommodation, is covered by
loans. The check bounced so B.P. 22.
Mendoza filed a BP 22 case
against Ruiz. Ruiz claims
that he is only an
accommodation party

ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING ACT


PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Pil-Ey v People Pil-Ey, Manochon and W/N accused are guilty of YES.
Anamot were accused of cattle-rustling The gravamen of the crime is the taking or killing of
violating the Anti-Cattle large cattle or taking its meat or hide without the
Rustling Law. Pil-Ey used consent of the owner or raiser, conviction for the same
the defense of mistake of need only be supported by the fact of taking without
fact (he and his employer the cattle owners consent.
Manochon were of the Elements of cattle-rustling:
erroneous belief that the (1) large cattle is taken;
cow was owned or raised by (2) it belongs to another; Taking is done:

Page 121 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Anamot) RTC and CA found (3) without the consent of the owner/raiser;
them guilty (4) by any means, method or scheme;
(5) with/out intent to gain; and
(6) with/out violence or intimidation against persons
or force upon things.

LABOR
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10022
LABOR CODE

SEXUAL HARASSMENT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7877

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Jacutin v People Juliet Yee applied as a W/N Jacutin is guilty of Yes. The Court cited Sec 3 (a) of RA 7877 wherein
nurse for the family sexual harassment the work-related sexual harassment is committed
planning project in the city. through sexual favors made as a condition in the
During the interview, Dr. hiring or employment of an individual.
Jacutin asked if she had a Clearly, though the City Mayor has exclusive
boyfriend, w/n virgin, aside prerogative in appointing city personnel, the
from the normal questions. recommendation from petitioner in the appointment
She was offered the job and of personnel in the health office could carry good
also became the subject of a weight.
research program. In the
car, the “research” began
where he put his hands
inside her panty until he
reached her pubic hair. He
also touched her abdomen
and said words of
endearment. Jacutin
interposed a defense of alibi

Page 122 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PUBLIC INTEREST
ANTI-ALIAS
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 142
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6085
CA NO 142 R.A. 6085 (As compared to:
(Old law) (Amended) ART 178, RPC)
ART. 178. Using fictitious name and
SEC. 1 Except as a pseudonym for SEC 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for concealing true name
literary purposes, no person shall use literary, cinema, television, radio 1. That the offender uses a name other
any name different from the one with or other entertainment purposes his real name
which he was christened or by which he and in athletic events where the 2. That the offender uses the fictitious
has been known since his childhood, or use of pseudonym is a normally name for publicity
such substitute name as may have been accepted practice, no person shall use 3. That his purpose for using the
authorized by a competent court. The any name different from the one with fictitious name:
name shall comprise the patronymic which he was registered at birth in the a. To conceal a crime
name and one or two surnames. office of the local civil registry, or with b. To evade the execution
which he was baptized for the first of judgment
time, or, in case of an alien, with c. To cause damage to
which he was registered in the bureau public interest
of immigration upon entry; or such
substitute name as may have been
authorized by a competent court:
Provided, That persons, whose births
have not been registered in any local
civil registry and who have not been
baptized, have one year from the
approval of this act within which to
register their names in the civil
registry of their residence. The name
shall comprise the patronymic name
and one or two surnames

Page 123 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


Balani v IAC July 1961 - Tahilram W/N the action against YES, the action has prescribed.
Jashanmal used the alias Tahilram has prescribed Violation of Anti- Alias Laws prescribe in 8 years.
name “Tahilram Balani” in (IAC contends that the action When a government agency authorized and
several government has not prescribed yet recognized the person’s use of an alias and has not
transactions such as in the because the illegal use of acted upon it, there is no factual basis in charging a
Commission on alias is a continuing offense – person with illicit use of such Alias.
Immigration and IAC the prescription period
Deportation. In 1984, he should be reckoned from the
was charged with violation last time it was used)
of Anti-Alias Act
Ursua v CA Ursua was a respondent in W/N Ursua is guilty of illegal NO. An alias is a name or names used by a person or
an illegal logging case. His use of alias intended to be used by him publicly and habitually
counsel asked for a copy of usually in business transactions in addition to his
the complaint from the real name by which he is registered at birth or
Ombudsman. Since the baptized the first time or substitute name authorized
firm’s messenger, Perez was by a competent authority.
not present, Ursua went to
the OMB himself and The use of the name "Oscar Perez" was made by him
received the complaint and in an isolated transaction where he was not even
registered as “Oscar Perez” legally required to expose his real identity.
People v Estrada Estrada used the W/N Estrada is guilty of NO. The law requires that the use of the illegal alia
pseudonym “Jose Velarde” illegal use of alias must be done publicly and habitually. All of
when he opened a trust Estrada’s representations to these people were made
account. in privacy and in secrecy. The nature of the
transaction on which the indictment rests, affords
Estrada a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the
alleged criminal act related to the opening of a trust
account, a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers
absolutely confidential in nature. Estrada’s use of his
alias “Jose Velarde” in his trust account showed no
intention of publicity

Page 124 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PERSONS

HAZING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11053
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
People v Fernando Balidoy was W/N the Information filed ELEMENTS OF HAZING:
Bayabos admitted as a probationary against respondents contains (a) A person is placed in some embarrassing or
midshipment at the PMMA. all the material averments humiliating situation/ subjected to physical/ mental
In order to reach an active for the prosecution of the suffering or injury;
status, all entrants were crime of accomplice to hazing (b)These acts were employed as a prerequisite for the
required to successfully under Anti Hazing law. NO. person’s admission into an org.
complete the mandatory ABSENT: “That the physical
“Introduction and or psychological infliction of In case of school authorities and faculty who have no
Orientation Period” (set pain and agony was a direct participation in the act, they may charge as
from 2 May- 1 June 2001). prerequisite to be admitted in accomplices if the ff elements occur (a)Hazing as
Balidoy died on 3 May 2001. the said org” estb by the above elements, occurred;(b) The accused
are school authorities or faculty members; and
(c)They consented to or failed to take preventive
action against hazing in spite actual knowledge
Dungo v People Dungo and Sibal were W/N Dungo and Sibal could YES. Hazing law is malum prohibitum, therefore
found guilty of the crime of be found guilty of hazing intent is immaterial. What is important is the result
violating Sec. 4 of the Anti- even though malicious intent of the act of hazing.
Hazing Law for the death of was absent.
Villanueva.
PUBLIC OFFICERS
GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Merencillo v Merencillo, as a public W/N there was double No.
People officer in the BIR, and in jeopardy when he was Although the 2 charges stemmed from the same
his capacity as a public charged of a violation of Sec. transaction, the same act gave rise to 2 separate and

Page 125 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

officer, extorted from Cesar 3(b) of RA 3019 and direct distinct offenses, hence, no double jeopardy. Not all
P20,000 in exchange of the bribery. elements of RA 3019 are included in direct bribery
release of her certificate and vice versa.
authorizing registration. An
entrapment operation was Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 Direct Bribery
conducted and Merencillo Offender is a public officer. Offender is a public officer.
Requested or received a gift, Offender accepts an offer,
was arrested. He was present, share, percentage, or promise, or receives a gift or
charged with both violation benefit. present by himself or through
of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 and another.
direct bribery Made the request or receipt on Such offer or promise be
behalf of the offender or any accepted or received by the
other person. public officer with a view to
committing some crime or in
consideration of the execution
of an act which does not
constitute a crime but the act
must be unjust, or to refrain
from doing something which it
is his official duty to do.
Request or receipt was made Act which the offender agrees
in connection with a contract to perform or which he
or transaction with the executes is connected with the
government. performance of his official
duties.
Offender has the right to
intervene, in an official
capacity under the law, in
connection with a contract or
transaction has the right to
intervene.

SECTION 3(b)
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Garcia v Garcia was the Regional W/N Garcia violated Sec. 3(b) No. Here, the prosecution failed to prove the fourth
Sandiganbayan Director of LTO in CDO. He of RA 3019 element by failing to describe the transactions which
was charged with 56 counts needed Garcia’s intervention with particularity.
of the violation of Section
3(b) of RA NO. 3019. This Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, elements:
was allegedly for taking 1. Offender is a public officer,

Page 126 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

advantage of their official 2. Who requested or received a gift, a present, a


positions and with intent to share a percentage, or a benefit,
gain personal use or benefit 3. On behalf of the offender or any other person,
borrowed vehicles from the 4. In connection with a contract or transaction
Company, knowing that the with the gov’t,
Company regularly 5. In which the public officer, in an official
transacted with Garcia’s capacity under the law, has the right to
office. This was triggered intervene
because Nabo, Garcia’s
driver, ran over Jane, which
caused her death. Jane was
the daughter of the
complainant, Miranda.
Garcia was convicted.

SECTION 3(e)
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Ambil Jr. v Eastern Samar Gov. Ambil, W/N accused violated Section Yes. All the elements are present. The transfer has
Sandiganbayan Jr., transferred then Mayor 3(e) of RA 3019 no legal justification, risk was not proven.
Francisco Adalim from the Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, elements:
Provincial Jail to Ambil’s 1. Accused must be a public officer discharging
residence and stayed there admin, judicial, or official functions
for 85 days. IBP sent a 2. Must have acted with (1) manifest
letter to the OMB to partiality, (2) evident bad faith or (3) gross
investigate such transfer. inexcusable negligence
3. Action caused (1) any undue injury to any
Gov. Ambil, Jr. claimed party, including the govt, or (2) gave any
that Mayor Adalim’s safety private party unwarranted benefits,
was at stake because the advantage or preference in the discharge of
inmates in said jail were his functions.
composed of political Private Party – according to legal parlance, it
opponents as well as those includes a private person or a public officer acting in
put to jail by his sister. a private capacity to protect personal interest

Atty. Abitria: Do not forget the modifiers. The


partiality must be manifest, bad faith must be

Page 127 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

evident and the negligence must be gross and


inexcusable.
Arias v Arias and Data are in WoN Arias and Data should No. On the grounds of reasonable doubt. Guilt must
Sandiganbayan charge of the Mangahan be held guilty for Section 3(e) be premised on a more knowing, personal, and
Floodway Project as civil of Anti-Graft and Corrupt deliberate participation of each individual who is
engineer and auditor Practices Act charged with others as part of a conspiracy. It is
respectively. They were doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could
alleged to falsify the fair personally do all these things in all vouchers
market value because it presented for his signature.
was P80 per square meter,
when it should be P5 only All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable
extent on their subordinates and on the good
faith of those prepare bids, purchase supplies,
or enter into negotiations.

*Reliance on the good faith of subordinates is a


defense. – This case compared to Jaca.
Sistoza v Bureau of Corrections W/N Sistoza is guilty Simply alleging each or all of these methods is not
Desierto offered for public bidding enough to establish probable cause, for it is well
the supply of tomato paste. settled that allegation does not amount to proof. The
PBAC approved the offer of facts themselves must demonstrate evident bad faith
Elias General which connotes not only bad judgment but also
Merchandising despite palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
being the 2nd lowest bidder purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
only because the lowest wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
bidder offered a non-
registed brand of tomate In the instant case, there is no direct evidence that
paste. Respondent Eliseo petitioner Sistoza acted in conspiracy with the
Co, a perennial bidder in officers and members of the PBAC and the other
the New Bilibid filed an implicated public officials. He did not himself
affidavit-complaint with the participate in the bidding procedures nor was he
Office of the Ombudsman involved in the award of the supply of tomato paste
for violation of sec. 3 Anti- to Elias General Merchandising.
Graft and Corrupt against
petitioner as Dir of BuCor
and members of its Supply
Division and PBAC.

Page 128 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Jaca v People The audit team reported W/N the accused are guilty Yes. The law requires that the intent or negligence,
that Bandana incurred a which must attend the commission of the prohibited
cash shortage of acts under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, should meet
P18,527,137.19. The audit the gravity required by law. Thus, in construing
team found out that the these phrases, the Court observed that bad faith or
reason for the shortage is partiality, on the one hand, and negligence, on the
the failure of Gaviola, Cesa other hand, per se are not enough for one to be held
and Bacasmas to follow the criminally liable under the law; that the bad faith or
different provisions of partiality is evident or manifest, or, that the
different laws which negligent act or omission is gross and inexcusable
provide for the grant, must be shown.
utilization and liquidation
of cash advances under the Gaviola, Cesa and Bacasmas weren’t in good faith.
COA. Bacasmas’ testimony clearly establishes a “practice”
in the Office of the Cash Division of simply relying
on the request of the paymaster without
actually requiring the submission of the
necessary documents in support of the request.
Sanchez v Miranda is the mayor of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, elements:
People Santiago, Isabela and was 1. Accused must be a public officer discharging
placed under preventive admin, judicial, or official functions
suspension for six months. 2. Must have acted with (1) manifest
But despite this, Miranda partiality, (2) evident bad faith or (3) gross
re-assumed his position as inexcusable negligence
mayor of the city. 3. Action caused (1) any undue injury to any
party, including the govt, or (2) gave any
private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of
his functions.

Luspo v People PNP officials and the W/N Luspo is guilty Acquitted.
private individual conspired Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, elements:
to swiftly and 4. Accused must be a public officer discharging
surreptitiously execute the admin, judicial, or official functions
"ghost purchase" of the 5. Must have acted with (1) manifest
combat clothing, the partiality, (2) evident bad faith or (3) gross
OMB-AFP recommended inexcusable negligence
the filing of the criminal

Page 129 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

information for 100 counts 6. Action caused (1) any undue injury to any
of Malversation of Public party, including the govt, or (2) gave any
Funds, Art 217 of RPC. The private party unwarranted benefits,
Office of the Special advantage or preference in the discharge of
Prosecutor modified the his functions.
offense to violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear,
3019, as amended, for only notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor
one (1) count. one side or person rather than another. "Evident
bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also
palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
"Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even the
slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons
may be affected

There is nothing on record to show that Luspo was


spurred by any corrupt motive or that he received
any material benefit when he signed the ASAs.

SECTION 3(g)
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Caunan v People Joey Marquez, as mayor of W/N the accused violated NO. The last element - such contract or transaction
Paranaque and other public Sec. 3(g) of RA 3019 is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
officials were charged with government - was not sufficient proven because they
violation of RA 3019 Sec used a walis of a different specification from the one
3(g) for purchasing walis actually being used by the sweepers of Parañaque.
tingtings, originally priced
at Php 11/piece for Php Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019 elements:
25/piece and Php 15/piece. 1. The accused is a public officer;
CoA’s audit team conducted 2. That he entered into a contract or
its own investigation and transaction on behalf of the government; and

Page 130 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

used prices of walis in Las 3. That such contract or transaction is grossly


Piñas. They also found out and manifestly disadvantageous to the
that the requisite of public government
bidding was not followed.

SECTION 3(h)
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Teves v The Sps. Teves are being W/N the accused are guilty Edgar Teves is liable for violation of Sec. 3(h) of the
Sandiganbayan charged with violation of Anti-Graft Law, but Teresita Teves, the wife is
Section 3(h) of the Anti- acquitted.
Graft Law for allegedly Elements of RA 3019 3(h)
intervening in the issuance 1. The accused is a public officer;
of license to operate a 2. He has a direct or indirect financial or
cockpit and having direct pecuniary interest in any business, contract,
and pecuniary interest, in or transaction;
the official capacity of 3. He either
Edgar Teves as Mayor of a. Intervenes or takes part in his
Valencia. official capacity in connection
with such interest; or
b. Is prohibited from having such
interest by the Constitution or by
any law
It was not proved that he intervenes or takes part in
the cockpit, - it is one of those prohibited under the
LGC which clearly states that it is unlawful for a
government official to have direct interest over a
cockpit.
Teresita Teves, the wife is acquitted because they
failed to prove conspiracy and the fact of marriage
does not presumed to prove knowledge of such.

SECTION 4(a)
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Disini v Ombudsman charged Disini W/N the Informations are The elements of the offense under Section 4 (a) of
Sandiganbayan with two criminal sufficient – YES. R.A. No. 3019 are:
complaints. One is under

Page 131 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

the RPC (corruption of 1. That the offender has family or close


public officials) and the personal relation with a public official;
other one is under the Anti- 2. That he capitalizes or exploits or takes
Graft and Corrupt Practices advantage of such family or close personal
Act. Disini assailed the relation by directly or indirectly requesting
sufficiency of the or receiving any present, gift, material or
informations. pecuniary advantage from any person having
some business, transaction, application,
request, or contract with the government;
3. That the public official with whom the
offender has family or close personal relation
has to intervene in the business transaction,
application, request, or contract with the
government.
Elements as applied:
1. Disini, being the husband of first cousin of
Imelda Marcos, and physician of the
Marcoses, had close relations access to
President Marcos, a public official;
2. Disini, taking advantage of such family and
close personal relations, requested and
received $1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe
and $17,000,000.00 from Westinghouse, the
entities then having business, transaction,
and application with the Government in
connection with the PNPPP;
3. President Marcos, the public officer with
whom Disini had family or close personal
relations, intervened to secure and obtain for
Burns & Roe the engineering and
architectural contract, and for Westinghouse
the construction of the PNPPP.

SECTION 13
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Miranda v Miranda is the mayor of W/N Sec 13 of RA 3019 SB properly construed Sec 13 as covering two types
Sandiganbayan Santiago, Isabela and was applies only to fraudulent of offenses:

Page 132 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

placed under preventive acts involving public funds or 1. Any offense involving fraud on the
suspension for six months. property government
But despite this, Miranda 2. Any offense involving public funds or
re-assumed his position as NO. Miranda’s case falls property.
mayor of the city. Charged under the section also.
with felony of usurpation A violation of Art 177 involves fraud which in a
punished under Art. 177 of general sense is deemed to comprise anything
the RPC. calculated to deceive, including all acts,
Miranda contends that the omissions and concealment involving a breach
offense of usurpation of of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence,
authority or official resulting in damage to another or by which an
functions under Art 177 of undue and unconscious advantage is taken of
the RPC is not embraced another. Miranda’s act fell within the “catch-all
under Sec 13 51 of RA 3019 provision”.
which only contemplates
offenses enumerated under
RA 3019, Title VII of Book
II of the RPC or which
involve “fraud upon
government or public funds
or property.”
Miranda v The dissent says there was no fraud. It said that
Sandiganbayan fraud upon government must be read so as to require
(Carpio, that malversation was committed.
dissenting)
Amended Information is insufficient in form as it
should have “expressly and clearly stated that
Miranda re-assumed of office to defraud the
government or that in re-assuming of office Miranda

51 Sec 13 RA 3019 Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information
under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by
final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the
salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Page 133 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

committed acts that defrauded the government" and


that it is improper to take into account the
petitioner's admissions in his affidavit for this
purpose.

PLUNDER
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080
SECTION 12, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Gloria Arroyo v Arroyo approved requests W/N accused Arroyo is guilty NO. The prosecution failed to establish an overt act
People for additional Intelligence of Plunder in furtherance of the conspiracy, either on the part of
Funds for PSCO, seven petitioner Arroyo or Aguas.
CHAIN times in the course of three
CONSPIRACY years. The law requires in the criminal charge for plunder
against several individuals that there must be a
main plunderer and her co-conspirators, who
may be members of her family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates
or other persons. In other words, the allegation of the
wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy in the
information was appropriate because the main
plunderer would then be identified in either manner.
Gloria Arroyo v Arroyo approved requests W/N accused Arroyo is guilty Section 2 of the Plunder Law does not require a
People (Sereno, for additional CIFs, seven of Plunder mastermind or a main recipient when it comes to
dissenting) times in the course of three plunder as a collective act.
years.
In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Every
conspirator becomes a principal even if the person
did not participate in the actual commission of every
act constituting the crime. Hence, it is not material if
only Uriarte among all the accused is proven or
shown to have taken material possession of the
plundered amount.

It is not crucial to identify the main plunderer in the


Information, so long as conspiracy is properly alleged

Page 134 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

and established. Identification in the Information of


the main plunderer or the accused who acquires the
greatest loot is immaterial, as it suffices that any one
or two of the conspirators are proven to have
transferred the plundered amount to themselves.
Estrada v Estrada, charged with W/N Plunder Law, as YES. The Court clarified the meaning of series and
Sandiganbayan Plunder contend that the amended by RA 7659, is combination
law is unconstitutional for Constitutional By "series," Estrada teaches that there must be at
WHEEL being overbroad and vague least two overt or criminal acts falling under the
CONSPIRACY same category of enumeration found in Section 1,
paragraph (d) of the Anti-Plunder Law, such as
misappropriation, malversation and raids on the
public treasury, all of which fall under Section 1,
paragraph (d), subparagraph (1) of the law.

With respect to "combination," Estrada requires at


least two acts that fall under the different categories
of the enumeration given by Section 1, paragraph (d)
of the Plunder Law. Examples would be raids on the
public treasury under Section 1, paragraph (d),
subparagraph (1), and fraudulent conveyance of
assets belonging to the National Government under
Section 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (3).52
Enrile v People Enrile, Reyes (Chief of Staff ELEMENTS OF PLUNDER:
of Enrile), in conspiracy
CHAIN with Napoles, Lim and de 1. That the offender is a public officer who acts
CONSPIPRACY Asis, unlawfully amassed by herself or in connivance with members of
ill-gotten wealth amounting her family, relatives by affinity or
to Php 172M by receiving consanguinity, business associates,
kickbacks from Napoles – a subordinates or other persons;
percentage of the cost of a
project to be funded from 2. That the offender amasses, accumulates or
Enrile’s Priority acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
Development Assistance combination or series of the following overt or
Fund (PDAF), in criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation,
consideration of Enrile’s conversion, misuse, or malversation of public

52
As cited in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v People

Page 135 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

endorsement, directly or funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) by


through Reyes, to the receiving, directly or indirectly, any
appropriate government commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback
agencies, of Napoles’ NGOs or any other form of pecuniary benefits from
which became the recipients any person and/or entity in connection with
and/or target implementors any government contract or project or by
of Enrile’s PDAF projects, - reason of the office or position of the public
turned out to be ghosts / officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent
fictitious. conveyance or disposition of assets belonging
to the National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of
Government owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining,
receiving or accepting directly or indirectly
any shares of stock, equity or any other form
of interest or participation including the
promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing
agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or
special interests; or (f) by taking advantage of
official position, authority, relationship,
connection or influence to unjustly enrich
himself or themselves at the expense and to
the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
people and the Republic of the Philippines;
and.

3. That the aggregate amount or total value of


the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.

Page 136 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

NATIONAL SECURITY
ANTI-WIRETAPPING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Ramirez v CA A civil case was filed by W/N Garcia is liable under Yes.
Ramirez against Garcia, RA 4200 notwithstanding the “Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
alleging that the latter fact that she was a authorized by all the parties to any private
humiliated and vexed her. participant to the recorded communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
In support of this claim, communication cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
Ramirez produced a to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
recording of their heated communication or spoken word x x x”
argument. Garcia filed a
criminal case for violation The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
of RA 4200. Ramirez argued sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a
that she is not liable of such party other than or different from those involved in
because R.A. 4200 refers to the private communication. The statute's intent to
the taping of a penalize all persons unauthorized to make such
communication by a person recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier
other than a participant to "any".
the communication.
Ganaan v IAC Atty. Pintor and his client W/N Ganaan and Laconico NO. The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the
Montebon were discussing are liable under RA 4200 / use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of
the terms for the W/N an extension telephone is secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
withdrawal of the complaint covered by the term “device or communication. It refers to instruments whose
for direct assault against arrangement” installation or presence cannot be presumed by the
Lacnico. Laconico requested party being overheard because, by their very nature,
his counsel, Atty. Ganaan to they are not of common usage and their purpose is
listen to the conversation precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a
through the telephone telephone conversation. An extension telephone is an
extension to hear the instrument which is very common especially now
proposed conditions for when the extended unit does not have to be
settlement. Upon discovery, connected by wire to the main telephone but can be
complainant charged moved from place ' to place within a radius of a
Laconico and Ganaan with kilometer or more.
violation of RA 4200

Page 137 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PIRACY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532
ARTICLE 293, RPC
ARTICLE 286, RPC
ARTICLE 122-123, RPC

Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine


People v Catantan and Ursal W/N the accused are guilty of YES. The accused contends that they committed
Catantan boarded the pumpboat of piracy grave coercion only and not piracy. Accused-
the Pilapil brothers. They appellant argues that in order that piracy may be
ordered the Pilapil brothers committed it is essential that there be an attack on
to go off course. During the or seizure of a vessel. They claim that they did not
course of their voyage, the attack the boat but merely boarded it.
boat motor broke down.
They chanced upon The accused committed piracy. Their acts show their
Juanito’s boat. Catantan intention to seize the boat. They were unsuccessful
and Ursal ordered the only because the motor broke down.
Pilapils to approach To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy
Juanito’s boat. When into one of grave coercion would be to ignore the fact
Catantan boarded Juanito’s that a fishing vessel cruising in Philippine waters
boat, the Pilapils were able was seized by the accused by means of violence
to escape. against or intimidation of persons.
People v Tulin MV Tabangao, a cargo W/N the trial court erred in NO. The accused is guilty of piracy. The Philippines
vessel was boarded by 7 convicting him of piracy. has jurisdiction because piracy is a crime against the
armed pirates. They were world and furthermore the laws on piracy were
charged with piracy. reconciled as to the culprit’s liability either a
Cheong avers that he can’t passenger or non-passenger.
be charged as an accomplice
since the crime was done or Old law:
executed outside of Art 122, RPC, before its amendment, piracy must be
Philippine waters and committed on the high seas by any person not a
territory, stripping the member of its complement nor a passenger thereof.
Philippine courts of
jurisdiction to hold him for Amendments:
trial, to convict, and RA 7659, widened to include offenses committed "in
sentence him. Philippine waters."

Page 138 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

PD No. 532 covered "a passenger or member of the


complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."
Hence, passenger or not, a member of the
complement or not, any person is covered by the law.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532
ARTICLE 306-307, RPC
ARTICLE 296, RPC

PURPOSE
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
People v Laurente and co-accused W/N Laurente and co-accused NO. Highway robbery is directed indiscriminately
Laurente held up Herminiano in a committed highway robbery against any person on Philippine highways, and
Philippine highway. not those committed against a predetermined or
Laurente and his co- particular victim.
accused strangled and hit
the head of Herminiano The main object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent
during the incident which the formation of bands of robbers (more than 3
caused his death. Laurente armed persons). The purpose then of brigandage is
was convicted by the RTC of indiscriminate highway robbery. If the purpose is
highway robbery with only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery,
homicide under PD 532. or robbery in a band if there are at least four armed
participants.

NATURE AND ELEMENTS


Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Abay Jr. v Abay, Darilag and 8 other W/N they are guilty of Highway robbery.
People men formed a band a highway robbery or simple ELEMENTS:
robbed a bus on the way to robbery only 1. The group was organized for the purpose of
Laguna. They took jewelry, committing robbery in a highway.
cash and clothes from 2. There is no predetermined victim.
passengers. They were The Kapalaran bus was chosen indiscriminately.
charged with highway
robbery.

Page 139 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

People v There was a hold-up in a W/N the accused is guilty of NO. Robbery with homicide under Art 294 of the
Versoza passenger jeep in C3. One highway robbery with RPC
passenger fought back, so homicide
he was shot. A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that
several accused were organized for the purpose of
committing highway robbery indiscriminately. This
was not proven in the case. If the purpose is only a
particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or
robbery in band if there are at least four armed
participants.
People v Accused boarded a jeepney. W/N the accused are guilty of NO. Robbery with homicide only.
Mendoza When it reached a dark highway robbery with
portion, the accused homicide It was not proven that accused were organized for
announced a hold up. The the purpose of committing highway robbery
accused used violence. One indiscriminately.
got injured and one died. There was no evidence of any previous attempts at
similar robberies by the accused.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY VS ROBBERY


Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
People v Puno Mrs. Sarmiento’s driver W/N the lower courts NO. It’s simple robbery only
colluded with Amurao. imposed the correct offense
Amurao entered the car and Based on intent- the accused only intended to extort
poked a gun at Mrs. money from the victim and it was not their intention
Sarmiento. She gave her to deprive her of her physical liberty
bag and drafted checks This is not highway robbery because Mrs. Sarmiento
worth 100k. Mrs. is a predetermined victim. Highway robbery does not
Sarmiento. They were apply where there is a predetermined victim.
charged with kidnapping
for ransom
People v Sandoval and Pat frisked W/N highway robbery is There is no absorption in this case. Highway robbery
Sandoval Laurente and Baguio. While already absorbed in the hinges on the existence of 4 armed robbers, and
Bagui was being frisked, he complex crime. robbery hinges on an intent to gain. Just because the
covered his wallet with his robbery was committed on a highway does not
hand to hide it, and automatically mean that the crime committed is
Sandoval stabbed Baguio. already highway robbery.

Page 140 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Accused claims that they An accused may be charged with as many crimes as
should have only been defined in our penal laws even if these arose from
charged with complex crime one incident.
of robbery and homicide
since highway robbery is
already absorbed in the
former.

HIJACKING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6235
1 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine
registry.
 Aircraft is in flight the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until any of such doors
is opened for disembarkation
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to
seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said territory.
2 Qualifying circumstances:
(a) Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft
(b) Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
(c) Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape.
3 (Unlawful to ship, load or carry in a passenger aircraft operating as public utility within the PH any explosive, flammable,
corrosive or prohibited substance or material)
8 (Aircraft companies which operate as public utilities x x x are authorized to open and investigate suspicious packages and
cargoes in the presence of the owner or shipper, or his authorized representatives, if present)
(If owner refuses, the airline may refuse the loading thereof)

CYBERCRIME
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Disini v Constitutionality of the Real time collection of data under Sec 12 is
Secretary of Cybercrime law unconstitutional
Justice Section 19, which empowers the DoJ to restrict or
(February 18, block access to computer data is unconstitutional
2014) Child pornography committed online, as to which
charging the offender under both Sec 4(c2) of RA

Page 141 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

10175 and RA 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornogpraphy


act of 2009 constitutes a violation of the proscription
against double jeopardy
Online libel and Art 252 also constitutes a violation
of the proscription against double jeopardy.

HUMAN SECURITY ACT


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372
Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine
Southern Petitioners challenged the W/N the statute is void for It is not vague.
Hemisphere constitutionality of RA vagueness or overbroad? NO
Engagement 9372. Petitioners assail for Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under RA
Network Inc. v being intrinsically vague 9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually
Anti-Terrorism and broad the definition of committed to trigger the operation of the key
Council the crime of terrorism qualifying phrases in the other elements of the
under RA 9372 in that crime, including the coercion of the government to
terms like "widespread and accede to an "unlawful demand." Given the presence
extraordinary fear and of the first element, any attempt at singling out or
panic among the populace" highlighting the communicative component of the
and "coerce the government prohibition cannot recategorize the unprotected
to give in to an unlawful conduct into a protected speech.
demand" are nebulous,
leaving law enforcement
agencies with no standard
to measure the prohibited
acts.

Page 142 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

COMPARISON TABLES
A.
Executive Clemency Refers to Reprieve, Absolute Pardon, Conditional Pardon with or without Parole Conditions and
Commutation of Sentence as may be granted by the President of the Philippines53
Absolute Pardon Total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it is granted without any condition.
It restores to the individual his civil and political rights and remits the penalty imposed for the
particular offense of which he was convicted54 – unlike amnesty, this is a private act pleaded by the offender
Conditional Pardon Exemption of an individual, within certain limits or conditions from the punishment which the law
inflicts for the offense he had committed resulting in the partial extinction of his criminal liability
Amnesty A public act granted by the President and should have the Congress’ concurrence55
Granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses
Effect: as if no crime as if no crime has been committed
Commutation of Reduction of the duration of a prison sentence of a prisoner56
Sentence
Reprieve Deferment of the implementation of the sentence for an interval of time; it does not annul the sentence but
merely postpones or suspends its execution57
Automatic Suspension Sec 38. RA 9344 (JJWA) – Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
of Sentence commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any
civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence,
without need of application: Provided, however that suspension of sentence shall still be applied even f the
juvenile is already eighteen years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the SC Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the
Law.
Parole Refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he serves the minimum
term of his prison sentence. Note: Parole does not extinguish criminal and civil liability 58

53
Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole
54
Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole
55
People v Casido, 1997
56
Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole
57
Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole
58
People v Abesamis

Page 143 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Probation Is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer59
Preventive Preventive Imprisonment is imposed upon a person before he/she is convicted if he/she cannot afford bail, or
Imprisonment his/her criminal case is non-bailable.60
Subsidiary penalty Subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to meet the fine at
the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest min wage in the Ph at the time of rendition of
final judgment
Secondary Sec 19 of RA 9344 – intervention for children at risk
Intervention
Tertiary Intervention Sec 19 of RA 9344 – intervention for CICL
Diversion Ra 9344 alternative child appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in
conflict with the law on the basis of his social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background
without resorting to formal court proceedings
Intervention Series of activities which are designed to addressed issues that caused the child to commit an offense

B.
Habitual delinquency Art. 62 WITHIN 10 years from the date of last release or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious physical
injuries (2) less serious physical injuries (3) robbery (4) theft (5) estafa (6) falsification, he is found guilty of
ANY of the crimes a third time or oftener
Reiteracion Art 14(10), RPC – Aggravating circumstance | The offender has been PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED (served?)
for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for TWO or MORE crimes 61 to which
it attaches a lighter penalty.
Recidivism Art 14(9), RPC – Aggravating circumstance | At the time of his trial for a crime, he shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the SAME TITLE of THIS CODE
(Means it applies to crimes committed under the SAME TITLE in the RPC – NO RECIDIVISM in SPL)
Quasi-recidivism Art. 160, RPC

C.

59
PD 968, Sec 3(a)
60
Sen. Francis Escudero –Author of the amendment
61
Note: Not “felony”. So does it apply to SPL?

Page 144 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Compound Crime Delito compuesto | Article 48


(1) There is a single act performed by the offender
(2) The single act resulted into two or more grave or less grave felonies
Complex Crime Delito complejo | Article 48
Proper (1) At least two offenses are committed
(2) That some or all of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
(3) That both or all of the offenses must be punished under the same statute
Special Complex (1) At least two crimes are committed
Crime (2) The law fixes a specific penalty for the crimes committed
(Composite Crime)
Continuous/Continued (1) Plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time (same time, same place)
Crimes (2) Unity of criminal intent and purpose
(3) Unity of penal provision infringed / violation of one and the same provision of law
Ex: A steals one chicken each from 10 neighboring houses/ B steals all the cellphones of all the people inside
one classroom.
Continuing Crimes Committed in different localities (venue), committed continuing in crime (Ex. In SPL – Depriving a woman
and her children of economic support in VAWC is a continuing crime62)
Consummated in one place yet by the nature of the offense, violation of the law is deemed continuing.
Transitory offenses Crimes where the same acts material and essential to crimes and requisite to their commission occur in one
municipality or territory and some acts are done in another place “moving crime”

D.
Art (19) Accessories Obstruction of Justice Anti Fencing
ELEMENTS See Art. 19. Elements of Fencing:
(a) A crime of robbery or theft
has been committed
(b) The accused who is not a
principal or an accomplice in
the commission of the crime
of robbery or theft buys,
receives, possesses, keeps or
sells in any manner deals in
any article, item, object or

62
Del Soccoro v Van Wilsem

Page 145 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

anything of value which has


been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft
(c) The accused knew or should
have known that said items
has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft
There is on the part of the accused
intent to gain for oneself or for
another
CRIME Part of the original crime Separate crime Separate crime
LIABILITY Offender is an accessory Principal Principal
INTENT Purpose is to conceal the discovery of Intent is to obstruct, frustrate, Intent is to gain
a crime impede or delay the apprehension of
suspects and investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases
Accessory –harboring, concealing or Facilitating the escape of ANY
assisting in the escape of a principal person he knows or has reasonable
w/ the abuse of his public function ground to believe or suspect has
when the principal is GUILTY of committed any offense under existing
Treason, Parricide, Murder or penal laws.
attempt to take the life of the
President
Concealing/destroying the body or Conceal evidence to impair its
effects of a crime to prevent its authenticity/admissibility in any
discovery investigation of or other official
proceedings
By profiting themselves or assisting INTENT TO GAIN for himself or
the offender to profit from the another shall buy, receive, possess,
effects of the crime acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of
any item of value which he knows or
should be known to him to have been
derived from the proceeds of the
crime or robbery or theft

Page 146 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

E.
PREVENTIVE
PAROLE PROBATION
IMPRISONMENT
Disqualifications (1) Escapees or evaded (1) sentenced to serve a NOT AVAILABLE TO:
sentence maximum term of (1) Recidivists
(2) Violated terms of imprisonment of more (2) Those who did not
conditional pardon than six years; voluntarily
(3) Habitual delinquents (2) convicted of any crime surrender when
(4) Convicted of Treason, against national summoned for the
Misprision of Treason, security execution of their
Conspiracy or Proposal to (3) who have previously been sentence
Commit Treason, convicted by final
Espionage, Sedition, judgment of an offense
Rebellion and Piracy punished by imprisonment
(5) If the max of the penalty is of more than six (6)
less than 1 year months and one (1) day
(6) Those punished with life or a fine of more than
imprisonment or death Php 1000
(7) Those punished with RP or (4) who have been once on
penalty is reduced to RP probation under the
(8) Convicted by Final provisions of this Decree;
Judgment upon the and
passage of this act (5) who are already serving
(9) Another pending case sentence at the time the
(10) Penalty does not impose substantive provisions of
imprisonment this Decree became
(11)When application of applicable pursuant to
ISLAW does not favour the Section 33 hereof.
accused
In case of violation Serve the remaining portion of Serve the entire sentence
sentence
Appeal No effect Forecloses probation
Availability Anytime as long as not Only ONCE
disqualified
Disposition Imprisonment of at least minimum Sentence is suspended
Imposition Mandatory Upon application

Page 147 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

G.
CHAIN CONSPIRACY WHEEL CONSPIRACY
A chain conspiracy x x x exists when there is successive The wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or
communication and cooperation in much the same way as with group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other
legitimate business operations between manufacturer and persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the
consumer. This involves individuals linked together in a vertical spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single
chain to achieve a criminal objective.63 conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is
unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are
multiple conspiracies64

Tobacco
business

Belle
Excise
Real
Tax
Napoles - Reyes - Issues Enrile - Owner of shares
Fictitious NGO "permit" the PDAF funds Estrada

Velarde
Jueteng Bank
Account

Examples: GMA v People, Enrile v People, Jaca v People Example: Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
To be convicted of plunder in a chain conspiracy, it must be proven
In a wheel conspiracy, not necessary that all of the spokes are
that A, B, C and D all had COMMON INTENT. All of them knew of
conspiring with each other. Spoke 1 – own intent Spoke 2 – own
the conspiracy
intent.
*Why GMA was acquitted.

63
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v People, G.R. No. 220598
64
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v People, G.R. No. 220598

Page 148 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

Atty Abitria: It’s possible to have a chain conspiracy in one spoke.


If in every region. The actors are privy to the transaction, it
reaaches 50M, then there could be plunder.
CONSPIRACY IN SILENCE IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
When two people act by agreement not to reveal any knowledge When two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
they have of an unlawful act accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, although apparently independent, were
in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment, although no meeting
among them to concert means is proved.65

H.
Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery RA 3019 Anti- Graft and Corrupt
Plunder
Art 210, RPC Art 211, RPC Practices Act
1. Offender is a public officer Elements of Direct Bribery: Elements of Indirect bribery: 1) Through misappropriation, conversion,
who acts by himself or in 1. That the offender is a 1. That the offender is misuse, or malversation of public funds or
connivance with members of Public Officer a Public Officer raids on the public treasury;
her family, relatives by 2. That the offender 2. That he accepts 2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
affinity or consanguinity, accepts an offer or a gifts commission, gift, share, percentage,
business associates, promise or receives a 3. That the gifts are kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary
subordinates or other gift or present by offered by reason of benefit from any person and/or entity in
persons; himself or through his public office connection with any government contract or
2. That the offender amasses, another *No agreement exists, not project or by reason of the office or position
accumulates or acquires ill- 3. That such promise be necessary that the PO 3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance
gotten wealth through a accepted by the public should do any particular act or disposition of assets belonging
combination or series of the officer or promise tod oa n act Government
following overt or criminal (a) With the view of 4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting
acts, each of which may committing some directly or indirectly any shares of stock,
constitute different offenses crime or equity or any other form of interest or
3. That the aggregate amount or (b) in consideration of the participation including promise of future
total value of the ill-gotten execution of an act employment in any business enterprise or
wealth amassed, accumulated which does not undertaking;
or acquired is at least constitute a crime but 5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
P50,000,000.00. the act must be commercial monopolies or other
unjust combinations and/or implementation of

65
People v De Leon, GR No. 179943

Page 149 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

(c) That the act which the decrees and orders intended to benefit
offender agrees to particular persons or special interests; or
perform be connected 6) By taking undue advantage of official
with the performance position, authority, relationship, connection
of his official duties or influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people
and the Republic of the Philippines.

Anti-Cattle
Theft Qualified Theft Robbery Highway Robbery Anti-Carnapping
Rustling
Elements of Theft: Elements of Qualified Elements of Robbery Elements of Highway Elements of Elements of cattle-
1. That there be Theft: (In General): Robbery: Carnapping: rustling:
taking of 1. That there be 1. That there be 1. The group was 1. Taking of a (1) large cattle is
personal taking of personal organized for motor taken;
property personal property the purpose of vehicle (2) it belongs to
2. That said property belonging to committing belonging another; Taking is
property 2. That said another robbery in a to another done:
belongs to property 2. That there is highway. 2. Without (3) without the
another belongs to unlawful 2. There is no consent or by consent of the
3. That the taking another taking predetermined means of owner/raiser;
be done with 3. That the taking 3. That the victim. force and (4) by any means,
intent to gain be done with taking must intimidation method or scheme;
4. That the taking intent to gain be with intent 3. Intent to (5) with/out intent
be done without 4. That the taking to gain gain. to gain; and
the consent of be done 4. That there (6) with/out violence
the owner without the is violence *Qualified Theft only or intimidation
5. That the consent of the against or if the material was against persons or
taking be owner intimidation NOT TAKEN but was force upon things.
accomplished 5. That the taking of any delivered by the
without the be person or owner or the
use of accomplished force upon possessor to the
violence without the use things. offender, who
against or of violence thereafter
intimidation against or MISAPPROPRIATED
of persons or intimidation of the same
force upon persons or force *Estafa – if material
things upon things plus juridical
6. That it be possession were given
done with to the offender
grave abuse
of confidence

Page 150 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

ENUMERATION:

Special Penal Laws with Extra-Territorial Application


1. Anti- Trafficking (Section 26-A)
2. Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law (Sec 17)
3. Human Security Act of 2007 (Sec 58)

***RA 9775 – Child Pornography (Sec 22) – “transnational” crime

Nonderogable
1. Anti-Torture
2. Anti Enforced Involuntary Disappearances

Order of Battle is prohibited


1. Anti-Torture
2. Anti-Enforced Involuntary Disappearance

Applicability of Refouler No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds to
believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to harm.
1. Anti-Torture
2. Anti- Enforced Involuntary Disappearance

Imprescriptible
1. Anti-Enforced Involuntary Disappearances
a. UNLESS the person reappears, in which case, the prescription period shall be 25 years
2. Crimes against International Humanitarian Law
3. Plunder Law - Section 6. Prescription of Crimes - The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.
However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or
transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

Crimes where involvement of a child is Aggravating/Qualifying


1. Child Trafficking – RA 9208-qualifying
2. RA 9344- aggravating (JJWC),
3. RA 7610-aggravating (MAX if child is under 12)/ RA 7610 attempted child trafficking is also punished)
4. RA 9165- aggravating (Dangerous Drugs)

Absolutory Causes

Page 151 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

1. VAWC – Battered woman syndrome – not an exempting/ justifying = absolutory cause


2. Anti – trafficking
a. Section 17. - Trafficked persons x x x shall not be penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking enumerated
in this Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto.
b. Section 17-C. Immunity from Suit, Prohibited Acts and Injunctive Remedies. – No action or suit shall be brought, instituted
or maintained in any court or tribunal or before any other authority against any: (a) law enforcement officer; (b) social
worker; or (c) person acting in compliance with a lawful order from any of the above, for lawful acts done or statements
made during an authorized rescue operation, recovery or rehabilitation/intervention, or an investigation or prosecution of an
anti-trafficking case: Provided, That such acts shall have been made in good faith. x x x
3. Dangerous Drugs
a. Section 33. Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment. – Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and
Benefit Act of 1991, any person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who
voluntarily gives information about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as
well as any violation of the offenses mentioned if committed by a drug syndicate, or any information leading to
the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the members thereof; and who willingly testifies against
such persons as described above, shall be exempted from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to
which his/her information of testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in
bar of such prosecution: Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not
appear to be most guilty for the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony were given: Provided,
finally, That there is no direct evidence available for the State except for the information and testimony of the said
informant or witness.
b. Section 55. Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program. A drug dependent under the
voluntary submission program, who is finally discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability
under Section 15

Dangerous Drugs
Attempt and Conspiracy (ISMa2C!)
1. Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical;
3. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
5. Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.

Integrity of the confiscated, seized or surrendered drugs, four respects: (PINaWe)

1. Nature of the items seized

Page 152 of 153


SAMPANG, M.| 2C
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 2018 | ATTY. ROMMEL ABITRIA

2. Weight of the items seized


3. Relation of the substances to the incident allegedly causing their seizure.
4. The relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them.

Four Links in the Chain of Custody


1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer
2. Turnover of the drugs seized to the investigating officer
3. Turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for lab examination
4. Turnover and submission by the chemist to the court.

Apprehending Investigating Forensic


Accused to
Officer to Officer to Chemist to
Apprehending
Investigating Forensic Court
Officer
Officer Chemist

Page 153 of 153

Você também pode gostar