CRIMson Flashcards
Differentiate grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
Differentiate consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Justifying circumstances
The following do not incur any criminal liability:
- Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
- Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
- Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
- Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
- Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
- Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Exempting circumstances
The following are exempt from criminal liability:
- An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
- A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. (RA 9344)
- A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. (RA 9344)
- Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
- Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
- Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
- Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
Mitigating circumstances
The following are mitigating circumstances;
- Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
- That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
- That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
- That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
- That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
- That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
- That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
- That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
- Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
- And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Who are considered principals liable for felonies?
- Principal by direct participation: those who take a direct part in the execution of the act (pwede lookout)
- Principal by inducement: those who directly force or induce others to commit it
- Principal by indispensable cooperation: those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished
Who are considered accessories to a crime?
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
- By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
- By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
- By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Not just the corpus delicti or weapon used, basta any proof > hence, pwede witness
Who is a recidivist?
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
Effects of habitual delinquency
a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Classification of penalties
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.
Classical theory vs. Positivist theory
The CLASSICAL Theory – means that the basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense. There is a scant regard to the human element; and
The POSITIVIST Theory – considers man as social being and his acts are attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. It means that man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of, or contrary to his volition. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed.
Criminal law is rooted in the concept that there is no crime unless a law specifically calls for its punishment.
Nullum crimen poena sine lege.
How to determine if intent is material in mala prohibita
In the case of mala prohibita, unless such words as “knowingly” and “willfully” are contained in the statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary.
Principle of generality
Means that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory. Article 14, Civil Code
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal law
- Treaties or treaty stipulations (e.g. RP-US Visiting Forces Accord);
- Laws of preferential application (e.g. R.A. No. 75 or An Act to Penalize Acts Which Would Impair the Proper Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants of the Philippine of the Immunities, Rights, and Privileges of Duly Accredited Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Agents in the Philippines); and
- Principles of Public International Law.
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY
Means that Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory. The Revised Penal Code, L. B. Reyes, supra.
Exceptions to the territorial application of Criminal law (Extraterritoriality Principle)
- Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
- Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
- Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
- While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
- Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. Article 2, RPC
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
Ex post facto law
It is one
a) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal and punishes such action; or
b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or
c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or
d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant.
Is an amendatory law for the suspension of benefits to a public official charged with estafa thru falsification pending appeal an ex post facto law?
The Supreme Court answered in the negative. It held that suspension
is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings.
Bill of attainder
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial function.
Ibid., citing People v. Ferrer, [1972]
Rationale for criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be
different from that which is intended.
“el que es causa de la causa es
causa del mal causado”, or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused
Aberratio ictus
In “aberratio ictus” or mistake in the blow, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
Error in personae
Where the case involves the killing of persons other than the intended victims, the same is better characterized as error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victims, rather than aberratio ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.
Intended victim is absent in scene of the crime, the actual victim is mistaken as the intended victim. Art. 49, if the intended felony is different from the felony actually committed, actually felony shall be charged but penalty is that which is lesser in its maximum period. Hence, in this case, it is a mitigating circumstance.
Praeter intentionem
“Praeter intentionem” is defined as having an injurious result that is greater than that intended.
The Revised Penal Code describes it as no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Effect of mitigating circumstance in a complex crime
The presence of a third mitigating circumstance in a complex crime has only the effect of imposing the minimum portion of the maximum period.
Mistake of fact
Mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness.
As early as in the case of People v. Oanis and Galanta, 74 Phil. 257 (1943), the Court has ruled that mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness: In support of the theory of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of fact, appellants rely on the
case of US. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488.
The maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the Ah Chong case, defendant therein after having gone to bed was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, “who is there,” but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” But at that precise moment, he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door and believing that he was then being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. People vs. Esmael Gervero, et al., G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018
Impossible crime
The requisites of an impossible crime are:
(1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
(2) that the act was done with evil intent; and
(3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual
(4) the act does not fall under any other provision of the RPC
The third element, inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime, was explained more clearly by the Court in the case of Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52 (1992), in this wise: Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons or property because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual. That the offense cannot be produced because the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment is the focus of this petition.
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category. On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. People vs. Hesson Callao y Marcelino
and Junello Amad, G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018
In People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943), the Court set forth two requisites in order that fulfillment of duty and exercise of a right may be considered as justifying circumstance, namely:
In People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943), the Court set forth two requisites in order that fulfillment of duty and exercise of a right may be considered as justifying circumstance, namely: (a) that the offender acts in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or in the lawful exercise of such right or office.
If one is absent, accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office. People vs. Esmael Gervero, et al., G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018
Treachery
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape the sudden blow.
The following elements must be established before the existence of treachery may be appreciated: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The suddenness or unexpectedness alone, however, of the attack is insufficient to support the finding of treachery. xxx Absent clear and convincing evidence on how the attack was perpetrated, the conclusion that there was treachery is nothing more but an assumption. People vs. Romeo D. Calinawan a.k.a. “Meo”, G.R. No. 226145, February 13, 2017
For voluntary surrender to mitigate the offense, the following elements must be present:
For voluntary surrender to mitigate the offense, the following elements must be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary.
A surrender, to be voluntary must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses in capturing him.
In the present case, Mercado did not actually surrender. Instead, he simply did not offer any resistance when so arrested. The records of the case reveal that when Evelyn was transported to the hospital, Mercado stayed in a nearby house where he watched as their house was engulfed
in flames. While he was observing the fire, someone approached him and handcuffed him — to which act he did not resist. People vs. Patrick John Mercado y Anticla, G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.
Accomplice
accomplices are those persons who, not having acted as principals, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts
For one to be regarded as an accomplice, it must be shown that:
(i) he knew the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, and concurred with the latter in his purpose;
(ii) he cooperated in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and
(iii) his acts bore a direct relation with the acts done by the principal. Excel Gurro v. People, G.R. Nos. 224562 and 237216, September 18, 2019
In a conspiracy, what is the degree of participation of someone who only watches and does nothing to prevent the crime?
In case of conspiracy, one who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetration thereof is criminally responsible to the same extent as the actual perpetrator, especially if they did nothing to prevent the commission of the crime.
Can a person who assists a brother-in-law in concealing the body of a crime in order to prevent its discovery be convicted as an accessory?
No. Although the prosecution was able to prove that Appellant Garcia assisted in “concealing the body of the crime, in order to prevent its discovery,” he can neither be convicted as an accessory after the fact defined under Article 19, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code.
The records show that Appellant Garcia is a brother-in-law of Appellant Ortega, the latter’s sister, Maritess, being his wife. Such relationship exempts Appellant Garcia from criminal liability as provided by Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code: “ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.—The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.” People v. Benjamin Ortega, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997
Elements of conspiracy
Under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of conspiracy:
1) two (2) or more persons came to an agreement;
2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and
3) the execution of a felony was decided upon.
Proof of conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence. It may be inferred from the parties’ conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of a crime. It is likewise not necessary to show that two (2) or more persons met together and
entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated. It may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. People v. Ronilee Casabuena, et al., G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020
Conspiracy may be presumed from, and proven by the acts of
Conspiracy may be presumed from, and proven by the acts before, during or after of, the accused pointing to a joint purpose, design, concerted action and community of interests.
Quasi-recidivism
Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Article 160, RPC
Habitual delinquent
A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or less serious physical injuries, (2) robo, (3) hurto, (4) estafa or (5) falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Article 62, last paragraph, RPC
Are estafa and falsification of public documents two separate crimes when committed by a single person in one instance?
In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each other. While there may be two component crimes (estafa and falsification of public documents), both felonies are animated by and result from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal liability. That is the concept of a complex crime.
In other words, while there are two crimes, they are treated only as one, subject to a single criminal liability. While a conviction for estafa through falsification of public documents requires that the elements of both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and considered independently of that for falsification. The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsification of public documents. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime.
Can rebellion be complexed with common crimes?
No. Rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes.
The crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, robbery and/or other common crimes, committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged.
The reason is that political crimes are directly aimed against the political order and common crimes may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
Hernandez ruling remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by itself, suffice.
Give an example of a special complex crime
A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life.
To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
- The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
- The property taken belongs to another;
- The taking is with the intent to gain or animo lucrandi; and
- By reason or on occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed.
Continuous/continued crime
A comparison of the Informations filed in the two cases under consideration as well as the findings of facts of the appellate court tells us that they refer to the same series of acts. These series of acts amount to what is known in law as a continued, continuous or continuing offense.
A continued crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. It is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. Although there are series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed. Consuelo E. Mallari v. People and Court of Appeals, No. L-58886, December 13, 1988
Continuing/transitory crime
The general concept of continuing offense is that the essential ingredients of the crime are committed in different provinces/[places]. An example is the complex offense of kidnapping with murder if the victim is transported through different provinces before he is actually killed. In such case, the CFI of any province in which any one of the essential elements of said complex offense has been committed, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense.
In transitory or continuing offenses some acts material and essential to the crime occur, in one province and some in another, in which case, the rule is settled that the court of either province where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place has jurisdiction to try the case.
There are, however, crimes which although all the elements thereof for its consummation may have occurred in a single place, yet by reason of the very nature of the offense committed, the violation of the law is deemed to be continuing.
Of the first class, the crime of estafa or malversation, and abduction, may be mentioned; and as belonging to the second class are the crimes of kidnapping and illegal detention where the deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place to another and libel where the libelous matter is published or circulated from one province to another.
To this latter class may also be included the crime of evasion of service of sentence, when the prisoner in his attempt to evade the service of sentence imposed upon him by the courts and thus defeat the purpose of the law, moves from one place to another; for, in this case, the act of the escaped prisoner is a continuous or series of acts set afoot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long it may be, It may not be validly said that after the convict shall have escaped from the place of his confinement the crime is fully consummated, for as long as he continues to evade the service of his sentence he is deemed to continue committing the crime, and may be arrested without warrant, at any place where he may be found.
Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing
after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
- When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
- When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
Penalty for complex crimes
When the offense is a complex crime, the penalty for which is that for the graver offense, to be imposed in the maximum period.
For the complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder in Criminal Case Nos. 17646-B and 17647-B, the graver offense is Murder. Article 248 of the RPC provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the felony of murder; thus, the imposable penalty should have been death.
However, considering that the imposition of death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”; the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon appellants. In addition, the qualification “without eligibility for parole” should be affixed to qualify reclusion perpetua pursuant to A.M.
No. 15-08-02-SC. Thus, the CA has properly imposed upon appellants the penalty of “reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole”.
Recognizance
Recognizance is a mode of securing the release of any person in custody or detention for the commission of an offense who is unable to post bail due to abject poverty. The court where the
case of such person has been filed shall allow the release of the accused on recognizance as provided herein, to the custody of a qualified member of the barangay, city or municipality where the accused resides. Section 3, R.A. No. 10389 or the “Recognizance Act of 2012”
Disqualifications for Release on Recognizance
Any of the following circumstances shall be a valid ground for the court to disqualify an accused from availing of the benefits provided under the Act:
a) The accused bad made untruthful statements in his/her sworn affidavit prescribed under Section 5(a);
b) The accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, or has committed a crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
c) The accused had been found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence or has violated the conditions of bail or release on recognizance without valid justification;
d) The accused had previously committed a crime while on probation, parole or under conditional pardon;
e) The personal circumstances of the accused or nature of the facts surrounding his/her case indicate the probability of flight if released on recognizance;
f) There is a great risk that the accused may commit another crime during the pendency of the case; and
g) The accused has a pending criminal case which has the same or higher penalty to the new crime he/she is being accused of. Section 7, R.A. No. 10389
Who are not eligible for parole?
Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346 provides that “[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), as amended.”
Furthermore, Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, reads: SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. – Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best.
No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction: xxx Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, intends to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable, for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid. An accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. Jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable about it. The law is very clear and a contrary interpretation would counter its envisioned mandate. Thus, even assuming that herein accused-appellant is qualified to apply for parole, he has already availed himself of the remedy of appeal twice, by appealing the RTC judgment of conviction before the Court of Appeals, and then appealing the Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction before this Court, which already proscribes him from applying for probation. People vs. Renato Galuga y Wad-As, G.R. No. 221428, February 13, 2019
Effect of death on one’s criminal liability
Appellant’s death has the effect of extinguishing his criminal liability.
Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. People v. Gerry Lipata y Ortiza, G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016
Effect of marriage between offender and offended party as to crime of rape
Article 344 applied to marriages contracted between the offender and the offended party in the crime of rape as well as in the crime of abuse of chastity to totally extinguish the criminal liability of and the corresponding penalty that may have been imposed upon those found guilty of the felony.
Probation
“Probation” is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. Section 3(a), P.D. No. 968 or the Probation Law of 1976
The benefits of the Probation Law 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. Section 9, P.D. No. 968, as amended
by R.A. No. 10707
f. Disqualified under special penal laws:
i. Offenders found guilty of any election offense in accordance with Section 264 of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code);
ii. Offenders found guilty of violation of R.A. No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act, as amended);
iii. Offenders found guilty of violation of R.A. No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, except Sections 12, 14, 17, and 70
Effect of termination of probation
After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
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.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order. Section 16, P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707
Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
- By conditional pardon;
- By commutation of the sentence; and
- For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence. Article 94, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10592
Partial pardon
The reduction of a prisoner’s sentence is a partial pardon, and our Constitution reposes in the President the power and the exclusive prerogative to extend the same.
The 1987 Constitution, specifically under Section 19, Article VII thereof, provides that the President possesses the power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency, which petitioner explicitly recognized by applying for commutation of sentence even during the pendency of his request for the implementation of the conditional pardon. Ruben E. Tiu v. Hon. Natividad G. Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 211269, June 15, 2016
Conditional pardon
A conditional pardon, [which] is a contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release the latter subject to the condition that if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an additional one.
Effect of commutation of sentence
The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former. Article 96, RPC
Standard of behavior in granting good conduct time allowance
Despite various amendments to the law, the standard of behavior in granting GCTA remains to be “good conduct.” In essence, the definition of what constitutes “good conduct” has been invariable through the years, thus: Act No. 1533: “not been guilty of a violation of discipline or any of the rules of the prison, and has labored with diligence and fidelity upon all such tasks as have been assigned to him.”
BUCOR Operating Manual dated March 30, 2000: “displays good behavior and who has no record of breach of discipline or violation of prison rules and regulations.”
IRR of R.A. No. 10592: “the conspicuous and satisfactory behavior of a detention or convicted prisoner consisting of active involvement in rehabilitation programs, productive participation in authorized work activities or accomplishment of exemplary deeds coupled with faithful obedience to all prison/jail rules and regulations.”
Parole
Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he has served the minimum of his prison sentence.
Who can be granted parole?
Parole is extended only to those sentenced to divisible penalties.
Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty without a minimum or maximum period. Parole on the other hand, is extended only to those sentenced to divisible penalties as is evident from Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that it is only after “any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him” that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole.
What constitutes terrorism under The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
Subject to Section 49 of this Act, terrorism is committed by any person who, within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution:
(a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life;
(b) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property;
(c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure;
(d) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and
(e) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions. when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to:
i. intimidate the general public or a segment thereof;
ii. create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear;
iii. to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization; or
iv. seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country; or
v. create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety shall be guilty of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as “An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code”.
Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety. Section 4, R.A. No. 11479.
Threat to commit terrorism
There is a threat to commit terrorism when an intent to commit terrorism as defined in Section 4 of the Act is communicated by any means to another person or entity under circumstances that indicate the credibility of the threat.
Any person found guilty shall be imprisoned for 12 years. Section 5, R.A. No. 11479.
Conspiracy to commit terrorism
There is a conspiracy to commit terrorism when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of terrorism as defined in Section 4 of the Act and decide to commit the same.
Any person found guilty shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of R.A. No. 10592. Section 7, R.A. No. 11479.
Financing of Terrorism
Any person who, directly or indirectly, willfully and without lawful excuse, possesses, provides, collects or uses property or funds or makes available property, funds or financial service or other related services, by any means, with the unlawful and willful intention that they should be used or with the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part:
(a) to carry out or facilitate the commission of any terrorist act;
(b) by a terrorist organization, association or group; or
(c) by an individual terrorist, shall be guilty of the crime of financing of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).
Any person who organizes or directs others to commit financing of terrorism under the immediately preceding paragraph shall likewise be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the same penalty as herein prescribed.
For purposes of this Act, knowledge or intent may be established by direct evidence or inferred from the attendant circumstances.
For an act to constitute a crime under this Act, it shall not be necessary that the funds were actually used to carry out a crime referred to in Section 3(j). Section 4, R. A. No. 10168
The arresting officer is duty-bound to release a detained person, if the maximum hours for detention provided under Article 125 of the RPC had already expired.
ART. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities.—The penalties provided in the next preceding articles shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
Based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office day.”
Subversion v. Rebellion
Anti-Subversion Act (RA 1700) punishes affiliation or mere membership in a subversive organization as defined therein.
The taking up of arms by a member of a subversive organization against the Government is but a circumstance which raises the penalty to be imposed upon the offender.
Rebellion is the rising publicly and taking up arms against the Government for any of the purposes specified in Article 134 of the RPC.
“for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.”
Where it is alleged in the information that the accused by laying hands upon election inspectors and watchers in public places had cause serious disturbance and interrupted or disturbed public performances and functions, they are thus charged with
Complex crime of assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of public order
Direct assault
Direct assault is an offense against public order that may be committed in two ways:
first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition;
and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.
Art. 156, RPC
The offense may be committed in two ways:
(1) by removing a person confined in any jail or penal establishment; and
(2) by helping such a person to escape. To remove means to take away a person from the place of his confinement, with or without the active cooperation of the person released. To help in the escape of a person confined in any jail or penal institution means to furnish that person with the material means such as a file, ladder, rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his escape. The offense under this article is usually committed by an outsider who removes from jail any person therein confined or helps him escape. If the offender is a public officer who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner defined and penalized under Article 223 of the RPC.
Can quasi-recidivism be offset by a mitigating circumstance?
No. Article 160 of the RPC provides a special aggravating circumstance for quasi-recidivism by imposing the maximum of the penalty for the new offense, and it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
Falsification of Public Documents
The elements of Article 171 are:
(1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
(2) he takes advantage of his official position; and
(3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done.
It bears emphasis that what is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.
The act of “altering true dates” requires that:
The act of “altering true dates” requires that: (a) the date mentioned in the document is essential; and (b) the alteration of the date in a document must affect either the veracity of the document or the effects thereof.
On the other hand, “making alteration or intercalation in a genuine document” requires a showing that: (a) there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document; (b) it was made on a genuine document; (c) the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and (d) the change made the document speak something false.
Elements of Falsification of Private Documents under paragraph 2, Article 172, RPC
The elements of Falsification of Private Documents under Article 172(2) of the RPC are:
a) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171(7) of the same Code;
b) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and
c) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
In cases of falsification of private documents, the venue is
In cases of falsification of private documents, the venue is the place where the document is actually falsified, to the prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice a third person, regardless whether or not the falsified document is put to the improper or illegal use for which it was intended.
Is mere intent to cause damage on Article 172(2) of the RPC, as amended, sufficient?
Article 172(2) of the RPCf, as amended, states that mere intent to cause such damage is sufficient.
On the other hand, falsification of documents under paragraph 1 of Article 172, like Article 171, does not require the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person as an element of conviction.
Considering that even though in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the solemnly proclaimed, it must, nevertheless, be borne in mind that the change in the public document must be such as to affect the integrity of the same or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce; for unless that happens, there could not exist the essential element of the intention to commit the crime which is required by Article 1 [now Article 3] of the Penal Code.
Article 172 (2) v. Article 171
Not all the elements of the crime punished by paragraph 2, Article 172 are included under Article 171. Specifically, the former offense requires the element of damage, which is not a requisite in the latter Falsification under paragraph 2 of Article 172 goes beyond the elements of falsification enumerated under Article 171. The former requires additional independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person. Simply put, in Article 171, damage is not an element of the crime; but in paragraph 2 of Article 172, or falsification of a private document, damage is an element necessary for conviction.
If the offense is falsification of a public document punishable under Article 172 of the RPC, the period for prescription commences on
The date of registration of the forged or falsified document.
Article 90 of the RPC provides that the period for the prescription of offenses commences from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.
But if the offense is falsification of a public document punishable under Article 172 of the RPC, as in this case, the period for prescription commences on the date of registration of the forged or falsified document. As consistently applied in land registration proceedings, the act of registration serves as a constructive notice to the entire world, charging everyone with knowledge of the contents of the document. In People v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597 (1989), the Court justified the application of this rule in criminal cases.
The punishable act in usurpation of authority is
false and knowing representation, i.e. the malicious misrepresentation as an agent, officer, or representative of the government.
Elements of Usurpation of official functions
Under Article 177 of the RPC, as amended, the elements of the crime of usurpation of official functions are when a person:
(1) performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof;
(2) acts under pretense of official position; and
(3) acts without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Is good faith a defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions?
Yes. In People v. Hilvano, good faith is a defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions.
The term “good faith” is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting “honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even though technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts, which render transaction unconscientious.
Good faith is actually a question of intention and although something internal, it can be ascertained by relying not on one’s self-serving protestations of good faith but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.
In this case, the records fail to show that private respondent acted in bad faith in withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order. On the contrary, it appears it was petitioner who acted in bad faith. Private respondent claims that despite the notice of withdrawal and the directive to return the public fund to the National Treasury pending compliance with the rules, petitioner brazenly procured various infrastructure projects. Petitioner was the only one among the local chief executives who disregarded the order from the Executive Department.
Elements of perjury
a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;
b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;
c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose
Grave Scandal
A. Concept: It is a crime consisting of the performance or doing any act which is highly scandalous as to offend against decency and good custom.
- The act, either a physical observable activity or audible noise, both of which scandalizes those who see or hear them. As for instance the act of engaging in a torrid kissing, urinating or defecating or going around in scanty attire, or loud obscene sex noises.
- They must be done either: (a) In a public place i.e where people usually go or congregate such as in parks, movie houses, bazaars, malls. In these places the presence of third persons is not required; or (b) Within public knowledge or public view. This refers to private houses, rooms, grounds, veranda, but the noises made are so loud or the acts can be seen by third persons. The third person must not however be a Peeping Tom.
B. The act must not be punished under any other provision of the Code as this is a crime of last resort or a catch-all crime.
Public officers
Any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government, or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer. Article 203, RPC
“Public officer” includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph. Section 2(b), R.A. No. 3019
“Public Officer” means any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or contract. Section 1(a), R.A. No. 7080
Elements of Direct Bribery
The crime of direct bribery exists when a public officer: (1) agrees to perform an act that constitutes a crime in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present; (2) accepts the gift in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime; or (3) abstains from the performance of official duties.
However, where the act is entirely outside of the official functions of the officer to whom the money is offered, the offense is not bribery.
Violations of Section 3(b), R.A. 3019, and Bribery, distinguished
The violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither identical nor necessarily inclusive of direct bribery. 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. Whereas the mere request or demand of a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present is required in direct bribery.
Moreover, the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is specific. It is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene under the law. Direct bribery, on the other hand, has a wider and more general scope:
(a) performance of an act constituting a crime; (b) execution of an unjust act which does not constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or refraining from doing an act which is his official duty to do.
Indirect bribery
Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration.
Is malicious intent material in malversation?
No. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence; All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so.
Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts.
The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
Technical Malversation
The essential elements of the crime of technical malversation defined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, which are: (1) That the offender is a public officer; (2) That there is public fund or property under his administration; (3) That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance; and (4) That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
How offense of conniving with or consenting to escape of prisoner under Art. 223 of the Revised Penal Code committed
In order to be guilty under the aforequoted provisions of the RPC, it is necessary that the public officer had consented to, or connived in, the escape of the prisoner under his custody or charge.
Connivance in the escape of a prisoner on the part of the person in charge is an essential condition in the commission of the crime of faithlessness in the custody of the prisoner. If the public officer charged with the duty of guarding him does not connive with the fugitive, then he has not violated the law and is not guilty of the crime.
Evasion through negligence
The elements of the crime under the Article 224 of the RPC are:
a) that the offender is a public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and
c) that such prisoner escapes through his negligence.
Usurpation of Judicial Authority
Under Art. 241 of the RPC, the crime of usurpation of judicial authority involves the following elements:
(1) that the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government; and
(2) that he assumes judicial powers, or obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
Do mayors have the authority to
a. conduct preliminary investigation?
b. issue a warrant of arrest?
Mayors have no longer the power to conduct preliminary investigations, much less issue orders of arrest.
Section 143 of the Local Government Code, conferring this power on the mayor has been abrogated, rendered functus officio by the 1987 Constitution which took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification by the Filipino people.
Corrupt practices of public officers under RA3019
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:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving 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 part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
(j) Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
(k) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(l) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph
(d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government. Section 3, R. A. No. 3019
Prohibition on private individuals under RA3019
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene.
Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word “close personal relation” shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof. Section 4, R. A. No. 3019
Prohibition on certain relatives under RA3019
It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession. Section 5, R. A. No. 3019
Prescription of offenses under RA3019
All offenses punishable under R. A. No. 3019 shall prescribe in twenty years. Section 11, R. A. No. 3019, as amended by R. A. No. 10910
Plunder
Under the Anti-Plunder Law, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them, or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
Causing Undue Injury to Any Party Including the Government or Giving Any Private Party Any Undue Benefits, Elements
The elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are as follows:
(a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);
(b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
(c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence
Manifest partiality is when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
Gross inexcusable negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
Plunder
Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. Section 2, R.A. No. 7080 as amended by R. A. No. 7659
In the crime of plunder, the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired by each accused in a conspiracy is immaterial for as long as the total amount amassed, acquired or accumulated is at least P50 million.
Two forms of conspiracy
In terms of proving its existence, conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the express form, which requires proof of an actual agreement among all the coconspirators to commit the crime. However, conspiracies are not always shown to have been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we have the second form, the implied conspiracy.
An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.
Wheel 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.
Chain conspiracy
The chain conspiracy recognized in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 377 SCRA 538 (2002), exists when there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer. This involves individuals linked together in a vertical chain to achieve a criminal objective.
Illustrative of chain conspiracy was that involved in United States v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1939), of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There, 88 defendants were indicted for a conspiracy to import, sell, and possess narcotics.
This case involved several smugglers who had brought narcotics to retailers who, in turn, had sold the narcotics to operatives in Texas and Louisiana for distribution to addicts. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that what transpired was a single chain conspiracy in which the smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers for distribution to addicts, and the retailers knew that the middle men must purchase drugs from smugglers. As reasoned by the court, “the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not and could not, stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their sellers.” Each conspirator knew that “the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned was dependent upon success of the whole.” This means, therefore, that “every member of the conspiracy was liable for every illegal transaction carried out by other members of the conspiracy in Texas and in Louisiana.”
Parricide
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Article 246. Parricide.—Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Unintentional abortion vs. Infanticide
As distinguished from infanticide, the elements of unintentional abortion are as follows: (1) that there is a pregnant woman; (2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion; (3) that the violence is intentionally exerted; and (4) that as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
In the crime of infanticide, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, that is, capable of independent existence. However, even if the child who was expelled prematurely and deliberately were alive at birth, the offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an intrauterine life of 6 months is not viable.
Murder
Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
- With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. x x x
- With evident premeditation.
Evident premeditation
The elements of evident premeditation are:
1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime;
2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination;
3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts
In this case, Macaspac’s having suddenly left the group and his utterance of “Hintayin n’yo ako d’yan, wawalisin ko kayo” marked the time of his resolve to commit the crime. His returning to the group with the knife manifested his clinging to his resolve to inflict lethal harm on the others.
The first and second elements of evident premeditation were thereby established. But it is the essence of this circumstance that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at calm judgment. Was the lapse of time between the determination and execution — a matter of three (3) minutes, based on the records — sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act? By quickly returning to the group with the knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime. As such, the third requisite was absent.
There is no evident premeditation when the attack was the result of rising tempers or made in the heat of anger.
It is settled, however, that mere existence of ill feelings or grudges between the parties is not sufficient to sustain a conclusion of premeditated killing. Furthermore, it cannot be said that enough time has passed to allow accused-appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
“It has been held in one case that even the lapse of 30 minutes between the determination to commit a crime and the execution thereof is insufficient for full meditation on the consequences of the act.”
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during an interval of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. There is no evident premeditation when the attack was the result of rising tempers or made in the heat of anger.
Abuse of Superior Strength
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.
Can the court appreciate any of the circumstances in murder even if they were not alleged in the Information?
No. Section 8. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
The provision is in consonance with the constitutional rights of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial. Hence, even if the prosecution has duly proven the presence of any of these circumstances, the Court cannot appreciate the same if they were not alleged in the Information.
Homicide
To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
(1) that a person was killed;
(2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
(4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.
2 kinds of unlawful aggression
As the second element of unlawful aggression will show, it is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression.
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening or intimidating attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive, menacing and positively strong, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack).
There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the accused’s life in real peril.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression — requires a reasonable proportionality between the unlawful aggression and the defensive response:
“[t]he means employed by the person invoking self-defense contemplates a rational equivalence between the means of attack and the defense.
This is a matter that depends on the circumstances: Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.
As We stated in the case of People v. Lara, 48 Phil. 153 (1925), in emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and hold the act irresponsible in law for the consequences.
Piracy under Art. 122 of the RPC and PD No. 532, distinguished
As to the offenders. In Article 122, the offenders are strangers and not members of the complement or passengers. In PD No. 532, the offenders are either members of the complement or passengers.
As to the situs of the crime. Article 122 can be committed either in Philippine waters or in high seas. PD No. 132 can only be committed in Philippine waters.
As to qualifying circumstances. In Article 122, piracy is qualified by boarding or firing upon the ship to seize it; by abandoning the victims without means of saving themselves or by committing murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. In PD No. 532, same circumstances and “other cimes” qualify the offense (any crimes qualify).
Unlawful aggression
Time and again, the SC has held that when an unlawful aggression that has begun has ceased to exist, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.
Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting defense of one’s self.
The condition sine qua non of unlawful aggression being absent, self-defense cannot be appreciated in favor of the accused.
a. There must be actual or physical attack present
b. The attack or assault is actual or impending to happen
c. The attack or assault is unlawful
Actual/material > By means of physical force or a weapon
Impending > attack is at the point of happening
Does shooting a person behind his/her back automatically constitute treachery?
A killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be treacherous. Even where the victim was shot from behind, if the shooting was done in the course of a heated argument between the victim and the assailant, treachery should not be appreciated, for in that situation, the assailant was filled with anger and rage and excitement, and had no time to reflect on his actions; in other words, he could not be shown to have consciously adopted the mode of attacking the victim from behind to facilitate the killing without risk to himself.
To establish the attendance of treachery in such an environment, the State’s evidence must competently and convincingly show that the accused made some preparation to kill the victim; hence, a killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be treacherous.
A frontal attack could still be deemed treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed who would not be in a position to repel the attack or avoid it. T or F.
True. A frontal attack could still be deemed treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed who would not be in a position to repel the attack or avoid it.
It has been held, however, that treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to retaliate or defend himself, as in this case.
If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is
Arson and the resulting homicide is absorbed
If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is
Murder only.
If the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the crime is
There are two separate and distinct crimes committed —homicide/murder and arson.
Physical injuries
When the intent to kill is lacking, but wounds are shown to have been inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not frustrated or attempted homicide but physical injuries only.
Since the victim’s period of incapacity and healing of his injuries was more than 30 days — he was confined at the hospital from November 5 to 25, 2001, or for 20 days, and his period of healing was “two (2) to four (4) weeks barring complications” — the crime committed is serious physical injuries under Article 263, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
Rape through carnal knowledge
The elements of rape by carnal knowledge under Article 266-A(1)(a) are:
1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
2) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.
In a rape case, can an accused be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim?
Yes. An accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim’s sole testimony provided it is credible, consistent and convincing.
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime. As such, an accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim’s sole testimony provided it is credible, consistent and convincing.
Qualified Rape
- When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim
- When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution
- When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity
- When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime
- When the victim is a child below 7 years old.
- When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim.
- When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime
- When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability
- When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime
- When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Take note of the 10 scenarios in Art. 266 (B) which qualifies rape
A step-brother or step-sister relationship between the offender and the offended party cannot elevate the crime to qualified rape because they are not related either by blood or affinity. The enumeration is exclsuive.
Rape under the RPC, as amended, can be committed in two ways:
Rape under the RPC, as amended, can be committed in two ways: (1) Article 266-A, paragraph 1 refers to rape through sexual intercourse, also known as “organ rape” or “penile rape.” The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) Article 266-A, paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called “instrument or object rape,” or “gender-free rape.” It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.
Note: Where the rape is committed by a close kin, such as the victim’s father, stepfather, uncle,
or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be
employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
Statutory Rape
For the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape, two (2) elements must concur:
(1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old.
If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is proven.
It is committed regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation; fraud or grave abuse of authority; and whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness.
It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. In the recent case of People v. Castillo, the Court En Banc settled that the crime is statutory Rape when the victim has a mental age of a person below 12 years old.
Rape by Sexual Assault
The following are the elements of rape by sexual assault:
(1) That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
(2) That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
(3) That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force and intimidation;
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.
In what way is rape committed if a finger is inserted?
Rape by sexual assault is the act of “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.”
I (J. Martires) maintain my position in People v. Caoili that the insertion of the finger into the vagina constitutes rape through sexual intercourse and not rape by sexual assault. Rape by sexual assault is the act of “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.”
Instrument is defined as “utensil or implement.” On the other hand, object is defined as “a discrete visible or tangible thing.” The finger, however, is neither an instrument nor an object.
Stripped to its most basic definition, a finger is a body part. Consequently, applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius which means that the express mention of one thing excludes all others, the insertion of the finger or any other body part into the genital or anal orifice of another person could not be properly categorized as rape by sexual assault. The basic difference between an instrument or object on the one hand and the finger or any body part on the other is that on account of its independent existence, the former, by itself, can be used in the dastardly act of assaulting another person; whereas the latter owes its function to the fact that it is attached to the body. For sure, a person would not go to the extent of cutting his finger and then use the severed finger to sexually assault another person.
Hazing
“Hazing” refers to any act that results in physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an initiation rite or practice made as a pre-requisite for admission or a requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization including, but not limited to, paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance, or any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of such recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member. This shall also include any activity, intentionally made or otherwise, by one person alone or acting with others, that tends to humiliate or embarrass, degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member to do menial, silly, or foolish tasks.
Initiation/Initiation Rites
“Initiation or Initiation Rites” refer to ceremonies, practices, rituals, or other acts, whether formal or informal, that a person must perform or take part in order to be accepted into a fraternity, sorority, or organization as a full-fledged member.
It includes ceremonies, practices, rituals, and other acts in all stages of membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization. Section 2(b), R.A. No. 8049, as amended
Organization
“Organization” refers to an organized body of people which includes, but is not limited to, any club, association, group, fraternity, and sorority. This term shall include the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), and other similar uniformed service learning institutions. Section 2(c), R. A. No. 8049, as amended
Penalty for violation of anti-hazing act
Section 14(c) of RA No. 11053 imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a P1-million fine on all persons present in the conduct of the hazing.
This new penalty affirms the law’s policy to suppress the escalation and encouragement of hazing, and to severely punish bystanders and watchers of the reprehensible acts committed.
As noted by public respondents, a P3 million fine shall be imposed in addition to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for those who actually planned or participated in the hazing if it results in death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation.
Further, Republic Act No. 11053 put in place imposable penalties on certain members, officers, and alumni of the organization involved in the hazing, and prescribes the administrative sanctions, if applicable. The concealment of the offense or obstruction of the investigation is also penalized.
Notably, Section 14(c) of Republic Act No. 11053 imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a P1-million fine on all persons present in the conduct of the hazing. This new penalty affirms the law’s policy to suppress the escalation and encouragement of hazing, and to severely punish bystanders and watchers of the reprehensible acts committed.
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are:
- the offender is a private individual;
- he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
- the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
- in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three (3) days; or
b. it is committed by simulating public authority; or
c. serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or
d. the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home.
It is settled that the crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or depriving him of his liberty in any manner. For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.
Kidnapping for Ransom
In prosecuting a case involving the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the following elements must be established:
(i) the accused was a private person; (ii) he kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty;
(iii) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and
(iv) the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom.
Corpus Delicti
Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime which may be proved by the testimony of the witnesses who saw it.
To prove the corpus delicti, it is sufficient for the prosecution to be able to show that (1) a certain fact has been proven — say, a person has died or a building has been burned; and (2) a particular person is criminally responsible for the act.
Robbery
Robbery in general is defined under Article 293 of the RPC as follows:
Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery.—Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery. The elements of robbery are thus:
(1) there is taking of personal property;
(2) the personal property belongs to another;
(3) the taking is with animus lucrandi; and
(4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things.
5 classes of robbery
There are five classes of robbery under the latter, namely:
(a) robbery with homicide (par. 1);
(b) robbery with rape, intentional mutilation, or the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 (par. 2);
(c) robbery with physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of Article 263 (par. 3);
(d) robbery committed with unnecessary violence or with physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263 (par. 4); and
(e) robbery in other cases, or simply robbery (par. 5), where the violence against or intimidation of persons cannot be subsumed by, or where it is not sufficiently specified so as to fall under, the first four paragraphs.
- Robbery with Homicide (not murder)
- Robbery with Rape (not attempted rape)
- Robbery with Intentional Mutilations
- Robbery with Arson: it is essential that robbery precede the arson, as in the case of rape and intentional mutilation, because the amendment included arson among the rape and intentional mutilation which have accompanied the robbery
NOTE: Arson is only an aggravating circumstance if may homicide, rape, intentional mutilation (in that order). Arson has been made a component only of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons but not of robbery by the use of force upon things. Hence, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson was committed, two distinct crimes are committed.
- Robbery with Physical Injuries: the physical injuries must always be serious. If only less serious or slight, they are absorbed in the robbery. But if the less serious physical injuries were committed after the robbery was already consummated, there would be a separate charge for the less serious/slight physical injuries.
How to construe the phrase “by means of violence against or intimidation of persons” as used in Article 294
The phrase ‘by means of violence against or intimidation of persons’ in Article 312 must be construed to refer to the same phrase used in Article 94.
There are five classes of robbery under the latter. Paragraphs one to four or Article 294 indisputably involve the use of violence against persons.
The actual physical force inflicted results in death, rape, mutilation or the physical injuries therein enumerated. The simple robbery under paragraph five may cover physical injuries not included in paragraphs two to four. Thus, when less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries are inflicted upon the offended party on the occasion of a robbery, the accused may be prosecuted for and convicted of robbery under paragraph five. It seems obvious that intimidation is not encompassed under paragraphs one to four since no actual physical violence is inflicted; evidently then, it can only fall under paragraph five.
But what is meant by the word intimidation? It is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as ‘unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear.’
To take, or attempt to take, by intimidation means ‘wilfully to take, or attempt to take, by putting in fear of bodily harm.” As shown in United States v. Osorio material violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation, intense fear produced in the mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the will is sufficient.
Robbery with Homicide
Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime/composite crime against property. It exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery.
In this kind of crime, the offender’s original intent is to commit robbery and the homicide must only be incidental. The killing may occur before, during, or even after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into consideration. It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. It is also of no moment that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers.
The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense and includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. As such, the crime is robbery with homicide when the killing was committed to facilitate the taking of the property or escape of the culprit, to preserve the possession of the loot, to prevent the discovery of robbery, or to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime.
In charging Robbery with Homicide, the onus probandi is to establish:
(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person;
(b) the property belongs to another;
(c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi or with intent to gain; and
(d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed.
When the killing is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery
When the killing is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, the qualifying circumstances attendant to the killing would be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
In numerous cases, We held that when the killing is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, the qualifying circumstances attendant to the killing would be considered as generic aggravating circumstances. Thus, in the case at bar, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength serves to aggravate the crime.
Is evident premeditation an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide?
No. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide because the elements of which are already inherent in the crime.
Evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against property.
Robbery with rape
Robbery with Rape is a special complex crime under Article 294 of the RPC. It contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime.
The crime of Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the RPC, as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659.
To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
Is there a crime committed when one fails to return a lost property?
Yes. Under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC, Theft is also committed by one’s failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities.
Under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC, Theft is also committed by one’s failure to deliver lost property to its owner or local authorities.
In this kind of Theft, it is essential to prove:
1. the finding of lost property;
2. the failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.
A “finder” under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the RPC is not only limited to the actual finder of the lost property since the gist of the offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found.
Though not the actual finder, there is no dispute that Pante knew for a fact that his two coaccused minor did not own the subject money. He knew for a fact that his co-accused minor merely found the money along the road while the latter was delivering bread. Instead of returning the money, Pante convinced his co-accused minors not to return the money and to divide it among themselves. At that moment, Pante placed himself precisely in the situation as if he was the actual finder. Otherwise stated, petitioner was a “finder in law,” if not in fact; and his act in appropriating the money was of precisely of the same character as if it had been originally found by him. His criminal intent to commandeer the money found was altogether clear at that point. The rationale for the “finder in law” concept is not difficult to fathom. It is precisely to protect the owner of the lost property in the event the lost property is transferred from one individual to another and to prevent the “finder in law” from escaping liability by claiming that he was not the actual finder thereof but was merely entrusted custody thereof by someone who had no intention to appropriate the same.
“Otherwise, a person knowingly receiving lost property from the finder, who had no intent to steal, with the felonious intent to appropriate it to his [or her] own use, escapes punishment. In such case, whether or not the person taking the money is guilty of [theft] must be determined on the same principles which govern in the case of the actual finder.”
Qualified theft
- If theft is committed by a domestic servant;
- If the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence
- If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle (see carnapping)
- If the property stolen consist of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation
- If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or
- If the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
Elements of Estafa by Means of Deceit
The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC are the following:
a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and
d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Fraud
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.
It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated.
On the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
Fencing
“Fencing” is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. Section 2(a), P. D. No. 1612
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Section 5, P.D. No. 1612.
Fence
“Fence” includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. Section 2(b), P. D. No. 1612
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence. Section 6, P. D. No. 1612
Elements of violation of BP22
To sustain a conviction of violation of B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt three (3) essential elements, namely:
1) The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
2) The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
3) The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit; or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reasons, ordered the bank to stop payment.
In BP22, for presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the following:
(a) the check is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check;
(b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee; and
(c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
In other words, the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five (5) days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence, as provided in this Section, cannot arise if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
Motor vehicle
“Motor vehicle” refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, except
(1) road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways;
(2) vehicles which run only on rails or tracks; and
(3) tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating. Section 2(e), R.A. No. 10883
Carnapping
Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Section 3, 1st paragraph, R.A. No. 10883
Use of a Motorcycle in the Commission of Crime
If a motorcycle is used in the commission of a crime constituting a grave felony under the Revised Penal Code, or in the escape from the scene of such crime, regardless of the stage of commission, whether attempted, frustrated, or consummated, the owner, driver, backrider or passenger who participated in the same shall be punished by reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua as provided under the Revised Penal Code.
If a motorcycle is used in the commission of a crime constituting a less grave felony or light felony under Revised Penal Code or any other crime, or in the escape from the scene of such crime, regardless of the stage of commission whether attempted, frustrated, or consummated, the owner, driver, backrider or passenger who participated in the same shall be punished by prision correccional to prision mayor, as provided under the Revised Penal Code.
If a seized motorcycle is used in the commission of a crime, the maximum penalty of the relevant crime or offense shall be imposed.
If death or serious physical injuries, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, results from the unlawful use of a motorcycle in the commission of a crime, the penalty of reclusion perpetua as provided under the Revised Penal Code shall be imposed. Section 9, R.A. No. 11235
Arson
Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 7659, contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons.
Two kinds of arson
(1) Destructive Arson (Article 320); and (2) other cases of arson (P.D. No. 1613).
Simple arson
Simple arson, defined and punished under Section 1 of PD No. 1613, is essentially the destruction of property by fire that is not under the circumstances enumerated under Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 7659.
In prosecuting arson, whether destructive or simple, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof that a fire occurred, and that it was intentionally caused.
PD No. 1613 imposes the penalty of _______ if by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death results.
PD No. 1613 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death results.
Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness
The crime Acts of Lasciviousness is punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, viz.:
Art. 336. Acts of Lasciviousness.—Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prisión correccional.
To secure a conviction, the confluence of the following elements must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt:
1. that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and
2. that it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. by using force or intimidation;
b. when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.
Acts of Lasciviousness
Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as: The intentional touching, either directly or through 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.
Bigamy
Bigamy is punished under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code:
ARTICLE 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prisión mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
For an accused to be convicted of this crime, the prosecution must prove all of the following elements: [1] that the offender has been legally married; [2] that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; [3] that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and [4] that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
To prove that a marriage was solemnized without a marriage license
To prove that a marriage was solemnized without a marriage license, “the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.”
Is the unaware subsequent spouse also guilty of bigamy?
The crime of bigamy does not necessarily entail the joint liability of two (2) persons who marry each other while the previous marriage of one (1) of them is valid and subsisting.
As explained in People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., 64 SCRA 518 (1975): In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage. 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.
As correctly stressed by the Court of Appeals (CA), the bad faith, or deliberate intent to do a wrongful act, of the bigamous spouse must be established.
Is the second spouse guilty for bigamy as a principal?
No. The second spouse, if indicted in the crime of bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice.
People v. Archilla, 1 SCRA 698 (1961), holds that the second spouse, if indicted in the crime of bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice. In referring to Viada, Justice Luis B. Reyes, an eminent authority in criminal law, writes that “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.”
Therefore, her conviction should only be that for an accomplice to the crime.
Libel
Under our law, criminal libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Libel is committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means (355).
For an imputation to be libelous under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following requisites must be present:
(a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious;
(c) it must be given publicity; and
(d) the victim must be identifiable.
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 persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.
Moreover, a charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.
- That there must be an imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
- That the imputation must be made publicly
- That it must be malicious
- That the imputation must be directed at a natural person or a juridical person, or one who is dead; and
- That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the person defamed
Dishonor - disgrace, shame or ignomity
Discredit - means loss of credit or reputation, disesteem
Contempt - means state of being despised
Publication - it is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons. Thus, sending a letter containing defamatory words against another to a third person is sufficient publication
Slander v. Libel
Slander is oral defamation while libel is defamation in writing.
In both, there is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. In determining whether the offense has been committed, the defamatory words 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 persons reading or hearing them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. In short, the language used must be understood “in its plain and popular sense—to read the sentences as would the man on the street.” The intent or purpose then of the speaker or writer is not relevant.
Simple v. Grave Slander
Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes grave when it is of a serious and insulting nature. An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used in the statement must be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.
It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.
Reckless Imprudence
Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.
The elements of reckless imprudence are:
(1) that the offender does or fails to do an act;
(2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
(3) that it be without malice;
(4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
(5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime, When Aggravating
The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, that if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, that if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
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. Section 29, R.A. No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act)
Child sexual abuse
Child sexual abuse refers to any form of communication through any platform or format, or any physical interaction between a child and any person when the child is being used for any act or activity inducing sexual stimulation or for the purpose of sexual gratification or in pursuit of the desire to have carnal knowledge of the child, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim, or the consent of the victim. Section 3(b), R.A. No. 11930
Child sexual abuse or exploitation material or child sexual abuse material (CSAEM/CSAM), defined.
Child sexual abuse or exploitation material or child sexual abuse material (CSAEM/CSAM) refers to any representation, whether offline, or by, through or with the use of ICT, by means of visual, video, audio, written, or any combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of a child engaged or involved in real or simulated sexual activities, or depicting acts of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child as a sexual object. It shall also include materials that focus on the genitalia or other private body parts of a child. For purposes of this Act, CSAEM may interchangeably be referred to as CSAM. Section 3(c), R.A. No. 11930
Syndicated and Large-Scale violation of ANTI-ONLINE SEXUAL ABUSE OR EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN (OSAEC) AND ANTI-CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE OR EXPLOITATION MATERIALS (CSAEM) ACT (R.A. No. 11930)
Any violation of this Act shall be deemed to have been committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. If the crime was committed against three (3) or more persons, it shall be considered as large-scale violation of this Act. Section 6, R.A. No. 11930.
Protection of a Good Samaritan
Any person who has the responsibility of reporting cases under this Act, blocking an internet address, removing a website or domain, taking down of shared videos, pictures, or messages for the services provided by an internet intermediary, and providing information for the purpose of an investigation or prosecution of a case involving acts of OSAEC shall not be held civilly, criminally or administratively liable: Provided, That the action was:
1) done in good faith;
2) necessary to prevent access or dissemination of CSAEMs; and
3) reported within twenty-four (24) hours from the act of blocking an internet address, removing a website or domain, or taking down of shared video, picture or messages. Section 7, R.A. No. 11930
Safe Harbor Exception
Access, possession, and recording of any CSAEM of any person for the purpose of complying with the duties under this Act; the reporting to government authorities; legitimate investigation and administration of the criminal justice system; and legitimate policy, scholarly and academic purposes with requisite ethical clearance, shall not be subject to any civil, criminal, or administrative liability. Section 8, R.A. No. 11930
Photo or Video Voyeurism, defined
“Photo or video voyeurism” means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing ann image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter’s consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such persons. Section 3(d), R.A. No. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act)
Trafficking in Persons, defined
Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others, or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or the removal or sale of organs.
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes, shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. Section 3(a), RA 9208, as amended.
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Qualified Trafficking in Persons
Violations of Section 4 of this Act shall be considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child: Provided, That acts of online sexual abuse and exploitation of children shall be without prejudice to appropriate investigation and prosecution under other related laws;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995” and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS);
(h) When the offender commits one or more acts of trafficking under Section 4 over a period of at least sixty (60) days, whether those days are continuous or not; and
(i) When the offender, or through another, directs or manages the actions of a victim in carrying out the exploitative purpose of trafficking.
(j) When the crime is committed during a crisis, disaster, public health concern, pandemic, a humanitarian conflict, or emergency situation, or when the trafficked person is a survivor of a disaster or a human induced conflict;
(k) When the trafficked person belongs to an indigenous community or religious minority and is considered a member of the same;
(l) When the trafficked person is a person with disability (PWD);
(m) When the crime has resulted in pregnancy;
(n) When the trafficked person suffered mental or emotional disorder as a result of being victim of trafficking; or
(o) When the act is committed by or through the use of ICT or any computer system.
Section 6, R.A. 9208, as amended
Entrapment
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the authorities for the purpose of capturing the perpetrator in flagrante delicto. Thus, it can be said that testimonies of the apprehending officers regarding the entrapment operation are crucial for a conviction, most especially in cases where the victim is unable to testify.
Violence Against Women and Their Children, defined
“Violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
a. physical violence
b. sexual violence
c. psychological violence
d. economic abuse
Physical Violence
“Physical Violence” refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm
Sexual Violence
“Sexual violence” refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim’s body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion;
c) Prostituting the woman or child
Psychological Violence
“Psychological violence” refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.
Economic Abuse
“Economic abuse” refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:
- withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
- deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
- destroying household property;
- controlling the victims’ own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.
Section 3(a), R.A. No. 9262
Battered Woman Syndrome, defined
“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. Section 3(c), R.A. No. 9262
A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.” People vs. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
Battered Woman Syndrome, as a defense
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists. Section 26, R.A. No. 9262
Is VAWC limited as a defense for women and as a law to punish their husbands?
No.
While the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
VAWC may likewise be committed “against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word “person” who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan’s husband) had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.
What does RA9262 criminalize?
R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering.
What R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed. Thus, the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense. We say that even if the alleged extramarital affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
Chain of Custody
The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. It ensures that evidence, particularly illegal drugs, remains intact and uncontaminated, establishing its authenticity and credibility during trial proceedings. It safeguards the rights of both the accused and the prosecution by maintaining the reliability ofn evidence.
Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
- Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA9165)
Cybercrime Offenses
The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under RA 10175:
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:
(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.
(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.
(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(4) System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(5) Misuse of Devices.
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:
(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.
(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration:
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and
(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.
(b) Computer-related Offenses:
(1) Computer-related Forgery. —
(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; or
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computerrelated forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
(c) Content-related Offenses:
(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.
(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:
(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or
(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(iii) The following conditions are present:
(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;
(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and
(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. Section 4, R.A. No. 10175
Other Offenses
a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable. Section 5, R.A. No. 10175
Cybercime As a Mode of Committing a Crime
All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be. Section 6, R.A. No. 10175
Children, defined
“Children” refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. Section 3(a), R.A. No. 7610
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
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 the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under sixteen (16) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as “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 sixteen (16) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment. Section 5, R.A. No. 7610, as amended
Is every instance of laying hands on a child constitutes child abuse?
A person who commits an act that debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being, whether habitual or not, can be held liable for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.
Although it is true that not every instance of laying of hands on the child constitutes child abuse, petitioner’s intention to debase, degrade, and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child can be inferred from the manner in which he committed the act complained of.
In this case, petitioner’s act of whipping AAA on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child. It is a form of cruelty. Being smacked several times in a public place is a humiliating and traumatizing experience for all persons regardless of age. Petitioner, as an adult, should have exercised restraint and self control rather than retaliate against a fourteen (14)-year-old child.
- Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act
Gender-based Online Sexual Harassment, defined
Gender-based online sexual harassment refers to an online conduct targeted at a particular person that causes or likely to cause another mental, emotional, or psychological distress, and fear of personal safety, sexual harassment acts including unwanted sexual remarks and comments, threats, uploading or sharing of one’s photos without consent, video, and audio recordings, cyberstalking and online identity theft. Section 3(e), R.A. No. 11313
- Safe Spaces Act
Gender Identity and/or Expression, defined
Gender identity and/or expression refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine conventions. A person may have a male or female identity with physiological characteristics of the opposite sex in which case this person is considered transgender. Section 3(f), R.A. No. 11313
Public Spaces, defined
Public spaces refer to streets and alleys, public parks, schools, buildings, malls, bars, restaurants, transportation terminals, public markets, spaces used as evacuation centers, government offices, public utility vehicles as well as private vehicles covered by app-based transport network services and other recreational spaces such as, but not limited to, cinema halls, theaters and spas. Section 3(g), R.A. No. 11313
Specific Acts for Gender-Based Sexual Harassment in Streets and Public Spaces
The following acts are unlawful and shall be penalized as follows:
(a) For acts such as cursing, wolf whistling, catcalling, leering and intrusive gazing, taunting, pursing, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, and sexist slurs, persistent unwanted comments on one’s appearance, relentless requests for one’s personal details such as name, contact and social media details or destination, the use of words, gestures or actions that ridicule on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation, identity and/or expression including sexist, homophobic, and transphobic statements and slurs, the persistent telling of sexual jokes, use of sexual names, comments and demands, and any statement that has made an invasion on a person’s personal space or threatens the person’s sense of personal safety.
(b) For acts such as making offensive body gestures at someone, and exposing private parts for the sexual gratification of the perpetrator with the effect of demeaning, harassing, threatening or intimidating the offended party including flashing of private parts, public masturbation, groping, and similar lewd sexual actions.
(c) For acts such as stalking, and any of the acts mentioned in Section 11 paragraphs (a) and (b), when accompanied by touching, pinching or brushing against the body of the offended person; or any touching, pinching, or brushing against the genitalia, face, arms, anus, groin, breasts, inner thighs, face, buttocks or any part of the victim’s body even when not accompanied by acts mentioned in Section 11 paragraphs (a) and (b)
- Safe Spaces Act
Child at Risk, defined
“Child at Risk” refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal offenses because of personal, family and social circumstances, such as, but not limited to, the following:
- being abused by any person through sexual, physical, psychological, mental, economic or any other means and the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or unable to provide protection for the child;
- being exploited including sexually or economically;
- being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search and inquiry, the parent or guardian cannot be found;
- coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or without a parent or guardian;
- being out of school;
- being a street child;
- being a member of a gang;
- living in a community with a high level of criminality or drug abuse; and
- living in situations of armed conflict. Section 4(d), R.A. No. 9344
- Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
Child in Conflict with the Law, defined
“Child in Conflict with the Law” refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. Section 4(e), R.A. No. 9344
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
“A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
“A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
“The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. Section 6, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 20
Will mere abnormality of the mental faculties exempt an offender from criminal liability?
No. No purpose of criminal law is served by punishing an insane accused because by reason of their mental state, they do not have control over their behavior and cannot be deterred from similar behavior in the future. In our jurisdiction, the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason, they acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
Exempting circumstance of accident
The exempting circumstance of “accident” is anchored on the complete absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused.
How do you establish insanity as an exempting circumstance?
Insanity as a condition of the mind, is not susceptible of the usual means of proof as “no man can know what is going on in the mind of another, the state of condition of a person’s mind can only be measured and judged by [their] behavior.”
Thus, the accused must prove the following: first, that the insanity constitutes a complete deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and second, the insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the commission of the crime.
To establish insanity, opinion testimony is required which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused, has rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception, or is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. We stress that an inquiry into the mental state of an accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the felony is committed.
Concept of “without eligibility for parole” in the dispositive portion
All told, XXX is guilty of statutory Rape. Applying Article 266-B of the RPC, the CA and the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, the phrase “without possibility for parole” in the dispositive portion of the RTC’s Decision must be clarified. In A.M. No. 15-08- 02-SC, this Court set the guidelines for the use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole” to remove any confusion, to wit:
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase “without eligibility of parole” to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of [Republic Act] (R.A.) [No.] 9346, the qualification of “without eligibility of parole” shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
Hence, there is a need to qualify that the accused is not “eligible for parole” only in cases where the imposable penalty should have been death were it not for the enactment of RA No. 9346 or the Anti-Death Penalty Law. XXX is guilty of statutory Rape penalized with reclusion perpetua and there is no need to indicate that he was ineligible for parole. XXX is ipso facto ineligible for parole because he was sentenced to suffer an indivisible penalty.
Direct assault or resistance vs. Disobedience to persons in authority or their agents
The question of whether the crime is direct assault or resistance and disobedience to persons in authority or their agents depends on the gravity of the act proved and the particular conditions under which it is committed. The courts must consider the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the offender, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression.
In United States v. Gumban, this Court held that the amount of force employed against agents of persons in authority spells the difference between direct assault and resistance or disobedience:
In reaching this conclusion, we took into account the decision rendered by this court in the case against Gelacio Tabiana and Canillas, in which it is said that the distinction between an assault and a resistance to agents of authority lies largely in the amount of the force employed in each case, and that a sudden blow given to a policeman while engaged in effecting an arrest does not constitute that employment of force which is punishable as assault. We have also considered the decision rendered by this court in the case against Cipriano Agustin . . . in which it was also held that a blow upon a policeman was not an aggression amounting to an assault. It must be remembered, however, that in these two cases the crime involved was that of assault upon agents of authority, in which the essential element is substantially the force employed. It is said in these two cases that any force is not sufficient to constitute an assault[,] but that it is necessary to consider the circumstances of each case to decide whether the force used is, or is not, sufficient to constitute assault upon an agent of authority. Previous convictions for direct assault against an agent of a person in authority involve force that is more severe than slapping and punching.
