must read cases in criminal law as of march 31, 2015

7/23/2019 Must Read Cases in Criminal Law as of March 31, 2015

1/87

Criminal Law

MUST READ CASES (CRIMINAL LAW)

BOOK I

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

1. Magno v. Court o A!!"a#$% &.R. No. '1*% +un" *% 1''*

Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law,

"afrms that the primary unction o punishment is the protective (sic)

o society against actual and potential wrongdoers." It is not clear

whether petitioner could be considered as havin actually committed

the wron souht to be punished in the o!ense chared, but on the

other hand, it can be saely said that the actuations o rs. Carolina

#en amount to that o potential wrondoers whose operations should

also be clipped at some point in time in order that the unwary publicwill not be ailin prey to such a vicious transaction ($%uino, #he

&evised 'enal Code, *+ dition, -ol. I, '. )

Corollary to the above view, is the application o the theory that

"criminal law is ounded upon that moral disapprobation . . . o actions

which are immoral, i.e.,which are detrimental (or danerous) to those

conditions upon which depend the eistence and proress o human

society. #his disappropriation is inevitable to the etent that morality is

enerally ounded and built upon a certain concurrence in the moral

opinions o all. . . . #hat which we call punishment is only an eternal

means o emphasi/in moral disapprobation the method o punishment

is in reality the amount o punishment," (Ibid., '. , citing'eople v.

&oldan 0aballero, C$ 12 3.4. 562, 7ote also 8ustice 'ablo9s view in

'eople v. 'iosca and 'eremne, *5 'hil. :).

#hus, it behooves upon a court o law that in applyin the punishment

imposed upon the accused, the ob;ective o retribution o a wroned

society, should be directed aainst the "actual and potential

wrondoers." In the instant case, there is no doubt that petitioner9sour (2) chec


2/87

Criminal Law

a menace to society, should not be lori>ed by convictin the

petitioner.

Ma#a In $" an, Ma#a Pro-/ta

*. &ar0a v. Court o A!!"a#$% &.R. No. 12121% Mar0- 13% *44

4enerally, mala in seelonies are de>ned and penali/ed in the &evised'enal Code. ?hen the acts complained o are inherently immoral, theyare deemed mala in se, even i they are punished by a special law.$ccordinly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the otherelements o the crime@ otherwise, no crime is committed. 3n the otherhand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are notinherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says

they are orbidden. ?ith these crimes, the sole issue is whether thelaw has been violated. Criminal intent is not necessary where the actsare prohibited or reasons o public policy.

Pro56at" Cau$". P"o!#" v. 7##a0orta% &.R. No. 1831*% S"!t"6/"r 2% *411

7evertheless, there is merit in the arument pro!ered by -illacortathat in the event he is ound to have indeed stabbed Cru/, he should

only be held liable or sliht physical in;uries or the stab wound heinAicted upon Cru/. #he proimate cause o Cru/s death is the tetanusinection, and not the stab wound.

'roimate cause has been de>ned as that cause, which, in natural andcontinuous se%uence, unbro


3/87

Criminal Law

'enal Code, such is sufcient to ma


4/87

Criminal Law

some subse%uent step in a direct movement towards the commissiono the o!ense ater the preparations are made.

8. Rv"ra v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1*% +anuar9 *% *44In the present case, the prosecution mustered the re%uisite %uantum o

evidence to prove the intent o petitioners to st blows. ven as &uben ell to the

round, unable to deend himsel aainst the sudden and sustained

assault o petitioners, dardo hit him three times with a hollow bloccial

and could not have produced his death does not neate petitionersEcriminal liability or attempted murder. ven i dardo did not hit thevictim s%uarely on the head, petitioners are still criminally liable orattempted murder.

'. Ar$tot#" 7a#"n:u"#a v. P"o!#"% &. R. No. 14188% +un" *1% *442

#het cannot have a rustrated stae. #het can only be attempted orconsummated.

14. Ra6" 7a#"n:u"#a v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 13''88% Augu$t 13%

*44'

Considerin urther that the victim sustained wounds that were notatal and absent a showin that such wounds would have certainlycaused his death were it not or timely medical assistance, we declarethe petitioners uilt to be limited to the crime o attempted homicide.

11. P"o!#" v. Par";a% &.R. No. 188'2'% S"!t"6/"r % *41*

$rticle 5 o the &evised 'enal Code, as amended, states that there isan attempt when the o!ender commenced the commission o the

crime directly by overt acts but does not perorm all the acts oeecution by reason o some cause or accident other than his ownspontaneous desistance. In 'eople v. 'ublico, we ruled that when the"touchin" o the vaina by the penis is coupled with the intent topenetrate, attempted rape is committed@ otherwise, the crimecommitted is merely acts o lasciviousness.

Con$!ra09 an, !ro!o$a#


5/87

Criminal Law

1*. P"o!#" v. Caran,ang% &.R. No. 12'*% +u#9 % *411

In the case at bar, the conclusion that ilan and Chua conspired with

Carandan was established by their acts () beore Carandan shot the

victims (ilans closin the door when the police ofcers introducedthemselves, allowin Carandan to wait in ambush), and (B) ater the

shootin (Chuas directive to ilan to attac< F'3 ontecalvo and

ilans ollowin such instruction). Contrary to the suppositions o

appellants, these acts are notmeant to prove that Chua is a principal

by inducement, or that ilans act o attac


6/87

Criminal Law

'etitioners second and third aruments ocus on the possible dereeso participation o 8inoy in the crime o 'lunder. 7oticeably, botharuments, i pursued to their respective loical conclusions, tend tocancel each other out, one leadin as it were to a direction %uite the

opposite o the other. =or while the second arument attempts toestablish animplied conspiracy between 8inoy and his ather G hence,the uilt o one is the uilt o the other G the third arument eschewsthe idea o conspiracy, but respondent 8inoy is nonetheless e%uallyuilty as 'resident strada because o his indispensable cooperationandor direct participation in the crime o 'lunder.

1. F"rnan v. P"o!#" &.R. No. 13'*2% Augu$t *3% *442

It is clear that without the tally sheets and delivery receipts, theeneral voucher cannot be prepared and completed. ?ithout the

eneral voucher, the chec< or the payment o the supply cannot bemade and issued to the supplier. ?ithout the chec< payment, thederaudation cannot be committed and successullyconsummated. #hus, petitioners acts in sinin the alse tally sheetsandor delivery receipts are indispensable to the consummation o thecrime o estaa thru alsi>cation o public documents.

12. Ara$ v. San,gan/a9an% &.R. No. 81 D"0"6/"r 1'%1'8'

Under the Fandianbayan9s decision in this case, a department

secretary, bureau chie, commission chairman, aency head, and allchie auditors would be e%ually culpable or every crime arisin romdisbursements which they have approved. #he department head orchie auditor would be uilty o conspiracy simply because he was thelast o a lon line o ofcials and employees who acted upon or afedtheir sinatures to a transaction. 4uilt must be premised on a more


7/87

Criminal Law

1'. Santago v. &ar0-tor"na% &.R. No. 14'* D"0"6/"r *%1''#he trend in thet cases is to ollow the soGcalled "sinle larceny"

doctrine, that is, the tanitely separate elonies. #hey were dictated by diferentcriminal intents, committed under diferent modes o commissionprovided by the law on estaa, perpetrated by diferent

acts, consummated ondiferent occasions, and caused in;uryto diferent parties.

Co6!oun, Cr6">Co6!#"5 Cr6"*1. Sa6$on v. Court o A!!"a#$% &.R. No$. L=143 an, L=

142% Mar0- 1% 1'8#here is no %uestion that appellant cooperated in the commission othe comple o!ense o estaa throuh alsi>cation by reccation ocommercial document

**. P"o!#" v. Ca$tro6"ro% &.R. No. 118''*% O0to/"r '% 1''2


8/87

Criminal Law

In relation to the chare that rape was compleed with the crime oserious physical in;uries, we stress the settled principle that a personwho creates in anothers mind an immediate sense o daner thatcauses the latter to try to escape is responsible or whatever the other

person may conse%uently su!er. In this case, 8osephine ;umped rom awindow o her house to escape rom $ppellant Castromero@ as a result,she su!ered serious physical in;uries, speci>cally abroed by law@ ina comple or compound crime, the combination o the o!enses is not

speci>ed but enerali/ed, that is, rave andor less rave, or oneo!ense bein the necessary means to commit the other. =or acomposite crime, the penalty or the speci>ed combination o crimes isspeci>c@ or a comple or compound crime, the penalty is thatcorrespondin to the most serious o!ense, to be imposed in themaimum period. $ liht elony that accompanies a composite crime isabsorbed@ a liht elony that accompanies the commission o a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/184926.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/184926.htm


9/87

Criminal Law

comple or compound crime may be the sub;ect o a separateinormation.

II. CIRCUMSTANCES W@IC@ AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILIT

+u$t9ng Cr0u6$tan0"$= S"#=D""n$"*. Na0na0 v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1'1'1% Mar0- *1% *41*

3rdinarily, as pointed out by the lower court, there is a di!erencebetween the act o drawin ones un and the act o pointin ones unat a taret. #he ormer cannot be said to be unlawul aression on thepart o the victim. In People v. Borreros,?e ruled that or unlawularession to be attendant, there must be a real daner to lie orpersonal saety. Unlawul aression re%uires an actual, sudden andunepected attacred by a ellow police ofcer, his superior, was let unheeded ashe reached or his own >rearm and pointed it at petitioner. 'etitionerwas, thereore, ;usti>ed in deendin himsel rom an inebriated anddisobedient colleaue.

*2. P"o!#" v. Ca6!o$% &.R. No. 1241% +u#9 3% *411

$n intimidatin or threatenin attitude is by no means enouh. In thiscase, other than the selGservin alleation o Janny, there is noevidence sufciently clear and convincin that the victim indeedattac


10/87

Criminal Law

*8. P"o!#" v. Ma!at% &.R. No. 12*4% Nov"6/"r *% *411

Unlawul aression is o two


11/87

Criminal Law

$s ound by the trial court, there can be no unlawul aression on thepart o 8oseph because at the time o the incident, he was only holdina lemon and an e. $ccordin to the trial court, the act that 8osephwas unarmed e!ectively belied the alleation o &onald that he was

prompted to retaliate in selGdeense when 8oseph >rst hac


12/87

Criminal Law

#his is not a sheer case o blind and misuided obedience, butobedience in ood aith o a duly eecuted order. Indeed, complianceto a patently lawul order is rectitude ar better than contumaciousdisobedience. In the case at bench, the order emanated romthe !"ce o the Presidentand bears the sinature o the 'resident

himsel, the hihest ofcial o the land. It carries with it thepresumption that it was reularly issued. $nd on its ace, thememorandum is patently lawul or no law ma


13/87

Criminal Law

'etitioner9s contention, thereore, that &.$. B5B is discriminatory andthat it is an "antiGmale," "husbandGbashin," and "hateGmen" lawdeserves scant consideration. $s a Ftate 'arty to the CJ$?, the'hilippines bound itsel to ta


14/87

Criminal Law

wron. Fuch circumstance includes the ruesome nature o the crime

and the minors cunnin and shrewdness.

In the present case, the petitioner, with methodical ashion, draed

the resistin victim behind the pile o hollow blocsto Hucud whoshouted at him, the petitioner hastily Aed rom the scene to escapearrest. Upon the proddin o his ather and her mother, he hid in hisrandmothers house to avoid bein arrested by policemen andremained thereat until baranay tanods arrived and too< him intocustody.

'. Ma,a# v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 18484% Augu$t 3% *44'

$s to the criminal liability, &aymond is eempt. $s correctly ruled bythe Court o $ppeals, &aymund, who was only 2 years o ae at the

time he committed the crime, should be eempt rom criminal liability

and should be released to the custody o his parents or uardian

pursuant to Fections 5 and B6 o &epublic $ct 7o. :22. $lthouh the

crime was committed on : $pril and &epublic $ct 7o. :22 toot o suspended sentence would notapply to a child in conAict with the law i, amon others, heshe hasbeen convicted o an o!ense punishable by death, reclusion perpetuaor lie imprisonment. In construin Fec. :* o &.$. 7o. :22, the Courtis uided by the basic principle o statutory construction that when the

law does not distinuish, we should not distinuish. Fince &.$. 7o.:22 does not distinuish between a minor who has been convicted oa capital o!ense and another who has been convicted o a lessero!ense, the Court should also not distinuish and should apply theautomatic suspension o sentence to a child in conAict with the lawwho has been ound uilty o a heinous crime.

#o date, accusedGappellant is about : years o ae, and the ;udment

o the C had been promulated, even beore the e!ectivity o &.$.

7o. :22. #hus, the application o Fecs. :* and 26 to the suspension o

sentence is now moot and academic. owever, accusedGappellant shall

be entitled to appropriate disposition under Fec. 1 o &.$. 7o. :22,

which provides or the con>nement o convicted children as ollowsD

Fec. 1. Con>nement o Convicted Children in $ricultural Camps and

3ther #rainin =acilities. N $ child in conAict with the law may, ater

conviction and upon order o the court, be made to serve hisher

sentence, in lieu o con>nement in a reular penal institution, in an

aricultural camp and other trainin acilities that may be established,

maintained, supervised and controlled by the HUC3&, in coordination

with the JF?J.

31. P"o!#" v. Manta#a/a% &.R. No. 18**2% +u#9 *4% *411ence, the appellant, who is now beyond the ae o twentyGone (B)years can no loner avail o the provisions o Fections :* and 26 o &$:22 as to his suspension o sentence, because such is already mootand academic. It is hihly noted that this would not have happened ithe C$, when this case was under its ;urisdiction, suspended thesentence o the appellant. #he records show that the appellant >led hisnotice o appeal at the ae o (B661), hence, when &$ :22 becamee!ective in B665, appellant was B6 years old, and the case havin

been elevated to the C$, the latter should have suspended thesentence o the appellant because he was already entitled to theprovisions o Fection :* o the same law, which now allows thesuspension o sentence o minors reardless o the penalty imposed asopposed to the provisions o $rticle B o '.J. 56:.

= A00,"nt3*. To#",o v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1842% S"!t"6/"r *3% *443


16/87

Criminal Law

It is an aberration or the petitioner to invo


17/87

Criminal Law

Mtgatng Cr0u6$tan0"$=Pra"t"r Int"nton"6

33. P"o!#" v. Sa#"$% &.R. No. 122*18% O0to/"r % *411In order that a person may be criminally liable or a elony di!erent

rom that which he intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that aelony was committed and (b) that the wron done to the arievedperson be the direct conse%uence o the crime committed by theperpetrator. ere, there is no doubt appellant in beatin his son7oemar and inAictin upon him physical in;uries, committed aelony. $s a direct conse%uence o the beatin su!ered by the child, heepired. $ppellants criminal liability or the death o his son, 7oemar, isthus clear.

=I66",at" vn,0aton o a grav" o"n$"3. P"o!#" v. R"/u0an% &.R. No. 18*1% +u#9 *2% *411

$s reards the mitiatin circumstance o immediate vindication o arave o!ense, the same cannot li


18/87

Criminal Law

shootin. #he Court had the same attitude in 7avarro v. Court o$ppeals, a case also involvin a policeman who ht. ence, there is no rhyme or reasonwhy the same mitiatin circumstance should not be considered inavor o petitioner.

= Pa$$on>O/u$0aton32. P"o!#" v. Igna$% &.R. No. 13413 % S"!t"6/"r 4% *44

#he rule is that the mitiatin circumstances o vindication o a raveo!ense and passion and obuscation cannot be claimed at the sametime, i they arise rom the same acts or motive. In other words, iappellant attac


19/87

Criminal Law

#he act o surrender must be spontaneous, accompanied by anac


20/87

Criminal Law

3n the aravatin circumstance o recidivism, the trial court properly

appreciated the same thouh not alleed in the inormation. $rticle

2() o the &evised 'enal Code de>nes a recidivist as #one who, at the

time o his trial or one crime shall have been previously convicted by

$nal %udgment o another crime embraced in the same title o this

&ode.##o prove recidivism, it is necessary to allee the same in the

inormation and to attach thereto certi>ed copies o the sentences

rendered aainst the accused. 7onetheless, the trial court may still

ive such aravatin circumstance credence i the accused does not

ob;ect to the presentation o evidence on the act o recidivism.

=R"t"ra0on3. P"o!#" v. Ca;ara% &.R. No. 1**3'8. S"!t"6/"r *2% *444

#he records show that the crime was aravated by reiteracionunder$rt. 2, par. 6, o 'he (evised Penal &ode, the accused havin been

convicted o rustrated murder in +1 and o homicide, rustratedhomicide, trespass to dwellin, illeal possession o >rearms andmurder sometime in * where his sentences were later commutedto imprisonment or B: years and a >ne o 'B66,666.66. e wasranted conditional pardon by the 'resident o the 'hilippines on *7ovember . (eiteracionor habituality under $rt. 2, par. 6,herein cited, is present when the accused has been previouslypunished or an o!ense to which the law attaches an e%ual or reaterpenalty than that attached by law to the second o!ense or or two ormore o!enses to which it attaches a lihter penalty. $s alreadydiscussed, herein accused can be convicted only o simple rape and

the imposable penalty thereor is reclusion perpetua.?here the lawprescribes a sinle indivisible penalty, it shall be applied reardless othe mitiatin or aravatin circumstances attendant to the crime,such as in the instant case.

= Tr"a0-"r9. P"o!#" v. Auno% &.R. No. *414'*% +anuar9 1% *413

#he essence o treachery is the sudden and unepected attac< by thearessor on an unsuspectin victim, deprivin him o any real chanceto deend himsel. ven when the victim was orewarned o the daner

to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisiveis that the eecution o the attac< made it impossible or the victim todeend himsel or to retaliate. &ecords disclose that 8esus was stabbedby the roup on the lateral part o his body while he was under theimpression that they were simply leavin the place where they had aMshabu session. 8udicial notice can be ta


21/87

Criminal Law

passeners who are seated in the side car. ence, there was no wayor 8esus to even be orewarned o the intended stabbin o his bodyboth rom the people seated in the side car and those seated behindhim. #hus, the trial courtEs >ndin o treachery should be afrmed.#here is treachery when the means, methods, and orms o eecution

ave the person attac


22/87

Criminal Law

under circumstances which render the victim unable and unpreparedto deend himsel by reason o the suddenness and severity o theattac


23/87

Criminal Law

Jecember *, B66 and that the amount o li%uor he had ta


24/87

Criminal Law

$$$ and o!ered the latter9s services in echane or money and $$$could still have been raped. ven $$$ could have o!ered her ownservices in echane or monetary consideration and still end up beinraped. #hus, this disproves the indispensable aspect o the appellant inthe crime o rape. ?hile this Court does not >nd appellant to have

committed the crime o rape as a principal by indispensablecooperation, she is still uilty o violation o Fection 1 (a) o &.$. +56,or the Fpecial 'rotection o Children $ainst $buse, ploitation andJiscrimination $ct

A00o6!#0". P"o!#" v. Ta6!u$% &.R. No. 181483% +un" 1% *44'

$ll the re%uisites concur in order to >nd Ida uilty as an accomplice to

#ampus in the rape o $HC. #he testimony o $HC shows that there was

community o desin between Ida and #ampus to commit the rape o

$HC. Ida had


25/87

Criminal Law

eistence o ready buyers, commonly t by the e!ects o the crimes o robbery and thet." vidently, theaccessory in the crimes o robbery and thet could be prosecuted as

such under the &evised 'enal Code or under '.J. 7o. 5B. owever, inthe latter case, he ceases to be a mere accessory but becomesaprincipal in the crime o encin. lsewise stated, the crimes orobbery and thet, on the one hand, and encin, on the other, areseparate and distinct o!enses.

Ant F"n0ng La. D6at v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 181183% +anuar9 *% *41*

#he elements o encin are ) a robbery or thet has been committed@B) the accused, who too< no part in the robbery or thet, buys,

receives, possesses,


26/87

Criminal Law

2. P"o!#" v. Bon% &.R. No. 1341% O0to/"r 4% *44

enceorth, "death," as utili/ed in $rticle + o the &evised 'enal Code,shall no loner orm part o the e%uation in the raduation o penalties.

=or eample, in the case o appellant, the determination o his penaltyor attempted rape shall be reced beyond theprescribed penalty. $t most, the maimum term is ta


27/87

Criminal Law

prescribed penalty in its maimum period. Fince the maimum term istane beimposed and the accused be unable to pay the >ne. #his should >nallydispel the petitioners9 importunate claim that the imposition osubsidiary imprisonment in this case is improper.

= In,"t"r6nat" S"nt"n0" La2*. S!ou$"$ Ba0ar v. +u,g" D" &u:6an +r.% A.M. No. RT+='=

13'. A!r# 18% 1''2

#he need or speciyin the minimum and maimum periods o the

indeterminate sentence is to prevent the unnecessary and ecessive

deprivation o liberty and to enhance the economic useulness o the


28/87

Criminal Law

accused, since he may be eempted rom servin the entire sentence,

dependin upon his behavior and his physical, mental, and moral

record. #he re%uirement o imposin an indeterminate sentence in all

criminal o!enses whether punishable by the &'C or by special laws,

with de>nite minimum and maimum terms, as the Court deems

proper within the leal rane o the penalty speci>ed by the law must,

thereore, be deemed mandatory.

In crimes punishable under the &evised 'enal Code, the maimum

term o the indeterminate penalty is determined in accordance with

the rules and provisions o the Code eactly as i the Indeterminate

Fentence Law had never been enacted.

2. Ro6"ro v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 12133% Nov"6/"r *% *411

In Argon0##o v. Court o A!!"a#$% t-$ Court ru#", t-at t-"

a!!#0aton o t-" In,"t"r6nat" S"nt"n0" La $ 6an,ator9 to

/ot- t-" R"v$", P"na# Co," an, t-" $!"0a# #a$% an, n t-"

$a6" ru#ng% t-$ Court $u66ar:", t-" a!!#0aton an, non=

a!!#0aton o t-" In,"t"r6nat" S"nt"n0" La% to t5 5 5 It $ /a$0 #a t-at 5 5 5 t-" a!!#0aton o t-"

In,"t"r6nat" S"nt"n0" La $ 6an,ator9 -"r"

6!r$on6"nt "50"",$ on" (1) 9"ar% "50"!t on#9 n t-"

o##ong 0a$"$a. O"n$"$ !un$-", /9 ,"at- or #" 6!r$on6"nt./. T-o$" 0onv0t", o tr"a$on (Art. 113) 0on$!ra09 or !ro!o$a#

to 0o66t tr"a$on (Art. 11).0. T-o$" 0onv0t", o 6$!r$on o tr"a$on (Art. 11)% r"/"##on

(Art. 13)% $",ton (Art. 1') or "$!onag" (Art. 112).,. T-o$" 0onv0t", o !ra09 (Art. 1**).". @a/tua# ,"#nu"nt$ (Art. *% !ar. ).R"0,v$t$ ar" "ntt#", to an In,"t"r6nat" $"nt"n0". (P"o!#"

v. +ara6##a% L=*832% F"/ruar9 **% 1'23) O"n,"r $ not

,$ua#", to ava# o t-" /"n"t$ o t-" #a "v"n t-" 0r6"

$ 0o66tt", -#" -" $ on !aro#". (P"o!#" v. Ca#r"on% CA 28 O.

&. 241% Nov"6/"r 1'% 1'8*).


29/87

Criminal Law

. T-o$" -o "$0a!", ro6 0onn"6"nt or t-o$" -o "va,",

$"nt"n0".g. T-o$" grant", 0on,tona# !ar,on an, -o vo#at", t-"

t"r6$ o t-" $a6". (P"o!#" v. Corra#% 23 P-#. ').

-. T-o$" -o$" 6a56u6 !"ro, o 6!r$on6"nt ,o"$ not

"50"", on" (1) 9"ar.W-"r" t-" !"na#t9 a0tua##9 6!o$", ,o"$ not "50"", on" (1)

9"ar% t-" a00u$", 0annot ava# -6$"# o t-" /"n"t$ o t-"

#a% t-" a!!#0aton o -0- $ /a$", u!on t-" !"na#t9

a0tua##9 6!o$", n a00or,an0" t- #a an, not u!on t-at

-0- 6a9 /" 6!o$", n t-" ,$0r"ton o t-" 0ourt. (P"o!#" v.

@,a#go% GCAH &.R. No. 443*=CR% +anuar9 **% 1'*).

. T-o$" -o ar" a#r"a,9 $"rvng na# ;u,g6"nt u!on t-"

a!!rova# o t-" In,"t"r6nat" S"nt"n0" La.

T-" n"", or $!"09ng t-" 6n6u6 an, 6a56u6 !"ro,$ ot-" n,"t"r6nat" $"nt"n0" $ to !r"v"nt t-" unn"0"$$ar9 an,"50"$$v" ,"!rvaton o #/"rt9 an, to "n-an0" t-" "0ono60u$"u#n"$$ o t-" a00u$",% $n0" -" 6a9 /" "5"6!t", ro6$"rvng t-" "ntr" $"nt"n0"% ,"!"n,ng u!on -$ /"-avor an,-$ !-9$0a#% 6"nta#% an, 6ora# r"0or,. T-" r"ur"6"nt o

6!o$ng an n,"t"r6nat" $"nt"n0" n a## 0r6na# o"n$"$-"t-"r !un$-a/#" /9 t-" R"v$", P"na# Co," or /9 $!"0a##a$% t- ,"nt" 6n6u6 an, 6a56u6 t"r6$% a$ t-" Court,""6$ !ro!"r t-n t-" #"ga# rang" o t-" !"na#t9 $!"0",/9 t-" #a 6u$t% t-"r"or"% /" ,""6", 6an,ator9.

23. P"o!#" v. Manta#a/a% &.R. No. 18**2% +u#9 *4% *411

Conse%uently, the privileed mitiatin circumstance o minority cannow be appreciated in >in the penalty that should be imposed. #heC, as afrmed by the C$, imposed the penalty o reclusion

perpetuawithout considerin the minority o the appellant. #hus,applyin the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be onederee lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, theprivileed mitiatin circumstance o minority havin beenappreciated. 7ecessarily, also applyin the Indeterminate FentenceLaw (IFL$?), the minimum penalty should be ta


30/87

Criminal Law

bein no other mitiatin circumstance nor aravatincircumstance. #he IFL$? is applicable in the present case because thepenalty which has been oriinally an indivisible penalty (reclusionperpetua to death), where IFL$? is inapplicable, became a divisiblepenalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue o the presence o the privileed

mitiatin circumstance o minority.

2. P"o!#" v. &un,a% &.R. No. 1'*% F"/ruar9 % *413

Under $rticle B2* o the &evised 'enal Code, the penalty or murder isreclusion perpetua to death. #here bein no other aravatincircumstance other than the %ualiyin circumstance o treachery, theC$ correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusionperpetua, the lower o the two indivisible penalties. "It must beemphasi/ed, however, that appellant isM not eliible or parolepursuant to Fection : o &epublic $ct 7o. :25 which states that

Opersons convicted o o!enses punished with reclusion perpetua, orwhose sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason o this$ct, shall not be eliible or parole under $ct 7o. 2*6, otherwise


31/87

Criminal Law

attempted to circumvent '.J. 7o. 5*, as amended by '.J. 6, whichsee


32/87

Criminal Law

It is important to note that the dis%uali>cation under Fec. 26(a) o theLocal 4overnment Code covers o!enses punishable by one () year ormore o imprisonment, a penalty which also covers probationableo!enses. In spite o this, the provision does not speci>cally dis%ualiyprobationers rom runnin or a local elective ofce. #his omission issini>cant because it o!ers a limpse into the leislative intent to treatprobationers as a distinct class o o!enders not covered by thedis%uali>cation.

84. Ba#a v +u,g" +6"n":% &.R. No. L=241% +anuar9 *'% 1''4

#he probation havin been revonal dischare as yet, as we stressedearlier. 7either can there be a deduction o the one year probation

period rom the penalty o one year and one day to three years, si

months, and twentyGone days o imprisonment because an order

placin the deendant on "probation" is not a "sentence," but is in

e!ect a suspensiono the imposition o the sentence. BIt is not a >nal

;udment but an "interlocutory ;udment" in the nature o a conditional

order placin the convicted deendant under the supervision o the

court or his reormation, to be ollowed by a >nal ;udment o

dischare, i the conditions o the probation are complied with, or by a

>nal ;udment i the conditions are violated."

= Mo,0aton an, E5tn0ton o Cr6na# La/#t981. a!,ang0o v. Bu"n0a6no% &.R. No. L=*8831% +un" *3%

1'8

#he rules contained in Fection : o the &evised $dministrative Codeand Fection , &ule B* o the 3ld &ules o Court deal with thecomputation o time allowed to do a particular act, such as, the >lin o

ta returns on or beore a de>nite date, >lin an answer to a complaint,taedby the Ftate or it to prosecute those who committed a crime aainstit. #he waiver or loss o the riht to prosecute such o!enders isautomatic and by operation o law. ?here the sitieth and last day to>le an inormation alls on a Funday or leal holiday, the sityGdayperiod cannot be etended up to the net wor


33/87

Criminal Law

the inormation on the last worles the Inormation in court, thisalready has the e!ect o tollin the prescription period. #he recent'eople v. 'anilinan cateorically stated that 0aldivia v. &eyes is notcontrollin as ar as special laws are concerned. 'anilinan reerred to


34/87

Criminal Law

other cases that upheld this principle as well. owever, the doctrine o'anilinan pertains to violations o special laws but not to ordinances.It stands that the doctrine o 0aldivia that the runnin o theprescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is >led in Courtand not on any date beore that, is applicable to ordinances and their

prescription period.

8. P"o!#" v. L6% F"/ruar9 1% 1''* &.R. No. '2

#o warrant the dismissal o the complaint, the victim9s retraction orpardon should be made prior to the institution o the criminal action('eople v. Foliao, 2 FC&$ B16 M). #he present case was >led on=ebruary B2, ** while the $fdavit was eecuted only on arch ,**.

8. P"o!#" v. Ba0ang% +u#9 4% 1'' &.R. NO. 111*

?hile the pardon in this case was void or havin been etendeddurin the pendency o the appeal or beore conviction by >nal;udment and, thereore, in violation o the >rst pararaph o Fection, $rticle -II o the Constitution, the rant o the amnesty, or whichaccusedGappellants ?illiam Casido and =ran


35/87

Criminal Law

In cases o seduction, abduction, acts o lasciviousness, and rape, the

marriae o the o!ender with the o!ended party shall etinuish the

criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. .3n several occasions, we applied these provisions to marriaes

contracted between the o!ender and the o!ended party in the crimeo rape as well as in the crime o abuse o chastity to totally etinuish

the criminal liability o and the correspondin penalty that may have

been imposed upon those ound uilty o the elony.

BOOK II

Cr6"$ Agan$t Natona# S"0urt9 (Art$. 113=1*)

= Tr"a$on88. Laur"# v. M$a% 22 P-# 8'etitioner >led a petition or habeas corpus claimin that a =ilipinociti/en who adhered to the enemy, ivin the latter aid and comortdurin the 8apanese occupation, cannot be prosecuted or the crime otreason or the reasons thatD () the sovereinty o the leitimateovernment in the 'hilippines and, conse%uently, the correlativealleiance o =ilipino citi/ens thereto was then suspended@ and (B) thatthere was a chane o sovereinty over these Islands upon theproclamation o the 'hilippine &epublic. #he Fupreme Court dismissedthe petition and ruled that the absolute and permanent alleiance o

the inhabitants o a territory occupied by the enemy o their leitimateovernment or soverein is not abroated or severed by the enemyoccupation because the sovereinty o the overnment or soverein de;ure is not transerred thereby to the occupier, and i it is nottranserred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in theleitimate overnment.

8'. P"o!#" v. P"r":% 8 P-# 13+ counts o treason were >led aainst 'ere/ or recruitin,

apprehendin and commandeerin numerous irls and women aainst

their will or the purpose o usin them to satisy the immoral purposes

o 8apanese ofcers. #he Fupreme Court held that his"commandeerin" o women to satisy the lust o 8apanese ofcers or

men or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor was not

treason even thouh the women and the entertainment helped to

ma


36/87

Criminal Law

they voluntarily and willinly had surrendered their bodies or orani/ed

the entertainment.

= Pra09'4. P"o!#" v. Catantan% &.R. No. 11842. S"!t"6/"r % 1''2

Under the de>nition o piracy in 'J 7o. 1:B as well as rave coercionas penali/ed in $rt. B*5 o the &evised 'enal Code, this case allss%uarely within the purview o piracy. ?hile it may be true that ueneand 8uan 8r. were compelled to o elsewhere other than their place odestination, such compulsion was obviously part o the act o sei/intheir boat.

Cr6"$ Agan$t Fun,a6"nta# La$ o t-" Stat"= Ar/trar9 D"t"nton

'1. P"o!#" v. F#or"$% &.R. No. 11388. Ma9 1% *441

$rbitrary detention is committed by any public ofcer or employeewho, without leal rounds, detains a person. Fince it is settled thataccusedGappellants are public ofcers, the %uestion that remains to beresolved is whether or not the evidence adduced beore the trial courtproved that Famson Fayam was arbitrarily detained by accusedGappellants.8erry anlanit, son o Carlito, also testi>ed or the

proseuction. $ccordin to him, he and Famson Fayam went to

Haranay #abu to have a sac< o palay milled on Feptember B,

B. $t around si in the evenin, while on their way home, they

passed by the store o #erry Cabrillos to buy


37/87

Criminal Law

summary, 8erry anlanits testimony ailed to establish that accusedG

appellants were uilty o arbitrary detention.

'*. P"o!#" v. Burgo$% 133 SCRA 1

?hen the accused is arrested on the sole basis o a verbal report, thearrest without a warrant under Fection 5(a) o &ule : is not lawuland leal since the o!ense must also be committed in his presence orwithin his view. It is not enouh that there is reasonable round tobelieve that the person to be arrested has committed a crime or anessential precondition under the rule is that the crime must in act oractually have been committed >rst.

'. A#/or v. Agu$% A.M. No. P=41=132*% +un" *% *44

&espondent miht have been motivated by a sincere desire to help the

accused and his relatives. Hut as an ofcer o the court, he should beaware that by issuin such detention order, he trampled upon aundamental human riht o the accused. Hecause o the unauthori/edorder issued by respondent, the accused dilberto $lbior was deprivedo liberty without due process o law or a total o 15 days, countedrom his unlawul detention on 8anuary B+, until the issuance othe appropriate order o commitment by the municipal ;ude on archB1, .

= E5!u#$on'3. 7##av0"n0o v. Lu


38/87

Criminal Law

and it is sufcient that the person aainst whom the warrant isdirected has control or possession o the property souht to be sei/ed.

Cr6"$ Agan$t Pu/#0 Or,"r=R"/"##on

'. P"o!#" v. Lov"r,oro% &.R. 11**% Nov"6/"r *'% 1''

I no political motive is established and proved, the accused should beconvicted o the common crime and not o rebellion. In cases orebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in anorani/ation dedicated to the urtherance o rebellion would not, byand o itsel, sufce.

'2. P"o!#" v. &"ron6o% O0to/"r *% 1' &.R. L=8'

7ot every act o violence is deemed absorbed in the crime o rebellion

solely because it was committed simultaneously with or in the course

o the rebellion. I the t, without any political motivation, the crime would be

separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion and

the individual misdeed could not be ta


39/87

Criminal Law

overnment, is a scurrilous libel aainst the 4overnment. $ny citi/en

may critici/e his overnment and overnment ofcials and submit his

criticism to the "ree trade o ideas" but such criticism should be

speci>c and constructive, speciyin particular ob;ectionable actuations

o the overnment. It must be reasoned or tempered and not a

contemptuous condemnation o the entire overnment setGup.

I##"ga# Po$$"$$on o Fr"ar6$144.C"#no v. Court o A!!"a#$% &.R. No. 124*% +un" *'% *442

?hen the other o!ense is one o those enumerated under &$ *B2,

any inormation or illeal possession o >rearms should be %uashed

because the illeal possession o >rearm would have to be tried

toether with such other o!ense, either considered as an aravatin

circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element o

rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup dE etat andconversely, when the other o!ense involved is not one o those

enumerated under &$ *B2, then the separate case or illeal

possession o >rearm should continue to be prosecuted. #he

constitutional bar aainst double ;eopardy will not apply since these

o!enses are %uite di!erent rom one another, with the >rst punished

under the &evised 'enal Code and the second under a special law.

R.A 14'1% SEC. *'. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of

a Crime.J T-" u$" o a #oo$" r"ar6% -"n n-"r"nt n t-"

0o66$$on o a 0r6" !un$-a/#" un,"r t-" R"v$", P"na#

Co," or ot-"r $!"0a# #a$% $-a## /" 0on$,"r", a$ an

aggravatng 0r0u6$tan0" Provided, T-at t-" 0r6"

0o66tt", t- t-" u$" o a #oo$" r"ar6 $ !"na#:", /9 t-"

#a t- a 6a56u6 !"na#t9 -0- $ #o"r t-an t-at

!r"$0r/", n t-" !r"0",ng $"0ton or ##"ga# !o$$"$$on o

r"ar6% t-" !"na#t9 or ##"ga# !o$$"$$on o r"ar6 $-a## /"

6!o$", n #"u o t-" !"na#t9 or t-" 0r6"

0-arg", Provided,further, T-at t-" 0r6" 0o66tt", t-t-" u$" o a #oo$" r"ar6 $ !"na#:", /9 t-" #a t- a

6a56u6 !"na#t9 -0- $ "ua# to t-at 6!o$", un,"r t-"

!r"0",ng $"0ton or ##"ga# !o$$"$$on o r"ar6$% t-"

!"na#t9 oprision mayor n t$ 6n6u6 !"ro, $-a## /"

6!o$", n a,,ton to t-" !"na#t9 or t-" 0r6" !un$-a/#"


40/87

Criminal Law

un,"r t-" R"v$", P"na# Co," or ot-"r $!"0a# #a$ o -0-

-">$-" $ oun, gu#t9.

I t-" vo#aton o t-$ A0t $ n urt-"ran0" o% or n0,"nt to% orn 0onn"0ton t- t-" 0r6" o r"/"##on o n$urr"0ton% or

att"6!t", coup d etat, $u0- vo#aton $-a## /" a/$or/", a$ an

"#"6"nt o t-" 0r6" o r"/"##on or n$urr"0ton% or att"6!t",

coup d etat.

I t-" 0r6" $ 0o66tt", /9 t-" !"r$on t-out u$ng t-"

#oo$" r"ar6% t-" vo#aton o t-$ A0t $-a## /" 0on$,"r", a$ a

,$tn0t an, $"!arat" o"n$".

= Dr"0t A$$au#t141. +u$to v. Court o A!!"a#$% '' P-# 3

#he character o person in authority is not assumed or laid o! at will,but attaches to a public ofcial until he ceases to be in ofce.$ssumin that the complainant is not actually perormin the duties ohis ofce when assaulted, this act does not bar the eistence o thecrime o assault upon a person in authority, so lon as the impellinmotive o the attac< is the perormance o ofcial duty. +lso, wherethere is a mutual areement to >ht, an aression ahead o thestipulated time and place would be unlawul since to hold otherwisewould be to sanction unepected assaults contrary to all sense oloyalty and air play.

14*. P"o!#" v. Do##ant"$% +un" 4% 1'82 &.R. 24'

?hen a baranay Captain is in the act o tryin to paciy a person whowas ma


41/87

Criminal Law

14.&"#g v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1214% +u#9 *8% *414

T-" !ro$"0uton a,,u0", "v,"n0" to "$ta/#$- /"9on,

r"a$ona/#" ,ou/t t-" 0o66$$on o t-" 0r6" o ,r"0ta$$au#t. T-" a!!"##at" 0ourt 6u$t /" 0on$"u"nt#9 ov"rru#", n$"ttng a$," t-" tra# 0ourt$ v"r,0t. It "rr", n ,"0#arngt-at L9,a 0ou#, not /" -"#, gu#t9 o ,r"0t a$$au#t $n0"&"66a a$ no #ong"r a !"r$on n aut-ort9 at t-" t6" o t-"a$$au#t /"0au$" $-" a##"g",#9 ,"$0"n,", to t-" #"v"# o a!rvat" !"r$on /9 g-tng t- L9,a. T-" a0t r"6an$ t-at att-" 6o6"nt L9,a ntat", -"r tra,"$% &"66a a$ /u$9att"n,ng to -"r o0a# un0ton$ a$ a t"a0-"r. S-" tr", to!a09 L9,a /9 o"rng -"r a $"at $o t-at t-"9 0ou#, ta#


42/87

Criminal Law

application o law in a particular set o acts. 3n the other hand,

$rticles 5: to 5+ o the Civil Code simply eplain the concept o

proimity o relationship and what constitute direct and collateral lines

in relation to the rules on succession. #he %uestion o whether or not

persons are related to each other by consanuinity or afnity within

the ourth deree is one o act. Contrary to petitioners assertion,

statements concernin relationship may be proved as to its truth or

alsity, and thus do not amount to epression o opinion. ?hen a

overnment employee is re%uired to disclose his relatives in the

overnment service, such inormation elicited thereore %uali>es as a

narration o acts contemplated under $rticle + (2) o the &evised

'enal Code, as amended. =urther, it bears to stress that the untruthul

statements on relationship have no relevance to the employees

eliibility or the position but pertains rather to prohibition or

restriction imposed by law on the appointin power.

Fince petitioner 4aleos answered 7o to the %uestion in his : F$L7i he has relatives in the overnment service within the ourth dereeo consanuinity, he made an untruthul statement therein as in acthe was related to 3n, who was then the municipal mayor, within theourth deree o consanuinity, he and 3n bein >rst cousins (theirmothers are sisters). $s to his 2, 1 and 5 F$L7, 4aleos letin blan< the boes or the answer to the similar %uery. In Jela Cru/ v.

udlon, it was held that one is uilty o alsi>cation in theaccomplishment o his inormation and personal data sheet i hewithholds material acts which would have a!ected the approval o hisappointment andor promotion to a overnment position. Hywithholdin inormation on his relatives in the overnment service asre%uired in the F$L7, 4aleos was uilty o alsi>cation considerin thatthe disclosure o such relationship with then unicipal ayor 3nwould have resulted in the disapproval o his permanent appointmentpursuant to $rticle 5* (;) ($ppointments), &ule QQII o the &ules and&eulations Implementin the Local 4overnment Code o (&.$.7o. +56)

14.Luagg" v. CA% 11* SCRA '2

I the accused acted in ood aith when she sined her spouse9s nameto the chec


43/87

Criminal Law

entitled to them and considerin that the overnment sustained nodamae due to such encashment, criminal intent may not be ascribed,and the accused should be ac%uitted to such crime.

142.P"o!#" v. S"n,a9,"go% 81 SCRA 1*4

I the alsi>cation is resorted to or the purpose o hidin the

malversation, the alsi>cation and malversation are separate o!enses.

#hus, where the provincial treasurer, as the custodian o the money

ormin part o the road and bride und, e!ected payments to his coG

accused or construction materials supposedly delivered to the

province or various pro;ects when in act no such materials were

delivered, and to camouAae or conceal the deraudation, the accusedused si vouchers which had enuine eatures and which appear to be

etrinsically authentic but which were intrinsically acation and

malversation and the alsi>cations cannot be rearded as constitutin

one continuin o!ense impelled by a sinle criminal impulse.

148. T"n"ngg"" v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 12'338% +un" *% *41A## t-" a/ov"=6"nton", "#"6"nt$ "r" "$ta/#$-", n t-$0a$". Fr$t% !"tton"r $ a !rvat" n,v,ua#. S"0on,% t-" a0t$

o a#$0aton 0on$$t", n !"tton"r$ (1) 0ount"r"tng or6tatng t-" -an,rtng or $gnatur" o Tan an, 0au$ng t toa!!"ar t-at t-" $a6" $ tru" an, g"nun" n a## r"$!"0t$ an,(*) 0au$ng t to a!!"ar t-at Tan -a$ !art0!at", n an a0t or!ro0"",ng -"n -" ,, not n a0t $o !art0!at". T-r,% t-"a#$0aton a$ 0o66tt", n !ro6$$or9 not"$ an, 0-"0


44/87

Criminal Law

14'.Ru:o# v. San,gan/a9an% &.R. No$. 182'='4. A!r# 12%*41?e note that this case o usurpation aainst &u/ol rests principally on

the prosecutionEs theory that the J7& is the only overnment

instrumentality that can issue the permits to transport salvaed orest

products. #he prosecution asserted that &u/ol usurped the ofcialunctions that properly belon to the J7&.

Hut erstwhile discussed at lenth, the J7& is not the sole overnmentaency vested with the authority to issue permits relevant to thetransportation o salvaed orest products, considerin that, pursuantto the eneral welare clause, L4Us may also eercise such authority.$lso, as can be leaned rom the records, the permits to transport weremeant to complement and not to replace the ?ood &ecovery 'ermitissued by the J7&. In e!ect, &u/ol re%uired the issuance o the

sub;ect permits under his authority as municipal mayor andindependently o the ofcial unctions ranted to the J7&. #herecords are li


45/87

Criminal Law

or laboratory eamination@ and ourth, the turnover and submission othe mar


46/87

Criminal Law

$s this Court held in 'eople v. Herdadero,B+M the oreoin provision,

as well as the Internal &ules and &eulations implementin the same,

is silent as to the conse%uences o the ailure on the part o the law

enorcers to see< the authority o the 'J$ prior to conductin a buyGbust operation . #Mhis silence cannot be interpreted as a

leislative intent to maned to meanto carry or convey rom one place to another. #he evidence in this caseshows that at the time o their arrest, accusedGappellants werecauht in agrantecarryintransportin dried mari;uana leaves intheir travelin bas. '3: asanue and F'3 Hlanco need not even

open Je%uinas travelin ba to determine its content because whenthe latter noticed the police ofcers presence, she wal


47/87

Criminal Law

112.P"o!#" v. Du6a#ag% &.R. No. 18413% A!r# 12% *41

It has already been settled that the ailure o police ofcers to mar< theitems sei/ed rom an accused in illeal drus cases immediately upon

its con>scation at the place o arrest does not automatically impair theinterity o the chain o custody and render the con>scated itemsinadmissible in evidence. In 'eople v. &esurreccion, the Court eplainedthat "marscation" may be undertaed that they were the poseurGbuyers inthe sale. Hoth positively identi>ed appellant as the seller o thesubstance contained in plastic sachets which were ound to be positiveor shabu. #he same plastic sachets were lied by theprosecution witnesses when presented in court. ven the considerationo 'B66.66 or each sachet had been made


48/87

Criminal Law

#he testimony o $rinoys niece, &achel, that Lolita had been travellin

to alaysia to wor< in bars cannot be iven credence. Lolita did not

even have a passport to o to alaysia and had to use her sisters

passport when $rinoy, Lalli and &elampaos >rst recruited her. It is%uestionable how she could have been travellin to alaysia

previously without a passport, as &achel claims. oreover, even i it is

true that Lolita had been travellin to alaysia to wor< in bars, the

crime o #rafc


49/87

Criminal Law

is committed throuh deceit or nelience, the law ma


50/87

Criminal Law

public unds or the latter9s personal use. In technical malversation, the

public ofcer applies public unds under his administration not or his

or another9s personal use, but to a public use other than that or which

the und was appropriated by law or ordinance.

#echnical malversation is, thereore, not included in nor does itnecessarily include the crime o malversation o public unds chared

in the inormation.

1*.A/,u##a v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 141*'% A!r# % *44

#he Court notes that there is no particular appropriation or salary

di!erentials o secondary school teachers o the Fulu Ftate Collee in&$ 55**. #he third element o the crime o technical malversationwhich re%uires that the public und used should have beenappropriated by law, is thereore absent. #he authori/ation iven bythe Jepartment o Hudet and anaement or the use o the ortythousand pesos ('26,666.66) allotment or payment o salarydi!erentials o :2 secondary school teachers is not an ordinance or lawcontemplated in $rticle BB6 o the &evised 'enal Code.

=Ant &rat an, Corru!t Pra0t0"$ A0t (R.A. 41')1*. A6/# +r. v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1232% +u#9 % *411

In dratin the $ntiG4rat Law, the lawmats, advantae or preerence or a reason. #he termparty is a technical word havin a precise meanin in leal parlance asdistinuished rom person which, in eneral usae, reers to a humanbein. #hus, a private person simply pertains to one who is not a publicofcer. ?hile a private party is more comprehensive in scope to meaneither a private person or a public ofcer actin in a private capacity to

protect his personal interest.

In the present case, when petitioners transerred ayor $dalim romthe provincial ;ail and detained him at petitioner $mbil, 8r.s residence,they accorded such privilee to $dalim, not in his ofcial capacity as amayor, but as a detainee chared with murder. #hus, or purposes oapplyin the provisions o Fection :(e), &.$. 7o. :6, $dalim was aprivate party.


51/87

Criminal Law

1*2. A#var": v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1'*'1% +un" *'% *411

Jespite $'Is obvious lac< o >nancial %uali>cation and absence o basicterms and conditions in the submitted proposal, petitioner who chairedthe 'H$C, recommended the approval o $'Is proposal ;ust ortyG>ve(21) days ater the last publication o the invitation or comparativeproposals, and subse%uently re%uested the FH to pass a resolutionauthori/in him to enter into a 3$ with $'I as the lone bidder or thepro;ect. It was only in the 3$ that the details o the construction,terms and conditions o the parties obliations, were laid down at thetime $'I was already awarded the pro;ect. ven the 3$ provisionsremain vaue as to the parameters o the pro;ect, which theFandianbayan ound as placin $'I at an arbitrary position where itcan do as it pleases without bein accountable to the municipality inany way whatsoever. #rue enouh, when $'I ailed to eecute theconstruction wor


52/87

Criminal Law

heads o ofces in sinin a document will only be appreciated i they,

with trust and con>dence, have relied on their subordinates in whom

the duty is primarily loded. oreover, the undue in;ury to private

complainant was established.

#he cuttin down o her palm trees and the construction o the canalwere all done without her approval and consent. $s a result, she lostincome rom the sale o the palm leaves. Fhe also lost control and useo a part o her land. #he damae to private complainant did not endwith the canalEs construction. Inormal settlers dirtied her privateproperty by usin the canal constructed thereon as their lavatory,washroom, and waste disposal site.

14. &o v. San,gan/a9an% &.R. No. 12*4*% A!r# 1% *442

$s early as in +6, throuh the erudite 8ustice 8.H.L. &eyes in Luciano

v. strella, the Court had ascertained the scope o Fection :() o &$

:6 as applyin to both public ofcers and private personsD

#Mhe act treated thereunder reerrin to Fection :() o &$ :6M

partaned by law, not the character or e!ect thereo, thatdetermines whether or not the provision has been violated. $nd this

construction would be in consonance with the announced purpose or

which &epublic $ct :6 was enacted, which is the repression o

certain acts o public ofcers and private persons constitutin rat or

corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.


53/87

Criminal Law

11. Caunan v. P"o!#"% &.R. No$. 181''' 18*441=43% S"!t"6/"r *% *44'

In >ndin that the walis tintin purchase contracts were rossly and

maniestly disadvantaeous to the overnment, the Fandianbayan

relied on the C3$s >ndin o overpricin which was, in turn, based on

the special audit teams report. #he audit teams conclusion on thestandard price o a walis tintin was peed on the basis o the

ollowin documentary and ob;ect evidenceD () samples o walis

tintin without handle actually used by the street sweepers@ (B)

survey orms on the walis tintin accomplished by the street

sweepers@ (:) invoices rom si merchandisin stores where the audit

team purchased walis tintin@ (2) price listin o the JH 'rocurement

Fervice@ and (1) documents relative to the walis tintin purchases o

Las 'ias City. #hese documents were then compared with the

documents urnished by petitioners and the other accused relative to'araa%ue Citys walis tintin transactions.

7otably, however, and this the petitioners have consistently pointedout, the evidence o the prosecution did not include a sined price%uotation rom the walis tintin suppliers o 'araa%ue City. In act,even the walis tintin urnished the audit team by petitioners and theother accused was di!erent rom the walis tintin actually utili/ed bythe 'araa%ue City street sweepers at the time o ocular inspection bythe audit team. $t the barest minimum, the evidence presented by the

prosecution, in order to substantiate the alleation o overpricin,should have been identical to the walis tintin purchased in 5G*. 3nly then could it be concluded that the walis tintin purchaseswere disadvantaeous to the overnment because only then could adetermination have been made to show that the disadvantae was somaniest and ross as to marm in its contract withanother. #he matter contemplated in Fection :(h) o the $ntiG4rat Lawis the actual intervention in the transaction in which one has >nancialor pecuniary interest in order that liability may attach.

=Ant=P#un,"r A0t1. E$tra,a v. San,gan/a9an% &.R. No. 1384% Nov. *% *441


54/87

Criminal Law

#he leislative declaration in &.$. 7o. +51 that plunder is a heinouso!ense implies that it is a malum in se. =or when the acts punished areinherently immoral or inherently wron, they are mala in se and it doesnot matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especiallysince in the case o plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in

se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions or plunder asthouh they are mere prosecutions or violations o the HouncinChec< Law (H.'. Hl. BB) or o an ordinance aainst ;aywal


55/87

Criminal Law

In the case o 'arricide o a spouse, the best proo o the relationshipbetween the accused and the deceased would be the marriaecerti>cate. In this case, the testimony o the accused that he wasmarried to the victim, in itsel, is ample proo o such relationship asthe testimony can be ta


56/87

Criminal Law

134. P"o!#" v. &a#0a% &.R. No. 1'14% O0to/"r '% *41Fince the crime has already been %uali>ed to murder by the attendantcircumstance o treachery, the other proven circumstance o evidentpremeditation should be appreciated as a eneric aravatin

circumstance. In this case, it was clearly shown that the two accusedwho were "ridin in tandem" hatched the means on how to carry outand acilitate the commission o the crime. #he time that had elapsedwhile the accused were waitin or their victim to pass by, is indicativeo cool thouht and reAection on their part that they clun to theirdetermination to commit the crime@ hence evident premeditation isduly proved.

@o60,"131. A/"##a v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1'8344% O0to/"r 2% *41

In cases o rustrated homicide, the main element is the accusedEs

intent to ta


57/87

Criminal Law

reasonable doubt o the eistence o malicious intent to inAict physical

in;uries or animus iniuriandi as re%uired in mala in se cases,

considerin the contetual bac


58/87

Criminal Law

13. P"nt"0o$t"$ v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 122% A!r# 2% *414'etitioner only shot the victim once and did not hit any vital part o thelatters body. I he intended to ner does not constitute an ob;ect or


59/87

Criminal Law

instrument in contemplation o &$ *:1:. #he insertion o oneEs >nerinto the enital o another constitutes Trape throuh seual assault.ence, the prosecutor did not err in charin petitioner with the crimeo rape under $rticle B55G$, pararaph B o the &evised 'enal Code.

11. P"o!#" v. P"n##a% &.R. No. 18'*3% Mar0- *4% *41

In rape cases, the moral character o the victim is immaterial. 'hysicalresistance need not be established in rape when threats andintimidation are employed, and the victim submits hersel to herattac


60/87

Criminal Law

the elements o both crimes are present in this case. #he caseo People v. +bay,however, is enlihtenin and instructional on thisissue. It was stated in that case that i the victim is B years or older,the o!ender should be chared with either seual abuse under Fection1(b) o &.$. 7o. +56 or rape under $rticle B55G$ (ecept pararaph

dM) o the &evised 'enal Code. owever, the o!ender cannot beaccused o both crimes or the same act because his riht aainstdouble ;eopardy will be pre;udiced. $ person cannot be sub;ected twiceto criminal liability or a sinle criminal act.

13. P"o!#" v. Laog% &.R. No. 128*1% O0to/"r % *411

In the special comple crime o rape with homicide, the term

homicide is to be understood in its eneric sense, and includes murderand sliht physical in;uries committed by reason or on occasion o therape. ence, even i any or all o the circumstances (treachery, abuseo superior strenth and evident premeditation) alleed in theinormation have been duly established by the prosecution, the samewould not %ualiy the


61/87

Criminal Law

$$$ twice ast but also one in which achild, throuh coercion or intimidation, enaes in any lasciviousconduct. #he very title o Fection 1, $rticle III (Child 'rostitution and3ther Feual $buse) o &.$. 7o. +56 shows that it applies not only to achild sub;ected to prostitution but also to a child sub;ected to otherseual abuse. $ child is deemed sub;ected to "other seual abuse"when he or she indules in lascivious conduct under the coercion or

inAuence o any adult.

Cr6"$ Agan$t P"r$ona# L/"rt9 an, S"0urt9K,na!!ng

18. P"o!#" v. Mut% &.R. No. 18143% O0to/"r 8% *448#he elements o the crime o


62/87

Criminal Law

14. P"o!#" v. Ba#u9a 9 Notart"% &.R. No. 1818**% A!r# 1%*411

$ppellant9s aruments that the victim is ree to o home i he wanted

to because he was not con>ned, detained or deprived o his liberty andthat there is no evidence to show that 4lodil sustained any in;ury,cannot hold water. #he C$ is correct in holdin that or


63/87

Criminal Law

her liberty has been clearly shown. =or there to be


64/87

Criminal Law

one entrusted with the custody o the minor 8ustine. #hus, the >rst

element o the crime is satis>ed.

$s to the second element, neither party disputes that on Feptember 5,

*, the custody o 8ustine was transerred or entrusted to ar%ue/.?hether this lasted or months or only or a couple o days, the actremains that ar%ue/ had, at one point in time, physical and actualcustody o 8ustine. ar%ue/s deliberate ailure to return 8ustine, aminor at that time, when demanded to do so by the latters mother,shows that the second element is li


65/87

Criminal Law

lawyers who presumably cant because theyailed to mention it in their 8oint $fdavitGComplaint. ?hat they insist isthat, the mere padloccation or preventin Vvonne rom oin

home, and we cannot >nd any.

12. Con$u#ta v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 12'3*% F"/ruar9 1*% *44'#he di!erence in robbery and rave coercion lies in the intent in the

commission o the act. #he motives o the accused are the prime

criterionD


66/87

Criminal Law

#he distinction between the two lines o decisions, the one holdin torobbery and the other to coercion, is deemed to be the intention o theaccused. ?as the purpose with intent to ain to ta


67/87

Criminal Law

'etitioner9s contention that the phrase "private communication" inFection o &.$. 2B66 does not include "private conversations"narrows the ordinary meanin o the word "communication" to a pointo absurdity. #he word communicate comes rom the latinword communicare, meanin "to share or to impart." In its ordinary

sini>cation, communication connotes the act o sharin or impartinsini>cation, communication connotes the act o sharin or impartin,as in a conversation, or sini>es the "process by which meanins orthouhts are shared between individuals throuh a common system osymbols (as lanuae sins or estures)" 5#hese de>nitions are broadenouh to include verbal or nonGverbal, written or epressivecommunications o "meanins or thouhts" which are li


68/87

Criminal Law

12. P"o!#" v. Du% &.R. No. *4133'% A!r# % *41

In robbery with homicide, the oriinal criminal desin o the maleactor

is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by

reason o the robbery. #he intent to commit robbery must precede the

ta


69/87

Criminal Law

personal property was shown to have been ta


70/87

Criminal Law

terms o their areement, petitioner was to account or the remaininbalance o the said unds and ive each o the partners their respectiveshares. e, however, ailed to ive private complainant 'lacido whatwas due him under the construction contract.

ua#", t-"t12'. a!anta v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1248% Mar0- *4% *41#he elements o %uali>ed thet, punishable under $rticle :6 in relation

to $rticles :6* and :6 o the &evised 'enal Code (&'C), areD (a) the

tadence reposed on her by 'CF.

Ant=Carna!!ng La181. P"o!#" v. Bu$tn"ra% &.R. No. 138*% +un" 8% *443

Intent to ain or animus lucrandiis an internal act, presumed rom theunlawul ta


71/87

Criminal Law

merely limited to pecuniary bene>t but also includes the bene>t whichin any other sense may be derived or epected rom the act which isperormed. #hus, the mere use o the thin which was ta


72/87

Criminal Law

accused with both estaa under pararaph (b) and estaa underpararaph B(a). It is a basic and undamental principle o criminal lawthat one act can ive rise to two o!enses, all the more when a sinleo!ense has multiple modes o commission.

18. Brocation or dismissin employees. #he other bits o evidence werealso inade%uate to support the chare o pilerae.

18'. P"o!#" v. R"9"$% &.R. No. 12'3% S"!t"6/"r 3% *41In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity o the o!ender,li


73/87

Criminal Law

doubt. In that reard, the 'rosecution did not establish beyondreasonable doubt that it was ?aas who had derauded Liaray byissuin the checled in any o the places where any o theelements o the o!ense occurred, that is, where the chec< is drawn,issued, delivered or dishonored.


74/87

Criminal Law

1'. D0o v. Court o A!!"a#$% &.R. No. 131'% F"/ruar9 *8%*44$ notice o dishonor received by the ma


75/87

Criminal Law

circumstantial evidence. $s ound by the trial court, private respondentdid not deposit the chec


76/87

Criminal Law

constitutes the very cause or the only motive or the private complainantto part with her property.#he provision includes any ts, advantae or preerencein the dischare o his unctions. avin afed their sinatures on thedisputed documents despite the larin deects ound therein,petitioners were properly ound to have acted with evident bad aith inapprovin the "host" purchases. #heir participation in acilitatin thepayment o nonGeistent CCI items resulted to a loss on the part othe overnment.

*41. Bu"/o$ v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1'8% Mar0- *8% *448#he elements o this orm o arson areD (a) there is intentional burnin@and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwellin.$dmittedly, there is a conAuence o the oreoin elements here.owever, the inormation ailed to allee that what was intentionallyburned was an inhabited house or dwellin. #hat is atal.


77/87

Criminal Law

= Ma#0ou$ M$0-"*4*. Taguno, v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 188% O0to/"r 1*% *411

Contrary to the contention o the petitioner, the evidence or the prosecutionhad proven beyond reasonable doubt the eistence o the oreoin

elements. =irst, the hittin o the bac< portion o the C&- by the petitionerwas clearly deliberate as indicated by the evidence on record. #he version othe private complainant that the petitioner chased him and that the -itarapushed the C&- until it reached the stairway railin was more believablethan the petitioner9s version that it was private complainant9s C&- whichmoved bacedseduction. It is replaced by abuse o con>dence. Under $rt. ::+ o the&evised 'enal Code, the seduction o a virin over twelve and undereihteen years o ae, committed by any person in public authority,priest, house servant, domestic uardian, teacher, or any person who,in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody o thewoman seduced is "constitutive" o the crime o %uali>ed seductioneven thouh no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal


78/87

Criminal Law

party must be with her consent, ater solicitation or ca;olery rom the

o!ender, and, (B) the taed Feduction re%uires thatD () the crime be

committed by abuse o authority, con>dence or relationship, and, (B)

the o!ender has seual intercourse with the woman.

= A0t$ o La$0vou$n"$$*4. So6/#on v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 12*8% S"!t"6/"r 4% *44'

In cases o acts o lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidationbe irresistible. It bein sufcient that some compulsion e%uivalentto intimidation annuls or subdues the ree eercise o the will o theo!ended party. ere, the victim was loc


79/87

Criminal Law

Ireno only touched her private part and licner in her vaina. #his testimony o the victim, however, is open to

various interpretation, since it cannot be identi>ed what speci>c part o

the vaina was de>led by Ireno. #hus, in conormity with the principle

that the uilt o an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,

the statement cannot be the basis or convictin Ireno with the crime

o rape throuh seual assault.

=For0/#" A/,u0ton*48. P"o!#" v. A/#an",a% &.R. No. 11'13% A!r# 4% *441

#he elements o the crime o orcible abduction, as de>ned in $rticle

:2B o the &evised 'enal Code, areD () that the person abducted is any

woman, reardless o her ae, civil status, or reputation@ (B) that she is

ta


80/87

Criminal Law

(ecept the eyes due to the blindold), in


81/87

Criminal Law

Feual harassment in the wor


82/87

Criminal Law

dita. =inally, the second or subse%uent marriae o petitioner with

dita has all the essential re%uisites or validity. 'etitioner has in act

not disputed the validity o such subse%uent marriae.

It is evident thereore that petitioner has committed the crime chared.is contention that he cannot be chared with biamy in view o thedeclaration o nullity o his >rst marriae is beret o merit. #he =amilyCode has settled once and or all the conAictin ;urisprudence on thematter. $ declaration o the absolute nullity o a marriae is noweplicitly re%uired either as a cause o action or a round or deense.?here the absolute nullity o a previous marriae is souht to beinvormity is a >nal ;udment declarin the previous marriae void.

*13. Morgo v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 13**% F"/ruar9 % *443

#he >rst element o biamy as a crime re%uires that the accused musthave been leally married. Hut in this case, leally spearstmarriae to spea< o. Under the principle o retroactivity o a marriaebein declared void ab initio, the two were never married "rom thebeinnin." #he contract o marriae is null@ it bears no leal e!ect.#arst

marriae bein an essential element o the crime o biamy, it is butloical that a conviction or said o!ense cannot be sustained wherethere is no >rst marriae to spea< o. #he petitioner, must, perorce beac%uitted o the instant chare.

7o marriae ceremony at all was perormed by a duly authori/edsolemni/in ofcer. 'etitioner and Lucia Harrete merely sined amarriae contract on their own. #he mere private act o sinin amarriae contract bears no semblance to a valid marriae and thus,needs no ;udicial declaration o nullity. Fuch act alone, without more,cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriae or which

petitioner miht be held liable or biamy unless he >rst secures a;udicial declaration o nullity beore he contracts a subse%uentmarriae.

*1. T"n"/ro v. Court o A!!"a#$% &.R. No. 1428% F"/ruar918% *443$lthouh the ;udicial declaration o the nullity o a marriae on theround o psycholoical incapacity retroacts to the date o the


83/87

Criminal Law

celebration o the marriae insoar as the vinculum between thespouses is concerned, it is sini>cant to note that said marriae is notwithout leal e!ects. $mon these e!ects is that children conceived orborn beore the ;udment o absolute nullity o the marriae shall beconsidered leitimate.B*#here is thereore a reconition written into

the law itsel that such a marriae, althouh void ab initio, may stillproduce leal conse%uences. $mon these leal conse%uences isincurrin criminal liability or biamy. #o hold otherwise would renderthe FtateEs penal laws on biamy completely nuatory, and allowindividuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be Aawedin some manner, and to thus escape the conse%uences o contractinmultiple marriaes, while beuilin throns o hapless women with thepromise o uturity and commitment.

Cr6"$ Agan$t @onor= L/"#

*1. A#0antara v. Pon0"% &.R. No. 118% F"/ruar9 *8% *442#he crime o libel, as de>ned in $rticle :1: o the &evised 'enal Code,has the ollowin elementsD () imputation o a crime, vice or deect,real or imainary, or any act, omission, condition, status orcircumstance@ (B) publicity or publication@ (:) malice@ (2) direction osuch imputation at a natural or ;uridical person, or even a dead personand (1) tendency to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt o theperson deamed.

*12. Lo!": v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 12**4% F"/ruar9 13% *411

$n alleation is considered deamatory i it ascribes to a person thecommission o a crime, the possession o a vice or deect, real or

imainary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance

which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which

tends to blac


84/87

Criminal Law

#ested under these established standards, we cannot subscribe to the

appellate courts >ndin that the phrase C$JI0 =3&-&, H$JI74 $7J

F$4$V 7-& tends to induce suspicion on private respondents

character, interity and reputation as mayor o Cadi/ City. #here are no

deroatory imputations o a crime, vice or deect or any act, omission,

condition, status or circumstance tendin, directly or indirectly, to

cause his dishonor. 7either does the phrase in its entirety, employ any

unpleasant lanuae or somewhat harsh and uncalled or that would

reAect on private respondents interity. 3bviously, the controversial

word 7-& used by petitioner was plain and simple. In its ordinary

sense, the word did not cast aspersion upon private respondents

interity and reputation much less convey the idea that he was uilty

o any o!ense. Fimply worded as it was with nary a notion o

corruption and dishonesty in overnment service, it is our considered

view to appropriately consider it as mere epithet or personal reactionon private respondents perormance o ofcial duty and not purposely

desined to malin and besmirch his reputation and dinity more so to

deprive him o public con>dence.

*18. Da: v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 1'282% Ma9 *% *442#he last element o libel is that the victim is identi>ed or identi>able

rom the contents o the libelous article. In order to maintain a libel

suit, it is essential that the victim be identi>able, althouh it is notnecessary that the person be named. It is enouh i by intrinsic

reerence the allusion is apparent or i the publication contains matters

o description or reerence to acts and circumstances rom which

others readin the article may


85/87

Criminal Law

'roo adduced durin the trial showed that accused was the manaero the publication without the correspondin evidence that, as such, hewas directly responsible or the writin, editin, or publishin o thematter contained in the said libelous article. $rticle :56 o the &evised

'enal Code, however, includes not only the author but also the personwho prints or published it. #hus, proo o


86/87

Criminal Law

#he same measure cannot be reasonably epected when it pertains todeamatory material appearin on a website on the internet as therewould be no way o determinin the situs o its printin and >rstpublication. #o credit 4imene/s premise o e%uatin his >rst access tothe deamatory article on petitioners website in arst publication would spawn the very ills that the amendment to$rticle :56 o the &'C souht to discourae and prevent. It hardlyre%uires much imaination to see the chaos that would ensue insituations where the websites author or writer, a bloer or anyonewho posts messaes therein could be sued or libel anywhere in the'hilippines that the private complainant may have alleedly accessedthe o!endin website.

= S#an,"r***. 7##anu"va v. P"o!#"% &.R. No. 141% A!r# 14% *44

oreover, pointin a dirty >ner ordinarily connotes the

phrase 3uc45ou,which is similar to theepression Putaor Putang Inamo,in local parlance. Fuch epressionwas not held to be libelous in (eyes v. People, where the Court saidthatD #his is a common enouh epression in the dialect that is otenemployed, not really to slander but rather to epress aner ordispleasure. It is seldom, i ever, taner at complainantconstitutes simple slander by deed, it appearin rom the actual milieuo the case that the act complained o was employed by petitioner "to

epress aner or displeasure" at complainant or procrastinatin theapproval o his leave moneti/ation. ?hile it may have cast dishonor,discredit or contempt upon complainant, said act is not o a seriousnature, thus, the penalty shall bearresto menormeanin,imprisonment rom one day to :6 days or a >ne noteceedin 'B66.66. ?e opt to impose a >ne ollowin -ari.

**. 70toro v. CA% &.R. No$. L=*8=2% Ma9 % 1'8'

$ppellantGpetitioner admitted havin called $tty. -ivencio &ui/,T


87/87

Criminal Law

$rticle :52 o the &evised 'enal Code de>nes "intriuin aainsthonor" as any intriue which has or its principal purpose to blemishthe honor and reputation o a person. #his elony undoubtedly allsunder the coverae o crimes involvin moral turpitude, the latter termhavin been de>ned as "an act o baseness, vileness, depravity in the

private and social duties which a man owes his ellow man, or tosociety in eneral, contrary to the accepted and customary rule o rihtand duty between man and man, or conduct contrary to ;ustice,honesty, modesty and ood morals."

Cr6na# N"g#g"n0"**. Iv#"r v. Mo,"$to=San P",ro% 12*21% Nov"6/"r 12% *414

Indeed, the notion that %uasiGo!enses, whether recned and penali/ed under theramewor< o our penal laws, is nothin new. $s early as the middle othe last century, we already souht to brin clarity to this >eld by

re;ectin in Rui/on v. 8ustice o the 'eace o 'ampana the propositionthat rec

must read cases in criminal law as of march 31, 2015

Documents