Generality - If The Accused Attacks The Jurisdiction of The Court
Generality - If The Accused Attacks The Jurisdiction of The Court
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign
merchant vessel passing through the territorial sea of another state has
jurisdiction over crimes committed therein. However, a coastal state such as
the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction over any crime committed on board
such ship in the following cases: (1) if its consequences extend to the coastal
State; (2) if it disturbs the peace of the country or the good order of the
1|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
territorial sea; (3) if the ship master or a diplomatic or consular officer of the
flag State requested assistance from the local authorities; or (4) if it is for the
suppression of traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
Under the principle of territoriality, the court has also jurisdiction over
crime committed in Kalayaan Islands or Scarboruogh Shoal because the
Baseline Law (RA No. 9522) declares that the Philippines exercise sovereignty
and jurisdiction over it.
2|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
6. Repeal –RA No. 10655 has repealed Article 351 of RPC on premature
marriage without reenactment. This is a total repeal in which the intention of
the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law. Atotal repeal
deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation
of the old penal law prior to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000). RA
8353 expressly repealed Article 336 of RPC on rape but re-enacted it
redefining this crimeunder Article 266-A. This is a partial repealin which the
intention of the new law is not to decriminalize an act punishable of old law
but to introduce changes. The effect of the new law is amendatory. This partial
repeal of Article 336 does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try and
punish offender for rape committed prior to RA No. 8353 (U.S. vs. Cana, 12
Phil. 241). RA No. 8353 shall be given prospective effect since it is not
favorable to the accused.
The accused shot with a firearm and killed by mistake a thief in the
toilet, who turned out to be his girlfriend. Invasion of property is considered as
unlawful aggression under Article 12 of the RPC because of the self-help
doctrine under the Civil Code (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April
20, 1983). Even though there is no actual invasion of property, unlawful
aggression as an element of defense of property will be considered as present
because of the mistake of fact principle. However, the means employed by him
firing shots through the toilet door is not reasonable; and hence, he is only
entitled to privilege migrating circumstance of incomplete defense of property
(US vs. Apego, G.R. No. L-7929, November 18, 1912).
3|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
death, the crime committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204,
May 16, 1947).
In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not
contemplated in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R.
NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967). However,
praeter intentionem and evident premeditation can be independently
appreciated. there is no incompatibility between evident premeditation and no
intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is based on the state of
mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the crime (Reyes;
People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
4|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
A person, who has sexual intercourse with a woman not knowing that
she was already dead,is liable for impossible crime since rape is now a crime
against person. However, if he is aware that the woman is already dead, he is
not liable for impossible crime since criminal intent or propensity to rape,
which is the basis of penalizing impossible crime, is wanting.
5|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
“A” discharged shotgun at “B” from a distance of 300 yards; but because
of the limited range of the firepower of the shotgun, it would be impossible for
“A” to harm “B”. “A” is liable of discharge of firearm and not impossible crime.
Where the offender unlawful entered the house and took a watch that turned
out to be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling and not impossible
crime (Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). If the accused
administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend whom he believed to be
pregnant, which turned out not to be true, but the woman became ill for more
than 30 days, the accused will be liable for serious physical injuries and not
impossible crime of abortion (Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).
The three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-
building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving or
non-violent phase (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
The basis of the irresistible impulse to make a defense against the batterer is
the woman’s experiencing two battering episodes.
6|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
first episode is infliction of physical harm and the second episode is verbal
abuse, the accused cannot avail Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.
13. Insanity - The presumption, under Article 800 of the Civil Code, is
that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of
insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence
(People vs. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010, Justice Velasco). There
are two tests (People vs. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950) to
determine whether the mental condition of the accused is exempting or
mitigating:
7|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
pass the cognition test. (People vs. Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6,
1998; People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993).
14. Child in conflict with the law -The rights and privileges of a child
in conflict with the law are as follows:
3.If the child is found guilty, the court shall place him under suspended
sentence, without need of application instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction (Section 38 of RA 9344). The law makes no distinction as to the
nature of offense by the child. The Senate debate discloses that the suspension
is applicable to heinous crime (People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16,
2011; People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015).
8|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Law). However, the accused is a child in conflict with the law, application for
probation may be filed at any time (Section 42 of RA No. 9344). In sum, it can
be filed even beyond the period of perfecting an appeal or even during the
pendency of an appeal.
4. The child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order
of the court, be made to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities in
accordance with Section 51 of RA No. 9344 (People vs. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563,
December 14, 2011; People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015).
9|Page
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
prosecution is enough to cause his conviction (People vs. Montinola, G.R. No.
131856-57, July 9, 2001).
Conspirators are all liable for robbery although not all profited and
gained from the robbery. When a conspirator committed homicide by reason of
or on the occasion of the robbery, his co-conspirators are liable for special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent the
killing (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De
Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03,
2013) or they cannot prevent the killing since they are not aware thereof
(People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997). This rule is applicable
to special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (People vs. Anticamaray, GR
No. 178771, June 08, 2011) or robbery with rape (People v. Suyu, G.R. No.
170191, August 16, 2006; People v. Canturia, G.R. No. 108490 June 22,
1995).
10 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
11 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
same as that of theft or robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, November 21,
2001). Thus, carnapping can be considered as within the contemplation of the
word “theft” or “robbery” in PD No. 1612 (Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184,
January 25, 2012). If the property is derived from the proceeds of malversation
or estafa, fencing is not committed. But the accused can be held liable as an
accessory if he profited or assisted other to profit from this misappropriated
property.
The criminal actor, who threwthe body of murdered victim into the river
to destroy the corpus delicti, is liable for murder qualified by the circumstance
of employment of means to afford impunity.The one who assisted in in
throwing the body is liable as an accessory to murder for destroying the body of
the crime to prevent its discovery (People vs. Devaras, G.R. Nos. 100938-39,
December 15, 1993)or a principal in the crime of obstruction of justice for
destroying it to impair its availability as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
12 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
must be treason, parricide, murder,or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or other crime where act was committed with abuse of public function
or the principal is a habitual delinquent. To be held liable as a principal in
obstruction of justice, the one harbored, concealed, or assisted to escape is any
person(such as principal or accomplice)and the crime committed is “any
offense under existing law.”
If the offender is a child, the applicable rule for crediting the period of
commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344,
which provides that the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of
juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.
13 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
28. Special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) –If detention prisoner or
convicted prisoner escapes during the calamity, and subsequently surrenders
within 48 hours from the time the President announces the passing away of
such calamity, he is entitled to 1/5 special time allowance for loyalty (STAL)
under Article 98 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592; if the convicted prisoner
did not surrender within the period, he is liable for evasion of sentence under
Article 158 of RPC punishable by penalty equivalent to one-fifth of the time still
remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall
exceed six months; if the detention prisoner did not surrender within the
period, he is not liable for evasion of sentence. Only convicted prisoner can
commit evasion of service of sentence because a detention prisoner is not
serving sentence, which he can evade.
14 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
People vs. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969, the victim himself, who
jumped from boat, is responsible for his own death, and yet, the SC convicted
the accused of robbery with homicide. In other words, death caused by the
victim himself is considered as homicide, which is a component of robbery with
homicide. Hence, suicide or death caused by the victim herself can be
considered as homicide as a component of special complex crime of rape with
homicide.
15 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
30. Compound crime - The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the
floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of victims constituted a
compound crime of multiple murders (People vs. Mores, GR No. 189846, June
26, 2013). Wherethe use of grenade render the victim defenseless, “use of
explosives” shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance because this is the
principal mode of attack. Thus, treachery will be relegated merely as a generic
aggravating circumstance (People vs. Comadre, et al., G.R. No. 153559, June 8,
2004). The single act of running over the victims with a van constitutes
compound crime of multiple murders (People vs. Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No.
199892, December 10, 2012).
16 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
there are victims (People vs. Desierto, (C.A.) 45 O.G. 4542; People vs. Sanchez,
G.R. No. 131116, August, 27, 1999; People vs. Tabaco, G.R. Nos. 100382-
100385 March 19, 1997; People v. Vargas, Jr., G.R. No. 86728, April 6, 1990;
People vs. Bermas, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312 July 5, 1999).
The “single criminal impulse rule” under the Lawas doctrine is more of an
exception than the general rule (People vs. Remollino, G.R. No. L-14008,
September 30, 1960). Article 48 on compound crime speaks of single act, but
not single criminal impulse (People vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21,
1967). In Lawas case, the SC was merely forced to apply Article 48 because of
the impossibility of ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused
(People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500. September 11, 2012). Thus, the Lawas
doctrine should not be applied if there is conspiracy since the number of
victims actually killed by each conspirator is not anymore material if there is
conspiracy (People vs. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010, Justice
Velasco).
The “single criminal purpose rule” under the Abella case was adopted in
consideration of the plight of the prisoners; hence, it is only applicable if
killings were commit by prisoners against their fellow prisoners (People vs.
Pincalin, G.R. No. L-38755, January 22, 1981; People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No.
184500, September 11, 2012
31. Complex crime proper - Stabbing after the rape is a separate crime
of frustrated homicide. This is not a complex crime proper since the latter is
not necessary to commit the former (People vs. Isla, G.R. No. 199875,
November 21, 2012).
If the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim, the crime
committed is rape. Forcible abduction (People vs. Mejoraday, G.R. No. 102705,
July 30, 1993; People vs. Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002) or illegal
detention (People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004), which is
incidental to the commission of rape, is absorbed. The doctrine of absorption
rather than Article 48 of RPC is applicable since forcible abduction or illegal
detention is an indispensable means to commit rape.
17 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
commit the first rape but not the subsequent rape. Hence, with respect to the
first rape, the crime committed is complex crime of rape though forcible
abduction while the subsequent rapes will be treated as separate crimes
(People vs. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971; People vs. Garcia, G.R.
No. 141125, February 28, 2002, En Banc; People vs. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100,
July 18, 2014).
If the accused abducted the victim without clear showing of lewd design,
the crime committed is kidnapping since it will appear that the intention of the
accused is to deprive victim of his liberty. If as a consequence of illegal
detention, the victim was rape, the crime committed is a special complex crime
of kidnapping with rape. This is the crime committed regardless of the number
of rapes. Multiple rapes will be considered as a component of this special
complex crime (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011;
People vs. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011). If as a consequence of
illegal detention, the victim was rape and then killed, the crime committed is a
special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide. Rape will be considered as
a component of this special complex crime (People vs. Larranaga, 138874-75,
February 3, 2004, En Banc).
18 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
RA No. 6968 eliminated the phrases "engaging in war against the forces
of the government", "committing serious violence" and “destroying property” in
Article 135 of RPC. These modes of committing rebellion deleted by RA No.
6968 were used by the SC in justifying the doctrine of absorption. The
amendment of Article 135 does not affect the accepted concept of rebellion and
these “overt acts of violence” are deemed “subsumed” in the provision on public
and armed uprising, which is an element of rebellion in Article 134 (Regalado).
Hence, the doctrine of absorption is still good. The incidents in Lovedioro case,
and Solongan case happened after RA No. 6968, and yet, the SC is still
applying the doctrine of absorption.
If the principal intention of the offenders is to rob the victims, and the
deprivation of their liberty is just incidental to the prevention of the responding
police officers from arresting them, the crime committed is robbery, which
absorbed kidnapping and serious illegal detention (People vs. Astor, G.R. Nos.
L-71765-66, 29 April 1987).If the accused committed robbery, but thereafter,
they detained the victims to demand additional money, and later forestall their
capture by the police, the crime committed is complex crime of robbery through
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The detention was availed of as a
means of insuring the consummation of the robbery. The detention was not
merely a matter of restraint to enable the malefactors to escape, but deliberate
as a means of extortion for an additional amount. Hence, the Astor principle is
not applicable (People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990). If the
accused committed robbery by band, but thereafter, they took one of the
victims and detained him for seven days in another place for purpose of
demanding ransom, they are liable of separate crimes of robbery by band and
kidnapping for ransom (People vs. Basao, G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012).
33. Delito continuado - In order that continuous crime may exist, there
should be: (1) plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; (2)
unity of criminal intent and purpose and (3) unity of penal provision infringed
upon or violated (Santiago vs. Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December 2,
1993). The following are delito continuado: (1) several acts of taking roasters
owned by different owner under a single criminal impulse to take them all in
violation of a single penal provision, and that is Article 308 of RPC (Note: This
is also called single larceny rule; People vs. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547,
February 22, 1974); and (2)several acts of taking away by force the valuables of
the employees working in Energex gasoline station committed under a single
criminal intent to commit robbery in that place in violation of a single penal
19 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
provision, and that is Article 294 of RPC (People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943,
June 26, 2009).
Accused inserted his penis thrice into the private part of victim for
purpose of changing position. The three penetrations motivated by a single
criminal intent to satisfy his lust in violation of single penal provision (Article
266-A of RPC) constitute a continued crime of rape (People vs. Aaron, G.R. Nos.
136300-02, September 24, 2002). Accused inserted his penis thrice into the
private part of victim for purpose of resting for five minutes. He satisfied his
lust every time he would withdraw his penis to rest. Since the three
penetrations were motivated by separate three criminal impulse to satisfy his
lust, three separate crimes of rape are committed (People vs. Lucena, GR No.
190632, February 26, 2014).
20 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply
except in the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor,
privilege mitigating circumstance of minority (People vs. Montalaba, G.R. No.
186227, July 20, 2011; People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24,
2012Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, Justice
Velasco), confession or quasi-recidivisim(People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060,
January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving dangerous drugs. In
this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If the
accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.
21 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
If the special law (such as RA No. 6235 on hijacking and RA No. 3019 on
corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC, the
latter shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be
appreciated since the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its
minimum period. The crime has not attempted or frustrated stage since
penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at
the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court (Article 39
of RPC as amended by RA No. 10159).
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could
serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine, prision correccional and
perpetual absolute disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction.
In sum, while lingering in prison, convict could pay fine, return the property
confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or to act function as a public officer.
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
successively if the nature of the penalties will not permit simultaneous service.
Convict must serve multiple penalties successively: (1) where the penalties to
be served are destierro and imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to be
served are imprisonment. However, the successive service of sentences is
subject to the three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule.
The three fold rule is to be taken into account not in the imposition of
the penalty but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed (People
vs. Escares, G.R. No. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957; Mejorada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-51065-72, June 30, 1987). Thus, the court cannot
dismiss criminal cases in excess of three on the basis of three-fold rule.
22 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
The State and private complainant should not be blame for failure to
institute the case immediately after the commission of the crime if they are
ignorant or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of a crime.
Under "blameless ignorance" doctrine (Section 2 of Act 3326 and Article 91 of
RPC), the prescription runs only upon discovery of the crime by offended party
or State through a person in authority or his agent. Considering that during
the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail the legality of the
transactions involving cronies such as behest loan, it would be unreasonable to
expect that the discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible prior to
1986 (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65,
September 11, 2013). Hence, the prescriptive period for violation of RA No.
23 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
3019 commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee
made an exhaustive investigation (Presidential Ad hoc fact-finding committee
vs. Hon. Desierto, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011).
If the crime is punishable bythe Revised Penal Code or a special law, the
institution of judicial proceeding(e.g. filing of complaint or information in court)
or executive proceeding (e.g. filing of complaint for preliminary investigation)
interrupts the running of prescription such as the filing of complaint: (1) for
violation of BP Blg. 22 in the prosecutor’s office - People vs. Pangilinan, G.R.
No. 152662, June 13, 2012;Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No.
167571, November 25, 2008; (2) for violation of Revised Securities Act in
Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC vs. Interport Resources
Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008; or (3) violation of RA No. 3019
in the Ombudsman - Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and
174764-65, September 11, 2013.
24 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Under PD No. 968 as amended, crimes against public disorder are non-
probationable. However, under RA No. 10707, crimes against public disorder
such as alarm and scandal and direct assault are now probationable.
25 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
The phrase "on occasion of such performance" used in Article 148 of RPC
means "by reasonof the past performance of official duty because the purpose of
the law is to allow them to discharge their duties without fear of being
assaulted by reason thereof (People vs. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31,
1974). Attacking a judge on the street by reason of past performance of duty
(such as citing the accused in contempt) constitutes qualified direct assault
(U.S. vs. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 6820, October 16, 1911). But attacking a retired
judge by reason of past performance of duty is not direct assault since he is not
anymore a person in authority at the time of the assault. Note: The mandatory
retirement age of a judge is 70 year.
26 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Custodians are liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners with respect to
the escape of detention prisoner and convicted prisoner. Brother is liable for
two counts of corruption of public officer. Clerk of court and custodians are
liable for direct bribery. Clerk of court and brother are liable for falsification of
document as principal by direct participation and as principal by inducement,
respectively.
40. Abortion and infanticide – If the fetus is killed inside the womb of
his mother, the crime is abortion regardless of whether he is viable or not
(People vs. Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People vs. Salufrania,
G.R. No. L-50884, March 30, 1988). If the victim is killed outside the womb of
the mother, the crime is: (1) abortion if the victim is not viable e.g. intrauterine
life is only 6 months (People vs. Detablan, 40 O.G. No. 9, p. 30; People vs.
Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008); or (2) infanticide, if the victim is
viable e.g. his intrauterine life is more than 6 months and his life is less than 3
day old; or (3) murder if the victim is viable and his life is 3 day old or more.
If the accused maltreated his wife and as a consequence, his wife and
unborn child died, the crime committed is compound crime of parricide and
unintentional abortion (People vs. Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002;
People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851, March 01, 1995). If the accused
maltreated his pregnant wife and as a consequence, his wife died, and his child
was expelled, and died thereafter within 3 days, the crime committed is
compound crime of parricide and infanticide. If the accused maltreated his
pregnant wife and as a consequence, his wife died, and his child was expelled,
and died thereafter on the third day, the crime committed is compound crime
of double parricides.
27 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Killing his wife after surprising her in the act of committing homosexual
intercourse with another woman is not death under exceptional circumstance.
“Sexual intercourse” mentioned in Article 247 is different from homosexual
intercourse. Killing his mistress after surprising in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with a man is not death under exceptional circumstance(U.S. vs.
Versola, G.R. No. 10759, January 25, 1916). The offender in Article 247 must
be a “legally married person.” Killing his wife under the circumstance indicating
that she had just finished having sexual intercourse with another man is not
death under exceptional circumstance. He did not catch his wife in the very act
of sexual intercourse, but after such act (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310,
October 31, 1939).
44. Rape - If the relationship between the accused and the victim of rape
is uncle and niece, the Information must alleged that the offender is “a relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree” because there are
niece-uncle relationships which are beyond the third civil degree. However, a
sister-brother relationship is obviously in the second civil degree.
Consequently, it is not necessary that the Information should specifically state
that the accused is a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of
the victim (People vs. Ceredon, G.R. No. 167179, January 28, 2008,Justice
Velasco).
28 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
be legally appointed was first (People vs. Flores G.R. No. 188315, August 25,
2010).
Husband can be held liable for marital rape. Article 266-A of RPC uses
the term “man” in defining rape without regard to the rapist’s legal relationship
with his victim. Under Article 266-C of RPC, in case it is the legal husband who
is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action. RA No. 8353 has eradicated the archaic
notion that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute
proprietary rights over his wife’s body and thus her consent to every act of
sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed (People vs.
Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014),
29 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
30 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
48. Estafa –In offenses against property (theft or estafa), if the subject
matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable (e.g. money), an error in the
designation of the offended party is fatal. However, if the subject matter of the
offense is specific and identifiable (e.g. check or jewelry), an error in the
designation of the offended party is immaterial (Senador vs. People, G.R. No.
201620, March 06, 2013, Justice Velasco). In oral defamation, a crime against
honor, the identity of the person against whom the defamatory words were
directed is a material element. Thus, an erroneous designation of the person
injured is material (People vs. Uba, 106 Phil. 332).
Where the borrower is importers acquiring goods for resale, goods sold in
retail are often within his custody until they are purchased. This is covered by
trust receipt agreement. Failure to return the unsold good or deliver the
proceeds of sale to the bank is estafa in relation to PD No. 115 (Trust Receipt
Law). Where the borrower is engaged in construction, the materials are often
placed under custody of his clients, who can only be compelled to return the
materials if they fail to pay. Since the bank and the contractor know that the
return of the materials is not possible, this is not covered by trust receipt
agreement. This transaction becomes a mere loan, where the borrower is
obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods. The
31 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
accused is not liable for estafa because of the constitutional provision of non-
imprisonment for nonpayment of debts (Yang vs. People, G.R. No. 195117,
August 14, 2013, Justice Velasco).
To be guilty of this crime the accused must have used the check in order
to defraud the complainant. However, prima facie evidence of deceit exists by
law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor (People vs. Reyes, supra). But receipt of notice of dishonor is not an
element of this crime.
In other forms of swindling under Article 316, (1) and (2) of RPC, offender
made false representation involving real property and act of ownership such as
selling it, which causes damage to third person. In paragraph 1, the accused
represents that he owned the property, while in paragraph 2, he expressly
represents in the deed of conveyance that the property is “free from
encumbrance” (Estrellado-Mainar vs. People, G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015)
or "comolibre". These words "comolibre" in the Spanish Penal Code are deemed
incorporated in the RPC (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No. 146770, February 27, 2003).
To "take" under theft the Revised Penal Code does not require
asportation or carrying away (Medina vs. People, G.R. No. 182648, June 17,
2015). It is not an indispensable requisite of theft that a pickpocket should
carry, more or less far away, a wallet taken from its owner (People vs. Mercado,
G.R. Nos. L-45471 and L-45472, June 15, 1938).
32 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
If the bulky goods are taken by the accused inside a compound (such as
SM), theft is consummated even if the accused failed to bring out the stolen
goods from the compound, which makes him unable to freely dispose it.
Inability to dispose the stolen property is not an element of theft. Unlawful
taking is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage.
Without unlawful taking, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all.
Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage (Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No.
160188, June 21, 2007). If the accused is charged with frustrated theft, he
could not be convicted of the crime charged because theft has no frustrated
stage. Neither could he be convicted of consummated theft since it was not
alleged in the information. But he could be convicted of attempted theft
because this is a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the charge of
frustrated theft (Canceran vs. People, G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015).
If the accused received the car from the owner for repair the possession
is physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is carnapping (Santos vs.
People, G.R. No. 77429 January 29, 1990).If the accused received the property
to bring it to a goldsmith for examination and to immediately return it back to
the owner, his possession is physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is
theft (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. L-16961, September 19, 1921). If the accused
received the property with authority to sell it (Guzman vs. CA, 99 Phil. 703), or
money with authority to use it to buy palays (Carganillo vs. People, G.R. No.
182424, September 22, 2014), or with full freedom and discretion on how to
use it to facilitate its remittance to BIR as payment of tax and reduce the
amount due (Velayo vs. People, G.R. No. 204025, November 26, 2014), his
possession is juridical. Thus, failure of the agent to return it is estafa (Guzman
v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703; Tria vs. People, G.R. No. 204755, September
17, 2014).
A franchise holder must personally operate the motor vehicle. That is the
reason why government regulation prohibits operator of motor vehicle from
leasing it. In the eye of the law the driver of taxi or passenger jeepneyunder
boundary arrangement was only an employee of the owner rather than a
lessee. For being an employee, his possession of the jeepney is physical (People
v. Isaac G.R. No. L-7561, April 30, 1955), and thus, misappropriation thereof is
carnapping (People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)
33 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same
to the local authorities or to its owner, is liable for theft. If the finder
surrenders the property found to a policeman, who fails to deliver it the owner,
the policeman is liable for theft. He acquired the position occupied by the
actual finder. Appropriating the property is of the same character of that made
by one who originally found the same (People vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786,
March 31, 1923).
If the main objective is to kill the victim in a building, and fire is resorted
to as the means to accomplish such goal, the crime committed is murder only.
Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs arson since the latter is an inherent
means to commit the former (People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27,
1994). Single act of burning the building to kill two persons constitutes
compound crime of double murders (People vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050,
September 19, 2008).
If the main objective is to burn the building, but death results by reason
or on the occasion of arson, the crime is arson with homicide, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed (People vs. Villacorta, 172468, October 15, 2008).
If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already done so, and
arson is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the offender may be
34 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
51. Bigamy –X contracted three marriages. His first wife is already dead
when X contracted his third marriage. X is liable for bigamy involving the
second marriage on the basis of his first marriage. X is not liable for bigamy
involving the third marriage on the basis of the first marriage since the first
has already been extinguished by reason of death of the first wife when he
contracted the third. He is not liable for bigamy involving the third marriage on
the basis of the second marriage since the latter is null and void for being a
bigamous marriage.
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the
offended parties depending on the circumstances. But if the second spouse had
knowledge of the previous marriage of the accused, the former is liable as an
accomplice (Santiago vs. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015).
35 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
53. Libel - Under Article 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and editor of
newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the
same extent as if he were the author thereof. The publisher and editors cannot
disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply
saying they had no participation in the preparation of the same. They cannot
say that Tulfo was all alone in the publication of Remate, on which the
defamatory articles appeared. It is not a matter of whether or not they
conspired in preparing and publishing the subject articles, because the law
simply so states that they are liable as if they were the author (Tulfo vs. People,
G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008, Justice Velasco).
36 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
under RA 9165 for the dangerous drug, PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516 for
the explosive and RA No. 10591 for loose firearm.
55. BP 22 - Demand letter was given with the security guard without
proof that it reached accused and through registered mail which was returned
with the notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05". Since there is proof that accused
received the notice of dishonor, he was acquitted However, he is still civilly
liable (San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013).
37 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
If the child is 12 years old and above, and the acts of the accused
constitute sexual abuse under RA No. 7610 and rape through sexual assault or
acts of lasciviousness, he shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610 since this law
prescribed a grave penalty (Dimakuta vs. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20,
2015). However, if the acts constitute sexual abuse and rape through sexual
intercourse, he shall be prosecuted under RPC since this law prescribed a
graver penalty. He cannot be prosecuted for compound crime of rape and
sexual abuse because the latter is punishable under special law. He cannot be
prosecuted for both rape and sexual abuse because of the rule on double
jeopardy (People v. Matias, G.R. No. 186469, June 13, 2012 and Alberto vs.
Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013).
If the child is under 12 years old, and the acts of the accused constitute
sexual abuse and rape or acts of lasciviousness, the latter shall be prosecuted
penalized as follows: (1) rape through sexual intercourse; (2) acts of
lasciviousness with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
(Section 5 of RA No. 7610).Prior to RA No. 8353 (Rape Law), inserting finger
into genital orifice is acts of lasciviousness. Hence, reclusion temporal in its
38 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
medium period under RA No. 7610 should be imposed. Under RA No. 8353,
inserting finger into genital orifice is rape through sexual assault where the
penalty is prision mayor. To impose the lighter penalty under RPC as amended
by RA 8353 is unfair to the victim. It is not the intention of RA No. 8353 to
disallow the imposition of penalty under RA No. 7610 if the victim is child
subjected to sexual abuse, who isunder 12 years of age (People vs. Chingh,
G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011). If the crime is qualified rape through sexual
assault, the Chingcase is not applicable since RA No. 8353 prescribed a grave
penalty of reclusion temporal for it (People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897,
June 6, 2011).
39 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
possession of dangerous drugs. This would be in keeping with the intent of the
law to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use and provide them with an
opportunity to recover for a second chance at life (People vs. Matinez, G.R. No.
191366, December 13, 2010).
61. RA No. 3019 - To apply the Arias rule for purposes of exonerating an
accused or respondent, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the
public officer in approving the release of public fund must be relying to a
reasonable extent on his subordinates (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No. 166967,
January 28, 2013); (2) that the documents involving the release of funds must
be so voluminous so as to preclude him from studying each one carefully
40 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
(Santillano vs. People, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 03, 2010); (3) that the
public officer has no foreknowledge of existing anomaly (Escara vs. People, G.R.
No. 164921, July 8, 2005); and that there is not deviation from ordinary
procedure in the release of fund, which necessitate further investigation (Cruz
vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134493, August 16, 2005; Rivera vs.
People, G.R. No. 156577, December 03, 2014).
City treasurer, city accountant and city administrator allowed the release
of cash advance in favor of a paymaster despite the fact that she has previous
unliquidated cash advances. They are liable because of conspiracy of silence or
inaction. Public officers’ omissions to question irregularities indicate a common
understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting the commission of
the offense of causing undue injury to the government through gross
inexcusable negligence. This is called conspiracy by silence (Jaca vs. People,
G.R. No. 166967, January 28, 2013).
41 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
42 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Third - That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth
amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00 (Joseph Ejercito
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001).
The damages suffered by the government in diverting the road from the
poblacion to the farm of the accused shall not be considered in determining if
plunder is committed. What is important is the amount of ill-gotten wealth
acquired by the public officer and not the amount of damage suffered by the
government.
In People vs. Joseph Estrada, Criminal Case No. 26558, September 12,
2007 -One of the predicate crimes alleged in the information is
misappropriation of the excise tax share of Ilocos Sur. This was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. However, the following predicate crimes were alleged
and proven by evidence (1) series of acts of receiving collections from "jueteng"
in the aggregate amount of P545,291,000.00; and (2) series consisting of two
acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS to purchase shares of stock of Belle
Corporation and collecting or receiving commission from the sales of Belle
Shares in the amount of P189,700,000.00. This pattern of criminal acts
indicates an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass ill-gotten wealth
in the amount of more than P50 million. Estrada was convicted of plunder.
43 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
65. Hazing - The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following
essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing
or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or
injury; and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s
admission or entry into an organization (People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222,
February 18, 2015).
44 | P a g e
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no
direct participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices
if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by the above elements, occurred;
(2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they
consented to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual
knowledge thereof (People vs. Bayabos).
45 | P a g e