CAMPANILLA REVIEW SCHOOL – July 22.

2019

Malum in Se v Malum prohibitum

 Malum in Se
o immoral in character
o criminal intent is an important element
 Good Faith is a defense
 Ex: Ah CHIONG CASE – SELF DEFENSE
o Punishable under the RPC and special law such as CARNAPPING
o You consider modifying circumstances such as confession, minority
 XPN: THE LAW ADOPTS THE AMERICAN PENALTY
 Illegal – malum pro
 Malum prohibitum –
o Not inherently wrong but prohibited by law,
o criminal intent is not an important element
 Good Faith is not a defense.
 Ex: TAWAS to SHABU CASE – Argument will be rejected
by the JUDGE. Possession of Drugs is Malum Prohibitum
o Punishable under special law ONLY.
 Exception:
 Technical malversation under RPC –in the case of isidro.
(SIR IS NOT COMFORTABLE)
 Illegal possession of picklocks (Regalado)
o You will not consider modifying circumstances unless the special law
adopts the technical nomenclature under the RPC
 Illegal possession of loose firearms - > Confession is a
mitigating circumstances because the law adopts the technical
nomenclature under the RPC
 Classifications
o 1) intentional felony under the RPC (MALUM IN SE) XPN: Technical
malversation. Money appropriated for feeding program, then there
was storm, another ordinance for housing program – the local govt
should have provided the materials, but the problem here: MAYOR
USED The funds from feeding program for the HOUSES’ MATERIALS.
HE WAS CONVICTED OF TECHNICIAL MALVERSATION. GOOD FAITH
IS NOT A DEFENSE
o 2) SPECIAL LAW
 NOT wrong in character
 Such as Possession of shabu, BP 22, Ex: UR check
bounced. Good faith is not a defense. WHAT Is
important there is a law prohibiting such an act.
(MALUM PROHIBITUM)
 Wrong in character
 Preliminary: Intention of legislature, lahat malum in se in one
code – RPC, culpa felony not mala in se. Spanish penal system
 for mala in se felonies. (IN THE RPC – penalty is proportionate
to the degree of criminal mind) – malum prohibitum – no
criminal intent. American penalty – meron maximum and
minimum penalties. Ex: Trafficking in Persons.
 1st View: THE OLD RULE – If the crime is punishable under the
RPC –malum in se, if under the special law it is malum
prohibitum. (WE WILL FOLLOW FOR THE BAR)
 Ex: Fencing – MP punishable under special law.
 Ex: VIOLATION OF TRUST RECEIPTS – prosecuted for estafa –
colinares – But declared as MALUM PROHIBITUM.
 Ex: SEXUAL ABUSE – malum prohibitum under special law
 Ex: HAZING – Malam prohibitum
 2nd view:
 PPl v Sally Go – List of Registered Voters name not included in
the list – constitutional right of the voters to vote – IT IS
WRONG IN CHARACTER – even under special law, it is
considered mala in se, where good faith is a defense.
 Case of Quejada – Can u consider Plunder – as malum
prohibutm or malum in se? IT IS MALUM IN SE!! 70659
amended ____, Classifying plunder as a heinous crime.
Therefore, it is mala in se. Predicate crimes of plunder is
mainly mala in se, while the crime it self is malum prohibutm,
there it is absorbs, so it follows, the crime is mala in se. Even if
punishable under special law, what is important is that it is
WRONG IN CHARACTER.
 CASE OF YSIDRO – SC: the notion that RPC Se, Special law,
prohibitum, what is important is the CHARACTER OF THE
CRIME, if it is wrong - SE, if it is not wrong – PROHIBITUM
 BOTH VIEWS ARE IRRECONCILIABLE.
 RA 3019 – Luisana v Estrada – partakes the character of malum
prohibitum – (DON'T SAY THIS IN THE BAR – so part malum in
se. – the Sec. 3e of RA 3019 in entering a contract manifestly
disadvantageous on the part of govt, whether or not he
profited – Ex: Hindi mo napansin – but there was overpricing
and he did not embezzle any money. Good Fiath is not a
defense. SO it partakes the character of malum prohibitum it is
not a defense.)
 CAN U CONSIDER GOOD FAITH AS A DEFENSE in – 3e of RA
3019 – EVIDENT BAD FAITH, manifest partiality – is an
element of this crime, good faith will negate this element.
MALA IN SE
 ATienza – this violation of 3e can be committed by culpa
or dolo.
 INCRIMINATION an innocent person Art. 363 of the RPC – committing an act
not constituting perjury that imputes to another the commission of a crime
(PLANTING OF EVIDENCE)
o BAR Q: Wallet was stolen. Placed in the bag of another person. Pare
yung wallet mo ninakaw. 2 crimes committed: THEFT and
incriminating an innocent person – COMPLEX CRIME PROPER cause
theft is a means to incriminate another
o Ex: USB with PORN. – Imputing to him the crime of violation of the
Anti pornography law.
o PPL v ALAGAW – ARRESTED HIM WITHOUT BASIS and then planted
money to make it appear that he is committing the crime of
corrpuption of public officials – unlawful arrest, and incriminating an
innocent person. (COMPLEX CRIME – unlawful arrest as a means to
commit incriminating person) – ARRESTED then planted evidence.
o Incriminating a person thru unlawful arrest. (ARREST THEN PLANT)
 (CHECK WHICH THE PRINCIPAL CRIME – (THAT IS THE FIRST
CRIME) THEN THRU ___)
o SOMETIMES PLANTED EVIDENCE FIRST – U PLACED A CHILD
o PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS – then victim was arrested. – Bakit mo
siya pinaplantahan to justify the arrest, incriminating the innocent
person is a mean to commit an unlawful arrest, unlawful arrest thru
incriminating an innocent person (PLANT THEN ARREST)
o AS A RULE: u planted evidence to incriminate someone –
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS CRIME
 XPN:
 1) DANGEROUS DRUGS – the crime committed is planting of
evidence 29 of 9165
 2) Loose firearms – the crime committed is planting of
evidence
 3) Explosives – planting of evidence - 4 PD 1866 as amended
by RA 9516
 Maliciously and surreptitiously of inserting, attaching,
incriminatory evidence constituting of dangerous drugs to the
person, house, effects or immediate vicinity for purposes of
imputing to him the commission of a crime involving drugs,
loose firearms and explosives.
 Ex: Tanim Bala - Planting of Evidence with Robbery – NO
CRIME OF ROBBERY EXTORTATION. – intimidation to inflict
something, If the threat to arrest, cancel the permit, confiscate
the goods – ROBBERY – is there a complex crime? NO.
 PPL v ARANETA – Special law offenses cannot be
complexed. SO THERE IS A SEPARATE CRIME. Planted a
GUN and then arrested.
 1-2-3 malum prohibitum
  BAR Q: CRIME CLASSIFIED AS MALA IN SE AND MALA
PROBITUM? YES. PLAINTING OF EVIDENCE INVOLVING
DRUGS EXPLOSIVE FIREARMS, classified as malum prohibitum
under special law, however malice is an element of this crime –
partakes the character of mala in se.

 LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A DEFENSE we are just looking
at criminal intent. U DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS
MARIJUANA – THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE. MALUM
PROHIBITUM.
 CASE of DALAO:
 BP 22 – knowledge is expressly mentioned as an element –
knowing that there were in sufficient funds at the time of
issuance of crime – what is important – are the ELEMENTS OF
THE CRIME – IS KNOWLEDGE AS AN ELEMENT – lack of
knowledge is a DEFENSE.

 Can u apply provision in book 1 of RPC on penalties for offenses punishable

under SPECIAL LAW?
 AS A RULE, NO, BOOK 1 is for BOOK2 felonies.
 XPN:
 1. If the law expressly requires the application of RPC.
o EX: Violence against women, child pornography, dangerous dugs, sec.
98 of ra 9165, plunder
 2. IF there is supplementary application under Art. 10 of the RPC
o EX: VITAMINS. If the law provides a sufficient rule to resolve an issue,
u will not go to the RPC, if the law is deficient so you need to
supplement it.
o Ex: Art. 91 of the RPC – 2 factors that will interrupt running of
prescription 1) filing of complaint or info in court 2) Absconding out
of PH –
o ACT 3326 (PRESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL LAW) – INSITUTION OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS – 2 months, 4, months ….
 PAG SPECIAL LAW RA 3019 – period of prescription naging 20
years. IN THOSE SITUATIONS first rule in ACT 3326 is not
applicable, cause the special law provides for it.
 RULE ON COMMENCEMENT- ACT 3326 parin.

o IN ROMUALDEZ CASE – RA 3019 – HE WAS ABROAD. WAS THERE AN

INTERRUPTION OF THE PRESRIPTIVE PERIOD -
 IF YOU WILL FOLLOW ART. 91 of the RPC, there is an
interruption, if u follow ACT 3326, no interruption. IS THE RPC
SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION? NO. BECAUSE THE SPECIAL
LAW PROVIDES A SUFFICIENT RULE – what will interrupt is
the institution of judicial proceeding.
  WHAT IS CONTROLLING – ACT 3326 – absence of the PH is not
a factor that will interrupt the running of prescription.
o EX: JOHNSON: BP 22 CASE – Nonpayment of fine. Can u apply Art. 39
on conversion of fine into subsidiary payment in cases of insolvency.
BP 22 – no rule on conversion. SO IT IS INSUFFICIENT. SO RPC CAN
SUPPLMENT BP 22 LAW – There is a deficient law.
 XPN: ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS –
nonpayment of fine due to insolvency. Art. 39? NO. Sec. 98 of
RA 9165 – the provision of the RPC is not applicable unless the
offender is a minor.

BASIC ELEMENTS OF A CRIME

 VOLUNTARINESS – YES! – IT IS AN INHERENT ELEMENT OF A FELONY –
WALANG VOLUNARTINESS WALANG DOLO
 KNOWLEDGE -
 INTELLIGENCE
 FREEDOM
 CULPA/DOLO /INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW

INTELLIGENCE – 3 month old baby playing with marijuana. POLICE SAW IT. BABY:
WALA AKONG INTELLIGENCE –malum prohibitum!! SA PRECINCT NAKA MAG
EXPLAIN. Whether it is ms, mp, INTELLIGENCE IS AN ELEMENT. EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY UNDER 9344. IF IT WAS AN INSANE PERSON – WILL
U APPRECIATE INSANITY?

FREEDOM – KIDNAPPED VICTIM. PRODUCE 1M. PWEDE BAH CHECK NO CASH.

NEXT DAY DEPOSITED CHECK. BOUNCED. KIDNAPPER CHARGED THE KIDNAPPED.
MALUM PROHIBITUM? HAHAHA. NO FREEDOM!!! THIS IS ABSURD. RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE - FORCED TO BANGA ANOTHER CRIME - LACK OF FREEDOM IS A
DEFENSE – WHATEVER THE KIND OF CRIME – mala in se, mala in prohibutm, culpa.

DOLO -
Ex: PROFESSOR MAKING A MUSEUM. PICKLOCKS, AND UNLICENSED FIREARMS –
CHARGED WITH SUCH CRIMES, NO CRIMINAL INTENTION – I WILL NOT USE IT
NAMAN JUST FOR DISPLAY. GOOD FAITH IS NOT A DEFENSE. 10591. CONVICTED
OF UNLICENSED FIREARMS. ILLEGAL POSSESSION? - picklock must be for
purposes of committing robbery – u have to correlate that Art. 3 – THEREFORE
LACK OF DOLO IS A DEFENSE.

INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW -

EX: POLICE -> CHEMIST - > Fiscal - > Court – THEY ARE NOT LIABLE for possession
of drugs – they are just performing their duties – exempting circumstance of
performing the duty are applicable.
Ex: GIVING AWAY – INTENT TO DONATE – LASERNA – WENT IN A CAR – HOLD
THIS SHABU – CHARGED: GIVING AWAY OF DANGEROUS DRUGS – what is
prohibited is giving away – INTENT TO DONATE IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT –
GIVING AWAY IS DONATING

KNOWLEDGE – IS NOT A DEFENSE – NOT CONTROLLING

> KNOWLEDGE IS IMPORTANT EVEN IF IT IS MALUM PROHIBITUM.
> CASE OF US v TYPO - POSSESSION OF OPIUM – animus possiendi – is an
important element. This presupposes that there is knowledge. KNOWLEDGE IS AN
IMPORTANT ELEMENT of intent to possess even if it is malum prohibitum.
> IN THE CASE OF LYMPOPO. OPIUM IN THE MEDICINE – u didn't know what u
bought had opium – SO KNOWELDGE IS A DEFENSE.
>DRUGS CASES – IT IS A KNOWING GAME.

FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE FROM LEGAL KNOWLEDGE – IGNORANCE LEGIS NON

EXCUSAT – lack of legal knowledge is not a defense. YOU WERE ARRESTED FOR
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS BAWAL – NOT A
DEFENSE. SO DAPAT FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE IS A DEFENSE

INTELLIGENCE, FREEDOM, CRIMINAL INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW – MALUM

PROHIBITUM –modifying circumstances can be applied. INSANITY? NO
INTELLIGENCE. PERFORMANCE OF DUTY,

Sycip v CA – BOUGHT A CONDO – REGULATION – PRESELLING- SUBMIT TO HLURB

– 3 POOLS, BASKETBALL – u submit to HLUBR – authority to sell. – U HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE PLAN U SUBMITTED TO HLURB. IF U DON'T FOLLOW – right to
suspend payment. CLOSED THE ACCOUNT, convicted of BP 22 – SC applied
justifying circumstance of EXERCISE OF A RIGHT TO SUSPEND PAYMENT. SO THE
MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE - YOU CAN APPLY to an offense punishable under
special law – supplementary.

GEN RULE: Art. 2 of RPC – “PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE SHALL APPLY” – pertains to
BOOK 2 homicide rape, robbery shall apply to persons within territory or outside
the PH under 5 instances.

IN THE CASE OF PPL v TULING: PIRACY UNDER PD 532 – there 2 offenders –

principal and accomplice.

 PRINCIPAL – piracy only committed in PH water, art 2 not an issue cause

piracy out side PH – HIGH SEAS not a violation of PD 532 – “PHILIPPINE
WATERS” –
 ACCOMPLICE – NAG BENTA SILA SA HIGH SEAS – PIRACY IS COMMITTED
WITHIN PH, BUYING THE GOODS FROM THE PIRATES – DOES NOT HAVE TO
BE PH WATERS
 o PIRACY COMMITTED BY ACCOMPLICE – PHILIPPINE WATER IS NOT
AN IMPORANT ELEMENT – IF IN HIGHSEAS
 – 1) MERON BANG CRIME? YES PIRACY UNDER PD 532 – not
necessary committed in PH WATERS,
 2) DO WE HAVE JURISDICTION? Art. 2 – only applicable to
felonies, SC Applied the extraterritoriality principle applied to
a special law cause of art. 10 – supplementary application. We
have jurisdiction. AN OFFENSE punishable by special law is
governed by extraterritoriality principle.
 EX: PLUNDER OUT OF PH – WILL U APPLY
EXTRATERRITORIALITY? YES. , RA3019

TWO EXCEPTIONS: 1) TERRORISM and 2) Human Trafficking

1) TERRORISM – RA 9372 – Sec. 58 – SPECIAL RULE ON
EXTRATERRITORIALITY.
a. IF ON BOARD A VESSEL OR AIRPLANE REGISTERED IN THE PH –
HIGH SEAS - FLAG STATE RULE - - NO PROBLEM HERE.
b. IF TERRORISM IS COMMITTED IN EMBASSY OWNED OR OCCUPIED
BY DIPLOMATS OR CONSULS – THE RULE IF HOMICIDE OR MURDER
IS COMMITTED IN AMERICAN EMBASSY – we have jurisdiction –
conversely the same is true, pag terrorism BOMB American embassy,
yung terrorist, we can prosecute.
c. IF the conspiracy to commit terrorism happened in another country –
terrorsit camehere. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM – even if
they did not commit terrorism, they just came here –they can already
be charged with terrorism.
d. IT WAS HASHED IN HK, we have jurisdiction cause of S58RA9372
e. TERRORISM IS COMMITTED AGAINST PHILIPPINE CITIZEN – of
descent – ethnicity of citizenship – considered a factor inc omitting
terrorism – DISCRIMNATION AGAINST FILIPINOS – COVERED. Sept
11 – TWIN TOWERS – 10 FILIPINOS DIED – TOERROST went to PH –
WE CANT PROSECUTE TERRIST – alto FILIPINOS DIED, terrorist is
not committed against Filipinos, where Filipinos where considered as
a facto in committing the crime. THEY COMMITTED IT because they
hated the americans not the Filipinos.
f. HOTEL BOMB – secessionist group in Mindanao – maulit pa yan –
FiLIPINO DIED - crime is committed against FILIPINO CITIZEN. – U
CAN.
g. TERRORISM AGAINST PH GOVT –DUTERTE IN AMERICA BOMB – WE
HAVE JURISDICTION. HEAD OF STATE.

2) HUMAN TRAFFICKING Sec. 26 -A

>TRAFFICKING IN PERSON IS A CONTINUING CRIME – even out PH – we have
jurisdiction – there are requisites – to apply extraterritoriality
 THE CRIME OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSON HAS BEEN COMMENCED IN THE
PH but other elements happened in another country
  EX: balita po – ang ganda mo, ang payat2x, bugbog by asawa, mag bent aka
nalng sa japan, girl agreed. Inhatid sa japan. BECAME A PROSTITUTE. CAN
WE PROSECUTE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS? YES. THE CRIME of TIP is
commenced in PH, recruitment and transportation happened in the PH, the
sexual exploitation happened in JAPAN
 2) the victim must be a Filipino citizen or a resident agent or offender is a
FILIPINO CITIZEN – yung japanes tourist recruited another japan tourist to
prostitute. RECRUITMENT IN PH – EXPLOITATION IN JAPAN. NO
JURISDICTION CAUSE THE OFFENDER IS NOT FILIPINO, ALSO THE VICTIm.
 3) THE OFFENDER IS NOT PROSECUTED FOR TIP in another country such as
JAPAN unless u obtained consent from sec of justice.

JASON: FRESH PRODUCE.

There are two concepts of conspiracy : crime and a mode.

Conspiracy to commit a crime – proposal to commit a crime – law must specifically

provide for punishment.

As a rule: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE UNDER SPECIAL LAW – is not

punishable unless there is a penalty under it.
EXCEPTION:
To conspiracy to commit money laundering,
to commit child pornography,
to commit terrorism,
to commit arson,
to commit dangerous drugs

US v PONTE – What is involved is malversation which is punishable under special

law. – Art. 217 (RPC), malversation under special law – the one who committed
malversation is a treasurer, jaitor, police, got the valut with intention to breaking I
toutside

NOT LIABLE FOR ROBBERY FORCE UPON THINGS – THERE WAS AN

ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER – so he is liable for malversaiton, even if police and janitor
or private individual not accountable officer – doctrine of imputability – it is also
imputed to them.

EVEN IF PUNISHABLE UNDER SPECIAL LAW – DOCTRINE OF IMPUTABILITY CAN

APPLY

PPL v LADOMA – BP 22 violation – so 2 issues – 1) can u apply conspiracy to an

offense under special law –BP 22 2) is there a conspiracy here? The check issued in
presence of wife, check was unfunded. CAN THE WIFE BE HELD LIABLE EVEN IF
SHE WAS NOT A SIGNATORY?
 SC applied the imputability doctrine to this crime. Wala ng problema. Art.
217 na yan – ACT OF ISSUING AN UNFUNDED CHECK – is imputable to a co
conspirator even if not a signatory to the check? NO. THERE WAS ONLY
PASIVE PRESENCE
 NO CONSPIRACY. THE SC applied the ATIENZA and Silverestre – the passive
presence principle – the wife was present at the time check was issued.
PASSIVE presence is not conspiracy. PARTNER SUDDENLY DECIDED TO
BURN THE HOUSE, he was present – PASSIVE PRESENCE NOT AN EVIDENCE
OF CONSPIRACY.
 Bugbog, di palaalan, saksak someone, are u liable for the saksak? Porket ba
an doon ka there is a conspiracy? NO. VERY UNFAIR as distinguished from
ACTIVE PRESENCE. WHILE ur pare was saksakan, and u were outside
nagbabantay with armas –
 BAR Q: PA UTANG – my cousin will issue a check. Bounced. CAN U CONSIDER
THIS AS PASSIVE PRESENCE? NO. THERE WAS a conspiracy. ACTIVE
PRESENCE. He is liable
 THE CASE OF GO TAN – violence against women – ang victim niya dalawa –
women must have a marital kasal – sexual relationship. Single Sexual
intercourse constitutes sexual relationship. – and former relationship is
covered.
 Dating relationship: 1. MEET TOGETHER under the same roof without the
benefit of marriage (LIVE IN) 2. Having a romantic involvement over a course
of time on a regular basis. CASE: GF – BF -> on an off relationship – yung
lalaki – no texting – but ilan araw na text again – THAT IS NORMAL – IT WILL
NOT NEGATE DATING RELATIONSHIP – NORMAL KASE YUN – it does not
follow there is no dating relationship.
 CHILD OF THE WOMEN – the biological child of the women – who has sexual
relationship with the guy. WHAT IS IMPORTANT is that THE CHILD IS A
BIOLOGICAL OF THE WOMEN NOT THE OFFENDER – ADOPTED<
LEGTIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE OR NOT LEGALLY ADOPTED , OR CHILD
UNDER THE CARE OF THE WOMAN.
 CASE OF GO TAN – PETITION FOR PROTECTION ORDER – respondent should
be committing acts of violence against women, sama yung mother in law –
wait lang wala man koy apil, but the SC US v PONTE and PPL v LADOMA –
applied the conspiracy the principle – offense punishable under special law –
the act of the husband in committing psychological violence to victim is
imputable to the mother in law beause of conspiracy.
 HENRY GO v 5th division of SB – pres of those who constructed NAIA 3 –
allegation that it was highly and grossly disadvantageous to the govt 3e of RA
3019 – wait lang I am a private individual not a public officer – THE SC
rejected the argument of HENRY GO.
 1 – US v PONTE – the conspiracy principle is applicable to an offense
punishable under the special law. THE ACT OF PUBLIC OFFICER OF
ENTERING TO A DISADVANTGAEOUS CONTRACT IS IMPUTABLE TO HENRY
GO BECAUSE OF CONSPIRACY
  2 – RA 3019 (4 last par b) Any person who calls the public officer to violate
sec. 3 – PRINICPAL OFFENDER IS A PUBLIC OFFICER, secondary offender can
be a private or public officer – there is no distinction – because of this henry
go can be held liable because of Sec. 4 or RA 3019 in rel to 3g.
 3- Sec. 9 of RA 3019 – penalty for violation of Sec 3 – prescribe not only to a
public officer but also a private individual but the intention of the law is to
extend the penal consequence to a private individual not limited to public
officer
 MARCOS v SANDIGANBAYAN – IMEDLA MARCOS – LEASE AGREEMENT
LRTA and PD FOUNDATION – highly disadvantageous in violation of sec. 3 g
of RA 3019 – SHE WAS ACQUITTED.
 1 – HE DID NOT SIGN THE CONTRACT AS LRTA CHAIRMAN – SHE SIGNED AS
PGH FOUNDATION WHICH IS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNLIKE THE LRTA
WHICH IS A GOVT ENTITY. – during the meeting of LRTA – she was not
present, the one who signed in LRTA WAS the vice chairman. SOLGEN said:
WHAT ABOUT GO v 5th division, SC: not applicable (GO) the vicechairm with
whom she allegedly conspired was acquitted, so there is no conspiracy.
IMEDLA WAS ACQUITTED.
 PPl v HENRY Go – 2 contracts, ORIGINAL CONTRACT. Conspired with
secretary enrile department of transportation and communication involving
construction of NAIA 3 – namatay si enrile – WALA NG PUBLI COFFICER –
DEATH EXTINGUISHES CRIMINAL LIABILITY BUT THE CRIME ITSELF
REMAINS, SO IF THERE IS EVIDNECE THAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED THAT
HENRY GO CONSPIRED WITH ENRILE TO COMMITT THE CRIME – SO HENRY
GO CAN STILL BE CONVICTED. Ex: PEDO killer, Juan lookout, Juan lookout
can still be held liable despite death of pedro the killer provided there is
evidence.
 Uybuko – 3e of RA 3019 – OVERPRICING – the one who received the excess
money yung contractor also held liable for Sec. 3e of RA 3019

EVEN IF the accused received the property with the consent of the owner –he is
liable for theft or estafa thru misappropriation depedend sa character of possession.

PPL v GARCIA –THE PRINCIPLE OF CARNAPPING IS THE SAME AS THEFT AND

ESTAFA. IN OTHER WORDS, if the accused received the motorvehicle with consent
of owner, physical possession – failure to return, running away, driving away,
isappropriation will be considered as taking without consent so the crime
committed is carnapping
IF received motorvehicle with consent of the owner and acquired de jure possession
– misappropriation conversion – involving duty to return – that is ESTAFA

PPL v NOVERNO – HE rented the truck, hindi na niya return. HE ACQUIRED juridical
possession – by reason of lease contract - the crime committed is estafa not
carnapping.
PPL v ACOMODING – employee not returned the motorvehicle and money –
carnapping with respect to motorvehicle, qualified theft with respect to the money.

PPL v Santos
> the accused is a mechanic – received the motorvehicle to repaint the car, did not
return it. THE POSSESSION IS PHYSICAL – therefore crime committed is carnapping.
> VULCANIZE in MCDO – labas ng mcdo – saw the car running away – AT THE TIME
HE RECEIVED VEHICLE FOR VULCANIZING (WITH CONSENT) at the time he
suddenly ran away with vehicle ( THAT DRIVING AWAY WILL BE CONSIDERED AS
TAKING WITHOUT CONSENT ) therefore it is carnapping. IT HAPPENS AT THE
TIME – he suddenly decides to ran away.

BUSTINERA CASE – JEEP – TAXI – BOUNDARY ARRANGEMENT WITH THE DRIVER

AND THE OPERATOR OWNER. BOUNDARY ARRANGEMENT – Parang lease
agreement – pag 1000 – owner of jeep, 500 – excess to the driver. HINDI NIYA
RETURN. (ESTAFA’s penalty is lower, pinush ng victim for estafa) BOUNDARY
ARRANGEMENT IS NOT RECOGNIZED THE LAW – TO PERSONALLY OPERATE THE
TAXI UNDER THE FRANCHISE – u are not allowed to lease it to another person to do
the operation. IT IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY – SO THE POSSESSION IS NOT
JURIDICAL – LEASE ARRANGEMENT – THE LAW IS CONCERNED THE
RELATIONSHIP IS EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP – POSSESSION IS
PHYSICAL. AT THE TIME HE RECEIVED IT ONLY PHYSICALPOSSESSION! FAILURE
TO RETURN IS CONSIDERED CARNAPPING.

CATTLE RUSTLING – THIS IS A CONCEPT SIMILAR TO ROBBERY THEFT AND

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF –
 IF YOU KILL DOG of neighbor – MALICIOUS MISCHIEF,
 if u kill the carabao – crime committed - cattle rustling – without consent.
 HORSE? YUNG LARGE CATTLE includes carabao, horse.
 THE GOAT IS NOT A LARGE CATTLE – it is a small cattle.
 Principles of Theft robbery malicious mischief can be applied to cattle
rustling.
o BAR Q: EMPLOYEES PHYSICAL – killing carabo without consent – it is
considered violation of anti cattle rustling law – the one who
borrowed the carabao – commodatum – misappropriated that is
ESTAFA

PD 1612 – FENCING
ELEMENTS:
1. THE PROEPRTY IS DERIVED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THEFT OR ROBBERY –
 DEMAT CASE: Sold CARNAPPED VEHICLE – he was convicted of fencing – the
SC considered carnapping as within the word “ theft robbery” so he was
convicted of fencing.
 EX: employee – stole niya yung carabao sold to buyer 1 – employee –
borrowed carabao sold to buyer 2 - who knew it was not owned by
employee,
 EMPLOYEE 1 – physical possession – takingout consent cattle rustling –
BUYER 1 – carnapping is within the contemplation of theft – can be
considered within the word of theft robbery – FENCING
 EMPLOYEE 2 – JURICIAL POSSESSION – estfa thru misappropriation, buyer 2
– not liable for fencing, estafa not contemplated under the word “theft and
robbery” liable as an accessory.
 THE FENCER DID NOT PARTICIPATE AS PRINCIPAL OR ACCOMPLICE –
o PPL v FRANCISCO – this was made as an element – yung concept of a
fencer in the crime of fencing is similar to that of accessory – in the
crime of theft or robbery, accessory – u did not participate as an
accomplice or principle – Y?
o Accessory – u killed someone. Yung baril – threw in the SEA – walang
evidence – liable bah siya as principle for killing and accessory for
destroying evidence of crime? NOT AS AN ACCESSORY – PWEDE BAH
PRINICPAL KA ACCESSORY KA? NO. dapat no participation in the
crime. TO RULE OTHERWISE – lahat ng magnanakaw is liable for theft
and fencing. (NOT THE INTENTION) so that's why theres that
requirement he did not participate as an accomplice or principal.
o LIM: conviction of the principle of crime of theft, robbery, carnapping,
cattle resulting – is not an indispensable requisite for the crime of
fencing INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY PRINCIPLE – u can convict
the accused as an accomplice or an accessory even if the principal is
not convicted, their responsibility is independent from each other.
o BARLAM – ACCESSORY – u don't need to convict the principal for
someone to be convicted as an accessory – MAY EXCEPTION: “ GUILTY
OF MURDER” –BARLAM
o CASE OF BINO? – WORD guilty is a wrong translatetion of Art. 19 of
RPC. SC ADOTPED THE INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY PRINCIPLE –
accessory can be convicted even if principal is not convicted.
o A murder, B held A to escape, so he was charged as principal and
accessory, A died during pendency, B is not absolved. Evidence will
show that A committed murder and that B helped A to escape.
o A killed someone with mask. B prevented the Police from arresting
him. SO A AND B – principal, accessory. A ranaway – cant be convicted
– B is not absolved.
o PPL v BAYABOS – HAZING – principal and accomplice – even if
principal is not convicted - so accomplice can still be liable
o PPL v BO – HENRY GO IS INDEPENDENT RESPONSBILITY FROM
DEATH OF ENRILE – HENRY GO CAN STILL BE convicted or RA 3019.
o The responsibility of fencer is independent from that of the principal
from the crime of theft or robbery
o
  FENCER knows or should have known that property was stolen.
o EX: divisoria – weird person – selling u rolex – u should have known
it was stolen.
o BAR Q: MA BABA YUNG PRESYO –I didn't know it was stolen defense
– but lack of actual knowledge is not a defense. – THE ACCUSED
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PRICE OF THE GOOD WAS SO
CHEAP THAT IT WAS STOLEN.
o 2) under the anti fencing crime – possession of stolen property – there
is a preumption that the crime of fencing has been committed.
o CASE OF LIM v PEOPLE -21

FENCING INFORMATION – THE ACCUSED KNOWS OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN

 Kase in the case of PPL v LIM – the prosecution cannot establish the crime of
fencing without this element.
 There is no evidence that the complainant is the owner of the heavy
equipment, the stolen goods.
 Therefore, the accused was acquitted.
 Should have alleged it was stolen
 And that the accused knows or should have known.
o EX: twist facts: THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT
FENCING IS COMMITTED – POSSESSION OF
STOLEN GOODS AND ACCUSED KNOWS IT IS
STOLEN – IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL ELEMENTS
OF FENCING IS committed
o KNOWLEDGE is alleged in the information is
then there is presumption that fencing is
committed. SO HE CAN BE CONVICTED

LAST ELEMENT OF FENCING: INTENT TO GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR OTHERS
 INTENT TO GAIN FOR HIMSELF AND OTHERS IS ENOUGH – ACTUAL GAIN IS
NOT NEEDED.
 Accessory profiting from the proceeds of the crime – ACTUAL PROFITING IS
NEEDED
 EX: HOLDUPERS FRIEND – ill look for abuyer give me acommission.
ENTRAPMENT. IS THE FRIEND LIABLE AS AN ACCESSORY? NO – THERE
WAS NO ACTUAL PROFIT. LIABLE FOR FENCING BECAUSE INTENT TO GAIN
IS ENOUGH TO BE LIABLE FOR FENCING

THEFT AND ROBBERY – in possession of a stolen property and there is a failure to

explain behind that presumption – THE POSSESSOR IS PRESUMED TO BE THE
AUTHOR OF THE CRIME.
 PROPERTY SHOULD BE RECENTLY STOLEN. NAWALA WALLET, one hour,
then found at PEDRO. SO SI PEDRO PRESUMED THIEF.
 BUT IF MASYADONG NA MATAGAL – WaLA NAG PRESUMPTION – thief may
have sold it to another na. SO 1 year u saw someone with the wallet - THERE
 IS A PRESUMPTION HE COMMITTED THE CRIME OF FENCING. (NOT
ANYMORE THEFT kase too long, but recently stolen is not an element in
fencing)

2nd form of fencing: buying and selling 2nd hands goods without permit from PNP
 BUYING 2nd hands goods from unregistered dealer
o EX: buying from SM and selling to sarisari store, no need to get from
PNP, cause u got it from a registered dealer, SM
 2 hand goods – even if goods are brand new doesn't mean it isn’t 2nd hand –
nd

you just bought a new Toyota. BUY THIS CAR FROM ME. IM GOING TO JAPAN.
EVEN IF THE CAR IS BRAND NEW – it is classified as second hand
 SELLING THE PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC
o BIBILI MO YUNG HEAVY EQQUIPMENT FOR PERSONAL USE.
 SC: no need for permit

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
 V ACCESSORY
 CONCERNING DESTROYING OF EVIDENCE – helping the accused to escape.
 IT IS SIMILAR TO THE CONCEPT TO ACCESSORY
 ANGELES V GAITE – SC: offender in OOJ – must be a person other than the
one being prosecuted and tried – a principal in a crime cannot be held liable
for obstruction of justice.
 EX: pare, help me, I HAVE SOMEONE I KILLED, TAPON SA DAGAT, baril also.
CGE ILL HELP YOU. The one who committed homicide – is he liable as an
accessory to the crime of homicide? NO, he is the principal. Liable bah siya as
principal in the crime of obstruction of justice? NO. SINCE HE IS THE
PRINCIPAL – being tried for murder - HE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE for
obstruction of justice.
 THE ONE WHO HELPED THE KILLER ? – YESH, pwede bah both accessory to
homicide and principal obstruction to justice? NO.
 WHY? OOJ penalty – prison correctional in its maximum or prision mayor
penalty – when u are charged as an accessory to MURDER – prision mayor
penalty. BY PROVIDING A PENALTY OF PRISION CORREC IN MAX TO
PRISION MAYOR - THE INTENTION IS TO PROSECUTE YOU FOR THE
HIGHER PENALTY.
 Ex: MURDER, LOOKOUT, POLICE HABULED, lookout prevented the police
from arresting the murder.no conspiracy accessory – he cannot be an
accessory and convicted of obstruction of justice.
 CORPUS DELICTI – evidence that the crime has been committed. IF YOU
PRESENTED THE DEAD BODY WITH BULLETS – that is an evidence that
homicide or murder has been committed – that is the corpus delict. How
about pushing someone in a volcano? But may camera. BODY OF THE CRIME
– is the video.
 OOJ: Concealing objects to impair availability as evidence.
  TINAPON YUNG DEAD BODY AND BARIL – pwede siya accessory –
concealing or destroying the body of the crime and the instrument in
committing the crime, pwede sad OOJ – destryong object or property to
impair its validty. THERE IS AN OVERLAPPING
 PWEDE WALANG OVERLAPING: CASE: TRUCK THERE IS ILLEGAL LUMBER.
CONFISCATE – kaso yung mayari – got the trap na walang paalam. Is the
accused as an accessory in the crime of illegal logging? TO PREVENT
DISCOVERY OF CRIME OF ILLEGAL LOGGING – SC: THE LOG WAS
CONFISCATED IT CAUSE THEY DISCOVERED IT WAS ILLEGAL – how can u
prevent the discovery of something which is already discovered. U CANNOT
PREVENT THE DISCOVERY IF IT IS ALREADY DISCOVERED. – LIABLE FOR
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? YES, he concealed a property or truck ti impair
its availability as evidence and thefore liable as obstruction of justice.
 ACCESSORY, - harboring or concealing a principal provided the crime
committed is to escape – murder, treason ,parricide, attempt to take the life
of the president – or taking advantage of public functions. – habitual
delinquency. (ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE)
 OOJ – HARBORING or concealing or escape of any person, provided the
offender knows that person knows or has reason to belive that person
committed a crime. (HERE JUST REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE HE
COMMITTED A CRIME)
o MAYOR TAKING ADVANTAGE, A committed murder, B pursuant to a
community of design, accomplice, mayor taking advantage of his
mayor, he made a way to have the accomplice – takas. NOT AN
ACCESSORY – CAUSE art. 19 used the word principal – harboring or
concealing or assisting the principal to escape – in this case, he did not
the principal to escape – but the accomplice – BUT LIABLE FOR OOJ.
THE LAW USED THE WORD PERSON not principal.
o BAR: HELPED SOMEONE TO ESCAPE – NOT FALLING UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ACCESSORY – LIABLE FOR OOJ 0 GENERIC –
no specific list of crimes, the person committed a crime under the law,
regardless of the crime committed – okay nay an.
o BAR Q: YUNG NANAY – and yung auntie – helped the accused
murderer takas. WHAT IS THE CRIME COMMITTED by the nanay?
NANAY NOT LIABLE DUE TO EXEMPTING CIRUMSTANCE under RPC
– OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE – NO EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
UNDER THIS LAW, exempting circumstance under RPC is available
only to accessory, here the mother was an accomplice?
o AUNTIE – not covered by exempting circumstance – charged with
accessory RPC, or OOJ.
o RAPE WITH HOMICIDE – BROTHER IN LAW HELPED TAPON THE
BODY – the exempting circumstance is only applicable if he is charged
as an accessory, BUT HE CAN BE CHARGED WITH OOJ.
PENALTY
IF PUNISHABLE UNDER SPECIAL LAW – CAN U USE THE PENAL PROVISION UNDER
RPC TO APPLY
SIMON CASE:
1) if spl adopts technical nomenclature – adopt penal provisions under the code.
 NEW RULE: JACABAN v PPL – ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF UNLICENSED
FIREARM UNDER THE OLD LAW – penalty niya prision correctiona max –
nag confess siya, can u use it as mitigating circumstances, as a rule – MALUM
PROHIBUTM no mitigating circumstances, but it adopts the tech nomen – the
intentionis to adopt the penal system under the RPC. SO VOLUNTARY
CONFESSION CAN BE APPRECIATED BECAUSE THE SPL borrowed the
penalty under the RPC. PENALTY APPLIED IN ITS MIN PERIOD.
 CAN THIS BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT LAW 10591 – LOOSE
FIREARMS – YES BECAUSE IT ALSO ADOTED THE TECHNICAL
NOMENCLATURE UNDER THE RPC.
 OLD LAW: CONSIDER NATURE OF THE OFFENSE – malum prohibitum or
malum in se.

 MANTALABA: MALUM PROHIBTUM, MINORITY, DRUGS – 1) BY ADOPTING

THE TECHNICAL NOMENCLATURE OF THE CODE life imprisonment to–
RECLUSION PERPETA- U REDUCE RECLUSION PERPETUA TO RT -2) BY
EXPRESS PROVISION OF Sec. 98 of RA 9165 – you apply RPC FOR MINOR
 XPN: 1) IF THE ACCUSED IS AN ADULT – u will not apply RPC, minor you will
SEC. 9165
o Illegal possession of DRUGS -how can u impose the penalty – u apply
the second rule 20 years max, 12 years. 15-20. IF the accused is a
minor in conflict with the law, will ur answer be the same? SINCE THE
ACCUSED IS A MINOR< there is a mandate to apply the RPC –
reclusion temporal – PM – PC.
o 2018 BAR Q: importation of drugs and use of drugs. – if the accused is
guilty of important and use of drugs. IMPORTARTATION – LP-RP-RT
(PMC APPRECIATED), USE OF DRUGS – rehabilitation! NO PMC in USE
OF DRUGS (THE PENALTY HERE IS NOT COVERTIBLE TO A SPANISH
PENALTY - not a graduate penalty – it will go against rehabilitation. )
o ILLEGAL POSSESSION of LOOSE FIREARMS 20 years to LP
o ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PARAPHERNALIA 4 years to 6 years. NOT
CONVERTIBLE.

TO appreciate quasi recidivism – the crime is a felony – THAT IS AN OLD RULE –

what is the new rule: PPL v SALAZAR – MALUM PROHIBITM but the penalty is
reclusion temporal – by using this – tech name – the intention is to use the penal
provision including Art. 160 – therefore RT in its max period.

SECOND RULE:
 IF the spl did not adopt the rpc nomenclature – it is not to adopt the Spanish
system on penalty
 IF THE PENALTY IS AN AMERICAN – THE SPANISH PENAL SYSTEM CANNOT
BE APPLIED – HOW DO U APPLY?
 PECHO v SANDIGANBAYAN – VIOLATION OF 3e of 3019 – ausing undue
injury to any person including the goct thru gross negligence, evident bad
faith, partiality. – imported cassette recorders – surpise inspection –correct
amount of tax – there was an attempt to cause (LOWERING OF THE TAX) SC:
u cannot accuse the accused with an attempted stage. AMERICAN PENALTY
sec. 9 – did not adopt rpc nomenclature but an American penalty, no
intention to adopt the rpc penalty. Since the penalty is American no way to
apply the RPC penal system. It is not a graduatable penalty – no two degree
lower. ESTFA THRU FALSIFICAITON OF DOCUMENTS
 BAR Q: CONFESSION – RA 3019 – U CANNOT – BY NOT ADOPTING THE RPC
TERMS, IT IS NOT A DIVISABLE PERIOD – U CANNOT APPRECIATE A
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
 IN THE CASE OF PPL v MALLARI – SC – considering syndicated organized
crime groups – SAC – not alleged in the information – u cannot appreciate
that. EVEN IF ORGANIZED SYNDICATED GROUP IS ALLEGED AND PROVEN
BY EVIDENCE CAN U CONSIDER IT AS SAC – IN THE CRIME OF
CARNAPPING? U CANNOT. UNDER SEC. 3 of RA _____ - the penalty is
American. CARNAPPING BY MEANS OF INTIMIDATION – AMERICAN
PENALTIES>
 PPL v REYES – SB appreciated seniority as mitigating circumsntace in 3019 –
SC: NO U CANNOT! AT THE TIME HE COMMITTED THE CRIME, HE WAS NOT
A SENIOR – YUNG MGA MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE – NAKA CONNECT YAN
SA GENERAL ELEMENT OF A FELONY – SENIOR CITIZEN LAW – at least 60
years – U ARE ENTITLED TO 20 percent discount. On ur 70th bday – OVER 70
dapat kase to be exempting unless there are analogous circumstances. EVEN
IF THE ACCUSED IS A SENIOR CITIZEN – u cannot consider this the penalty
for violation of 3019 – is an American penalty – so no minimum penalty.
 IF YOU ARE OVER 70 – exempt bah from criminal liability? NOOO. THERE IS
NO RULE - NASA Art. 13 second par =- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE SIYA,
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE NASA 12. THERE IS ALSO NO MANDATORY
PARDON. REQUISITES: 1) HE IS OVER 70, 2) person referred to in the
preceding paragraph - he is a quasi recidivist. Art. 160. 3) u served the
original sentence – if u are quasi recidivist – yung original sentence, the
second sentence that made u a quasi recividist – DAPAT U SERVED THE
ORIGINAL SENTENCE. 4) U CAN BE PARDONED
 JUSTICE ALBERT MARIANAO – SECOND PAR of PARDONED – it is
unconstitutional. CONSTITUTION – is to purpose is the lmit the powers of the
government. ONE WAY OF LIMITING THE POWER OF GOVT is by conferring
power – that is a limitation – the officer cannot exercise power not conferred
by the constitution. IT will also impose limitations. LIMITATIONS ARE
EXCLUSIVE. THE PRESIDENT MAY GRANT PARDON – condition – ater
conviction of final judgment – the crime must not be an election offense or
impeachable offense – election offense –recommendation of comelec.
o CASE: SC the constitutional condition of pardoning power of Pres is
exclusive. CONGRESS cannot dictate the president, CASE: PARDONING
POWER SUBJECT TO THE PRESIDNETS DISCRETION
 o IMELDA MARCOS – CAN THEY SUSPEND SERVICE OF SENTENCE?
UNDER WHAT LAW? SUSPENSION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE – by
reason of minority. 9344, does not apply to seniority.
o BAR Q: IF THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER SPL – how can u
impose penalty taking the ISLAW? 1) EVEN IF THE OFFENSE IS
PUNISHABLE UNDER SPL – IF THE SPL ADOPTS THE TECH
NOMENCLATURE, THE INTENTION IS TO ADOPT THE PENAL
SYSTEM UNDER THE RPC IN RELATION TO THE ISLAW. IN
DETERMINING THE MAX PENALTY UNDER THE ISLAW within the
range of the proper period. HOWEVER if the SPL did not adopt the
penalty of the RPC, so u apply the second rule, the maximum penalty
shall not exceed the max penalty prescribed by law, same with min.
NOT MORE THAN 10 not less than 5 years.. confession shall not be
considered cause it is not borrowed by the RPC, mitigating
circumstance, ISLAW notm ore than 10 , 5years – if I am the judge 5-
10 years of imprisonment.
o BAR Q: FIX THE PENALTY – not more than 10 years, not less than 5
years, THE JUDGE SET IT AT 10 years. Or just 5 years. PPL v
NANGKAY – as a rule – the application of islaw is mandatory – there is
an exception – unfavorable to the accused, don't apply islaw. BY
FIXING THE PENALTY at 10 years, if u apply the islaw, 5 years min, his
release will be depended on his parole – 5 years. Uwi.
o 2 requisites the NANGKAY PRINCIPLE:
o 1) WHAT IS INVOKED IS THE SECOND RULE OF ISLAW
 PPl v LEE - the penalty is prision mayor, 6years and one day –
the nangkay case –second rule, here what is involved is the
first rule of the ISLAW. Which is always favorable to the
accused. CAUSE U ALAWAYS GO TO ONE DEGREE LOWER to
fix the penalty. SO SINCE THE APPLICATION OF THE SECOND
RULE – applying it is mandatory.
 PPL v TISTIS -
o 2) ACCUSED DESERVED LENIENCY BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES
 NANGKAY – confession, accused deserved leniency.
ACCORDING TO JUSTICE – circumstance will show accused
deserved leniency, in this case, there is no confession, fake
fundador was confiscated, economic sabotage, nangkay
principle is not applicable.

PD 968 as amended – PROBATION LAW

MUTUALLY EXCLUSVIE REMEDIES – PROBATION + APPEAL

Sec. 4 968 – NO APPLICATION for provision shall be granted or entertained if the
defendant has perfected his appeal. UPON filing the application of the probation –
waiver of his right to appeal – it will exclude the remedy of appealing.
PPL v COLINARES – 2011 – THE ACCUSED WAS convicted of frustrated homicide so
one degree lower – prision mayor, PENALTY NOT PROBATIONABLE. SC: THE SC
found that it was attempted homicide – PC – reduced to 2 years 4 months of PC –
NOW PENALTY IS PROBATIONABLE – LAGROSA. SC – ABANONED THIS DOCTRINE.
– RTC COMMITTED A MISTAKE – so accused should not be prejudice by this.

VILLAREAL CASE – abandoned colinares, went back to lagrosa

NOV 2015 – RA 10 amended … ADOPTING THE COLINARES DOCTRINE. (LAW

OFFICIALLY ADOPTED THE DOCTRINE)

EX: HERNAN V SANDIGANBAYAN – HE WAS CONVICTED OF MALVERSATION – 11

year 6 months and 21 days – but art. 217 of the RPC of SEC. 40. If the amount of
malversation does not exceed 40k – pc in min and med period. Amount involved is
11,000 – reduced to 3 years,… of PC – final na yung decision – this is an exception of
the immutable principle – passage of a law – which will render the implementation
the decision imposing the higher under old law INEQUITABLE. THE LAW WAS
GIVEN A RETRO ACTIVE EFFECT – (FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED) – applying sec.
4 of PD 968 when the judgment of conviction imposing a non probational penalty 11
years of PM, is reviewed or appealed and such judgment is modified by imposing a
porbabational penalty – 3 years, DEFENDANT CAN APPLY FOR PROBATION ON
MODIFIED PENALTY.

PROBATION PAROLE and PARDON?

1. granting of probation is judicial. UPON PROMULGATION TO APPEAR OR
APPLY FOR PROBATION. COURT CAN DENY OR GRANT THE PROBATION.
2. PAROLE is executive – serving the min penalty of ISLAW – the board of
parole will recommend the approval of his application. President will grant
or deny.
3. PARDON – constitutional power of the president – EXECUTIVE.

PROBATION – imposing of condition – probation and extension of period –

CASE: PALISOG – LACK OR EXCESS Or DISCRETION – petition for review can be
availed of. ??? HUH. APPEAL IS PROHIBITED. SO UNSA NI ? CERTIORAI.

WHEN TO AVAIL? PARDON – u can be pardoned after conviction of final judgment –

express requirement of the constitution. CANNOT BE PARDONED DURING.

PAROLE – min penalty served – eligible to apply for parole – now sa provision tatlo
– may general rule – u can apply for probation within the reglementary period to
appeal. IF U FILED MR. DENIED. U HAVE A FRESH 15 days from recipt of order
denying – u have fresh 15 days to PROBATION ALSO instead of appealing. NOW
THAT IS THE GENERAL RULE - if what is involved is a modified decision rendered
by appellate court – from a non probation penalty. – u can apply for probation.
RTC convicted he accused of frustrated homicide – 6 years and one day – it was
appealed to CA. CA find that it is not mortal – reduced it to 2 years and 4 months. U
Filed MR. DENIED. CAN U STILL FILE A PROBATION APPLICATION? NO. UNDER
PROBATION LAW, if the accused seeks a review of the modified decision reducing
the penalty from non probational to probabtional – HE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO
PROBATION.

IF PROBATION IS FILED BY A CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW. SEC. 42 9344 –

CILC can file probation application at anytime.
-PD 968 deemed amended by 9344. – SO NOT WAIVED BY APPEAL – cause
ANYTHIME even during appeal u can probation.

1. APPLICATION FOR PROBATION INVOVLING A DECISION THAT IS

PROBABTIONAL rendered by RTC
a. NEYPES RULE APPLICABLE – even if there is an MR – u can apply for
probation. BAWAL IS APPEAL, MR IS ALLOWED.
2. APPLICATION FOR PROBATION REDUCING THE PENALTY FROM NON
PROBATIONAL TO PROBATIONAL RENDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT
a. When to file probation: Before finality of decision, MR is not allowed,
appeal is not allowed
3. APPLICATION FOR PROBATION FILED BY A CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE
LAW.
a. CHILD when? ANYTIME, even during appeal.

GROUNDS REASONS WHY PROBATION PARDON PAROLE IS NOT ALLOWED.

PARDON
>ELECTION OFFENSE unless favorable recommendation by COMELEC
>IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE – administrative offense, but not pardonable by express
provision of constitution.

PROBATION
Penalty: GITNA – u will consider the max penalty to determine if the crime is
probational - Ex: 3-6 years and one day. NOT PROBATIONABLE.
 EXCEPTION: Sec. 70 RA 9165 – PPL v PADUA 168546 July 23, 1990-4 – if the
crime is 1) use or possession of dangerous drugs the victim is a 2) minor, and
the is 3) a first time offender – he can apply for probation, even if more than
6 years. POSSESSION’s penalty: at least 12-20years if hindi 5 grams yung
shabu. Convert to RT – still more than 6 years.
 KAHIT FINE – probational yan
 PREVIOUS CRIME – cannot apply except if the previous crime is mababa yung
penalty. Ex: penalty not exceeding 6 months and one day and 1,000 pesos.
Amended by RA707. Ex: Crime, penalty 6 months and 2 days. No probation. If
there is a previous crime – 6 months and one day (SO PWEDE probation)
 YOU CAN ONLY AVIAL OF PROBATION ONCE
 o 10 BP 22 cases. CAN U APPLY FOR PROBATION considering u have a
previous conviction? NO.?? there is no previous conviction, it was
simulatenous – if u add everything 10 years – more than 6 years, NO!!
U consider the penalty of each count of BP 22 not the whole.
o DISQUALIFIED BY CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY (MAS
MALAWAK SIYA) +
 PROBATIONABLE BAH yung alarms and scandal? NO.
 BUT now crimes against public disorder is now removed. SO
YESH! ALARMS AND SCANDAL, direct assault – probational!
 REBELLION not probationable.
o Sec. 24 of 9165 – DRUG TRAFFICKING – not probationable – not
pushing. MANUFACTURE PLANTING.
o Possession of paraphernalia is not drug prushing.
 ESTIPONA –possession and sale of paraphernalia – IT IS
PROBATIONABLE
o PADUA CASE – convicted of sale of dangerous drugs – applying for
probation Sec. 70 of RA 9165. SC: 70 v 24. PAG TRAFFICKING SUCH AS
SALE di daw pwede probation, PAG MINOR PWEDE MAG PROBATION,
the applicable rule is SEC. 24 – drug trafficking or sale. PROBATION IS
NOT ALLOWED. SC: Sec. 70 only applicable if crime is possession or
use (THEY ARE VICTIMS) WHILE TRAFFICKERS ARE PREDATORS.
o Ex: 2015 BAR Q: the crime committed is possession, minor, life
imprisonment? YES. MANTALABA. PMC appreciable. Expired na yung
15 days, can he apply for probation? YES. 1) Expired na yung 15 days,
Sec. 42 of 9344 – HE CAN APPLY AT ANY TIME, 2) YES, even if the
penalty is more than 6 years he can apply for probation. Sec. 70 9165.
o EFFECTS: SUSPENSION + MODE OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
o UPON FILING OF PROBATION: SUSPENSION HAPPENS:
GRANTED/DENIED – lifted or released.
o VILLAREAL v PPL – accessory follows the principal – if the probation
will suspend the service of the princiap penalty of imprisonment it
will likewise suspend the accessory penalty such as disqualification
because accessory follows the principal. IF UNDER PROBATION – HE
CAN STILL RUN AS MAYOR. SUSPENSION: SERVICE OF CRIMINAL
imprisonment, but it will not suspend the civil aspect. Ex: EXECUTION
FOR CIVIL ASPECT OF DECISION – ACCUSED SAID NO daw. BUT
PROBATION MERELY SUSPENDS SERVICE OF SENTENCE OF
CRIMINAL ASPECT BUT NOT THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE DECISION.
Art. 113 of the RPC – notwithstanding service of sentence, probation,
pardon, any ANY OTHER REASON, the CONVICT is still liability to pay
the civil aspect. EX: LAPTOP – does not mean the stolen laptop is his.

PAROLE –
PENALTY: masyadong mataas, lp,rp, d – NOT PAROLABLE. RA 9346 – prohibits
imposition of death penalty. NOT APPLICABLE MASYADONG MABABA – 1 month,
islaw not applicable
IF ONLY FINE – not parolable – dapat may range!! IF FINE LANG – how will u serve
the minimum period? DAPAT IMPRISONMENT YUNG SENTENCE.
ISLAW IS NOT APPLICABLE TO DISQUALIFICTION (NOT AN IMPRISONMENT
SENTENCE) IDEA OF PAROLE –min penalty in bilibid –if good ka u can serve it
outside. IN DISQUALIFICATION – how do u know u were in good standing?

EX: The crime committed is illegal use of dangerous drugs sec. 15 – applicable bah
yung parole – the penalty for first time offenders is REHABILITATION. NOOO.

PREVIOUS CRIME –YOU CAN STILL APPLY FOR PAROLE – every time u are
convicted, there is ISLAW, there is no disqualification. As many time as you are
convicted.

DISQUALIFIED BY SPECIFCI CRIMES: TREASON – misprision,proposal,conspiracy.

REBELLION, SEDITION (ISA LANG)

HABITUAL DELINQUENCY – escape or evade – recidivisim?? SO PWEDE PA! cause

not habital delinquent.

SUSPENSION OF THE UNSERVED PORTION OF THE SENTENCE. PERO IF U COMPLY

WITH CONDITIONS OF PAROLE - the idea is that u serve the penalty outside which
is equivalent to serving sentence – mode of extinguishing criminal liability.

PARDOn – extinguishes criminal liability. DAPAT MAY CONVICTIOn –

 IT WILL REMIT THE PENALTY
 Art. 89, 41, and 36 of RPC
 3 rules
 the imposition of principal penalty of RP carries with it it absolute and
petpertial disqualification.
o RP + DISQUALIFICATION
 Finding the accused sentenced to RP(DOES NOT PUT
DISQUALIFICATION) U DON'T HAVE TO MENTION THE
ACCESSORY PRINCIPAL
 Pardon will extinguish criminal liability and will remit the principal penalty
of RP.
 PARDON will not remit the accessory principal the disqualification – will not
restore the right of the accused to hold public office.
 WHILE pardon remits the principal penalty of RP, but it will not remit the
accessory penalty of disqualification. ACCESSORY FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPAL
IS NOT APPLICABLE.
o XPN: unless pardon expressly remits the accessory penalty or restores
his right to hold public office.
 o CASE: BEFORE ERAP WAS PARDONED – don't come into politics.
PUMAYAG SI ERAP. HE AGREED – DUN SA PARDON – WALANG NAKA
LAGAY na accessory penalty of disqualification is remitted, nor the
right to public office is restored, but POLTICIAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS
ARE RESTORED. POLITICAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE right to hold
office. SO THEREFORE ESTRADA CAN RUN.
o 2015 BAR Q: SAME QUESTION, but the political and civil rights were
not placed. CAN HE RUN AS SENATOR? NO. THE CASE IS NOT
APPLICABLE. IN THE PARDON THERE IS NO EXPRESS REMISSION OF
ACCESSORY PENALTY or RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD
PUBLIC OFFICE. HE CANNOT RUN. PARDON ONLY REMIITTED TH
EPANTLY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA.
o WOULD UR ANSWER IS THE SAME if what is involved is amnesty –
YES – PPL v PATRICA – EXTINGUSIHES THE CRIME ITSELF, as if he
did not commit the crime. Art. 89 – SPECIAL RULE yung amnesty –
TOTALLY EXTINGUISHES THE PENALTY AND ALL THE EFFECTS OF
THE PENATLY. SO EVEN THE ACCESSORY PENALTIES ARE
EXTINSGUISHED.
o AMNESTY – AMNESIA. FORGETTING, PARDON –FORGIVING.

BEFORE: VILLAREAL CASE – probation is not a mode of extinguishing crim liability

BUT ra1007 amended the probation law – discharge of the probationer will
extinguish criminal liability. WHICH IS NOT LISTED ON ART 89. BUT NEW MODE
MODE.
Ex: 2 homicides – 1) covered by pardon, are u a recidivist with respect to the second
homicide.? PARDON WILL ONLY EXTINGUISH CRIM LIABILITY BUT THE CRIME
ITSELF. SO U WILL CONSIDER THE FIRST HOMICIDE! SO YES recidivist.

U COMMIT REBELLION THEN DIRECT ASSAULT. REBELLION WAS AMNESTIED?

BOTH CRIMES UNDER CRIMES GAINST PUBLIC ORDER. AMNESTY WILL
EXTINGUISH THE CRIME ITSELF. SO NO U ARE NOT A RECIDIVIST :>

SINCE REBELLION WHICH IS EXITNGUISHED BY AMNESTY cannot be considered as

abasis of declaring that the accused is a recidivist, because as the law is concerned –
he did not commit rebellion.

2 serious Physical injuries, u are discharged by reason of probation. WILL U

CONSIDER THE FIRST PHYSICAL INJURIES with respect to the second recidivist?
Justice Peralta – HE IS NOT A RECIDIVIST – NOT A SUPREME COURT DECISION, just
lecture.

CAMPANILLA VIEW: THE LAW MERELY SAID PROBATION MERELY EXTINGUISHES

the criminal liability but does nto say it discharges the effects thereof. IN
OTHERWORDS, same lang siya ng pardon not an amnesty. SO HE IS A RECIDIVIST.
PROBATION EXTINGUISHES THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY BUT NOT THE CRIME
ITSELF. > THE INTENTION OF THE LAW is not to extinguish its effects, so the crime
remains.

2 conditions in Amnesty 1)inherent and 2) express

 Inherent: Vera v Ppl – according to the SC – admission of guilt is an inherent
condition to avail amnesty. U ARE ALSO ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS.
 PARdon can only be done by conviction – so no need to admit guilt you are
convicted.
 Express: lahat pardon or amnesty may mga conditions. Amnesty issued by
quirino – members of HUK granted amnesty provided they surrender within
30 days. DAPAT u have to show that the crime was committed as furtherance
of the resistance against the jap army. If personal reason not covered.
 WHO DETERMINES IF YOU COMPLIED WITH CONDITIONS?
 1) EXECUTIVE
o AMNESTY commission – affidavit that u complied within 30 days.
o Yung findings of AMNESTY COMMISSION is it reviewable the
President? YES cause of control power. THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT
CAN REVERSE THAT of a past president.
o THE FINDINGS OF THE pres and amnesty commission can be
reviewed by judicial. THE RTC ultimately determines if nag comply or
hindi nag comply. MACADAIG case.
 2) JUDICIAL
o YOU CAN RAISE THAT ISSUE IN COURT. – SC: commission: u are
entitled to the benefits of that amnesty. Filed a case of murder agasint
him. Then it was shown that it was for personal reasons. If pwede
reviewin sa court, raise amnesty as a defense, court will determine if it
was personal or in furtherance of resistance. Findings of commission
not binding
o AMNESTY is a mode of extinguishing crim liability – upon
proclamation of amnesty, mag concur pa yung congress + YOU HAVE
TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PA.
o VERA n DIEGO – the criminal liability of the accused upon issuance of
the certificate eof amnesty commission that he complied with the
conditions -3 stages of amnesty
o 1) proclamation
o 2) concurrence
o 3) implementation
 Duterte revoked the amnesty of trillianes:
 ANTI DUTETRE:
o CAN THE PRESIDENT REVOKE THE AMNESTY PROCLAMATION
UNDER A PAST ADMINISTRATION::
o 1) YES PROVIDED CONGRESS ALREADY CONCURRED IN BY
CONGRES. PRINCIPLE OF IRREPEALability – manifestations of
republicanism
o REVOKE yung amnesty ni TRILLIANES:
o ANTI –DUTERTE
 DUTERTE is not revoking the amnesty proclamation concurred

in by congress
 REVOKING THE FINDINGS OF THE ADHOC COMMISSION. –
WALA NA MAN APPLICATION. Wala naman admission.
 SC: denied the injunction. BROUGHT TO THE RTC – if may
admission of guilt – complied with the conditions.
o PRO DUTERTE
 AMNESTY POWER OF AQUINO – he should not have not
delegated to the secretary. – WRONG. AQUINO DID NOT
DELEGATE THE AMNESTY POWER – but the power to
implement the amnesty proclamation. ONCE DELEGATED
cannot further be delegating - YOU JUST DELEGATE the power
to implement the law.
PLUNDER
 ELEMENTS
 1)Accumulation of ill gotten wealth by himself/consanguinities or affinity
 Business association pertains to the alleged cronies
 NAPOLES – Allegation of plunder with the senators.
o First Issue: No plunder here – the one who is the mastermind is a
private individual.
o SIR WILL NOT AGREE – acquisition amassing or accumulation of
public wealth by a public officer in connivance with anyone else.
o It did not say that the public officer should be the mastermind.
o >Napoles is not liable for plunder because she is a private person.
o SIR said: NOT AGREEABLE – the act of public officer is imputable to
private ppl due to conspiracy. US v Ponte
o Principal Offender -> Public officer who accumulate or amassed ill
gotten wealth
o Secondary offender – those who he connived with. – he is described
as a person – the law does not distinguish na dapat public officer,
pwede private – if the law should not extinguish, the court should not
distinguish.
 Second sentence of plunder –any person who participates in the commission
of the offense of plunder is also liable for plunder.
 2) Thru a series of combination of predicate crimes.
 Ejercito v SB –
 THE word series means two or more predicate crimes of the same character
o Kickbacks + kickbacks
 The world combination – 2 or more predicate crime of diff character-
kickbacks + misappropriation +
o AT LEAST TWO ACTS – hindi pwede isa lang
o Two or more predicate crimes will become ONE CRIME – PLUNDER.
 What are the predicate crimes? 1) MALVERSATION
 GMA CASE – yung malversation as a predicate crime of plunder same under
the RPC. IT can be committed by dolo or culpa – intention to (1)
INTENTIONAL – (2) CULPA or passive malversation.
 US v PONTE – janitor and police sila lahat – robbery force upon things, but
one of the accused is a treasurer – HE WAS CONSIDERED AS AN ELEMENT
OF MALVERSATION – THE CONSPIRATORS APPLYING TH EIMPUTABILITY
DOCTRINE IS LIABLE FOR MALVERSATION. – IT IS SIMILAR TO THEFT,
ROBBERY FORCE UPON THINGS, TAKING IS COMMITTED BY AN
ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER,
o TAKING IS COMMITTED BY A THIEF but the accountable officer
consents to the taking. = THE ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER IS ALSO
LIABLE FOR MALVERSATION – the liability of the thief is also liable
for malversation – BECAUSE THERE IS CONSENT – there is
conspiracy. DOCTRINE OF IMPUTABILITY
o TAKING – did not consent, but there is negligence of leaving the key,
negligence thru abandonment. BAGYO, key in the drawer, someone
was able to steal it, permitting the taking thru abandonment or
negligence – culpable malversation. TREASURER liable for culpable
malversation, thief liable for theft, CULPA incompatible with
conspiracy, so crim liability is separate.
o BAR Q: Borrowed the vehicle to his driver. IS THIS A PREDICATE
CRIME OF PLUNDER? YES PASSIVE CRIME OF MALVESATION.
o
o MISuses – 2014 – public bidding not awarded to the lowest bidder –
but his cousin. THIS IS MISUSE.
o CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD thru plobacion, divert yung road – YES,
predicate crime, MISUSE.
o RAID ON PUBLIC TREASURY –not present, no evidence to show GMA
benefitted on such raid.
o FRAUDULENT DISPOSITION of govt assets – Example is behest loans –
allegation Marcos adopted the cronies capitalism. Edict of the king.
o PPL v Estrada – he ordered GSS, SSS to buy the shares of the BELL
Corporations, na wala naman talagang negosyo. He was convicted
o PCGC v OMBUDSMAN – BEHEST LOAN – predicate crime of plunder,
fraudulent unlawful disposition of govt assets, also a violation of 3g of
RA 3019 – contract disadvantageous to govt.
 STANDARD:
 1) If the CORPORATION uses corporate layering + If the
corporation is undercapitalized + The stockholders or officers
are identified as cronies. + ENDORSEMENT directly or
indirectly.
 Hindi mo na alam sinu habulin mo
 2) LOAN –
 if the loan is undercollaterized. Borrwed1B but 38M
collateral. MAY PROBLEM.
  Yung project on which the borrower is applying for loan
is not feasible –
 EXTRAODINARY SPEED sa pag release ng loans.
 Division of the use of the loan money to another
purpose
 3) receiving kickbacks, shares of percentage in connection with govt contract
as his position as a public officers
 Estrada CASE – He received kickbacks from the Bell Transaction. 187M.
Jueteng collection.
 4)receiving shares of stock, establishing commercial monopoly, or issuing a
decree of favoring a particular individual or group.
 During the time of Marcos – he adopted the cronies capitalism.

ACQUIRING – The ill gotten amassed is at least 50M.

2017 BAR Q: GANGNAM contractor, given governor – 50M in connetion with
tourism: SINGLE kickback of receiving - NOT PLUNDER
10M tourism, 25M sports – NOT PLUNDER ONLY 35 M
25M tourism, 25M sports – PLUNDER NA!

AMOUNT INVOLVED in predicate crime shall be used to determines if the threshold

is met.
Q: ALWAYS Used by driver, ninakaw sa crime niya, passive malversation, amount of
2M pesos (value of crime) – U WILL NOT, hindi naman yan ill gotten, it went to the
driver
Q: PUBLIC BIDDING to his family, OVERPRICED. CAN U CONSIDER THIS AS A
PREDICATE CRIME OF MISUSE? YES< what about the price? 10M or 5M? just the
overpriced amount of 5m
Q: PLBACION divert going thru the farm land – 200Million value of road? NOT
CONSIDER THIS. This is not illgotten wealth, the road is not his. NOT PLUNDER.
Q: He receives kickbacks in the amount of 10M – CASE TO CASE BASIS – CONSIDER
ILL GOTTEN WEALTH.

CAN THE public officer alone commit plunder? YES, by himself.

HOW ABOUT IN CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY TO OTHERS? YES.

SINGLE CONSPIRACY – senator talking to others ppl – pork barrel – SINGLE,

SENTATOR TALKING TO SECRETARY and PORK BARREL QUEEN? – SINGLE

FOR PURPOSES if the threshold amount – u will not only consider the 40M received
by the senator, but also the 40M received by the pork barrel twin. SO u have 80M.
THIS IS BEAUSE OF CONSPIRACY – act of napoles in receiving 40M is the act of the
senator.

IS THE PORK BARREL QUEEN LIABLE FOR PLUNDER? YES he is secondary offender.
Q: PRESIDENT WAS TALKING TO ABC corporation– XYZ jueteng – ABC and XYZ
don't know each other. ABC – 40M, tig 20, 40M, tig 20M – MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
– THE CONSPIRACY OF ABC IS DIFFERENT FROM XYZ.

WHEEL CONSPIRACY

The principal offender - HUB

THE SECONDARY OFFENDER – spoke

IS THERE PLUDNER? YES collective responsibility rule, u will consider the 20M he
received, another 20M, he received, the act of ABC is also the President, the act of
xyz, also the act of president as if he received 80 M -> THEREFORE THAT IS
PLUNDER

GMA CASE: 360 M PGH Funds ng PCHO – Hindi inialleged if the conspiracy is single,
wheel, or chain, there was a word conspiracy alleged tho, another problem, can u
apply single conspiracy for purposes of applying collective responsibility rule, dapat
identical yung plunder – there is a principal plunder and secondary plunder- public
officer with thom the seconday officer connives – THE PRINCIPAL SHOULD BE
IDENTIFIED. OTHERWISE WALANG PLUNDER.

CAN U APPLY WHEEL CONSPIRACY? NO, principal offender is not identified, paano
maging wheel. SO THERE WAS NO COLLECTIVE RULE RESPONSIBILITY HERE. SC
APPLIED THE INDIVIDUAL CONSPIRACY RULE – proportionate individual
responsibility rule – yung responsibility nila proportionate, they were 10, so 10% of
360M so 36M, so walang plunder – NA ACQUIT. (DON'T APPLY INDIVIDUAL
CONSPIRACY RULE TO ANOTHER CASE EXCEPT GMA CCASE0

Ex: 360 patay. 10 killers, no conspiracy. Proportionate individual rule – tig 36

killers, yung individual responsibility rule – number of deaths imputable to the
accused. WE DON'T APPLY IRR. – dapat plunder.

CHAIN CONSPIRACY

TERRORISM: RA 93972
ELEMENTS:
1. PREDICATE CRIME – REBELLION COUPDE TREA< piracy, mutiny, murder,
kidnapping, destruction of property, toxic substance and nuclear waste,
automatic energy (CHECK THE LAW)
2. In committing predicate crime –extraordinary widespread panic of fear to
the people. – pare my pinatay na police captain, they were ambushed!! NO
TERRORISM – that's normal – IT MUST CREATE EXTRAODINARY PANIC. Ex:
BOMB of city hall -> PANIC. IT SHOULD ALSO BE WIDESPREAD – not just in
one barangay.
 3. Purpose is to coerce the govt to give in in an unlawful demand. Ex: bombing
in LRT – NOT TERRORIM – NO – it was not claimed by any terrorist group.
Ex: AL QAEDA – wants the affairs of muslim to be free of interference
Ex: ABUSAYAFF – WANts Mindanao to be a free country
4. IN THE CASE OF LAGMAN v MEDLEDIA? - Terrorism and rebellion are non
mutually exclusively crimes. – SO U CAN BE CHARGED FOR BOTH CRIMES by
express provision of the law.
a. SIRS VIEW: VIOLATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. – rebellion +
Terrorism – applying the variance rule, identical yan eh. Direct
defiance on the law which adopted the law on double jeopardy.
b. Plunder + Malversation? MALVERSATION is a predicate crime of
plunder? NO. DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

HIJACKING – RA 76235
ELEMENTS:
There are two kinds of hijacking – PH airship and foreign airship
>PH AIRSHIP -> USURPING or controlling or seizing the airplane a change of
destination.
-Flight is an element. – technical meaning of fly – CLOSING THE DOORS after
embarkation –
-territoriality is not an element -
BAR Q: PILOT when to davao – but he was overpowered. WALANG successful
hijacking, success is not an element- hijacking: UNLAWFUL to compel a
change of destination. WHA IS IMPORTANT – he was compelling the pilot,
actual going to davao is not needed. THE CRIME IS ALREADY
CONSUMMATED.
BAR Q: BUKAS yung pintuan. Waiting for passenger – IS THE AIRPLANE – PH
or foreign? IF WALA then u have to distinguish. CAN THE ACCUSED BE
CONVICTED OF FRUSTRATED HIJACKING? NO. THE RA 6235 – did not adopt
the tech nomenclature of the RPC. NO FRUSTRATED STAGE. THE CRIME
COMMITTED IS MURDER.
BAR Q: PAL hijacked in America – this is hijacking – territoriality is not an
element involving PH aircraft, do we have jurisdiction: FLAG STATE Rule or
etraterritoriality principle- Art 2 of the PH – in international law, hijacking –
UNIVERSAL CRIME
BAR q: cathay pacific hijacked in America, hijacker in PH – IS THERE
HIJACKING? WALA – Territoriality is an element involving foreign aircraft.
JURISDICTION? HIJACKING is a universal crime, but if there is no crime –
then jurisdiction is not necessary.

>But foreign AIRSHIP – usurping controlling to LAND IN THE PH

-Flight is not an element, because the law considers it in flight even if it lands
in the PH
-territoriality is an element –“WHILE IN FLIGHT IN PH TERRIOTRY?

THEY HAVE DIFFERENT WORDINGS.

The essence of hijacking- usurping control – if u compel a change to destination
from HK to davao., IF U COMPEL THE Foreign airship to land in PH – usurping

CAR – CARNAPPING
VESSEL – PIRACY
Airplane –Hijacking

PIRACY AND CARNAPPING = THEFT AND ROBBERY, INTENT TO GAIN

ESSENCE OF HIJACKING – COERCION OR MUTINY, INTENT TO USURP, CONTROL

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS CONVENTION

Idea: Jurisprudence abroad can be used here.

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS LAW

TRAFFICKING DEFINITION – altho there is a specific act of trafficking – dapat 3
elements of trafficking present – trafficking. (READ WITH THE GEENERAL
DEFINITION OF TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS)
>ACT -> MEANS ->PURPOSE
THERE ARE TIMES wala yung mean – you correlate it to gen definition

ACT –
1) recruitment and offering
2) hiring and obtaining
3) Transfer, transportation and receipt.
4) Harboring, providing and maintaining

EX: there was recruitment and offering, there was hiring and obtaining, there was
transportation, and receipt, harboring - hindi ka pwede lumabas. GIRL -> JAPAN
example

MEANS
1) Threat use of force – any other form of coercion or abduction –
a. Art. 272 of RPC - selling buying abducting kidnapping a human being
for purposes of enslaving - AGAINST THE WILL.
b. TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS WAS COMMITTED! CONSENT IS NOT A
DEFENSE!
2) FRAUD or DECEPTION – NURSE -> PROSTITUTE.
3) ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR POSITION – COMFORT women. :<
4) Giving or receiving money benefits for purpose of acquiring the consent of
the person who has control over the victim. -> GLADIATOR.
5) Taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim. – yung slavery under RPC
–basic element – AGAINST THE WILL, when u agree to debt bondage, it is not
slavery because it was with consent. WE WILL DISREGARD CONSENT AS A
DEFENSE – dapat may taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.
 a. Prostitutes – KTC –trafficked victims niya, maintained by traffickers –
but it was with consent because they enjoy the money they earn. -
POVERTY
b. Prostitutes – Princess – TRIP LANG NIYA – no taking advantage of
vulnerability.
c. VULNERABILITY -> LOVE.
d. CASIO CASE: VICTIM IS A MINOR, even if the means is not present,
this will become the second element, trafficking in persons yung crime
committed.
e. If the VICTIM is a minor
f. 1) – taking advantage of vulnerability – will be present,
g. 2) means to commit trafficking – it is dispensed with,
h. 3) qualifying circumstances – qualified trafficking in persons

PURPOSE
For purposes of exploitation – labor, sexual, organ
i. Actual exploitation is not needed, intent to exploit is enough
j. Even if she didn't go to japan yet, there was recruitment, by fraud for
purpose of exploitation. IT CAN BE PROSECUTED na for human
trafficking in person
k. ORGAN TRAFFICKING: ppl disappearing on the streets
l. LABOR –
i. If u pay ur debt with urself? SPANISH TIME: Services rendered
under compulsion for the payment of debt (LABORER OR
FARMWORK) – either he works in farm, or the mansion. IF u
pay with ur child - ____
ii. BUT NOW< these are considered under trafficking in persons
iii. REBEL CHILDS – victims of trafficking in persons – yung adult
yung traffickers – so u cant prosecuted REBEL CHILDS for
rebellion – a trafficking victim is a victim.
m. SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
i. PROSTITUTION
1. Qualified slavery – abduction + drugs + benta as
prostitutes – IMMORAL PURPOSE – pwede rin
trafficking in persons
2. WHITE SLAVE TRADE – PROSTITUTES in house of
prostitution – WHITE – IF SHE IS FORCED TO BECOME
A PROSITUTE – QUALIFIED SLAVERY – IF SHE DOES
THIS VOLUNTARY – WHITE SLAVE TRADE
3. NOW BOTH ARE COVERED UNDER TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS.
ii. PRONOGRAPHY
1. IF VICTIM IS ADULT: QUALIFIED TRAFFKING IN
PERSONS INVOLVING PORNOGRAPHY
2. IF BATA – RULE OUT -> PUT IT UNDER CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY (GENERAL) –
 a. CARTOON PORNOGRAPHY –
b. even if you pretended u are a child – still child
pornography.

CHILD PROSTITUTION sec 5 or 7610

>TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS INVOLVING PROSTITUTION - 3 parties: TRAFFICKER,
customer, TRAFFICK VICTIM
> SLAVERY – TRAFFICER AND VICTIM

lets talk about the third persons:

>PPL v lulay: Brought the girl to the rapist – then she was raped – he was convicted
of child prostitution. NO allegation of conspiracy, both of them are liable for rape. Is
he liable for principal by indispensable cooperation for a fee? NO. NOT liable for
principal, no conspiracy, no indispensable cooperation, So liable for child
prostitution.

3rd person nag dala,

Rapist.
BATA

SIR: THIS CAN BE TRAFFICKING ALREADY! RECRUIT – brought another country to

become a prostitute. RECRUITER liable for trafficking in persons + illegal
recruitment

CASIO CASE: REGULARITY ->CHILD -> PROSTITUTION -> MAINTING ->

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
AGUIRRE CASE: benta to foreigners to kids – recruitment and transportation ->
TRAFFICKING.

DULAY CASE: OVERLAP: CHILD PROSTITUTION AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS if 3

ppl are involved. – ANSWER TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS NALNG kase general.

RA 7610 – qualified trafficking in persons v child trafficking in RA 7610

Section 7. Child Trafficking. – Any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with
children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for
money, or for any other consideration, or barter, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age.

SELLING KIDS – crime committed is CHILD TRAFFICKING – cause there was selling.
– mere selling is child trafficking.
Buying and selling kids is for sexual purpose – QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS

PROSTITUTION – under the RPC – is different under the trafficking under the
persons in trafficking law.
Art. 302 RPC – the prostitute must be a WOMAN. HABITUALITY IS AN ELEMENT –so
if isolated transaction ->NOT PROSTITUTION. LIABLE IS THE PROSTITUTE
RA 7610 – Child prostitution – gender is not an element. , child, liable is the pimp the
customer.
Trafficking of persons – regardless of age, liable is the trafficker (Trafficking of
persons) and the customer (Use of trafficking victim)

PROSTITUTION IS A CRIME AS A RULE

XPN:
VICTIM IS A CHILD – You are exempt from crim liability arising from prostitution
Sec. 17/58 9344
Ex: U saw a prostitute – birth certificate – if u are 17 – child trafficking, mamasan?
DIRECT DEALING. NO. customer is not liable for a crime under the law unless there
is an ordinance.
 CHILD EXPLOITED – CHILD PROSTITUTION
 VICTIM IS A TRAFFICKED VICTIM – USE OF TRAFFICKING VICTIM.

LOLO went to the massage parlor, I will sleep muna, there lang ka. CRIME
COMMITTED? CHILD ABUSE Sec. 10 B of RA 7610 – if u accompany a child in a
motel, massage parlor, yung mga secluded place – and the child is 12 years or under
that is child abuse – POLICE CAME IN – 14 years old. NOT ABSOLVED. LOLO (MORE
THAN 10 years of age gap) BATA and Adult -> 1) U CONSIDER 12 years or under, 2)
if 17 years old, yung age gap (more than 10 yrs) – child abuse yan. PREVENTION OF
PEDOPHILES.

DEFENSE: 1) UR OWN KID. 2) Bond recognized by law – uncle 3) in performance of

moral or civil duty – im a doctor trying to gamut kids.

ATTEMPTED CHILD ABUSE – OFFENDER IN MOTEL OR MASSAGE PARLOR WITH A

CHILD – U DO NOT TO CHECK THE age gap, cannot protect himself –
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ABUSE. (THE GUY
WAS NAKED)

MASSAGED BY A KID – ATTEMPTED CHILD PROSTITUTION – availing services o f

achild in a motel, attempted child prostitution.

Given money for the sexual transaction – CRIME: CHILD PROSTITUTTION –

CONSUMMATED NATO just by the mere receiving of money, actual intercourse is
not an element.

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE then give the money, POLICE CAME – CHILD

PROSTITUTION PARIN! Sec 5(b) actual receipt of money is not important, u had
intercourse with a kid.
CHILD: 7,000 pesos. LOLO. COMMISSION MAY ARI DIDTO. KAILGAN 10k, and im a
stay in. – STAY IN MAINTAINING – TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS – customer – use of
trafficked victim,

HAZING AS AMENDED
REQUISITES:
1. PLACING THE NEOPHYTE APPLICANTS subjecting him to psychological or
emotional suffering or infliction of physical harm – which is a prerequisites
for admission to a fraternity or sorority
2. PPL V BAYATOS – HAZING IS A PREREQ for admission to continuing
membership
3. INFORMATION: during hazing the neophyte was injured as a consequence,
he died. NO HAZING, there must be specific allegation, that hazing was being
conducted as prereq for admission /continuing membership – IN THIS CASE
HOMICIDE LANG YAN Hindi siya hazing
4. HAZING IN UST – we will accept then HAZING. MEMBER NA SILA. If the sc is
convinced that member na siya, no hazing, u will apply the villareal case, no
homicide, reckless imprudence resulting to homicide – IT WAS AMENDED –
they placed hazing as a prereq or continuing requirement for membership
5. COMPANY – requisites to be employed – STILL CONSIDERED AS HAZING –
general application – SIS AND BRO TAYO DIDTO
6. HAZING v HOMICIDE
a. NATURE OF THE CRIME: HOMICIDE IS MALUM IN SE – element of the
crime. Hazing – malum prohibitum – criminal intent is not an element
b. Case: VIllareal – nag pa alam siya sa tatay niya who is also a member,
there was a briefing – to sampal2x – HE CONSENTED – other
circumstances will show. WALANG DOLO, but meron culpa.
c. IF THE VILLAREAL CASE WILL BE GIVEN IN THE BAR: WOULD UR
ANSWER BE THE SAME? NO. THE CRIME IS NOW HAZING. LACK OF
DOLO IS NOT A DEFENSE. THE CONSENT OF THE VICTIM IS NOT A
DEFENSE. WAIVER IS NULL AND VOID.
d. In HOMICIDE – the criminal act is killing – intent to kill
e. IN Hazing – the criminal act is the infliction of physical harm – with or
without intent to kill, the death of victim will only increase the
penalty, once u inflict injury that is already hazing
f. In Homicide – PAG WALA KANG INTENT TO KILL – will u be convicted
of HOMICIDE-? CONCLUSIVELY CONSUMED TO HAVE INTENT TO
KILL – PRAERTERINTENTIONEM
g. IN HAZING LAW – THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PRAETER
INTENTIONEM SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED.
h. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
i. IN HAZING – PRESENCE – even if you are not a member – u are
crim liable – if u participate – higher penalty, BUT EVEN IF YOU
Did not participate – presence is enough to make you crim
liable.
 ii. IF U TRY TO PREVENT INFLICTION OF PHYSICAL HARM OR
IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THE MATTER – THIS IS A DEFENSE
iii. THE ONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING
iv. OLD RULE: ALMUNI, OFFICER, EX OFFICER
v. NOW: AS LONG AS U PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING TO DO
HAZING – THAT IS ENOUGH
vi. The normal: u participated in the planning, but did not
participate in the execution of the conspiracy – WALANG CRIM
LIABLE. The exception: MERE PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
OF HAZING – YOU ARE LIABLE for hazing, NOW: BSTA
MEMBER – u did not need to be an officer, ex officer, or alumni
vii. The one who recruited: planned initiation rite – no allegation
of inducing the victim to attend the hazing incident, SC said this
is enough, because it includes the inducement of the victim to
attend the initiation rite.
viii. IF are the parents of members of frat – and it happened in your
house, and alam mo may hazing – YOU ARE LIABLE AS
PRINCIPAL NOT ANY MORE ACCOMPLICE. NGAYON YOU
KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE HAZING – u have to immediately
report , or prevent it as a defense. BASIS OF CRIM LIABLE is
KNOWLEDGE. NORMALLY it is not a source of crim liability,
passive presence, relationship, WHAT U DOING? RAPE? OKAY
- not liable, BUT IF HAZING – U ARE LIABLE.
ix. Ex: WAREHOUSE – operated by your dad. YOUR DAD KNOWS
IS YOUR DAD LIABLE? IT'S A HOUSE NAMAN. Pero LESSEE
naman. SO UR STILL LIABLE – SO BOTH OWNER OR LESSEE.
x. SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, PRESIDENT, TEACHER, DEAN – liable
if u consent to hazing or alam mo. IF JANITOR KNOWS? HE IS
NOT A SCHOOL AUTHORITY. DEAN DIVINA CASE WAS
DISMISSED> no evidence he consented to the hazing.
xi. 2 complx crime:
xii. COMPLEX crime – Art. 48 of the RPC - an offense punishable
under special law cannot be compoenents of a compound
crime, because dapat grave or less grave, so EX: Sexual
intercourse under coercion sa BATA – This is a single act of
having sexual intercourse- violence or intimidation
constituting rape under RPC, and sexual abuse under RA 7160
– NOT A complex crime. Speciallaw eh
xiii. AANETA – malvesation is punishable under special law,
falsification – felony, SC: no complex crime, NOW malversaion
punishable is under so: MALVERSAITON THRU
FALSIFICAITON.
xiv. Single act created under an felony and a offense, and it's a
means to commit another, it cant be complexed, what to do? 4
RULES:
 xv. 1) BOTH RULE – either the both rule, prosecute under both
rule WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RULE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
xvi. 2) EITHER RULE - you just choose
1. FELONY RULE – YOU PROSECUTE THE FELONY
2. OFFENSE RULE - YOU PROSECUTE THE OFFENSE
BOTH RULE
 VIOLATION OF BP 22, ESTAFA
o YES- identity of the offense, identity of the act
o RULE: IDENTITY OF THE OFFENSE
 XPN: LAW and ordinance: IDENTITY OF THE ACT
 SINGLE ACT of issuing the check - NO COMPLEX CIRME – BP
22 and estafa. U CONSIDER IDENTITY OF OFFENSE – HOMICDE
AND THEFT – no double jeopardy, IDENTICAL – necessarily
included malversation, plunder, attempted murder, homicide,
 NO IDENTITY OF THE OFFENSE
 BP 22 and ESTAFA – UNDER BP 22 – it is withoutprejudice to
the crimes punishable under other laws
 Ex: CHECK 10S – of 1M – total of 10M – 1st question: canu
prosecute for BP 22 and estafa – YES, no violation of double
jeopardy, how many counts of estafa? ONE COUNT – delito
continuado – several acts of issuing a check under a single
criinal impulse – BP22? Malum prohibitum, criminal intention
isimmaterial, no basis to apply the delito continuado principle.
The accused for liable as many as counts as there are checks
dishonored. BAILABLE? 10M – Reclusion perpeta penalty in
estafa.
 GEN RULE: u do not apply deito continuado if malum
prohibutm
 RA 3019 – partakes the nature of malum prohibitum – it
also partakes the character of malum in se(don't put in
the bar) SO CRIMINAL INTENTION IS IMPORANT
CONSIDERING THAT THE CRIMINAL IMPULSE THAT
WILL REFLECT EVIDENT BAD DAITH –
 CASE: 32 documents for aliens. 32 counts, SC applied
the delito continuado – u will consider criminal impulse
several acts of issuing several document to give benefits
to aliens arise from one criminal impulse

 ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, ESTAFA

o RECRUITED THE VICTIM – knowing that u have connection in the
middle east when in fact you have no such connection
o SINGLE ACT OF RECUITMENT WITHOUT LICENSE – YES!! BOTH
CRIMES. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT –MALUM PROHIBITUM, ESTAFA –
MALUM IN SE. WITHOUT LICENSE – ILELGAL RECRUITMENT,
ESTAFA –WITH OR WITHOUT LICENSE, under Sec. 6 (ILLEGAL
 RECUITMENT) without prejudice of filing of other cases. THE
INTENTION THAT U CAN PROSEUTE TRAFFICKING< ESTAFA,
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT – PROSTITUTE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY
o NURSE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY -> PROSTITUE, ESTAFA, ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT, TRAFFICKING in PERSONS
o 2 victims of illegal recruitment – ESTAFA, and ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT – HOW MANY COUNTS OF ILLEGAL RECRUIMENT? 2
counts, principle of continuado does not apply. MALUM PROHIBITUM
ESTAFA? AS MANY COUNTS AS THERE ARE VICTIMS – as many
criminal impulse to defraud as there are persons to be defrauded. So 2
counts.
o 3 victims: ONE COUNT OF LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
o 3 informations: - 3 counts of illegal recruitment
o IF THE ACCUSED IS ONLY ONE – allegation – there are 2 or more co
accused not identified – will u consider large scale? YES, not the
number of accused. SYNDICATED illegal recruit.
o EX: anin na victim – 6 counts of illegal recruitment? 2 information of
large scale illegal recruitment? YES PWEDE.
 RA 3019, felony under the RPC
 - According to the CASE: crimes against RA 3019 – PAR a,b,c –
 1st par -Committed by a public – the following are corrupt practices
o SC: IT reveals the intention, that in addition to violation of RA 3019 –
so that u can be prosecuted with direct bribery and other crimes
under the RPC.
o VIOLATION OF R03019 – MALUM PROHIBITUM –
o U HAVE TO MEMORIZE 3e of RA 3019 (COMPREHENSIVE) – if what is
involved is a public officer – causing undue injury to manifest bad
faith, unwarranted benefits to a private individual – CONTRACTS
inadvantageous to the government. OVERPRICED. + ADDITIONAL
CRIME.
o 1st view (OLD VIEW) MEDOZA PRINCIPLE – ONE MODE – causing
undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefits.
o 2nd view (CABRERA VIEW) – THERE IS NO “BY”, causing injury to the
govt OR giving unwarranted benefits. – SO THERE ARE TWO MODES –
since then, this view is controlling. 1- causing undue injury to any
party including the got, 2 – giving unwarranted benefits …
o 1st mode: DAMAGE TO THE GOVERNMENT IS AN IMPORTANT
ELEMENT – INJURY. CAUSING UNDUE INJURY PERTAINS TO DAMAGE
within the contemplation of the civil code – capable of pecuniary
estimation. Ex: FISCAL charged a crime – injury – u have to attend the
hearing – but that hearing is not capable of pecuniary estimation,
inconvenient. DAPAT akin to damages contemplated in CC capable of
pecuniary estimation.
  Causing undue injury to ANY party including the govt –
whether the party is govt public officer, individual, any party
(COMPLAINANT)
o 2 mode: preferential benefits – DAMAGE IS NOT AN IMPORTANT
nd

ELEMENT – WALANG DAMAGE DIDTO – YUNG EVIDENCE IS WEAK –

but still charged by fiscal – inconvenience – if u charge the first mode
– it is dismissed, u use the second mode – DAMAGE CAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ELEMENT IS NOT PRESENT – what is important giving
undue benefits
 causing unwarranted benefits to A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
(COOFFENDER)
 CASE: BILI NG OVERPRICE na CONTRACT – BOTH PUBLIC
OFFICER AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL is liable for giving
unwarranted benefits to a private individual.
 PPL v BAUTISTA: He hired tao na dli naman talaga dapat e hire,
the pera binagay somehwer else. 1) ISSUE – giving
unwarranted befits to persons by hiring them 2) giving
unwarranted benefits to persons by giving allowance.
 UNWARRANTED preference or benefits by giving allowance –
NO VIOALTION – allowance sa public officers. (DAPAT
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS) BUT PUBLIC OFFICER IN THIS CASE
 GIVING UNWARANTED BENEFITS BY HIRING THEM – THERE
ARE STILL PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS not yet public officials – SO
THEY CAN BE CONVICTED UNDER THIS MODE.
 Angpin v SB – UNWARRANTED PREFERENCE ADVANTAGE
BENEFITS TO A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL – di naman private
individual – mayor yan eh! Although the mayor is a public
officer, the benefits were given to him in his capacity as a
prisoner not in his capacity as a mayor. THEREFORE IT IS
COVERED by the violation.
 ADDITIONAL ANSWER: INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY
OF PRISONERS
 ARIAS CASE – PASIG CITY – buying land – she became a
treasurer – mahaba naabot yung negotiation – lahat na
voucher - you sign those – Lumabas na overpricing – pero siya
kase ONE EVIDENCE – signature sa voucher – SINGLE
SIGNATURE ON THE VOUCHER RULE - SC: high ranking officer
– napaka bulky yung records nila, SC attests to this situation by
asking high ranking officers – to a reasonable extent they can
rely on their subordinates – yung mayor naki pag meeting –
ordering adobo, do u have to ask - IS THIS REALLY ADOBO?
LOL. HE WAS ACQUITTED, no bad faith, no inexcusable
negligence – not evidence he conspired with those who did te
negotiations
 4 requisites to apply the ARIAS CASE:
  1) NO EVIDENT BAD FAITH or MANIFEST PARTIALITY
o If there are other evidence, you will not apply the
arias principle.
o Ex: ESCARA – Mayor had a signature in the
voucher – may evidence – on top of the signature
that he signed the voucher – HE ALSO HAD
personal knowledge that the lumber delivered
was confiscated by the DENR. (EVIDENT BAD
FAITH AND MANIFEST PARTIALITY) REJECTED
THE APPLCIATION OF ARIAS PRINCIPLE
o Ex: PPL V DE VERA – EVIDENCE THAT HE
INSPECTED THE HOSPITAL VESSEL, AND HE
KNEW THAT THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT MAKE
THE HOSPITAL VESSEL. (RETENTION MONEY –
10% - retained by govt, baka mamaya, may
palpak sa window, so to ensure the proper
performance of obligation
 2) GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
o CRUZ CASE – other than the signature, additional
evidence showing gross inexcusable negligence –
voucher – payee – lumber, sa checkee different
payee. IF U ARE THE TREASURER u see that diff
payee, DAPAT NAG INVESTIGATE KA! FAILURE
TO INVESTIGATE means gross inexcusable
negligence – despite the payee in the voucher did
not jive with check.
o BERNABE CASE: SIGNED THE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETENESS OF DELIVERY – no date of
actual date of delivery. BLANK date of delivery –
HINDI PA NA DELIVERY NA YUN. GROSS
NEGLIGENCE
 3) HIGH RANKING RELYING ON HIS SUBORDINATe
o JAKA CASE – 3 signatories of voucher –
ACCOUNTANT, CASHIER, treasurer, LIQUIDATE
then get cash advance - then get another.
ADMINSITRATOR relied on cashier and
treasurer. NO APPLICABLE SI ARIAS. CAUSE
cashier and treasurer and the administrator are
of equal rank.
 4) DOCUMENT MUST BE BULKY
o CASE: SC said the documents in a small
municipality – u cannot rely on ARIAS doctrine –
you don't need to rely on ur subordinates – unti
lang yung trabaho, documents are not bulky.
 BOTH RULE:
 o TORTURE – RA 9745 – torture is an independent crime and therefore.
It cannot absorb and be absorbed + MALTEREATMENT+ PHYSICAL
INJURIES (ADDITIONAL CRIMES)

CYBERCRIME LAW
 You can prosecute other crimes on top of cybercrime – YOU CANNOT
CHARGE HIM ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY – THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

EITHER RULE (YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE)

SEXUAL ABUSE v CHILD PROSTITUTION
CHILD PROSTITUTION
ELEMENTS
1) VICTIM IS A CHILD
2) Sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
3) Consideration

CASE: the child is not under 12 year, but at the end of the time, victim was a child
exploited prostitution – WHAT IS IMPORANT – JALOSJOS – MONEY –
INAPPROPRAITE TOUCHING – child prostitution – he was convicted.

SEXUAL ABUSE
>3rd element is different – coercion of an adult
>cannot be committed by a minor, must be committed an adult,

COERCION either physical or psychological – SC: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF

ASCENDENCY AS SWIMMING INSTRUCTOR - >

CASE: LOVE NA LOVE – MARRY – NA BUNTIS – NOT MARRIED – SC: THE

ASSURANCE OF LOVE, promise to marry and the guarantee that she will not become
pregnant because of the withdrawal method. These 3 circumstances were treated as
an influence and therefore was convicted.

Sexual intercourse per se with minor is not a violation of RA 7610 – u have to

consider the elements. Influence physical or psychological coercion

TIMES NOT OVERLAPPING WITH RPC

5,000 pesos, 7,000 pesos, if the child is not under 12 – not rape, but it is child
prostitution.
Child is sleeping, something inappropriate – RAPE. NOT CHILD PROSTITUTION – NO
MONETARY CONSIDERATION NO COERCION.

TIMES OVERLAPPING WITH RPC

GUN, sex with child - > RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE – physical coercion.
ORTEGA – advantage of ascendancy -> PSCYHOLOGICAL INTMIMDATION – grave
abuse of authority -> THIS IS RAPE – intimidation includes psychological
intimidation. -> GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
SEXUAL ABUSE - physical coercion

CAN U CONSIDER THIS A COMPLEX CRIME?

PANGALINAN – NOT A COMPLEX CRIME

SECOND ISSUE?
2 charges of SEXUAL ABUSE OR RAPE? NO. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. – IDENTITY OF THE
OFFENSE, but punishable by a national law or ordinance: IDENTITY OF THE ACT.
SIR: identitical offense – consent of a child who is under coercion physical orpscy –
or under influence of adult group, not recognized. UNDER 12 – RAPE parin siya –
RAPE because of the law that it does not recognize the consent. STATUTORY RAPE.

SO THE CRIME iS EITHER – MAG CHOOSE KA! 

PRIOR TO DEMACUTA – 2019 – THE RULE IS DIFFERENT – U CHOOSE subject to

guidelines- u choose the crime with the higher penalty. RAPE v sexual abusne, child
prostitution – u will prosecute the accused for the crime with a higher penalty.
PRO REO? IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED in case of doubt.
IF THERE IS NO DOUBT – do not construe.
If the law is clear – u apply the law even if not favorable to the
accused.
RA 7160 – to protect children to impose higher penalty – to give good
protection to children. There is no doubt here. So no need to construe

IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RaPE thru sexual intercourse – RAPE

THRU SEXUAL ASSAULT – RP - so convicted under RPC- masmataas
yung penalty and rape with sexual assault with homicide

RAPE WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT v LASCIVIOUSNESS (MTC)

PENALTY – prision temporal medium Highest PENALTY (CHECK THE

LAW) 7610

1st level discussion: 12 years and above

2nd level: Under 12 years

1st level discussion:

12 year and above – DAPAT CHILD SIYA, above 12 but he cannot protect himself
from cruelty, -
PAG RAPE thru sexual inercouse – prosecute with RPC
SA with homicide – RPC
Rape thru SA and Acts of lasciviousness – MALIIT YUNG penalty – so PROSECUTE
SEXUAL ABUSE

DPAT: LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT- 7610

2nd level discussion:
under 12 –
1 –RAPE
 Pag ang bata under 12 years old – OVERLAPPING – RPC + special law – the
victim of rape is a child in prostition and subjected to toher sexual abuse –
presupposes that the element of RAPE and AOL are present and child
prostitution and sxual abuse are present.
 2 issues here: where to prosecute and what is the penalty
 ONE ANSWER ONLY – U PROSECUTE UNDER THE RPC.
 Penalty under RPC or RA 7610? The penalty under RPC RIN.
 SRAPE - RP

2- AOL – prosecute aol under the RC 0 under 12 years old, statutory acts of
lasciviousness 0 under 12 – what is the penalty: u will prosecute him for stator acts
of lasciviousness but u will impose penalty under ra 7610 – second qualifying
provision - - if serious misconduct – RECLUSION TEMPOARAL MEDIUM PERIOD.
(UNDER RPC KASE – shorter penalty)

3- R – SA – PPL v CHING – FINGERING, RECALDE – R -> SA – PROBLEM. RA 7610 –

yung 8353- penalty distortion. Before RA 8353 – what is the crime? AOL, but u
impose penalty RT medium period. Disregarded 7610.
EFFECT: RA 8353 – rape thru sexual assault –lower penalty – before the law, high
penalty under AOL. SC: PPL v CHING – affirmed in RECALDe –RA 7610 – is still good
law. If CHILD – RT medium period thru RAPE thr sexual assault under 12 years,
despite the passage of RA 8353 – not the intention to disallowt he imposition of the
penalty under RA 7610.

4) qualified rape by SA – PENALTY: RT SC: NO NEED TO APPLY THE CHING

PRINCIPLE – THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF UNFAIRNESS WHICH IT SEEKS TO ADDRESS
IS NOT OBTAINING –BECAUSE THE PENALTY UNDER THE RPC is already a high
penalty – RT. Bsta may qualifying circumstances.

PUSING: AMPON is not a legal guardian. Was considered as qualifying circumstance.

 SC applied - 4 sub rules – u always impose the higher penalty.
 ANOTHER ISSUE: NOT under 12 – the SC applied the under 12 rule –because
his mental age is nine. MENTAL RETARDATION – even if physical age is 25,
but mental age is 2, IQ 1-90 – IDIOT, IMBECILE, -
 IQ 1-20 – IDIOT
 20-49 – IMBECILE
 50-69 – RETARD? Feeble minded/
 70-80-MORON?
 SC: BUCHIONG- having sexual intercourse feeble minded, idiot, imbecile,
having sex with a person deprived of reason –rape
 CASE: Under 12 – of mental age –deprived of reason – if alleged- okay, if not
alleged – DONIGA – under 12 includes mental age –
  THE RULE IN SEC 5 of RA 7610 – CHILD exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual acts whose age is under 12 age – it pertains to
mental or chronological/physical age.
 FOR PURPSOE OF APPLYING THE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE IS
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE – 6 9344, imbecility v insanity – ISIP BATA (IMBECILE
– MENTALLY RETARDED NOT SIRA ULO) Alleged insanity but proved was
imbecility – hindi yan pwede
 MINORITY v IMBECILITY – an idiot is not an imbecile, but it is necessarily
included because idiot has lower IQ (CHECK REVIEWER)
 ROJAS – age- 19 years old, mental age is 9 – so feeble minded, imbecility is
under 7, can u consider the exempting circumstance of minority? NO – u
consider the chronological age.
 THE CHILD SHALL BE DEEMED 15 years on the 15th age of his birthday.
 NOT IMBECILITY – his mental age is 9, but u can consider illness as a
mitigating circumstance.

PERALTA CASE -
ANTI PHOTO AND VOYEURISM
-Sec 4 a b c d
A – ELEMENTS
 TAKING photo or video coverage – persons or group performing sexual
activity – similar to sexual or CAPTURINg the private parts of the victim –
even if in briefs or panty – breast –
o VOYEURISM: PEEPING TOM (TELESCOPE) - VIOLATION OF THE
LAW? NO. ANTI PHOTO VIDEO VOYEURISM LAW – U HAVE TO USE A
PICTURE OR VIDEO. What is involved here is telescope. UNJUST
VEXATION.
 WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE VICTIM
o GOING TO CEBU, VIDEO. WITH CONSENT TO TAKE VIDEO – NO
CRIME
 THE CRIME IS COMMITTED when the victim had a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
o LETS GO TO LIBIS – GIRLS START HUBAD sayaw, lalasing yung babae,
CELLPHONE USED TO PICTURE – I WILL CHARGE YOU WITH
VOYEURISM LAW? THE ACT MUST BE COMMITTED THAT THERE
MUST BE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY -> NO, kase she
took her clothes off eh.
o 1) THE VICTIM BELIEVED THAT SHE CAN DISROBE WITHOUT BEING
CONCERNED THAT HER PRIVATE PARTS ARE BEING CAPTURED. –
VIOLATION OF THE LAW – YES! CAPTURING INAPPROPRIATE PARTS
without her consent – and there was a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
o 2) VICTIM BELIEVED that her private parts is not visible to the public
 EX: ARTISTA – PRETTY GURL – SHE WENT TO BORACAY –
NAG CLUB – she didn't know that MAY WARDROBE
MALFUNCTION. – DON'T take a photo – that is a violation of
 the law- WITHOUT HER CONSENT AND SHE BELIEVED THAT
HER BREAST WASN'T VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
B – Copying reproducing causing others to copy, Publishing, Broadcasting, selling
distributing causing to be distributing
>GOING TO CEBU WITH CONSENT – SHOWED THE VIDEO TO A FRIEND. SHARED IT
THRU BLUETOOTH and uploaded in FB. IT WAS SOLD. – THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
– THERE WAS PUBLISHING – showed it, Selling- sold, broadcasting – ONLINE, -
CONSENT to take the video HERE IS NOT A DEFENSE – IF THE CASE IS
DISTRIBUTING, PUBLISHING or SELLING – UHAVE TO GET ANOTHER CONSENT TO
DO THE SAME.
 HERE CONSENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN. IN par A – ANY FORM OF CONSENT
IS VALID – whether oral or written.
 BOLD PHOTO – CEBU – showed it to a friend. VIOLATION? WALA. :< TAKING
PHOTO VIDEO COVERAGE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY or naked body – with
consent. B,c,d,e – VIDEO OR PHOTO INVOLVING SEXUAL ACTIVITY or
SIMILAR ACTS – NAKA HUBAD lang siya and u sold – walang violation kase
naka lagay “sexual act” and not being bare (BOLD). UNJUST VEXATION.

EITHER RULE: CHILD ABUSE, AOL, CHILD PROSTITUTION (KANINA)

EITHER RULE: PIRACY – 2 kinds – PD532 – Art 122-123 of RPC – ang piracy under
theRPC could only be committed in highseas – why is it not placed in crimes against
property – but laws against nation – INTENTION IS TO CONNECT WITH Art. 2 –
 HIGH SEAS LANG – Art 2 – we have jurisdiction
 MARCOS -> PD 532 – PHILIPPINE WATERS, HIGHSEAS -> RPC
 HEINOUS CRIME LAW – AS AMENDED –
o PPL v TULIN: ACCUSED: NO MORE PD 532. SC: no incompatibility
between piracy under RPC and PD 532 – the only intention of PD – is
to expand the concept of piracy so even passenegrs and complements
of the ship can be held liable for piracy- if piracy is committed in PH
water – u can prosecute him for PD 532, but if high seas – piracy in
highseas.
o KAYA EITHER RULE – U CHOOSE. PD 532 or RPC.
o WHATS THE DIFF?
o PIRATES
 RPC: PIRATES – any person excluding passengers or members
of complement of the ship (TUNAY NA JOHNNY DEEP PIRATE)
 PD 532: PIRATES includes any person including passengers or
members of the complement of the ship. (SIRS COMMENT: ANG
CO PASSENGER HINDI PIRATE BUT HOLD UP_ER)
o VESSEL
 PD 532 – Vessel pertains to ship for purposes of transporting
passenger, cargo or fishing vessel – LIMITED to those 3.
 Vessel made bahay – NOT PASSENGER VESSEL.
 RPC: Vessel not defined –ANY VESSEL WILL DO.
  PPL v DELA PENA: PIRACY UNDER PD 532 – vessel was not
alleged in the information, but accused was convicted of piracy.
(DO NOT FOLLOW FOR PURPOSES OF THE BAR)
o WATER
 PD 532: Philippine Water, contemplated 1973 constitution.
Article 1 – yung water within 1973 –includes territorial water
over which we have sovereignty – presumption congress is
adopting technical meaning- Philippine waters – adopting the
concept Philippine water under PD 532. IT REFERS TO
INTERNAL WATERS – and ARCHIPELAGIC WATER.
(SOVEREIGNTY) then after 12 miles for territorial water.
 EEZ is not included in Philippine Sea – NO sovereignty
and jurisdiction – but sovereign rights to fish and
exploit the natural resources. IF U SAY SOVEREIGN – NO
RIGHT TO NAVIGATE by other countries. MURDER we
have no jurisdiction here. FILIPINO FISHERMAN –
pinatay in EEZ –no we have no jurisdiction. (EEZ =
highseas)
 RPC: High Seas
 Beyond 12 miles (RPC)
 DELA PENA: ALLEGED RIVERBANK – LUPA YAN EH.
Not Philippine water –
 Killed another passenger – piracy + murder – do we
have jurisdiction – murder –flasg state rule, piracy-
universal crime.
 Territorial water of Taiwan (piracy) – can u consider it
as highseas? WE WILL consider it as highseas –piracy
was committed within 12 miles territorial of another
country. We have jurisdiction due to universality
principle.
o CRIMINAL ACT
 SAME – whether PD 532 or RPC.
 Seizing the vessel its equipment, personal belongings, cargo
o CRIMINAL INTENTION
 PIRACY: there is intent to gain
 PD 532 – violence intimidation, force upon things.
 Ex: sleeping passengers - got the personal belongings – no
violence, intimidation, force upon things, STILL PIRACY UNDER
THE RPC not under PD 532
 PHILIPPINE WATERS –passenger pickpocketer – NOT PIRACY
under RPC – he is an insider, NOT PD 532 – no vilence
intimidation, force upon things 0 crime committedis theft.
 PASSENGER + window broken of captains room – NOT RPC,
BUT PIRACY UNDER PD 532 – Philippine water, passenger as
pirate, force upon thing
 BARIL -> CAPTAIN - > NOT UNDER RPC – PIRACY UNDER PD
532 – a Philippine water,
 Vessel 1 + Vessel 2 – captain holdup – piracy under PD 532,
Philippine water, violence, also PIRACY under RPC –
PHILIPPINE WATER –outsider. – BOTH PIRACY ARE
APPLICABLE – SO U JUST CHOOSE WHICH.
 PAG HIGH SEAS – RULE OUT PD 532 –
o Pickpocketer –
o BROKEN WINDOW
o PASSENGER HOLDUP THE CAPTAIN
 NOT UNDE RPC – BECAUSE HE IS AN insider theft, robbery,
force upon things, robbery
o Vessel 1+ Vessel 2 – PIRAYC UNDER RPC
 U APPLY the flag state rule – Art. 2 of the RPC – or extraterritoriality
principle.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPOLOSIVES – PD 1866 as amended by RA 156?

 GRENADE – a lot of ppl died – murder qualified by means of explosion
 COMPOUND CRIME
 Sec. 3 of PD 1866 - 10591 - repealed sec. 1 and 2 – illegal possession of
unlicensed firearms = LOOSE FIREARMS – RA 10591, Sec. 3, 4 Pd 1866 still
remains.
 Sec. 3 – simple possession of explosives – RP – 3-c – on occasion of another
crime as a necessary means to commit another or incident of another crime –
AS LONG AS THERE IS ANOTHER CRIME – EX: REBELLION – explosives – in
furtherance of rebellion, also election ban. IF MERON OTHER CRIMES – RP +
FINE. (QUALIFIED POSSESION OF EXPLOSIVE)
 Sec. 3 –D pf 1866 – double jeopardy – You use a grenade – patay – so 2 crimes
– illegal possession of explosives and murder – if u charge him with illegal
possession of explosives as a means to commit murder – mas taas yung
penalty – RP+fine – if u charge him with IPE –u cannot charge him with
murder and vice versa. OR charge him qualified murder no more IPE. U JUST
CHOOSE. EITHER RULE: ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE vs MURDER
o Explosives is not anymore an aggravating circumstance

FELONY RULE – IPLF – may other crimes committed – u will prosecute him for a
felony. IPLF –broader concept than loose firearms, but similar concept
 Application to obtain license is not a license = UNLICENSED
 SPURIOUS PERMIT = not registered
 SYKO – UGALI yung military – counter insurgency – AMERICANO – yung
rebelled – pag nakataligot – mahuman rights ka – principle of search and
destroy – kill rebels while planting palay.
 AMPATUAN – unlicensed guns – illegal but sanctioned by the govt
 MEMORANDUM RECEIPT, MISSION ORDER A DEFENSE? NO civilian
confidential agent. – if u have government firearms – memorandum receipt –
u don't need license from PNP, kase govt firearms kase.
 CIVILIAN confidential AGENT – nasa platilya ka and regularly receiving sslary
from the govt – u don't need a license. SI JAMES BOND? NO NEED TO
LICENSE – HE HAS LICENSE TO KILL. HE IS NOT RECEIVING SALARY –
COUNTERINSURGENCY ng military – NOT A DEFENSE.
 FIREARMS IN THE POSSESSION of one who is not a holder.
 CASE: BIBILI ka ng baril and kotse – registration of car under owners name –
u were charged with driving un registered car and loose firearms –
REGISTRATION OF SELLER IS A DEFENSE – UNREGISTERED FIREARMS – in
other words – U USED SOMEONE’s baril – u cannot use the license of the
lender as a defense. It will be considered loose firearms. PERSONAL
DEFENSE SIYA EH, only the owner can use.
 OBLITERATED firearms – if u will alter or obliterate the serial number of
identifying mark – bawal yan, ballistic character is also altered- bawal – pag
lumabas yung bala – groove yung gun – that is the distinctive mark.
FINGERPRINT OF GUN – loose firearms na siya
 ILLEGALLY MANUFACTURED
o PPL v REYES – unlicensed firearms – to establish the crime is
unlicensed firearms – u have to prove this. U have to present
personnel from the PNP who will testiy na wala siyang license. IN
REYES. WALANG TESTIMONY – WALANG CERTIFICATE. PALTIX? It
follows the person has no license. ?? NO PERSON CAN OBTAIN
LICENSE TO POSSESS PALTIK. SC: not established. 1) loose firearms –
not licensed (FAILED TO PROVE), 2) loose firearms –illegally
manufactured – IN OTHER WORDS – amendments affect the reyes
principle. HERE – illegal possession of unlicensed (REYES –not
proved) BUT ILLEGALLY POSSESSED (LOOSE FIREARMS)
 REVOKED LICENSE – Expired = automatic revocation and that is a loose
firearms.
 STOLEN AND LOST. – DO WE CHARGE HIM HOMICIDE + IPUF ? IF using or
possession of loose firearms is inherent in the commission of another crime –
if not – u will charge him separately ex: estafa + loose firearms = u will be
liable for estafa and loose firarms – DANGEROUS DRUGS + LOOSE FIREARMS
(SEPARATE CRIMES) if apply the rule in reveerse – if the crime is not
inherent – hindi siya separate. Always charge him with the felony.
REBELLION HOMICIDE, ROBBERY, ALARMS AND SCANDAL using firearms –
u cannot charge him with both – u charge him with the felony
 1) WHAT TO CHARGE? FELONY RULE 2) EFFECT OF LOOSE FIREARMS? 2
rules, but second rule 2 exceptions.
 1) REBELLION or coup de tea and u use loose firearms in committing such
crime – REBELLION or COUP D TEA – 2) DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION-
REBELLION + COUP D TEA (SEDITION NOT INCLUDED) – applicable to IPUF
–rebels don't use licensed firearms. INDISPENSABLE MEANS TO COMMIT
REBELLION.
 SEDITION – PUBLIC UPRISING – TUMULTUOUS -NO DOCTRINE OF
ABSORPTION
  GENERAL RULE: IF UC OMMIT LOOSE FIREARMS in committing a crime
other than rebellion and coup de teas –it is a special aggravating
circumstance. IT CANNOT BE OFFSET. ROBBERY WITH HOMICDE – lOOSE
FIREARMS – FELONY RULE – ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE _ SAC.
 XPN: LOOSE FIREARMS – but penalty of the other crime is lesser –prosecute
him for the other crime committed but impose the higher penalty –
o IF u use loose firearms in committing alarms and scandal or slight
physical injury – 1) FELONY RULE – SO AS or SPI 2) IMPOSE PENALTY
UNDER RA ____ 10591 - prision mayor medium – max.
o IF nag equal yung max penalty other crime = Loose firearms =
ROBBERY penalty for robbery but with additional penalty (PM
medium).
o DESCRIBE IT AS A MODIYING CIRCUMSTANCE (LOOSE FIREARMS)
o HOMICIDE - SAC

Highway Robbery Brigandage