2016 Criminal Law Pre Week Handout by Justice Mario v. Lopez

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™ CRIMINAL LAW

2016 PRE-WEEK HANDOUT Justice Mario V. Lopez CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS: DOUBLE JEOPARDY There is no double jeopardy in the following: (1) Estafa through falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: ―Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.–In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:‖ x x x It is clear then that one may be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August 18, 2006 ) (2) Falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements shows that there is neither identity nor exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one. The differences between the elements needed to establish the commission of the two charges imply that the evidence required to prove the guilt or the innocence of the accused would likewise differ in each case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408 January 31, 2005) (3) Direct bribery under the RPC and violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. There is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses. While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. 2 (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007) Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law Libel by means of writing or ―similar means‖ is already punishable under the 1 For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the modes of falsification. On the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. 2 The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019 are: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit; (3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) the request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the government and (5) he has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in connection with a contract or transaction has the right to intervene. On the other hand, direct bribery has the following essential elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; (3) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do and (4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties. 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 1 of 24

RPC. Cybercrime Law merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication, hence, online libel is not a new crime. Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of ―electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.‖ Thus, charging the offender under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014) MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. Here, tampering, increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate in any election or refusal, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes is inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala in se requiring criminal intent of the accused. (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006) Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. It is mala prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012) CRIMINAL INTENT General Intent is presumed in the commission of a felony. Specific Intent must be proven as an element of a felony. Motive is the reason which impels one to commit an act for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Intent is an element of a crime, whereas motive is not. Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external manifestations, to wit: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. (Fantastico, et. al. v. People, Malicse, Sr., G.R. No. 190912, Jan. 12, 2015) If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof. (Wacoy v. PP/Quibac vs. People, G.R. No. 213792 / G.R. No. 213886, June 22, 2015) ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE Proximate Cause - ―that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events xxx such that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have the reasonable ground to expect at that moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.‖ Thus, the hacking of the victim's head though inflicting a superficial wound, which cause the victim to fall down and seconds later a vehicle run over him. (People v. Iligan, 191 SCRA 843) In aberratio ictus, treachery applies to the unintented victim. Logically, Bulanan's death was random and unintentional and the method used to kill her, as she was killed by a stray bullet, was, by no means, deliberate. Pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes criminal liability for the acts committed in violation of law, the accused is liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom. While it may not have been Adriano's intention to shoot Bulanan, it was the natural and direct 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 2 of 24

consequences of Adriano's felonious deadly assault against Cabiedes. The presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate, qualified both killings to murder. (People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015) CONSPIRACY The wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies. An illustration of wheel conspiracy wherein there is only one conspiracy involved was the conspiracy alleged in the information for plunder filed against former President Estrada and his co-conspirators. Former President Estrada was the hub while the spokes were all the other accused individuals. The rim that enclosed the spokes was the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. People, GR 220598, July 19, 2016) Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011) All the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow is therefore no longer indispensable since in conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another. (People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for failing to inflict mortal wounds, both appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable for attempted murder since they were shown to have acted in conspiracy with each other although Ventura did not directly participate in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants' original objective may have only been the killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was correctly held liable for murder with appellant Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to death who just shouted for help after seeing his husband in mortal danger. (People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010) Accused-appellant who took no part in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in the common criminal plan, is not liable for carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that coconspirators are liable only for acts done in pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts done outside their contemplation or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4, 2003) There was no evidence to prove that all the appellants assisted Robito in killing Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime do not affect the other accused. Co-conspirators are criminally liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy on how and what are the necessary and logical consequences of the intended crime. (People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30, April 2, 2003) Physical participation at the scene of the crime is not always necessary in conspiracy. Even though there is no showing of a prior agreement among the accused, their separate acts taken and viewed together show unity of criminal design and purpose. Tangian's complicity was manifest from the fact that he personally transported the stolen items. Yongco was seen to be in connivance because of his failure to demand a gate pass. And lastly, Lañojan was tagged to be the instigator who marshaled the entire scheme. Despite Lañojan's lack of physical participation in hauling the items to Tangian's truck and bringing them to the junk shop, the act of giving the ―thumbs-up‖ sign is a clear proof of meeting of minute between Lañojan and Tangian thus he can still be liable for Qualified Theft via conspiracy. (Yongco vs. People, G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014)

2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 3 of 24

Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy. It must be shown that the person concerned has performed an overt act in pursuant or furtherance of the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove conspiracy. There must be positive and conclusive factual evidence indicating the existence of conspiracy, and not simple inferences, conjectures and speculations speciously sustained because it cannot be mere coincidence. (Salapuddin v. CA, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013) SELF-DEFENSE Accused-appellants' flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed, their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully warranted the RTC’s rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012) The primordial element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011) A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011) Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused. (People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013) Batulan, albeit the initial aggressor against Dulin, ceased to be the aggressor as soon as Dulin has dispossessed him of the weapon. In retaliation, the aggression that the victim started already ceased when the accused attacked him, but in self-defense, the aggression was still continuing when the accused injured the aggressor. As such, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Batulan to justify his fatal stabbing by Dulin. (Dulin v. People, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015) EXERCISE OF DUTY OR RIGHT There can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and his apprehending team are persons in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. However, the officers involved appeared not to have performed their duties as required by law. They spotted the petitioner's purported swerving vehicle. They then signaled him to stop which he obeyed. But they did not demand the presentation of the driver's license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under the particular premises of Sec. 29 of RA 4136. Moreover, petitioner's act of exercising one's right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. (Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014) UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR For such defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. In the instant case, while the records show that Manansala was apprehensive in committing a falsity in the preparation of the subject report as she did not know the repercussions of her actions, nothing would show that Lacanilao, or any of her superiors at UMC for that matter threatened her with loss of employment should she fail to do so. As there was an absence of any real and imminent threat, intimidation, or coercion that would have compelled Manansala to do what she did, such a circumstance cannot be appreciated in her favor. (Manansala vs. People, G.R. No. 215424, Dec. 9, 2015)


LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong is obtaining when there is notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting crime committed. It is extremely far-fetched that Maglian could accidentally pour kerosene on his wife and likewise accidentally light her up and cause third-degree burns to 90% of her body. Maglian knew the fatal injuries that he could cause when he poured kerosene all over his wife and lit a match to ignite a fire. There was no disparity between the means he used in injuring his wife and the resulting third degree burns on her body. (People v. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011) VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity. (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011) VOLUNTARY SURRENDER The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the commission of the murder and in fact accompanied the chief of police to the scene of the crime, without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing did not amount to voluntary surrender. (People v. Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001) The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. (People v. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011) DWELLING In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. (People v. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011) In robbery with force upon things, dwelling is inherent. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION Evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed (or wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance. Here, Raymundo Roque provided such violent resistance against the conspirators, giving the latter no choice but to eliminate him from their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583) However, when there is an error in persona, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. When it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered. It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt. (People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, July 18, 2013) TREACHERY The situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was killed while tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011) Treachery may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become aware of it. (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011) Treachery applies to robbery with homicide as a generic aggravating circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and construing the penal code, 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 5 of 24

which are accorded respect and persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have consistently applied treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. It does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex crime because treachery is applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the constituent crime of "robbery". (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003) Treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated, or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. In this case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses all point to the fact that the shooting and stabbing of Sareno was actually a spur of the moment incident, a result of the brawl that happened during the barrio dance. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant and his brother Jerome deliberately planned the means by which they would harm Sareno. (People v. Likiran, G.R. No. 201858, June 4, 2014) The suddenness of an attack does not of itself, suffice to support the finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's helpless position was accidental. Also, where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is, no treachery, even if the attack was suddenly and unexpectedly and while the accused was running away with his back towards the accused. That the victim was still able to run the first blow does not obliterate the presence of treachery. The unsuspecting Balano did not have the opportunity to resist the attack when Gabrino, without warning, suddenly sprang out from behind the coconut tree and stabbed him. The fact that Balano was able to run after he was stabbed by Gabrino does not negate the fact the treachery was committed. Clearly, Gabrino employed treachery in stabbing and killing Balano. (People v. Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011) ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance, robbery with homicide being a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. (People v.Torres, G.R. No. 189850, Sept. 22, 2014) Like treachery, the homicide will not be qualified to murder. To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. While it is true that superiority in number does not per se mean superiority in strength, De Jesus and Morales in this case did not only enjoy superiority in number, but were armed with weapons, while the victim had no means with which to defend himself. Hence, De Jesus and Morales took advantage of their number and weapons, as well as the condition of the victim, to commit the crime. (People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528, Jan. 26, 2011) Victim need not be completely defenseless in order for abuse or superior strength to be appreciated. Treachery and evident premeditation could not be appreciated because the eyewitness account did not disclose the events immediately preceding the attack. However, the crime committed is still murder since the killing is qualified by abuse of superior strength. In this case, the victim, while being restrained by Vilbar, was simultaneously stabbed by Paling and Ernie. Not only did the perpetrators outnumber their victim, more importantly, they secured advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. Therefore, the accused must be convicted of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. (People v. Paling, et. al., G.R. No. 185390, March 16, 2011) ACCESSORY TO THE CRIME Article 19, paragraph 2 defines ―accessories‖ as those who, with knowledge of the commission of the crime and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, its effects of instruments, in order to prevent its 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 6 of 24

discovery. Under this provision, the punished acts should have been committed for the purpose of preventing the discovery of the crime. Here, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 – the illegal possession of lumber – had already been discovered at the time the petitioners took the truck. This discovery led to the confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber on November 15, 2002. The petitioners took the truck on November 16, 2002, after its confiscation. Obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829 constitutes the crime. (Padiermos, et. al. vs. People, G.R. No. 181111, Aug. 17, 2015) ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE Appellants and their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts of their bodies. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Obviously, appellants and their co-accused performed not only a single act but several individual and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not include “single impulse.” (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012) Distinctions between a composite crime and a complex or compound crime under Article 48: In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012) If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa. (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006 The phrase ―necessary means‖ in Article 48 does not mean indispensable; otherwise, the offense as a ―necessary means‖ to commit another would be an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof. For instance, the crime of simple estafa is ordinarily committed in the manner to facilitate and insure the commission of estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification. (David v. People, G.R. No. 208320, Aug. 19, 2015) SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Dionaldo, et. al. G.R. No.. 207949, July 23, 2014) What is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offender's intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out. In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, homicide is committed in order: (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime.


The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts do not satisfactorily establish an original criminal design by Chavez to commit robbery. The 22 stab wounds would be overkill for these purposes. The sheer number of stab wounds inflicted on Barbie makes it difficult to conclude an original criminal intent of merely taking Barbie's personal property but rather strengthens an intention to kill and ensures his death. There is no evidence showing that the death of the victim occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. (People v. Chavez alias “Noy”, G.R. No.. 207950, September 22, 2014) DELITO CONTINUADO Delito continuado exists when there is a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. The amended informations should be consolidated into a single information for they charge what is known as delito continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred to as "continuous crime." The informations charged petitioner with performing a single criminal act — that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in the original information each amended information states the name of the individual whose stay was legalized. Moreover, the Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.(Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) When there is delito continuado, the crime cannot be splitted into two or more crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in. ARTICLE 62(2), REVISED PENAL CODE Article 62 of the RPC mandates that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group which is a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for the purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. Here, while the existence of conspiracy among appellants in selling shabu was duly established, there was no proof that they were a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of the aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated group. (People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012, citing People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November 28, 2007) PROBATION Amended by R.A. No. 10707 Grant of Probation; xxx [W]hen a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction. The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the judgment. xxx 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 8 of 24

Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. Disqualified Offenders; The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those: a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years; b. convicted of any crime against the national security;

c.

who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00); d.

who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and

e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof. Termination of Probation; The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation was granted. Related Cases: Accused who appeals may still apply for probation. (Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011) Probation Law is not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008) The Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him including the accessory penalties like disqualification to run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006) Probation does not erase the effects and fact of conviction, but merely suspends the penalty imposed. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his retention in the government service. Probation only affects the criminal liability of the accused, and not his administrative liabilities, if any. (Pagaduan v. CSC and Salvador, G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014) Multiple conviction in one decision, the total penalty does not determine probation. Where the trial court sentenced the accused for several offenses in one decision and multiple prison terms are imposed on him, the multiple prison terms should not be added together in determining whether or not the accused would be eligible for probation. The prison terms are distinct from each other, and if none of the terms exceeds the limits of six (6) years set out in the Probation Law, the accused is not disqualified by the penalty. The number of offenses is immaterial as long as all the penalties imposed taken separately are within the probationable penalty. Section 9(a) of the Probation Law as amended, uses the word ―maximum‖ not total, when it states that the ―benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those xxx sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years.‖ Evidently, the law does not intend to sum up the penalties imposed but to take each penalty separately and distinctly with the others. (Francisco v. CA, April 1995) PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES In the prosecution of cases of behest loans, the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the discovery of such loans. The reason for this is that the government, as aggrieved party, could not have known that those loans existed when they were made. The behest loans could only have been discovered after the 1986 EDSA 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 9 of 24

Revolution when the people ousted President Marcos from office. And, prior to that date, no person would have dared question the legality or propriety of the loans. (Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Desierto, 438 Phil. 201, 212 [2002]; see also Republic v. Desierto, 416 Phil. 59, 77-78 [2001]; Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265, 294 [2004]) Penalty for the crime proved, not charged, determines the applicable prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense includible within the graver offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accussing the defendant of the graver offense. (Damasco v. Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988, citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 13, 1983) EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Criminal liability for personal penalties is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. The term "personal penalties" refers to the service of personal or imprisonment penalties, while the term "pecuniary penalties" refers to fines and costs, including civil liability predicated on the criminal offense complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto). However, civil liability based on a source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable through a separate civil action. (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012) Novation is not one of the means whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original petition, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise. (Milla v. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012) Novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22. The fact that the petitioner had already made substantial payments to the respondent and that only P25,000.00 out of his total obligation in favor of the respondent remains unpaid is immaterial to the extinguishment of criminal liability. (Medalla v. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362, January 18, 2012) PRESIDENT'S PARDONING POWER Not limited by legislative action: The absolute pardon granted to former President Joseph Estrada fully restored all his civil and political rights which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office. Articles 363 and 414 of the Revised Penal Code cannot, in any way, serve to abridge or diminish the exclusive power and prerogative of the President to pardon. They should be construed in a way that will give full effect to the executive clemency granted by the President. All that the said provisions impart is that the pardon of the principal penalty does not carry with it the remission of the accessory penalties unless the President expressly includes said accessory penalties in the pardon. Thus, Articles 36 and 41 only clarify the effect of the pardon so decided upon by the President on the penalties imposed in accordance with law. xxx A rigid and inflexible reading of the above provisions of law will defeat or unduly restrict the power of the President to grant executive clemency. xxx A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties 3 ART. 36. Pardon; its effects.– A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold publicoffice, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. 4 ART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal – Their accessory penalties.– The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 10 of 24

are included in the pardon. The first sentence refers to the executive clemency extended to former President Estrada who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned which relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence that followed, which states that "(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights," expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. (Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015) FALSIFICATION One is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. In other words, leaving a question blank in the PDS/SALN is falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011) Conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is a proposition not arrived at by any process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On the other hand, a narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event. It is a recital of things accomplished, of deeds, occurrence or happening. Disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a narration of facts. Statements concerning relationship is descriptive and may be proved as to its truth or falsity. A certification that one was "eligible‖ or ―qualified‖ is a conclusion of law although it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is an expression of belief or mistake of judgment. ESTAFA In estafa under paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check of the offender. (People v. Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013) Estafa under P.D. 115 (trust receipts law) not applicable in contracts of loan. In the case at bar, the real intent of the parties was simply to enter a loan. The subject goods were not being held for sale, as in the case of Trust Receipt transactions where the entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the entruster the price of the sale, but rather to be used for the fabrication of steel communication towers in accordance with his contracts with his clients. In these contracts, he was commissioned to build, out of the materials received, steel communication towers, not to sell them. As such, PD 115 does not apply. Thus, the petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged and was only held civilly liable for the loan contracted with Asiatrust. (Ng vs. People, G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010) MALVERSATION Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation or passively through negligence. Even when the Information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. (Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011) The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a public corporation or a government agency 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 11 of 24

or instrumentality with juridical personality, which does not fall within the constitutional prohibition in Article XII, Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments to its charter. Not all corporations, which are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or chartered institutions which are otherwise known as ―public corporations.‖ These corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government which are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic viability but to different criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objectives and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011) In technical malversation, public fund or property is considered appropriated if it had been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no technical malversation after the ―general fund‖ of the municipality, intended by internal arrangement for use in paying a particular road, was applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, November 19, 2013) COA's approval of petitioner's disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which petitioner is answerable. While the COA may assist in gathering evidence to substantiate a charge of malversation, any determination made by it will not be conclusive as to whether adequate cause exists to prosecute a case. This is so because the Ombudsman is a given the power to investigate on its own an illegal act or omission of a public official. (Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, Nov. 28, 1996) Unliquidated cash advance is not malversation. To have custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, a public officer must be a cashier, treasurer, collector, property officer or any other officer or employee who is tasked with the taking of money or property from the public which they are duty-bound to keep temporarily until such money or property are properly deposited in official depository banks or similar entities; or until they shall have endorsed such money or property to other accountable officers or concerned offices. Petitioner was not shown to have been such public officer, even temporarily, in addition to his main duties as mayor. Needless to say, he was not accountable for any public funds or property simply because it never became his duty to collect money or property from the public. Therefore, petitioner could not have appropriated, taken misappropriated or consented, or, though abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. (Panganiban vs. People, G.R. No. 211543, Dec. 9, 2015) RAPE The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. And physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist’s advances because of fear for her life and personal safety, or the exercise of the moral ascendancy of the rapist over the victim. (People v. Besmonte, G.R. No. 196228, June 4, 2014) In rape by force or intimidation, the degree of resistance that the victim may put up against the rapist need not be tenacious. It is settled that force need not be irresistible but just enough to bring about the desired result. It is not necessary that the rape victim resisted unto death. The rule is that resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party. Article 266-D of the RPC provided presumptions that: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A. (People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012) The failure of a rape victim to shout, fight back or escape from the scoundrel is not tantamount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation to exhibit 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 12 of 24

defiance or present proof of struggle. (People v. Linsie, G.R. No. 199494, November 27, 2013) Medical evidence is dispensable and merely corroborative in proving the crime of rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011) The presence of hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No. 189821, March 23, 2011) It is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011) Although the penis was thrice inserted in her private organ, the same constituted one (1) count of rape. xxx During trial, the victim testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and withdrew his penis after about ten (10) seconds but inserted it again after ten (10) seconds. After five (5) seconds, he withdrew it again but inserted it once more after five (5) seconds. (People v. Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8, 2011) Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011) The accused cannot be convicted of rape through sexual assault, although proven during trial, if what was charged in the information is rape through carnal knowledge. This violated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is proper to convict the accused of acts of lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013) Sexual assault is committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the narrower "homosexual rape." (People v. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013) RAPE INVOLVING SPOUSES (MARITAL RAPE) Husbands do not have property rights over their wives' bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. xxx Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353. A woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated practices labeled her to be. A husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property, he is fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014) RAPE WITH HOMICIDE In rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the person killed is someone other than the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011) The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In contrast, the legislative intent on the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer to a killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape became evident. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012)


KIDNAPPING In the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, it matters not that no ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient that a demand for it was made. (People v. Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10, 2013) The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. (Con-ui, et. al., G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013) When the victims were taken from their respective houses, the purpose of the armed men was to kill them and not to deprive them of their liberty. The objective of the assailants was to force the victims to surrender the firearms allegedly in their possession and not to deprive them of their liberty. Accordingly, the accused should be liable for two separate crimes of murder. KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. (People v. Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011) [N.B. The primary purpose is kidnapping.] KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011) ROBBERY The crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money to the accused and no personal property was shown to have been taken. It was for this reason that the victim was shot. Accused can only be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. (People v. Barra, G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013) ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE Homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if its commission was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. (People v. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012) In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized. (People v. Diu, et. al. G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013) Whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. (People v. Sugan, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011) There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the RPC. The element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. (Id.) The homicide or murder or physical injuries, irrespective of their number, committed on occasion or by reason of robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult, or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her rank, age, sex may 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 14 of 24

be properly considered only in crimes against persons. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE In proving the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (People v. Nocum, et. al., G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013) QUALIFIED THEFT Art. 70 of the RPC on successive service of sentences shall apply to an accused convicted of four (4) counts of Qualified Theft with corresponding four penalties of reclusion perpetua. Despite these, the accused shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years. (People v. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011) Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave abuse of confidence. The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Metrobank cashier's checks suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely abused the confidence reposed to him by the bank. Here, the accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by forging the signature of officers authorized to sign the subject check and had the check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services, a fictitious payee without any legitimate transaction with Metrobank. (People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001. See also PNB v. Tria, G.R. No. 193250, April 25, 2012) Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of the felony of qualified theft, must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused. Here, the petitioner, as sales clerk/agent of PCS, is duty-bound to remit to Ingan the payments which she collected from the customers of PCS. She would not have been able to take the money paid by the customers if it were not for her position in PCS. In failing to remit to Ingan the money paid, the petitioner gravely abused the confidence reposed on her. (Ringer v. People, G.R. No. 198904, December 11, 2013) There is material possession only if the sum of money was received by an employee in behalf of an employer. The material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. So long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee-perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise. (Matrido v. People, G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009, citing Roque v. People, 486 Phil. 288, 307 [2004]) BIGAMY The crime of bigamy was already consummated the moment the accused contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void,. xxx [T]he subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage would not change the fact that the accused contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. (Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013) The second spouse is only an accomplice in Bigamy. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused. Here, given that petitioner knew of the first marriage, she was validly charged with bigamy. However, her punishment as a principal to the crime is wrong. This is because a person, whether man or woman, who knowingly consents or agrees to be married to another already bound in lawful wedlock is guilty as an accomplice in the crime of bigamy. (Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 15 of 24

15, 2015) LIBEL Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011) In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by the persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense in the instant case, the letters tag respondent as a ―reknown black mailer,‖ a vengeful family member who filed cases against his mother and siblings, and with nefarious designs. Even an impartial mind reading these descriptions would be led to entertain double on the person's character, thereby affecting that person's reputation. (Alejandro Almendras, Jr. v. Alexis Almendras, G.R. No. 179491, Jan. 14, 2015) Publication in Libel means ―making known the defamatory imputation to some other person other than the person of whom it is written. There is no publication if the defamation is sent straight to the person of whom it is written or where it is the complainant himself who communicated or by his acts caused the communications of the defamatory imputations to a third person. (Allonzo vs. CA, 241 SCRA 51) JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. No. 9344) Automatic suspension of sentence should apply to a child in conflict with the law regardless of the crime committed. (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011) Suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches the maximum age of 21. (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011) Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death. This means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. (Jose v. People, G.R. No. 162052, January 13, 2005) In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, the law clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one's birth date and not the mental age as argued by accused-appellant Roxas. (People v. Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014) Amendments under R.A. No. 10630: Minimun Age of Criminal Responsibility: a child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate. [Sec. 3] Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From Criminal Responsibility: A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or „Bahay Pag-asa‟ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). [Sec. 6] Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes: Any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 16 of 24

children, including any person who abuses his/her authority over the child or who, with abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce, threaten or instigate the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed in its maximum period. [Sec. 6] INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW If the crime is punished by the RPC, the Court shall sentence the indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next prescribed by the Code for the offense.

accused to an in view of the RPC, and the lower to that

When the offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (See People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164 June 22, 2009) Prescribed penalty refers to the initial penalty as a general prescription for the felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the penalty as modified after considering the attending and modifying circumstances; Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed penalty chosen by the court from the imposable penalty. Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to 6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is not applicable when the penalty prescribed is not more than 1 year. In this case, straight penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed. ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019) Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that it shall be unlawful for a public officer to directly or indirectly request or receive any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. The term ―transaction‖ is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a transaction under the law. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013) The good faith of heads of offices in signing a document will only be appreciated if they, with trust and confidence, have relied on their subordinates in whom the duty is primarily lodged. The defense will not apply when the accused is being held for gross and inexcusable negligence in performing the duties “primarily vested in him by law.” (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013) The Court has already interpreted "undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual damage" must not only be capable of proof; it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A finding of "undue injury" cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and 169000, November 27, 2013) Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the information, the private person may be indicted alone. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) Private persons may be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officer. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Pracvtices Act which is "to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.‖ (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013) Acquittal from violation of R.A. No. 3019 is not a bar against conviction for Article 218 of the RPC for failure to render an account. It is undisputed that the two charges stemmed from the same incident. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 17 of 24

that the same act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct charges. The glaring differences between the elements of these two offenses necessarily imply that the requisite evidence to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused would certainly differ in each case. Hence, petitioner's acquittal in the anti-graft case provides no refuge for him in the present case given the differences between the elements of the two offenses. (Aloysius Dait Lumauig v. People, G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014) SYNDICATED ESTAFA (PD 1869) The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)," or farmers’ associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. There is no syndicated estafa, regardless of the number of the accused, when (a) the entity soliciting funds from the general public is the victim and not the means through which the estafa is committed, or (b) the offenders are not owners or employees who used the association to perpetrate the crime, in which case, Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code applies. Here, the crime committed is only simple estafa because the case was filed by a commercial bank as the offended party against the five accused who, as clients, defrauded the bank. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187919, February 20, 2013) HIGHWAY ROBBERY (PD 532) The accused was guilty only of robbery with homicide, not of robbery on the highway as defined in P.D. 532. Conviction for the crime of highway robbery requires proof that several accused organized themselves for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately, preying upon innocent and defenseless people on the highway. Here, the prosecution proved only one act of robbery. (People v. Samoy, G.R. No. 193672, January 18, 2012) ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610) Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon xxx those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period RA 7610 applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. (Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013) Intent to degrade the dignity of a child is required in child abuse. Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse, except when it is intended to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being. (Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013) The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 are as follows: (1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Section 32, Article XIII, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as follows: ―[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 18 of 24

clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.‖ It is deemed that a child is sexually abused under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, when he or she is subjected to other lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. There must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will. In this case, the prosecution established that Gerandoy again entered the room where AAA was sleeping and performed lascivious acts against her. Despite AAA's objection, Gerandoy touched parts of her body. He continued his sexual advances by undressing AAA and forced her to lie down. He kissed AAA's lips, mounted himself on top of her and touched and sucked AAA's nipple. (People v. Julito Gerandoy, G.R. No.. 202838, September 17, 2014) Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in child abuse cases. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person. It is mala prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013) It was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law. Thus, sexual assault committed against a minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized under RA 7610 which prescribed a higher penalty. (People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011) COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS & AMMUNITION (RA 10591) The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is lower, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed. If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is equal to that imposed for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense. An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance with this Act. [N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly, the old law which is more favorable to the accused should be applied to any violations committed prior to its effectivity.] COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (RA 9165) Under the RPC, there is an attempt to commit a crime when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. This definition has essentially been adopted in the crime of ―attempt to sell‖ shabu e.g. overt act of the accused in showing the 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 19 of 24

substance to the poseur-buyer. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed the accused under arrest. (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012) There is attempt to sell shabu when there is overt act of showing the substance to the poseur-buyer. (People v. Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, July 6, 2011) The essential element of transportation is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another or that the accused had moved the drugs some distance. "Transport" means the movement of the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from one place to another.‖ Here, the accused were arrested inside a car which was not in transit. The car was parked and stationary. The prosecution failed to show that any distance was travelled. The conclusion that the accused transported the drugs merely because they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and is mere speculation. (San Juan v. People, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011) ―Transportation of Drugs‖ is committed when the accused was apprehended while boarding his flight with drugs in his possession. While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another. (People v. Lara, G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013) Transporting dangerous drugs is malum prohibitum; proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge is not required. (People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014) The essential elements of importation of dangerous drugs are: (1) the importation or bringing into the Philippines of any dangerous drugs; and (2) the importation or bringing into the Philippines of said drugs was without authority of law. There is no importation unless it is proven that the dangerous drugs are brought into the Philippines from a foreign origin. The crime of illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily included in illegal importation of dangerous drugs. (People v. Liu, G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015) ―Drug Selling‖ is consummated upon the delivery of the drugs to the poseurbuyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. (People v. Hong Yen and Chua, G.R. No. 181826, January 9, 2013) The essential elements are: (1) Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; (2) Delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. When there is no payment, the crime may be delivery of drugs. The essential elements of delivery of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. CHAIN OF CUSTODY in relation to Section 21 of RA 9165 The chain of custody in its simplest terms refers to the movement of the evidence from the time it is recovered from the crime scene up to the time it is offered in evidence in court. The purpose is to authenticate the evidence as exactly that evidence recovered in the crime scene, that it has not been substituted or altered up to its appearance in court. It is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014) When there is a search warrant, marking and inventory shall be at the place where the search was conducted. In a buy-bust operation, the marking and inventory may be done immediately or at the nearest police station. Non-compliance with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where the prosecution recognized the procedural 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 20 of 24

lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. (Id.) It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcer's failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012) [N.B. Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule affects the credibility of the evidence and will not invalidate arrest or render inadmissible the items seized.] ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262) "Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child. On the other hand, "Dating relationship" exists even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved. While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013) The law punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women. This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010) ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, as amended) Money laundering is committed by any person who performs any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,5 knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council fails to do so. Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity. The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity. [N.B. Terrorism under RA 9372 is one of the predicate crimes; also RA 9165, Dangerous Drugs Act] The AMLC may file an ex parte petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If there is probable cause that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the circumstances of the case. If there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within 5 (a) transacts said monetary instrument or property; (b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or property; (c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property; (d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c); (e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and (f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above. 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 21 of 24

the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court. The AMLC may also inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment, including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court based on an ex parte application when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity. Application to inquire into or examine any deposit or investment filed with the Court of Appeals shall be acted upon within twenty-four (24) hours from filing. ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (RA 9203) The accused can be convicted of trafficking in persons even if AAA admitted that she works as a prostitute. Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under the law. As defined under Section 3(a) of R.A. NO. 9208, trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent. The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will. (People v. Shirley Casio, G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014) PREMATURE MARRIAGE On March 13, 2015, R.A. No. 10655 was approved into law repealing the crime of premature marriage committed by a woman under Article 351 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. This is, however, without prejudice to the provisions of the Family Code on paternity and filiation. ANTI-HAZING LAW (RA 8049) Presumption of Actual Participation; Conspiracy; Classes of Persons liable as Principals and Accomplices; Remedies of the offended party xxx Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in accordance with Section 4 of the law, which provides different classes of persons who are held liable as principals and accomplices. The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the punishable acts.6 The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be liable as principals. The provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or alumni. The third class of principals would be officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in 6 The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of injury inflicted to the victim. The penalties appear to be similar to that of homicide, serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, and slight physical injuries under the RPC, with the penalties for hazing increased one degree higher. Also, the law provides several circumstances which would aggravate the imposable penalty. 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 22 of 24

carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat. These officers or members are penalized, not because of their direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take action to prevent them from occurring. The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the hazing, but also his failure to prevent the same. The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization. The hazing must be held in the home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes and failed to take any action to avoid the same from occurring. The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The school authorities, including faculty members, who consented to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices. Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also be an accomplice to the crime. The owner of the place shall be liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and he failed to take any steps to stop the same. (Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015) HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (RA 9372) Definition; Any person who commits the predicate crimes (as enumerated in Section 3, like Piracy, Rebellion or Insurrection, Coup d' Etat, Murder, etc. ) thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest; 3 days The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of three days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act. xxx Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided ,That where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested. (Section 18) Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack; more than 3 days In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or 2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 23 of 24

judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within five days after the date of the detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That within three days after the detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established, shall be released immediately. (Section 19) Double Jeopardy; When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act. (Sec. 49)

--GOOD LUCK--


2016 Criminal Law Pre Week Handout by Justice Mario v. Lopez

Recommend Documents