2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

COVERAGE: 1.

Anti-Arson Law (P.D. No. 1613);

2.

New Anti-Carnapping Act (R.A. No. 10883);

3.

Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610, as amended);

4.

Anti-Child Pornography Law (R.A. No. 9755);

5.

Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

6.

Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612);

COVERAGE: 7.

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

8.

Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049);

9.

Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6235);

10.

Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. No. 532);

11.

Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended);

COVERAGE: 12.

Anti-Sexual Harassment (R.A. No. 7877);

13.

Anti-Torture Act (R.A. No. 9745)

14.

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. No. 9208);

15.

Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (R.A. No. 9262)

16.

Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.Blg. 22);

17.

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640)

COVERAGE: 18.

Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591);

19.

Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended);

20.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630, and in relation to P.D. No. 603);

21.

Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829);

22.

Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended);

COVERAGE: 23.

Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115);

24.

Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175)

25.

Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) – defining acts of terrorism; and

22.

Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. 1613)

KINDS OF ARSON: 1.

2.

3.



Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1613; Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613.

The laws on arson in force today are P.D. No. 1613 and Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The provisions of P.D. No. 1613 that are inconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2 on destructive arson are DEEMED REPEALED)

SIMPLE ARSON (SECTION 1, P.D. NO. 1613) There is simple arson when any person burns or sets fire to the property of another, or his own property under circumstance which expose to danger the life or property of another.

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659) Burning of:

A.

i.

One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions;

ii.

Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals…

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659) ii.

… regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not;

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659) Burning of:

A.

iii.

Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure;

iv.

Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities;

v.

Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7659) There is also Destructive Arson:

B.

i.

When the arson is committed by 2 or more persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission of another violation of the law

ii.

When any person shall burn: Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials

1.

2.

OTHER CASES OF ARSON (SECTION 3, P.D. NO. 1613) Burning of: a. b.

c. d. e.

f.

Any building used as offices of the Government or any of its agencies; Any inhabited house or dwelling; Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil, well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel; Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop or grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest; Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill, or mill central; Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf, or warehouse

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ARSON (SECTION 4, P.D. NO. 1613) a. b. c.

d.

If committed with intent to gain; If committed for the benefit of another; If the offender be motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned; or If committed by a syndicate – planned or carried out by three or more persons

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON (SECTION 6, P.D. NO. 1613) There is prima facie evidence of arson in the following instances, to wit: a.

If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment;

b.

If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the building not of the offender nor for the household;

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON (SECTION 6, P.D. NO. 1613) There is prima facie evidence of arson in the following instances, to wit: c.

If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property; and

d.

If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of the policy

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON (SECTION 6, P.D. NO. 1613) There is prima facie evidence of arson in the following instances, to wit: e.

If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance more than two fires have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the control of the offender and/or insured;

f.

If shortly before the fire a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building or property had been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary course of business;

g.

If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property of the victim.

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARSON (SECTION 7, P.D. NO. 1613) Conspiracy to commit arson is punishable by prision mayor in its minimum period.

NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH HOMICIDE Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613 provides that, “if by reason or on occasion of arson, death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed.” Thus, homicide is absorbed.

NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016 (R.A. NO. 10883)

REPEAL OF R.A. NO. 6539, ALSO KNOWN AS THE “ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972” 

R.A. No. 10883, otherwise known as the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016,” repealed R.A. No. 6539, also known as the “Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.”

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 1.

Carnapping (Section 3, R.A. No. 10883) 

Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.



Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 2.

Concealment of Carnapping (Section 4, R.A. No. 10883) 

Any public official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in R.A. No. 10883 or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed for this offense, be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be permanently disqualified from holding public office.

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 3.

Failure to Register Motor Vehicle (Section 6, R.A. No. 10883) 

Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating (Section 2[e], R.A. No. 10883).

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 3.

Failure to Register Motor Vehicle (Section 6, R.A. No. 10883) 

All motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the LTO shall be considered as a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed importation or coming from illegal source and shall be confiscated in favor of the government (Sections 6 and 8, R.A. No. 10883).

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 4.

Willfully encoding in the registry of motor vehicles a nonexisting vehicle or without history, new identity of already existing vehicle or double/multiple registration (“KAMBAL”) of vehicle (Section 7, R.A. No. 10883);

5.

Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis (Section 14, R.A. No. 10883) 

Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the altering, changing, erasing, replacing or scratching of the original factory inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its engine, engine block or chassis which is different from that which is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicle imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered serial number.

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 6.

Identity Transfer (Section 15, R.A. No. 10883) 

7.

Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine number, chassis number, body tag number, plate number, and any other identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck” or is beyond economic repair by concerned car insurance companies and/or law enforcement agencies after its involvement in a vehicular accident or other incident and registers the same into another factory-made body or vehicle unit, of the same classification, type, make or model (Section 2[d], R.A. No. 10883).

Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates (Section 16, in relation to Section 2[d], R.A. No. 10883).

PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883 8.

Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts (Section 17, R.A. No. 10883) 

Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from a carnapped vehicle used in assembling another vehicle (Section 2[i], R.A. NO. 10883).

DUTY OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TO REPORT (SECTION 9, R.A. NO. 10883) 



Within seven (7) days after the arrival of an imported vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body, the Collector of Customs of a principal port of entry where the imported vehicle or parts enumerated above are unloaded shall report the shipment to the LTO, specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body, and stating the names and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof. If the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body does not bear any serial number, the Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body until it is numbered by the LTO: Provided, That a PNP clearance shall be required prior to engraving the engine or chassis number.

DUTY OF IMPORTERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND SELLERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO KEEP RECORD OF STOCKS (SECTION 10, R.A. NO. 10883) 

Any person engaged in the importation, distribution, and buying and selling of motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or body shall keep a permanent record of one’s stocks, stating therein their type, make and serial numbers, and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they are sold, and shall render accurately a monthly report of his/her transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.

DUTY OF MANUFACTURERS OF ENGINE BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY TO CAUSE THE NUMBERING OF ENGINE BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY MANUFACTURED (SECTION 11, R.A. NO. 10883) 

Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body shall cause the numbering of every engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and conspicuous part thereof which the LTO may direct for the purpose of uniformity and identification of the factory and shall submit to the LTO a monthly report of the manufacture and sale of engine blocks, chassis or body.

CLEARANCE AND PERMIT REQUIRED FOR ASSEMBLY OR REBUILDING OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECTION 12, R.A. NO. 10883) 



Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first secure a certificate of clearance from the PNP: Provided, That no such permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall present a statement under oath containing the type, make and serial numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of the spare parts of the motor vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt together with the names and addresses of the sources thereof. In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats, motor bancas, water crafts and other light water vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the PNP, which office shall in turn furnish the LTO pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle engines including their type, make and serial numbers.

CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR SHIPMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES, ENGINE BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY (SECTION 13, R.A. NO. 10883) 



The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a report to the PNP within seven (7) days upon boarding all motor vehicles being boarded the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessel or ship for interisland and international shipment. The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles in all interisland and international shipping vessels without a motor vehicle clearance from the PNP, except cargo trucks and other trucks carrying goods, Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)-accredited public utility vehicles (PUV) and other motor vehicles carrying foodstuff and dry goods.

FOREIGN NATIONALS (SECTION 20, RA 10883) 

Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions of R.A. No. 10883 shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration.

REWARD (SECTION 19, R.A. NO. 10883) 





Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery of carnapped vehicles and for the apprehension of the persons charged with carnapping shall be given monetary reward as the PNP may determine. The PNP shall include in their annual budget the amount necessary to carry out the purposes of Section 19, R.A. No. 10883. Any information given by informers shall be treated as confidential matter.

PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ (183 SCRA 763) People v. Dela Cruz 183 SCRA 763 FACTS: The accused killed the owner of the vehicle and stole the taxi owned by the victim. HELD: The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which belonged to another, without the latter’s consent or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

IZON V. PEOPLE (107 SCRA 118) FACTS: The two accused were held liable for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. The accused assailed the imposable penalty contending that the information did not allege that the motorized vehicle stolen was using the public highway. HELD: A motorized vehicle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as any vehicle propelled by any power othen than muscular power using public highways. Public highways are those free for use of every person, thus not limited to a national road.

PEOPLE V. GAWAN (657 SCRA 713) FACTS: Accused were charged with the crime of Carnapping as defined under Section 2 of R.A. 6539. The accused-appellants assail their conviction due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 are the following: (1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; (2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; (3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and (4) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. The records of this case show that all the elements of carnapping are present and were proven during trial. The tricycle, which was definitively ascertained to belong to Biag, as evidenced by the registration papers, was found in Lagat and Palalay’s possession.

PEOPLE V. LAGAT (2011) FACTS: The victim left home to “pasada” his tricycle. The next morning, his wife was informed that her husband was killed and that his tricycle was used to steal palay. HELD: The accused committed qualified carnapping. There is carnapping when there was a taking of a vehicle which belongs to another, without the consent of the owner with use of violence, intimidation or force, with intent to gain. It is qualified when the driver, passenger was killed during the taking or carnapping. Motor vehicle is defined as any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscle power using public highways. In this case, the tricycle was a motor vehicle taken by force from the owner who was killed during the carnapping.

ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (R.A. NO. 7610, AS AMENDED)

CHILDREN, DEFINED. SEC. 3(A), R.A. NO. 7610 Children refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

CHILD ABUSE (SECTION 3[B], R.A. NO. 7610) It is the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child, which includes any of the following: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

Note: Child abuse is committed, not slight/serious physical injuries as defined and punished under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code, if the victim is a child (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 179090, 5 June 2009)

CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE

(SECTION 5[A], R.A. NO. 7610) 

Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution, which includes any of the following:  

 



Acting as procurer of child prostitute; Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute; Taking advantage or influence to procure a child as prostitute; Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.

MALTO V. PEOPLE (1997) FACTS: Malto was a philosophy professor at an exclusive school for girls. He had carnal relations with one of his students who was 17 years old. Malto argues that they are a couple. HELD: Malto violated R.A. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. There was lascivious conduct and intercourse as a result of coercion or influence of the professor and the victim was under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime.

MALTO V. PEOPLE (CONT.) Sweetheart Theory The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim. It operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that she consented to the sexual relations. For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person.

LAVIDES V. COURT OF APPEALS (2000) FACTS: Lavides was charged with violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 for luring a sixteen (16)-year old girl into a hotel to have carnal knowledge. Subsequently, 12 informations for the same violation was filed against him. HELD: Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with a child under the circumstances mentioned in Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160 is thus a separate and distinct offense. The offense is similar to rape or act of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code in which each act of rape or lascivious conduct should be the subject of a separate information.

SEC. 5[A], R.A. NO. 7610 V. ART. 336 RPC VARIANCE PRINCIPLE People v. Quimvel G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017

FACTS: The victim, a seven (7) year-old girl, was awakened when accused laid on top of her and inserted his hand in the victim’s panty. Accused was charged for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

ISSUE Whether accused may be held liable for the crime of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 in view of the supposed failure of the Information to allege all elements necessary in committing said crime.

RULING 

Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, to wit: The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.  The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.  That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age 

RULING Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against children.

CHILD ABUSE (SECTION 5[B], R.A. NO. 7610) Children are deemed to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse under the following circumstances: 1.

2.

Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child; and The victim is under twelve (12) years of age.

ART. 336, RPC V. SEC. 5[B], R.A. 7610 PEOPLE V. CAOILI G.R. NO. 196342, 8 August 2017 FACTS: Accused was charged with rape by sexual intercourse for having committed the following acts unto his 14 years 1 month and 10 days old daughter: (1) kissed her lips; (2) touched and mashed her breast; and (3) inserted finger into her vagina.

ISSUE: May accused be held criminally liable for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC or “Lascivious conduct” under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. RULING: Accused may be convicted for the crime of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 which is subsumed in the crime of rape by sexual intercourse.

COMPARISON OF ART. 336, RPC AND SEC. 5[B], R.A. 7610

Basis

Acts of Lasciviousness

Sexual Abuse / Lascivious Conduct

Revised Penal Code

R.A. No. 7610

Elements of the crime: Punishable act: Lewdness

Sexual intercourse lascivious conduct

or

Offended party: Under 12 years old, A child exploited in whether male or prostitution or subjected to female other sexual abuse aged below 18 years old, whether male or female

GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINATION OF PROPER CHARGE AND PENALTY 





The age of the victim is into consideration in designating or charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty. If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature of the crime should be “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.” Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE

(SECTION 5[C], R.A. NO. 7610) 

Those who derive profit or advantage, whether as manager or owner of the establishment, where prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort or establishment serving as cover or which engages in prostitution.

SEXUAL ABUSE V. CHILD ABUSE People v. Montinola G.R. No. 178061, 9 July 2011 FACTS: Accused was charged with six counts of rape. On one charge, the RTC and CA convicted the accused for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. HELD: Accused should be punished under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. Said provision covers acts of lasciviousness while Section 10(a) covers other acts of abuse.

OTHER ACTS PUNISHABLE 1.

Child Prostitution (Section 5, R.A. No. 7610);

2.

Attempt to commit child prostitution (Section 6, R.A. No. 7610);

3.

Child trafficking (Section 7, R.A. No. 7610);

4.

Attempt to commit child trafficking (Section 8, R.A. No. 7610);

5.

Engagement of children in the worst forms of child labor (Section 12-D, R.A. No. 7610); and

6.

Engagement of children in obscene publications (Section 9, R.A. No. 7610);

OTHER ACTS PUNISHABLE 7.

Other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development (Section 10, R.A. No. 7610);

8.

Employment of children as model in advertisement directly or indirectly promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its byproducts, gambling or any form of violence or pornography (Section 14, R.A. No. 7610); and

9.

Discrimination of children of indigenous cultural communities (Section 20, R.A. No. 7610).

ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009 (R.A. NO. 9775)

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (SECTION 3[B], R.A. NO. 9775) It is any public or private representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.

UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS (SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 9775) It shall be unlawful for any person: a.

To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child pornography;

b.

To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography;

c.

To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote, export or import any form of child pornography;

UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS (SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 9775) d.

To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That possession of three (3) or more articles of child pornography of the same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;

e.

To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments purporting to be a legitimate business;

f.

For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;

UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS (SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 9775) g.

For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage, participate or assist in any form of child pornography;

h.

To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;

i.

To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;

j.

To willfully pornography;

access

any

form

of

child

UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS (SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 9775) k.

To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child pornography shall be committed when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it; and

l.

To possess any form of child pornography.

SYNDICATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (SECTION 5, R.A. NO. 9775) The crime of child pornography is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009 R.A. NO. 9995

VOYEURISM, DEFINED. SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 9995 Photo or video voyeurism means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter’s consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means without the written consent of the person involved.

PROHIBITED ACTS SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995 (a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;

PROHIBITED ACTS SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995 (b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration; (c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or

PROHIBITED ACTS SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995 (d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein.

EXEMPTION SEC. 6, R.A. NO. 9995 A peace officer who is authorized by written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism. Requisites for the exemption to apply: 1. Such order was issued only upon written application and examination under oath of any witnesses that the peace officer may produce; 2. Showing of reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed; and 3. Such evidence is essential for conviction.

INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SEC. 7, R.A. NO. 9995 Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.

ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. NO. 1612)

FENCING (SECTION 2[A], P.D. NO. 1612) Fencing is an act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery and theft.

PRESUMPTION OF FENCING (SECTION 5, P.D. NO. 1612) Mere possession of any goods, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. (Capili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139250, 15 August 2000)

CAPILI V. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 139250, 15 AUGUST 2000 Facts: Diokno and her mother owned several pieces of jewelry. Some were stolen by their former houseboy Manzo and he was accordingly charged with qualified theft. Manzo then testified that he sold the jewelries to accused Capili and his wife for a price and informed them that those were from his former employers. The alleged stolen jewelries were then recovered from the accused. Issue: Is Capili guilty of fencing?

CAPILI V. PEOPLE (CONT.) HELD: Yes, all of the essential elements of fencing are present in this case. These are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2)the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime; (3) knows or should have known that the said article has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of theft or robbery; and (4) intent to gain for himself or for another.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019, AS AMENDED)

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: 1.

Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense (Section 3[a], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) 2.

Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law (Section 3[b], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

3.

Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of R.A. No. 3019, as amended (Section 3[c], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019)

4.

Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination (Section 3[d], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) 5.

Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions (Section 3[e], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) Elements of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended: a)

b)

c)

the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions (SP01 Lihaylihay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191219, 31 July 2013)

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) 6.

Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party (Section 3[f], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) 7.

Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby (Section 3[g], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

8.

Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest (Section 3[h], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) 9.

Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group (Section 3[i], R.A. No. 3019, as amended). 

Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.

CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 3019) 10.

Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled (Section 3[j], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);

11.

Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date (Section 3[k], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).

PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 3019) a.

It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene (Section 4[a], R.A. No. 3019, as amended). 

Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 3019)

b.

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 (Section 4[b], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).

PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RELATIVES (SECTION 5, R.A. NO. 3019) It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government 

This shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.

PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (SECTION 6, R.A. NO. 3019) It shall be unlawful for any Member of the Congress during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term. 

This prohibition shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency.

PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (SECTION 6, R.A. NO. 3019) It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty (30) days after such approval to retain such interest.

EXCEPTION (SECTION 14, R.A. NO. 3019) Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.

TERMINATION OF OFFICE (SECTION 12, R.A. NO. 3019) No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under R.A. No. 3019, as amended, or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.

ASILO V. PEOPLE (2011) FACTS: A criminal complaint for violation of Sec. 3€ of Republic Act No. 3019 was filed against Accused et, al. for taking advantage of their official positions in causing the demolition of a public market stall leased by the municipal government in favor of the private complainants.

ASILO V. PEOPLE (2011) HELD: Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 provides: In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxxx (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

ASILO V. PEOPLE (2011) It is undisputable that the first two requisites of the criminal offense were present at the time of the commission of the complained acts and that, as to the remaining elements, there is sufficient amount of evidence to establish that there was an undue injury suffered on the part of the private complainants and that the public officials concerned acted with evident bad faith when they performed the demolition of the market stall.

SANTILLANO V. PEOPLE (2010) FACTS: Engr. Santillano was found guilty of three counts of violation of Section 3€ of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices At. However, Engr. Santillano argued that the decision of the Sandiganbayan was contrary to law since he is a private person and not a public officer.

SANTILLANO V. PEOPLE (2010) HELD: The fact that one of the elements of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 is “that the accused is a public officer” does not necessarily preclude its application to private persons who are being charged with conspiring with public officers in the commission of the offense thereunder. In all three (3) criminal cases, the prosecution was able to establish that Ecleo, Jr. and Navarra approved overpayments made to Engr. Santillano.

SISON V. PEOPLE (2010) FACTS: Petitioner, a mayor of small provincial municipality, was charged with violating Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 after a post-audit indicated that he authorized the procurement of several supplies and equipment without public bidding. Likewise, he failed to comply with the personal canvass requirements for local government acquisitions under R.A. No. 7160. Petitioner insisted that he was innocent of the charges since he was merely following the acquisition practices of his predecessors.

SISON V. PEOPLE (2010) HELD: Petitioner’s defense was untenable. He was grossly negligent in all the purchases that were made under his watch, and which caused undue damage to the Municipality. Petitioner’s admission that the canvass sheets sent out by de Jesus to the suppliers already contained his signatures because he pre-signed these forms only proved his utter disregard of the consequences of his actions. He also admitted that he knew the provisions of RA 7160 on personal canvass but he did not follow the law because he was merely following the practice of his predecessors. This was an admission of a mindless disregard for the law in a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought to implement the law to the letter. Sadly, however, he was the first to break it.

ANTI-HAZING LAW (R.A. NO. 8049)

HAZING Hazing is initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte, or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish, and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 8049)

PERSONS LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE ACTS 1.

Officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals if the person subjected to hazing suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof; (Sec. 4, par.1, R.A. No. 8049)

2.

Owner of the place where the hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice when he has knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.4, R.A. No. 8049)

PERSONS LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE ACTS 3.

Parents shall be liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, sorority or organization, but failed to prevent the same; (Sec. 4, par.4, R.A. No. 8049)

4.

School authorities and faculty members shall be liable as accomplices when they consent to the hazing or have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.5, R.A. No. 8049)

PERSONS LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE ACTS 5.

Officers or members of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority shall be liable as principals if they actually planned the hazing or have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)

6.

Officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority shall be liable as principals if they knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat; (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)

PERSONS LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE ACTS 7.

The fraternity or sorority’s adviser shall be liable as principal if he was present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take any action to prevent the same. (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)





The presence of any person (whether or not a member of the fraternity/sorority) during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the commission of prohibited acts. (Sec. 4, par.7, R.A. No. 8049) The mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong shall not apply. (Sec. 4, par.8, R.A. No. 8049)

PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS (VILLA CASE) G.R. NO. 151258, 1 FEBRUARY 2012 FACTS: Twenty-six members of a fraternity were charged for the crime of homicide for the death of a neophyte law student who joined the initiation rites but died due to multiple beatings. The private complainants assailed the acquittal of some of the accused since their conspiracy to inflict serious injuries upon the deceased caused his death.

PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS (CONT.) HELD: The presence of an ex ante situation in this case, fraternity initiation rites does not automatically amount to the absence of malicious intent or dolus manus. If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators were equipped with a guilty mind whether or not there is a contextual background or factual premise they are still criminally liable for intentional felony.

ANTI-HIGHJACKING LAW (R.A. NO. 6235)

PUNISHABLE ACTS a.

To compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight; (Sec. 1, par. 1, R.A. No. 6235)

b.

To compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said territory; (Sec. 1, par. 2, R.A. No. 6235) and

c.

To ship, load or carry in any passenger air-craft operating as a public utility within the Philippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 6235)

ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTIHIGHWAY ROBBERY (P.D. NO. 532)

PIRACY It is an attack upon or seizure of any vessel or the taking away of the whole or part thereof of its cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in, Philippine Waters. (Sec. 2 (d), P.D. No. 532)

PUNISHABLE ACTS 1. Piracy - Attacking or seizing any vessel while the vessel is within Philippine waters; (Sec. 2 (d), P.D. No. 532) 2. Highway Robbery/Brigandage - Seizing or taking away the whole or part of the vessel or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things while the vessel is in Philippine waters; (Sec. 2 (e), P.D. No. 532)

PUNISHABLE ACTS 3. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage -- Knowingly aiding or protecting pirates, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or by acquiring or receiving property taken by the pirates or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom. (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 532)





Philippine Waters shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. (Sec. 2 (a), P.D. No. 532)

Vessel shall refer to any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing. (Sec. 2 (b), P.D. No. 532)

PIRACY UNDER RPC AND PIRACY UNDER P.D. NO. 532, COMPARED RPC

P.D. 532

High seas; Where Committed Philippine Waters Philippine Waters Strangers (persons other than the Persons who may passenger or Any person commit member of the complement of the vessel)

PEOPLE V. PULUSAN (290 SCRA 35) FACTS: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the McArthur Highway. Out of the 6 passengers, the only woman, Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed on after the other. They were convicted of robbery with homicide although they were charged with highway robbery. What was the crime committed? HELD: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery. Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. In this case, there was no proof that the 4 accused previously attempted to commit armed robberies.

PEOPLE V CATANTAN, GR NO 118075, 5 SEPT 1997 FACTS: One early morning, the Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan were on their boat catching fish. Suddenly, a pump boat approached theirs. Catantan boarded the Pilipil’s boat and pointed a revolver at Eugene. Eugene was tied and Juan was told to drive the boat. When the engine of the boat stopped, the brothers were forced to paddle to another boat with a new engine. The attackers took another pump boat and left the Pilapil brothers. HELD: Piracy was committed as defined by P.D. 532. Any attack or seizure of any vessel or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of the passengers or complement, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things by any person in Philippine waters is piracy. The compulsion to go elsewhere is part of the act of seizing the boat.

PEOPLE V. TULIN, G.R. NO. 111709, 30 AUG 2001 FACTS: A cargo vessel carrying barrels of petroleum was boarded by a group of pirates as it was travelling near Mindoro. The crew was forced to repaint the vessel to prevent identification. It was taken to Singapore where the kerosene, gasoline and diesel cargo were transferred to another vessel. The defendants were charged with piracy. One of the accused claims that since the crime was committed in Singapore, the trial courts had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. HELD: The attack was committed in Mindoro, which is part of the Philippine waters. The cargo was transferred in Singapore. Piracy is a continuing crime and the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still part of the act of piracy.

ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED)

ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes under Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080, as amended: 1.

Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (Sec. 1(d)(1), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

SECTION 1 (D), R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED 2.

By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned; (Sec. 1(d)(2), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

3.

By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; (Sec. 1(d)(3), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

SECTION 1 (D), R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED 4.

By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; (Sec. 1(d)(4), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

5.

By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; (Sec. 1(d)(5), R.A. No. 7080, as amended) or

SECTION 1 (D), R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED 6.

By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 1(d)(6), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

PERSONS LIABLE (SEC. 2, R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED) a.

any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires illgotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) .

PERSONS LIABLE (SEC. 2, R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED) b.

any person who participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any public office.



For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

PRESCRIPTION The crime punishable under R.A. No. 7080 shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 7080, as amended)

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001) FACTS: On 4 April 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the Sandiganbayan 8 separate Informations, one of which imputed plunder as an offense against Estrada.

On 14 June 2001, Estrada moved to quash the Information in Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts alleged therein did NOT constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for vagueness and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged more than 1 offense. The same was denied hence this petition for certiorari.

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001) HELD: We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous - as there is obviously none - that will confuse petitioner in his defense. Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec. 4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence, violative of his fundamental right to due process.

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001) HELD: The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them; much less do we have to define every word we use. Besides, there is no positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Congress is not restricted in the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so define the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law.

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2002) FACTS: After the dismissal of his petition in 2001, Estrada now assails the charge of Sections 3(a) to (d) of R.A. No. 3019 under one information. HELD:There is no denying the fact that the plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy is made up of a complex and manifold network of crimes. In the crime of plunder, therefore, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality to help the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the different participation of each accused in the conspiracy.

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2002) HELD: The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive protection money from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.

MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. PEOPLE (2016) FACTS: Arroyo was charged with conspiracy to commit plunder by accumulating P365 Million worth of illgotten wealth from Phil. Charity Sweepstakes Office. HELD: The corpus delicti of plunder is amassment, accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth valued at not less than P50 Million. The failure to establish the corpus delicti should lead to the dismissal of the criminal prosecution.

ENRILE V. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 213455, 11 AUGUST 2015 FACTS: Enrile, et al. was charged for plunder under R.A 3019. Alleging that the charge against him was too broad, Enrile filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars. HELD: Since the crime of plunder may be done in connivance or in conspiracy with other persons, and the Information filed clearly alleged that Enrile and Reyes conspired with one another and with Napoles, Lim and De Asis, then it is unnecessary to specify, as an essential element of the offense, whether the ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P172M had been acquired by one, by two or by all of the accused. In the crime of plunder, the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired by each accused in a conspiracy is immaterial for as long as the total amount amassed, acquired or accumulated is at least P50 million.

ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT (R.A. NO. 7877)

WORK, EDUCATION OR TRAINING -RELATED, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, DEFINED. (SEC. 3, R.A. NO. 7877) Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the other.

In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: 1.

The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee (Sec. 3(a)(1), R.A. No. 7877);

2.

The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing labor laws (Sec. 3(a)(2), R.A. No. 7877); or

3.

The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee (Sec. 3(a)(3), R.A. No. 7877).

In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed: 1.

Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender; (Sec. 3(b)(1), R.A. No. 7877)

2.

Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender; (Sec. 3(b)(2), R.A. No. 7877)

3.

When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration; (Sec. 3(b)(3), R.A. No. 7877) or

4.

When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice. (Sec. 3(b)(4), R.A. No. 7877)



Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable. (Sec. 3, par. 4, R.A. No. 7877)

LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER, HEAD OF OFFICE, EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING INSTITUTION The employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising from the acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment, education or training environment if the employer or head of office, educational or training institution is informed of such acts by the offended party and no immediate action is taken. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7877)

ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009 (R.A. NO. 9745)

TORTURE (SECTION 3 (A), R.A. NO. 9745) An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority. It does not include pain or buffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

ACTS PUNISHABLE Acts of Torture which shall include, but not limited to the following (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9745): 



Physical Torture- a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body; (Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 9745) and Mental or Psychological Torture- Acts committed by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person’s dignity and morale. (Sec. 4(b), R.A. No. 9745)

APPLICABILITY (SEC. 6, R.A. NO. 9745) Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is an absolute right. Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as criminal acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, or a document or any determination comprising an order of battle shall not and can never be invoked as a justification for torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

PROHIBITED DETENTION Secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado or other similar forms of detention, where torture may be carried out with impunity are prohibited. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9745)

WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE 

Any person who actually participated or induced another in the commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal. (Sec. 13, par. 1, R.A. No. 9745)

WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE 

Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose shall be held equally liable as principals. (Sec. 13, par. 2, R.A. No. 9745)

WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. (Sec. 13, par. 3, R.A. No. 9745)

WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission, when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals. (Sec. 13, par. 3, R.A. No. 9745)

WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is being committed and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: 

By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; (Sec. 13, par. 4, R.A. No. 9745)





By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or

By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal/s in the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment: Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the official's public functions. (Sec. 13, par. 4, R.A. No. 9745)

APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings.

Exception: if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9745)

TORTURE AS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CRIME Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9745)

EXCLUSION FROM THE COVERAGE OF SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW In order not to depreciate the crime of torture, persons who have committed any act of torture shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or similar measures that will have the effect of exempting them from any criminal proceedings and sanctions. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9745)

APPLICABILITY OF REFOULER No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the DOJ, in coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable and not limited to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9745)

APPLICABILITY OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to R.A. No. 9745. Moreover, if the commission of any crime punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code is attended by any of the acts constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as defined herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum period. (Sec. 22, R.A. No. 9745)

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003 (R.A. NO. 9208)

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS It is the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs (Sec 3(a), R.A. No. 9208).

ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial to commit any of the following acts: 1.

To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery (Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 9208);

ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 2.

To introduce or match for money, profit or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided for under R.A. No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography (Sec. 4(b), R.A. No. 9208);

3.

To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage (Sec. 4(c), R.A. No. 9208);

ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 4.

To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual Sec. 4(d), R.A. No. 9208;

5.

To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography Sec. 4(e), R.A. No. 9208;

6.

To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography sexual exploitation, forced-labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt-bondage Sec. 4(f), R.A. No. 9208;

ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 7.

To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person (Sec. 4(g), R.A. No. 9208); and

8.

To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad (Sec. 4(h), R.A. No. 9208).

ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS The following acts which promote trafficking in persons shall be unlawful:

or

facilitate

1.

To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(a), R.A. No. 9208);

2.

To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration stickers and certificates of any government agency which issues these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with government regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 9208);

ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 3.

To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means, including the sue of information technology and the internet of any brochure, flyer or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(c), R.A. No. 9208);

4.

To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from government agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for departing persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(d), R.A. No. 9208);

ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 5.

To facilitate, assist or help in the exist and entry of persons from/to the country at international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(e), R.A. No. 9208);

6.

To confiscate, conceal or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate agencies (Sec. 5(f), R.A. No. 9208); and

ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 7.

To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor or slavery (Sec. 5(g), R.A. No. 9208).

QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 1.

When the trafficked person is a child (Sec. 6(a), R.A. No. 9208);

2.

When the adoption is effected through R.A. No. 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-country Adoption Act” and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage (Sec. 6(b), R.A. No. 9208);

3.

When the crime is committed by a syndicate or in large scale (Sec. 6(c), R.A. No. 9208);

4.

When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked persons or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee (Sec. 6(d), R.A. No. 9208);

5.

When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agencies (Sec. 6(e), R.A. No. 9208);

6.

When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies (Sec. 6(f), R.A. No. 9208); and

7.

When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Sec. 6(g), R.A. No. 9208).

PEOPLE V. CASIO G.R. NO. 211465, 2 DECEMBER 2014 FACTS: Casio, by acting as a procurer for different customers, for money, profit or any other consideration, was accused of hiring and/or recruiting a minor for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, in violation of Sec. 4, Par. (a), qualified by Sec. 6, Par (a), of R.A. 9208.

PEOPLE V. CASIO G.R. NO. 211465, 2 DECEMBER 2014 HELD: The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons.” Moreover, the victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Thus, Casio performed all the elements of trafficking in persons in the commission of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for money. The offense was also qualified because the trafficked persons were minors.

ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT (R.A. NO. 9262)

ELEMENTS 1.

The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;

2.

The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and

3.

The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her (Sec. 3(a), R.A. 9262; Ang v. Sagud, G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010)

A single act of harassment is enough to commit an offense Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitutes violence against women. This means that a single act of harassment which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones (Ang v. Sagud, supra)

It is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of the dating or sexual relationship

While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, for R.A. 92622 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship (Dabalos v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January 2013). Note: It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed (Dabalos v. Quiambao, supra).

Abuses through Conspiracy While Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852, 30 September 2008).

ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN 1.

Physical violence or acts that include bodily or physical harm;

2.

Economic abuse or acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent;

3.

Psychological violence or acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim; and

4.

Sexual violence or acts which are sexual in nature (Sec 3(a), R.A. No. 9262).

PUNISHABLE ACTS a.

Causing physical harm to the woman or her child (Sec. 5(a), R.A. No. 9262);

b.

Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm (Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 9262);

c.

Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm (Sec. 5(c), R.A. No. 9262);

d.

Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm (Sec. 5(d), R.A. No. 9262);

PUNISHABLE ACTS e.

Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct (Sec. 5(e), R.A. No. 9262):

PUNISHABLE ACTS Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family; 2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support; 3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right; 4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties (Sec. 5(e)(1-4), R.A. No. 9262); 1)

PUNISHABLE ACTS f.

Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions (Sec. 5(f), R.A. No. 9262);

g.

Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family (Sec. 5(g), R.A. No. 9262);

PUNISHABLE ACTS h.

Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts: 1) 2) 3) 4)

5)

Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places; Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child; Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will; Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and Engaging in any form of harassment or violence (Sec. 5(h), R.A. No. 9262);

PUNISHABLE ACTS i.

Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children (Sec. 5(i), R.A. No. 9262).

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9262; People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004).

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME Battered woman syndrome is characterized by the socalled cycle of violence which has three phases: 





Tension-building phase- minor battering occurs. It could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior Acute battering incident- characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable Tranquil, loving (or at least nonviolent) phasethe couple experience profound relief. The batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. On the other hand, the battered woman tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again (People v. Genosa, supra).

PEOPLE V. GENOSA (2004) FACTS: Accused wife was convicted of parricide for killing her husband, and was sentenced to death. Accused asked for a reopening of the case in order to prove her state of mind during the killing, in that she is a battered wife (battered wife syndrome).

PEOPLE V. GENOSA (2004) HELD: If accused can prove that she indeed was a battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as a species of self-defense. Having been proven to be a victim of domestic violence of the husband, this can be self-defense because since the wife already always assumes, and correctly that the husband would beat her up again, she may be justified in taking steps to protect herself.

PEOPLE V. SALES (658 SCRA 367) FACTS: Accused, in a fit of anger, beat his nine (9)year old son with a piece of woood inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds, which caused the death of the son.

PEOPLE V. SALES (658 SCRA 367) HELD: The crime of parricide under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is a father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused.

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. BLG. 22)

PUNISHABLE ACTS A.

Making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds (Sec. 1, B.P. 22).

Elements: i. A person makes or draws and issues any check to apply or account or for value; ii. A person knows that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check upon its presentment; and iii. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.

PUNISHABLE ACTS B.

Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check (Sec. 1, B.P. 22).

Elements: i. A person has sufficient funds with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check; ii. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount if presented within a period of 90 days from the date of appearing thereon; and iii. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.

REQUISITES FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY a. b.

c.

d.

A person makes, draws or issues a check as payment for account or for value; That the check was dishonored by the bank due to a lack of funds, insufficiency of funds or account already closed; The payee or holder of such check gives a written notice of dishonor and demand for payment; That the maker, drawer or issuer, after receiving such notice and demand refuses or fails to pay the value of the check within five (5) banking days (Campos v. People, G.R. No. 187401, 17 September 2014).

NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY (181 SCRA 1) FACTS: Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. He was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1 count of violation of BP 22. Nievas invokes double jeopardy.

NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY (181 SCRA 1) HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses. Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for preexisting obligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22: deceit and damage not required because mere issuance gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt, crime against public order and is mala prohibitum.

QUE V. PEOPLE (154 SCRA 160) FACTS: Que issued checks in Quezon City. were used to pay for the purchase made Mesa. Checks were issued NOT to pay obligation but just to guarantee payment. later dishonored.

Checks in Sta. for an Checks

HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction. Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT important as law does not distinguish-included as long as it was an issued check that subsequently bounced.

LIM LAO V. CA (274 SCRA 572) FACTS: Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks, while it was her superior who filled the blanks. Check which she signed as issuer was dishonored. Convicted for violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is issued. HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by contrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor was given to her; notice only given to the employer which is not sufficient as law requires personal notice.

MITRA V. PEOPLE (2010) FACTS: Accused was charged with several counts of B. P. Blg. 22 after failing to make good on checks issued by her. She, however, consistently maintained that she never received a notice of dishonor, and cannot thus be convicted for the offense. During one hearing, complainant successfully served a demand letter upon accused. The latter still failed to comply with the demand. Accused was later convicted.

MITRA V. PEOPLE (2010) HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Accused’s claim that she had no knowledge of the dishonor of the checks was clearly untrue. Though it is possible that she failed to receive the initial demand letter sent by complainant, records indicate that she received the second demand letter while attending a hearing held before the lower court. This notwithstanding, accused still failed to fund the checks.

RESTERIO V. PEOPLE (2012) FACTS: In this case, Amada issued a China Bank Check in the amount of P50,000.00 payable to the complainant. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored. Amada argued that the check was just issued as collateral and it was not even hers. She claims that she merely borrowed the check of a friend so that she could use it as collateral for the transaction with the complainant. The complainant also presented registry receipts to show that he has sent notices of dishonor to Amada.

RESTERIO V. PEOPLE (2012) HELD: According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the checks were merely issued as collateral or that Amada was not the owner of the same is immaterial. B.P. 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check since the law is a malum prohibitum. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawer, maker, or issuer. However, the Court also said that the presentation of registry receipts is not enough to establish that notice of dishonor was given to the accused.

SAN MATEO V. PEOPLE (692 SCRA 660) FACTS: Petitioner San Mateo issued postdated checks in partial payment of the assorted yarns bought from ITSP International. When Sehwani deposited one of the checks, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. San Mateo failed to settle her outstanding account, despite Sehwani’s requests for payment.

SAN MATEO V. PEOPLE (692 SCRA 660) HELD: Relating to the second element of violation of B.P. 22, Section 2 of said law creates the presumption that the issuer of the check has been aware of the insufficiency of funds when he has issued a check and the bank dishonors it. This presumption, however, arises only after it has been proved that the issuer has received a written notice of dishonor and that, within five days from receipt thereof, has failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.

SAN MATEO V. PEOPLE (692 SCRA 660) In this case, there is no basis in concluding that San Mateo knew of the insufficiency of her funds. While she may have requested to Sehwani to defer depositing all checks, this did not amount to an admission that, when she issued the checks, she knew that she would have no sufficient funds in the drawee bank to pay for them.

THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED 10640)

BY

R.A. NO.

PUNISHABLE ACTS 1.

Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9165);

2.

Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165);

3.

Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals are used or sold (Article II, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9165);

PUNISHABLE ACTS 4.

Being employees of the den, dive or resort (Article II, Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9165): a. b.

5.

Any employee of a den, dive, or resort who is aware of the nature of the place as such Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same

Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9165)

PUNISHABLE ACTS 6.

Illegal diversion of any controlled precursor and essential chemical (Article II, Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9165);

7.

Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 10), R.A. No. 9165;

8.

Possession of dangerous drug (Article II, Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9165);

9.

Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 12, R.A. No. 9165)

PUNISHABLE ACTS 10.

Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings will merit maximum penalty regardless of quantity and purity (Article II, Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9165);

11.

Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus for dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings, or meetings merit maximum penalty (Article II, Sec. 14, R.A. No. 9165);

12.

Use of dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165); Note: This section will not apply where the person tested positive is also found to have in his possession dangerous drugs; section on "possession of dangerous drugs" will apply)

PUNISHABLE ACTS 13.

Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9165);

14.

Maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions on dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9165);

15.

Unnecessary prescription of dangerous (Article II, Sec. 18, R.A. No. 9165); and

16.

Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 19, R.A. No. 9165).

drugs

ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY (ART. II, SEC. 26, R.A. NO. 9165) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following shall be punishable: a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals are used or sold; Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs.

SALIENT FEATURES 





Plea-Bargaining Provision - A person charged under R.A. No. 9165 shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining (Article II, Sec. 23, R.A. No. 9165) . Non-Applicability of the Probation Law - A person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law (Article II, Sec. 24, R.A. No. 9165). Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender (Article II, Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Rules on Possession and Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sections 11 and 15 of R.A. No. 9165): 

If the person apprehended or arrested is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, he shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense (Section 15, R.A. No. 9165).;



If he is apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) (Section 15, R.A. No. 9165).;



If he is found to have in his/her possession such quantity of dangerous drugs provided for under Section 11, R.A. No. 9165, he shall be punished for possession only (Section 15, in relation to Section 11, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code; Applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law 

Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall not apply to the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 except in the case of minor offenders (Article II, Sec. 98, R.A. No. 9165).



Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in R.A. No. 9165 shall be reclusion perpetua to death (Article II, Sec. 98, R.A. No. 9165).



If the offense is punished by a special law (e.g. R.A. No. 9165), the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same (Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code; Applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law 

People v. Mantalaba (G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011)

The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed. Applying the rules, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. The ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the penalty which has been originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, would be the proper imposable penalty.

SALIENT FEATURES 

Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation - A drug dependent or any person who violates Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly recognized representative, for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency (Section 54, R.A. No. 9165). 

Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth the matter to the Court which shall order that the applicant be examined for drug dependency (Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation 

If the examination by a DOH-accredited physician results in the issuance of a certification that the applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the Board for a period of not less than six (6) months: Provided, That a drug dependent may be placed under the care of a DOH-accredited physician where there is no Center near or accessible to the residence of the drug dependent or where said drug dependent is below eighteen (18) years of age and is a first-time offender and non-confinement in a Center will not pose a serious danger to his/her family or the community (Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation 

Confinement in a Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year, after which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall be apprised by the head of the treatment and rehabilitation center of the status of said drug dependent and determine whether further confinement will be for the welfare of the drug dependent and his/her family or the community (Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program - A drug dependent under the voluntary submission program, who is finally discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 subject to the following conditions: 1.

He/she has complied with the rules and regulations of the center, the applicable rules and regulations of the Board, including the after-care and follow-up program for at least eighteen (18) months following temporary discharge from confinement in the Center or, in the case of a dependent placed under the care of the DOHaccredited physician, the after-care program and followup schedule formulated by the DSWD and approved by the Board: Provided, That capability-building of local government social workers shall be undertaken by the DSWD (Section 55, R.A. 9165);

SALIENT FEATURES 

Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program – conditions: 2.

He/she has never been charged or convicted of any offense punishable under R.A. No. 9165, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act No. 6425, as amended; the Revised Penal Code, as amended; or any special penal laws (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165);

3.

He/she has no record of escape from a Center: Provided, That had he/she escaped, he/she surrendered by himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, within one (1) week from the date of the said escape (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165); and

4.

He/she poses no serious danger to himself/herself, his/her family or the community by his/her exemption from criminal liability (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Filing of Charges Against a Drug Dependent Who is Not Rehabilitated Under the Voluntary Submission Program – •

A drug dependent, who is not rehabilitated after the second commitment to the Center under the voluntary submission program, shall, upon recommendation of the Board, be charged for violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 and prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted, he/she shall be credited for the period of confinement and rehabilitation in the Center in the service of his/her sentence (Section 58, R.A. No. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program – 

Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the contrary, any person determined and found to be dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon petition by the Board or any of its authorized representative, be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in any Center duly designated or accredited for the purpose (Section 61, R.A. 9165).

•

A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may be filed by any person authorized by the Board with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where such person is found (Section 61, R.A. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES o

Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program •

After the petition is filed, the court, by an order, shall immediately fix a date for the hearing, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs, and to the one having charge of him (Section 61, R.A. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES o

Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program •

If after such hearing and the facts so warrant, the court shall order the drug dependent to be examined by two (2) physicians accredited by the Board. If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the court shall order his/her discharge. If either physician finds him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a hearing and consider all relevant evidence which may be offered. If the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall issue an order for his/her commitment to a treatment and rehabilitation center under the supervision of the DOH. In any event, the order of discharge or order of confinement or commitment shall be issued not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the appropriate petition (Section 61, R.A. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation – •

If a person charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the prosecutor or the court as the case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Board. (Section 62, R.A. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation – 

In the event the Board determines, after medical examination, that public interest requires that such drug dependent be committed to a center for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for his/her commitment with the regional trial court of the province or city where he/she is being investigated or tried (Section 62, R.A. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation – 

Where a criminal case is pending in court, such petition shall be filed in the said court. The court shall take judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the case and shall proceed to hear the petition. If the court finds him to be a drug dependent, it shall order his/her commitment to a Center for treatment and rehabilitation. The head of said Center shall submit to the court every four (4) months, or as often as the court may require, a written report on the progress of the treatment. If the dependent is rehabilitated, as certified by the center and the Board, he/she shall be returned to the court, which committed him, for his/her discharge therefrom (Section 62, R.A. 9165).

SALIENT FEATURES 

Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation – 

Thereafter, the prosecution for any offense punishable by law shall be instituted or shall continue, as the case may be. In case of conviction, the judgment shall, if the accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation center to have maintained good behavior, indicate that he/she shall be given full credit for the period he/she was confined in the Center: Provided, however, That when the offense is for violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the Center upon his/her release therefrom after certification by the Center and the Board that he/she is rehabilitated (Section 62, R.A. 9165).

PEOPLE V. MARIACOS (2010) FACTS: Accused, her companion and a policeman were onbaord a jeepney. Based intelligence reports, the policeman approached them to check their bag. Upon inquiring, Accused and her companion ran. However, Accused was arrested where her bags were searched in the precinct. Bricks of marijuana were discovered.

PEOPLE V. MARIACOS (2010) HELD: When a person is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not necessary. Accused’s alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum, as in this case.

PEOPLE V. NOQUE (2010) FACTS: Pursuant to a buy-bust operation, Noque sold drugs to two (2) policemen and was caught with shabu in his house.

HELD: The prosecution successfully proved that the Accused violated Sec. 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425. The prosecutions evidence establised the concurrence of the elements of an illegal sale of drugs, , to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

PEOPLE V. DITONA (638 SCRA 835) FACTS: Accused was charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165. He alleges that the evidence seized is inadmissible as the policemen did not observe the proper documentation of the evidence seized.

PEOPLE V. DITONA (638 SCRA 835) HELD: The accused was acquitted. To successfully prosecute an accused for selling illegal drugs, the prosecution has to prove: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the required chain of custody of the prohibited drugs through the testimonies of the police officers. While the RTC noted that SPO1 Flores and PO3 Ventura placed their initials, “AF” and “NV,” on the seized drugs, they did not identify the markings as theirs during their direct testimonies, nor did they testify when and where they made such markings. Moreover, they failed to show how the seized drugs reached the laboratory technician who examined it and how the same were stored pending turnover to the court.

ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS PEOPLE V. NICART (2012) FACTS: In this case, the accused were charged and convicted of violation of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Sometime in July 2003, the authorities received information that a certain “Milo” was engaged in drug pushing. Based on this information, the authorities conducted a buy-bust operation where the accused were arrested.

PEOPLE V. NICART (2012) HELD: The Court, having found all the requisites of the crime, affirmed the conviction of the accused and reiterated the requisites for illegal sale of dangerous drugs which are as follows: the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration;  the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing; and  the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence 

PEOPLE V. NICART (2012) HELD: The Court also stated that the requisite of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are likewise present. The Court enumerated the requisites as follows: the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be prohibited or dangerous drug;  such possession is not authorized by law; and  the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 

PEOPLE V. CATUBAY (2016) FACTS: A team composed of members of the Intelligence Operatives Section of the PNP, PDEA and NBI implemented a buy-bust operation against Amaro Catubay. When Catubay received the mark money, they went inside Catubay’s house where the sachet of shabu was given. Catubay was immediately placed under arrest. The rest of the buy-bust team then entered Catubay’s residence to serve and implement the search warrant.

PEOPLE V. CATUBAY (2016) HELD: For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti as evidence.

PEOPLE V. CATUBAY (2016) HELD: In this case, the Court believes and so-holds that all the requisites for the illegal sale of shabu were met. As demonstrated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents they presented and offered, the identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited drug, and the marked money, have all been proven by the required quantum of evidence.

PEOPLE V. ZACARIA (2016) FACTS: After SP02 Montederamos showed the money to Zacaria, the latter handed one (I) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to SP02 Montederamos, who immediately called the other police officers. Zacaria assails his conviction stating that there was no illegal sale as no money changed hands.

PEOPLE V. ZACARIA (2016) HELD: As correctly held by the lower courts, the elements of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or sale of illegal drugs: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it, are present. The fact that no money changed hands is not a fatal defect. There is no requirement that in buy-bust operations, there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (2012) FACTS: Zafra and Marcelino were charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs while Daluz was charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The lone witness, a policeman, saw accused Zafra and accused Marcelino holding shabu while accused Daluz was holding drug paraphernalia. He was conducting surveillance operations, by himself, in front of a certain sari-sari due to reported drug trafficking in the area. There he saw all three (3) accused standing and facing each other. Thus, he single-handedly arrested them and brought them to the Police Station where he personally marked the seized items.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (2012) HELD: Being the sole witness, the credibility of SPO4 Mendoza is questionable and his inconsistent statements being fatal to the prosecution’s case. Possession of drug paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu are two different offenses under R.A. No. 9165. The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus delicti, which is the illegal object itself in serious doubt.

PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (CONT.) Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved. These conditions, however, were not met in this case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items.

PEOPLE V. RELATO (2012) FACTS: The accused was charged with violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of illegal drugs). The contention of the accused is that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not followed. HELD: Section 21 of R.A. 9165 provides for the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs and paraphernalia, or the chain of custody rule.

PEOPLE V. RELATO (2012) HELD: This procedure was not followed by the buy-bust team. First, no photograph was taken; Second, the team did not immediately mark the seized items at the scene of the crime. The marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as reference.

PEOPLE V. RELATO (CONT.) In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

EXCEPTION TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE

PEOPLE V. SABADLAB (2012) FACTS: Accused was charged with Illegal possession and sale of shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the police. He assails his conviction because: (1) his name was incorrectly spelled; (2) no PDEA agent was present; and (3) lack of prior surveillance.

PEOPLE V. SABADLAB (2012) HELD: First, the fact that the report did not contain his name accurately shall not necessarily mean that the identity of the accused was not proven. Second, the provision requiring close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the law cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible; and Lastly, a prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation.

PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA (2012) FACTS: Accused was arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation. Accused now assails his conviction on the ground that the chain of custody rule was not properly applied when handling the evidence seized from him.

PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA (2012) HELD: The rule on chain of custody demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Here, the buy-bust team did not mark the sachets until after reaching the police station. Even so, the omission did not destroy the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items. The Court was satisfied that the police officers brought the confiscated sachets of shabu to the police station immediately after the buy-bust operation, and turned them over to the investigator on-duty for marking.

PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA (2012) It has been held that a non-compliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal to render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence.

PEOPLE V. FIGUEROA (2012) The main defense of the accused was that the police officers violated Sec. 86 of R.A. No. 9165, requiring the PNP to maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters. Such defense, however, is not meritorious. Said provision does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. The law is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.

POSIQUIT V. PEOPLE (2012) In this case the police received a report that a certain group was conducting a “pot session.” Thereafter, the police mobilized its search team to locate the group. Upon arrival of the search team’s vehicle in front of the house where the session is being held, the accused and his group started to scamper. Despite their efforts, the police were still able to apprehend them. The accused argues that the prosecution failed to establish that he was in conspiracy with his other co-accused to use or possess illegal drugs. The Supreme Court said, however, that the circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist.

PEOPLE V. POSADA (2012) FACTS: A buy bust operation was conducted by the police. Emily was paid P250 for a sachet of shabu. She went home and got a purse where a sachet of shabu was placed. Upon giving the poseur buyer the sachet, her husband Roger appeared and gave her 12 sachets of shabu which were put inside Emily’s purse. The police arrested Emily on the spot while Roger ran to his house. The police secured a search warrant and arrested Roger and confiscated paraphernalia from the accused. HELD: Constructive possession, that is, the relation between the owner of the drug and the drug itself when the owner is not in actual physical possession, but when it is still under his control and management and

PEOPLE V. POSADA (2012) subject to his disposition. In other words, we recognize the fact that a person remains to be in possession of the prohibited drugs although he may not have or may have lost physical possession of the same. While Roger had lost physical possession of the said 12 sachets of shabu, he had constructive possession of the same because they remain to be under his control and management.

PEOPLE V. BRILLANTES (2012) FACTS: Accused was convicted for Illegal Possession and sale of drugs. While pending appeal, Accused died.

ISSUE: Is there any civil liability for violation of R.A. No. 9165? HELD: There is no civil liability involved in violations of R.A. No. 9165 since there is no private offended party involved as there is in fact no reference to civil liability in the decision.

ESTIPONA V. LABRIGO G.R. NO. 226679, 15 AUGUST 2017 FACTS: Estipona was charged with violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 9165. He filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 9165. However, the judge denied his motion stating that Sec. 23 states that plea bargaining in drug cases is prohibited. Estipona argues that Sec. 23 is unconstitutional.

ESTIPONA V. LABRIGO G.R. NO. 226679, 15 AUGUST 2017 HELD: Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Court’s exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative departments.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (P.D. NO. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 AND R.A. NO. 10591)

PUNISHABLE ACTS 1.

Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms and ammunition (Sec. 28, R.A. No. 10591); Aggravating Circumstances: a. Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine; b. Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon sight and the like; c. Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer; d. Accompanied with an extra barrel; e. Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.

PUNISHABLE ACTS 2.

Use of Loose Firearm in the commission of a crime – considered as an aggravating circumstance (Sec. 29, R.A. No. 10591);

3.

Carriage of registered firearm outside of residence by a license person without any legal authority therefor (Sec. 31, R.A. No. 10591);

4.

Unlawful Manufacture, sale, importation, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or instruments (Sec. 32(a), R.A. No. 10591);

PUNISHABLE ACTS 6.

Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by any laborer, worker or employee of a licensed firearms dealer of parts of firearms or ammunition which the company manufactures and sells, and other materials used by the company in the manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition (Sec. 32(b), R.A. No. 10591);

6.

Arms smuggling (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 10591);

7.

Unlawful tampering, obliteration or alteration of firearm’s identification (Sec. 34, R.A. No. 10591);

PUNISHABLE ACTS 9.

Planting evidence or the willful and malicious insertion, placing and/or attachment or parts thereof in the person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating or incriminating the person, or imputing the commission of any violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 10591 to said individual (Sec. 38, R.A. No. 10591);

10.

Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light weapon to the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) within 30 days from discovery (Sec. 40(a), R.A. No. 10591);

PUNISHABLE ACTS 11.

Failure to notify the FEO of the PNP of a licensed person’s change of residence or office address, other than that indicated in the license card, within 30 days from transfer (Sec. 40(b), R.A. No. 10591); and

12.

Illegal transfer or registration of firearms to any person who has not yet be obtained or secured the necessary license or permit thereof (Sec. 41, R.A. No. 10591).

NEW FIREARMS LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OLD FIREARMS LAW P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 (Old Firearms Law)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591 (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) When another crime is also committed The unlawful manufacture, sale, If the use of a loose firearm is acquisition, disposition or inherent in the commission of a possession of firearms or crime punishable under the RPC ammunition is punishable or other special laws – the use of provided no other crime was loose firearm is an aggravating committed (Sec.1 of P.D. 1866, as circumstance (Sec. 29). Hence, the amended by R.A. 8294). What is penalty for the use of a loose punished is the other crime. firearm is not imposed.

NEW FIREARMS LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OLD FIREARMS LAW P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 (Old Firearms Law)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591 (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) When another crime is also committed Nevertheless, when the other offense However, if the crime is committed involved is not one of those enumerated by the person without using the loose under R.A. 8294 (homicide, murder, firearm, the violation of this law shall rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and be considered as a distinct and attempted coup d'état), then the separate offense (Sec. 29). separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted. This is because the word “committed” taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence, necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission (Celino, Sr. v. CA, G.R. No. 170562, 29 June 2007).

NEW FIREARMS LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OLD FIREARMS LAW P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 (Old Firearms Law)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591 (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act)

When considered as an aggravating circumstance If homicide or murder committed with the use unlicensed firearm – the use unlicensed firearm is aggravating circumstance.

is If the use of a loose firearm is of inherent in the commission of a of crime punishable under the RPC an or other special laws – the use of loose firearm is an aggravating circumstance (Sec. 29).

NEW FIREARMS LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OLD FIREARMS LAW P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 (Old Firearms Law)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591 (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act)

When absorbed as an element of another crime If the manufacture, sale, If the use of a loose firearm is acquisition, disposition or in furtherance of, or incident to, possession of firearms or or in connection with the crime of explosives is in furtherance of or (RIA): incident to, or in connection with 1. Rebellion, the crime of (RISA): 2. Insurrection, or 1. Rebellion, 3. Attempted coup d'état, 2. Insurrection, the violation shall be absorbed 3. Sedition, or as an element of the crime of 4. Attempted coup d'état, rebellion or insurrection, or the violation is absorbed as an attempted coup d'état (Sec. 29). element of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'état.

PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM (2000) FACTS: Four informations were filed against Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, three of which he was found guilty, to wit: (1) maintaining a drug den; (2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition; and (30 direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. ISSUE: Can the use of an unlicensed firearm be considered as an aggravating circumstance?

PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM (2000) HELD: No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was committed. Furthermore, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearm cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.

AGOTE V. LORENZO (2005) FACTS: Agote was charged to have violated Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Posssession of Firearms) and a COMELEC resolution (gun ban). He carried a .38 caliber revolver with four (4) live bullets in a public place during election. During the pendency of the case, R.A. No. 8294 was approved into law. The trial court found Agote liable of the charges against. Agote assails that the penalty for illegal possession of firearms had already been reduced pursuant to R.A. No. 8294.

AGOTE V. LORENZO (2005) HELD: Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony. Republic Act No. 8294 lowers the penalty for illegal possession of firearms depending on the class of firearm possessed. The lighter penalty may be imposed to a person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition, “unless no other crime was committed”. But as violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban was also committed by the petitioner at the same time, the Court cannot but set aside petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of firearm.

EVANGELISTA V. PEOPLE (2010) FACTS: Teofilo Evangelista was an OFW from Angola on his way back to the Philippines. While he was in Dubai Airport, the authorities discovered that Evangelista was carrying an Israeli submachine gun with ammunition without license. This was reported to the PAL Officers in Dubai and the gun was handed to the pilot. Upon arriving at NAIA, he was arrested by the Customs police and was made to sign a Customs Declaration Form. In his defense, Evangelista claims that he had no actual possession of the firearms as it was with the plane pilot

EVANGELISTA V. PEOPLE (2010) HELD: To be guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, one does not have to be in actual possession thereof. The law does not punish physical possession alone but possession on general including constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to the owner’s control. It is a state of mind but the real intent could be determined based on his prior or contemporaneous acts and surrounding circumstances explaining how he came into possession. The Customs declaration form and admissions during trial were used as basis for showing he owned and possessed the items.

THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO. 4103, AS AMENDED)





In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103). If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103).

NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Under Sec. 2, Act No. 4103: The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to the following: 1.

2.

3.

4.

persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the high seas or Philippine waters;

NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to: 5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

those who are habitual delinquents; those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one (1) year; those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of Act No. 4103; and Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism, plunder and transnational crimes. (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103).

PEOPLE V. MANTALABA (2011) FACTS: Allen Mantalaba was arrested by the authorities in an entrapment operation. Allen was 17 years old when he was arrested. He was found guilty and was imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. HELD: Minority must be recognized or appreciated in fixing the penalty. Since minority is a special mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be one degree lower. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty should be prision mayor as minimum and reclusion temporal as maximum.

PEOPLE V. ROMUA G.R. NO. 126175, 29 MAY 1997 FACTS: Accused was convicted for the rape of a 24-year old mental retardate. The Regional Trial Court, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 14 years and 8 months.

PEOPLE V. ROMUA G.R. NO. 126175, 29 MAY 1997 HELD: For offense in which the law prescribes the single, indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, it is the first paragraph of Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code and not the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies.

PEOPLE V. JARANILLA G.R. NO. L-28547, 22 FEBRUARY 1974 FACTS: Jaranilla et, al. were charged with robbery with homicide with the following aggravating circumstances: (1) use of motor vehicle; (2) nocturnity; (3) band; (4) contempt to or insult to public authorities; and (5) recidivism. Except for Jaranilla, his co-accused were found guilty for the crime of robbery with homicide. The other coaccused appealed their conviction.

PEOPLE V. JARANILLA HELD: The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (Art. 309[3], Revised Penal Code). That penalty should be imposed in its maximum period because only aggravating circumstances are present. As co-principals in the theft of six fighting cocks, they are each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum and (b) ordered to indemnify solidarily the complainant, Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500).

LADINO V. GARCIA (1996) FACTS: Accused was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Accused offered to plead guilty, which was conformed to by the prosecutor and the respondent judge. Pursuant to the plea of guilty to the crime of homicide, the trial court rendered an Order reciting the aforestated antecedents, declaring both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, and sentencing each of them to a prison term of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to severally pay the civil liability. Accused now asssails the penalty imposed on him in light of the ISL.

LADINO V. GARCIA (1996) HELD:

The trial court must have also proceeded on the hypothesis that where a lesser penalty has been imposed for an offense lighter than that in the original indictment, because of the agreement among the accused, the prosecutor and the offended party for such reduced liability, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should not apply in toto. From that undisputable and obvious premise, it follows that the aforecited provisions of Act No. 4103, as amended, shall necessarily apply. Also on that score, it should be kept in mind that to determine whether an indeterminate sentence and not a straight penalty is proper, what is considered is the penalty actually imposed by the trial court, after considering the attendant circumstances, and not the imposable penalty.

AGONCILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS (1998) FACTS: Agoncillo, et. al. were found guilty of illegal fishing with the use of an explosive. The Regional Trial Court meted out the penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment unto Agoncillo, et. al. Then, Agoncillo et, al. assailed the penalty imposed upon him and his companions.

AGONCILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS (1998) HELD: The penalty imposed by law for illegal fishing if explosive is actually used is imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years to life imprisonment. The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if, as in this case, the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. The trial court therefore erred when it sentenced petitioners to "suffer a straight penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment."

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630

MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (SEC.6, R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 ) 



A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344, as amended.(Par. 1, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630) A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to appropriate proceedings. (Par. 3, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)

MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (SEC.6, R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 ) 



A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.(Par. 2, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630) The exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability. (Par. 4, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)

SERIOUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY CHILDREN WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (SEC.20,R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 ) 

A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center. (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)

REPETITION OF OFFENSES (SEC.20,R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 ) A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second time or oftener shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and development officer, provided that: 1. 2.

the child was previously subjected to a community-based intervention program; if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child; and

REPETITION OF OFFENSES (SEC.20,R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 ) 3.

if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to P.D. No. 603, as amended. (Sec.

20-B, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)

AMENDMENTS 10630

INTRODUCED

BY

R.A.

NO.

1. Creation of “Bahay – Pag-asa” (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 ) 

.

Bahay Pag-asa refers to a 24-hour child-caring institution established, funded and managed by local government units (LGUs) and licensed and/or accredited nongovernment organizations (NGOs) providing short-term residential care for children in conflict with the law who are above 15 but below 18 years of age who are awaiting court disposition of their cases or transfer to other agencies or jurisdiction. Part of the features of a ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ is an intensive juvenile intervention and support center. This will cater to children in conflict with the law (par. 1, Sec. 4 [s] of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).

AMENDMENTS 10630



INTRODUCED

BY

R.A.

NO.

Prior to the amendment, youth offenders are placed in a “Youth Detention Center.” The new law, R.A. No. 10630, renames the temporary housing “Bahay Pagasa” and mandates the creation of a multidisciplinary team for the protection of children composed of a social worker, psychologist or mental health professional, medical doctor, educational/guidance counselor, and barangay council representative. (par. 3, Sec. 4 [s] of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).

AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO. 10630 2. Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 ) 

Any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of children, including any person who abuses his/her authority over the child or who, with abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce, threaten or instigate the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed in its maximum period (Sec. 20-C of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).



This is a new provision.

AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO. 10630 3. Violations of Local Ordinances (Sec. 57, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 )



No penalty shall be imposed on children for said violations, and they shall instead be brought to their residence or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to the custody of their parents (Sec. 57-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).

AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO. 10630 3. Violations of Local Ordinances (Sec. 57, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 ) 

This is a new provision. Prior to the amendment, a child may not be penalized for status offenses, vagrancy, prostitution, mendicancy, and sniffing of rugby (Secs. 57 and 58 of R.A. No. 9344). With the enactment of R.A. No. 10630, the violation of local ordinances is added to the list of offenses that shall not be punished if committed by a child. (Sec. 57-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).

ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (2008) FACTS: At the time of commission of rape, the accused was 13 years old while the victim was 6. The case was pending when the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) was enacted amending among others the age of criminal irresponsibility being raised from 9 to 15 years old. At the time of the promulgation of judgment, the accused already reached the age of majority.

ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (2008) HELD: The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be applied. By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old, this law is evidently favorable to the accused. Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother. Furthermore, petitioner’s age was never assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted from criminal liability.

PEOPLE V. MONTICALVO (2013) FACTS: Monticlavo, a 17-year old male, was charged for the rape of a minor suffering a mental disorder. The trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Monticlavo alleged that at the time of the commission of the offense, he was only 17 years old. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

PEOPLE V. MONTICALVO (2013) HELD: This Court finds merit in Monticalvo’s assertion that he was a minor during the commission of the crime charged. During trial, upon order of the trial court, the Local Civil Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar, brought before it their office records, particularly appellant’s Certificate of Live Birth containing the fact of birth of the latter. Appellant’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on 23 February 1985. Indeed, at the time of the commission of the crime charged on 9 December 2002, appellant was only 17 years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

PEOPLE V. CORDOVA (1993) FACTS: Estorque, et. al were charged for double murder. The trial court found the accused guilty for the murder of the victims. Upon appeal, Estorque alleged that during the time of the commission of the offense, he was still thirteen (13) years old.

PEOPLE V. CORDOVA (1993) HELD: There is a further obstacle that stands in the way of Estorque's conviction. While it has been proven he was only thirteen years old at the time of the incident, there are no allegations in both informations that Estorque had acted with discernment. And even if we are to consider the allegations that he had committed the imputed acts "with intent to kill" as sufficient compliance — as we have in the past — he would still not be held liable as no proof was offered during trial that he had so acted with discernment. Accordingly, even if he was indeed a co-conspirator or an accessory, he would still be exempt from criminal liability.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE P.D. NO. 1829

PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 1, R.A. NO. 1829) Any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts: (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 1829) 



preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats; (Sec. 1[a], R.A. No. 1829) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [b], R.A. No. 1829)

PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 1, R.A. NO. 1829) 



harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction; (Sec. 1 [C], R.A. No. 1829) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes; (Sec. 1 [D], R.A. No. 1829)

PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 1, R.A. NO. 1829) 



delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts; (Sec. 1 [e], R.A. No. 1829) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [f], R.A. No. 1829)

PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 1, R.A. NO. 1829) 



threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [h], R.A. No. 1829) and giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court. (Sec. 1 [i], R.A. No. 1829)

THE PROBATION LAW P.D. NO. 968

PROBATION (SEC. 3, P.D. NO. 968) Probation is a disposition under which an accused, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. It is a privilege granted by the court; it cannot be availed of as a matter of right by a person convicted of a crime. To be able to enjoy the benefits of probation, it must first be shown that an applicant has none of the disqualifications imposed by law. (Sec. 3 [a], P.D. No. 968)

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS (SEC. 9, P.D. NO. 968) Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is intended for offenders who are 18 years of age and above, and who are not otherwise disqualified by law. Offenders who are disqualified are those: 



sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years; (Sec. 9 [a], P.D. No. 968) convicted of subversion or any offense against the security of the State, or the Public Order; (Sec. 9 [b], P.D. No. 968)

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS (SEC. 9, P.D. NO. 968) 





who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not more than Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00);(Sec. 9 [c], P.D. No. 968) who have been once on probation; (Sec. 9 [d], P.D. No. 968) and

who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this law became. (Sec. 9 [e], P.D. No. 968)

PROBATION CONDITIONS (SEC. 10, P.D. NO. 968) 

The mandatory probationer shall:

conditions

require

that

the

a.

present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at each place as may be specified in the order within 72 hours from receipt of said order, (par. 1, Sec. 10[a], P.D. No. 968) and

b.

report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer. (par. 1, Sec. 10[b], P.D. No. 968)

PROBATION CONDITIONS (SEC. 10, P.D. NO. 968) 

Special or discretionary conditions are those additional conditions imposed on the probationer which are geared towards his correction and rehabilitation outside of prison and right in the community to which he belongs. (par. 2, Sec. 10, P.D. No. 968)

EFFECTIVITY OF THE PROBATION ORDER (SEC. 11, P.D. NO. 968) 

A violation of any of the conditions may lead either to a more restrictive modification of the same or the revocation of the grant of probation. Consequent to the revocation, the probationer will have to serve the sentence originally imposed. (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 968)

REVOCATION OF PROBATION (SEC. 15, P.D. NO. 968) 

At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such case, the provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable. (Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968)

TERMINATION OF PROBATION (SEC. 16, P.D. NO. 968) 

After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated. (par. 1, Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968)

FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS (1995) FACTS: Francisco was found guilty by the MTC for multiple grave oral defamation by his employees. He elevated the case to the RTC, which affirmed the MTC decision in toto. Francisco failed to appeal on the RTC’s decision making it final. The MTC issued a warrant of arrest, but before he was arrested, Francisco filed an application for probation which the MTC denied.

FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS HELD: Francisco is no longer eligible for probation. No application for probation shall be entertained after the judgment is final. Francisco lost his right to probation when he appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. The law considers appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.

PABLO V. JUDGE CASTILLO (2000) FACTS: Pablo was charged with a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, in three (3) separate informations, for issuing three bad checks. On the first complaint, Pablo was adjudged guilty of the said violation. Subsequently, Pablo was found guilty for violating the Bouncing Checks Law on the two (2) remaining complaints. After judgment, he applied for probation. His probation was denied due to the conviction of the previous complaint.

PABLO V. JUDGE CASTILLO (2000) HELD: Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain language, to the effect that a person who was previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos, is disqualified from applying for probation. This provision of law is definitive and unqualified. There is nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c) which qualifies "previous conviction" as referring to a conviction for a crime which is entirely different from that for which the offender is applying for probation or a crime which arose out of a single act or transaction as petitioner would have the court to understand.

SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (1999) FACTS: Accused Santos issued 54 checks which were dishonored. Accused was charged with 54 counts of violation of B.P. 22 in 54 separate informations. After trial, she was found guilty for all 54 violations. Subsequently, Accused applied for probation and such application was granted by the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision due to her actions in thwarting the satisfaction of her civil liabilities.

SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (1999) HELD: Her issuing subject fifty-four (54) bouncing checks is a serious offense. To allow petitioner to be placed on probation would be to depreciate the seriousness of her malefactions. Worse, instead of complying with the orders of the trial court requiring her to pay her civil liability, she even resorted to devious schemes to evade the execution of the judgment against her. Verily, petitioner is not the penitent offender who is eligible for probation within legal contemplation. Her demeanor manifested that she is incapable to be reformed and will only be a menace to society should she be permitted to co-mingle with the public. With respect to the fourth issue, petitioners contention that her probation is fait accompli is equally untenable. The six (6) year period of probation which commenced on June 30, 1995, has not yet been completed. Furthermore, even if the said period has expired, such lapse of the period of probation does not detract from the fact that the order granting probation was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Probation having been improperly granted, there is no probation to speak of.

COLINARES V. PEOPLE (2011) FACTS: Colinares was charged and found guilty of frustrated homicide by the RTC of Camarines Sur. Since the penalty meted out exceeded six (6) years, he did not qualify for probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Colinares argued that he should be entitled to apply for probation in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him that makes his offense probationable. The Supreme Court found Colinares guilty of attempted homicide only.

COLINARES V. PEOPLE (2011) HELD: But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC.

COLINARES V. PEOPLE (2011) HELD: In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.

TRUST RECEIPTS LAW P.D. NO. 115

TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (SEC. 4, P.D. NO. 115) 

This is any transaction by and between a person referred to as the entruster, and entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt.“ (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 115)

TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (SEC. 4, P.D. NO. 115) 

The entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes according to the P.D. No. 115. (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 115)

PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 13, P.D. NO. 115) The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. (Sec. 13, P.D. No. 115)

WHEN THE VIOLATION IS COMMITTED BY A JURIDICAL ENTITY (SEC. 13, P.D. NO. 115) If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense. (Sec. 13, P.D. No. 115)

CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT R.A. NO. 10175

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

A.





Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. (Sec. 4 [a.1], R.A. No.10175) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data. (Sec. 4 [a.2], R.A. No.10175)

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) 

Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses. (Sec. 4 [a.3], R.A. No.10175)



System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses. (Sec. 4 [a.4], R.A. No.10175)

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) Misuse of Devices. (Sec. 4 [a.5], R.A. No.10175)

5.



The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of: a) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under R.A. No.10175; or b) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under R.A. No.10175.

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) Misuse of Devices. (Sec. 4 [a.5], R.A. No.10175)

5.



The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES(SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) Cyber-squatting. (Sec. 4 [a.6], R.A. No.10175) – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:

6.

i.

ii.

iii.

Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration: Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES(SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) B.

Computer-related Offenses: 1.

Computer-related Forgery. (Sec. 4 [b.1], R.A. No.10175) i. The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; or ii. The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) 2.

Computer-related Fraud. (Sec. 4 [b.2], R.A. No.10175) — The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

3.

Computer-related Identity Theft. (Sec. 4 [b.3], R.A. No.10175) – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES, (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) C.

Content-related Offenses: (Sec. 4 [c], R.A. No.10175) 1.

Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration. (Sec. 4 [c.1], R.A. No.10175)

1.

Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775. (Sec. 4 [c.2], R.A. No.10175)

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. (Sec. 4 [c.3], R.A. No.10175) — The transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:

3.

 

There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) 

The following conditions are present: a) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source; b) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and c) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.

CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175) 4.

Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. (Sec. 4 [c.4], R.A. No.10175)

OTHER OFFENSES (SEC. 5, R.A. NO.10175) a.

Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in R.A. No.10175 shall be held liable.

b.

Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in R.A. No.10175 shall be held liable.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012 (DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

1. Void for being Unconstitutional • Section 4(c)(3) of R.A. No. 10175 that penalizes posting of unsolicited commercial communications; • Section 12 thereof that authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and • Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected Computer Data.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012 (DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

2. Valid and Constitutional: • Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without right; • Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including transmission of viruses; • Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain name over the internet in bad faith to the prejudice of others; • Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of identifying information belonging to another; • Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or consideration; • Section 4 (c)(2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012 (DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

2. Valid and Constitutional: • Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code are committed with the use of information and communications technologies; • Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes; • Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require service providers to preserve traffic data and subscriber information as well as specified content data for six months; • Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued warrant; • Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data under a court-issued warrant;

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012 (DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

2. Valid and Constitutional: •

• • • •

Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously preserved computer data after the expiration of the prescribed holding periods; Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime investigations; Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and Functions; and Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012 (DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

3. Partly Valid and Unconstitutional •

•

Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as valid and constitutional with respect to the original author of the post; but void and unconstitutional with respect to others who simply receive the post and react to it; and Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as valid and constitutional only in relation to: • •

Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access; Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception;

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012

UNDER THE

(DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014) •

Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as valid and constitutional only in relation to:

•

Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference; Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference; Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices;

•

Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;

•

Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery;

•

Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud;

•

Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft; and

•

Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex.

• •

But void and unconstitutional with respect to: 

Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;



Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications; and



Section 4(c)(4) on online Libel.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012

UNDER THE

(DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

4. Lastly, the Court resolved to leave the determination of the correct application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases, with the exception of the crimes of: •

•

Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy; as well as

Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is void and unconstitutional.

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (R.A. NO. 9372)

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF TERRORISM (SEC. 3, R.A. NO. 9372) Offender commits an act punishable under any of the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the enumerated special penal laws;  Commission of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace; and  Offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. 

TERRORISM It is committed by any person who engages in any of the following acts punishable under RPC and special laws: A. Under the RPC      

Piracy in general and mutiny in the high seas or in the Philippine waters (Art. 123, RPC) Rebellion or Insurrection(Art. 134, RPC) Coup d’etat including acts committed by private persons(Art. 134-A, RPC) Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, RPC) Murder (Art. 248, RPC) Crimes involving Destruction ( Art. 320,RPC)

TERRORISM B. Under Special Laws 

  

 

Decree codifying the laws on illegal and unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of firearms, ammunitions or explosives. Law on Arson ( P.D. No. 1613) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery of Law of 1974 (P.D. No. 532) Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968 (R.A. No. 5207) Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Waste Control Act of 1990(R.A. No. 6969) Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6265)

TERRORISM Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under R.A. No. 9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually committed to trigger the operation of the key qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime, including the coercion of the government to accede to an unlawful demand. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 1788552, 5 October 2010)

Note: The benefit of Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted under R.A. No. 9372. (Sec. 3, R.A. 9372)

WHO MAY BE LIABLE 1. Conspirator (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9372) Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit the same Penalty: Forty years imprisonment 2. Accomplice (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9372) Any person who, not being a principal or conspirator, cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts. Penalty: 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years imprisonment.

WHO MAY BE LIABLE 3. Accessory (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372) Any person who having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: a. Profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; b. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or c. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator.

WHO MAY BE LIABLE Exception (Not Liable): Those who are such with respect to their: (i) spouses, (ii) ascendants, (iii) descendants, (iv) legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or (v) relatives by affinity within the same degrees. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372) Exception to the exception (Liable): Accessories falling within the provisions subparagraph (a). (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)

of

SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATION General Rule: Notwithstanding R.A. No. 4020 (The Anti-Wire Tapping Law), a police or law enforcement official and members of his team may, upon written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record any communication between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9372)

SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATION Exception: Communications between: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Lawyers and clients Doctors and patients Journalists and their sources Confidential business correspondence . (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9372)

REQUISITES FOR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT AND RECORD COMMUNICATION (SEC. 8, R.A. 9372) 1.

There must be an ex parte application by the police or law enforcement official;

2.

The applicant must have been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council; and

REQUISITES FOR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT AND RECORD COMMUNICATION (SEC. 8, R.A. 9372) 3.

Examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce to establish that: a) There is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts that the said Crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed; b) There is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts that evidence which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person, will be obtained; and c) There is no other effective means for acquiring such evidence.

EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 125 OF RPC (SEC. 19, R.A. 9372) In the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may be detained for more than three (3) days upon written approval of: 1.

2. 3.

Municipal, city, provincial or regional official of Human Rights Commission; Judge of MTC, RTC or Sandiganbayan; or Justice of CA nearest the place of arrest.

EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 125 OF RPC (SEC. 19, R.A. 9372) The written approval must be procured within five (5) days after the date of detention; Provided that within three (3) days after detention, suspects whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established shall be released immediately. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays or after office hours, the police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the arrested person to the residence of any of the officials mentioned that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested.

ACCESS DEVICES REGULATION ACT OF 1998 R.A. NO. 8484

PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3) Access Device – any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrumental identifier, or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, good, services, or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument);

PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3) Counterfeit Access Device – means any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged, or an identifiable component of an access device or counterfeit access device; Unauthorized Access Device – means any access device that is stolen, lost, expired, revoked, canceled, suspended, or obtained with intent to defraud;

PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3) Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or services or any thing of value on credit; Device Making or Altering Equipment – means any equipment, mechanism or impression designed or primarily used for making or altering or reencoding an access device or a counterfeit access device;

PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3) Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or services or any thing of value on credit; Device Making or Altering Equipment – means any equipment, mechanism or impression designed or primarily used for making or altering or reencoding an access device or a counterfeit access device;

PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3) Trafficking – means transferring, or otherwise disposing of, to another, or obtaining control of, with intent to transfer or dispose of.

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9) The following acts are punishable:  Producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices;  Trafficking in one or more unauthorized access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;  Using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized access device;  Possession of counterfeit access devices;  Producing, trafficking, possession, or custody of device-making or altering equipment without being in the business or employment, which lawfully manufactures or deals with such;

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9) Allowing, inducing, permitting or enticing another to produce, use or traffic in counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;  Multiple imprinting on more than one transaction record, sales slip or similar document, making it appear that the device holder has entered into another transaction;  Disclosing any information imprinted on the access device;  Obtaining money or anything of value through the use of access device, with intent to defraud or gain and fleeing thereafter; 

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9) In possession, without authority from the owner of the access device or the access device company, an access device, or any material, such as slips, carbon paper, or any other medium, on which the access device is written, printed or otherwise indicated;  Writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval numbers from issuers of access devices, when in fact no such approval was made;  Making any alteration without the access device holder’s authority; 

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9) In possession, without authority from the owner of the access device or the access device company, an access device, or any material, such as slips, carbon paper, or any other medium, on which the access device is written, printed or otherwise indicated;  Writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval numbers from issuers of access devices, when in fact no such approval was made;  Making any alteration without the access device holder’s authority; 

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9) 



effecting transaction, with one or more access devices issued to another person or persons, to receive payment or any other thing of value; Without the authorization of the issuer of the access device, soliciting a person for the purpose of: Offering an access device; or  Selling information regarding or an application to obtain an access device; or 



without the authorization of the credit card system member or its agent, causing or arranging for another person to present to the member or its agent, for payment, one or more evidence or records of transactions made by credit card.

SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE (2011) FACTS: Mr. Yu received a call from someone who pretended to be a credit card agent from a financing firm to offer loan assistance. He was asked to submit several documents and identification cards to allegedly process his application. After submitting the documents to the agent, Mr. Yu never heard of the application again. He eventually found out that his credit cards were used to buy mobile phones and apply for several phone lines. His name and accounts were used but the suspect used a different picture and his signature was forged. The suspect was arrested in an entrapment operation. Upon knowing that the suspect applied for a credit card with Metrobank, the authorities set up an entrapment operation. When the suspect signed the receipt of the credit card, he was arrested.

SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE (2011) HELD: Under R.A. 8484 sec. 9(e), possession of one or more counterfeit access devices or fraudulently applying for access devices is prohibited. In this case, the suspect used the victim’s identity by representing himself to be Mr. Yu by presenting fake identification cards and forging his signature. His fraudulent application and eventual possession made him a possessor of the counterfeit access device.

INTELLECTUAL R.A. NO. 8293

PROPERTY CODE

PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES, TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS Infringement Elements:  Registration of TN, TM or SM  Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction and application of reproduction)  Use is without owner’s consent  Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or deceive  regardless of whether or not there is actual sale

PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES, TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS Unfair Competition Elements: 1. Person has established goodwill (has identified in the mind of the public his goods, business or services), whether or not a registered mark is employed 2. Another person passes of the goods he deals in for those of the person who has established goodwill 3. By means contrary to good faith (malice and intent to deceive are essential)

PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES, TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS The following are DEEMED to have committed unfair competition: (a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of another or such appearance as is likely to deceive the public or defraud another of his legitimate trade + to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of another + sells the goods (includes subsequent vendor and agent of any vendor)

PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES, TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS (b) induces the false belief that he is offering the services of another who has established goodwill + by any artifice or device (c) makes any false statement in the course of trade or any other act contrary to good faith + act or statement calculated to discredit the business of another

PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES, TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS False Designation of Origin / False Description of Fact Elements: 1. Use in commerce of any false designation of origin, false description or representation of fact, which: 1. 2.

Is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of goods by another person Misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and geographic origin of goods in commercial advertising or promotion

PUNISHABLE ACTS – PATENTS Repetition of Infringement Elements: 1. Existence of a final judgment against the offender in a civil action for infringement of patent 2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with him repeats the infringement after the finality of the judgment

PUNISHABLE ACTS – COPYRIGHT Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions of the law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral rights etc.) or of aiding or abetting such infringement; Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a work has in his possession an article which he knows, or ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of:  Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade, offering or exposing for sale, or hire, the article;  Distributing the article for purposes of trade, or for any other purpose to an extent that will prejudice the rights of the copyright owner in the work; or  Trade exhibit of the articles in public.

COCA-COLA V. GOMEZ (2008) FACTS: Coca-Cola Corporation filed a case against Pepsi for violation of the Intellectual Property Code. Coca-Cola alleges that Pepsi in the Bicol Region was hoarding coke bottles to impede the circulation of the product in the region. A search was conducted on the premises of Pepsi and the authorities indeed found coke bottles on the Pepsi property. According to Coke, the bottles were eventually crushed to conceal any proof of the hoarding activity. The petitioners claim that the alleged hoarding by Pepsi is a violation of Section 168.3 of the IP Code.

COCA-COLA V. GOMEZ (2008) HELD: Under all the above approaches, we conclude that the "hoarding" - as defined and charged by the petitioner does not fall within the coverage of the IP Code and of Section 168 in particular. It does not relate to any patent, trademark, trade name or service mark that the respondents have invaded, intruded into or used without proper authority from the petitioner. Nor are the respondents alleged to be fraudulently "passing off" their products or services as those of the petitioner. The respondents are not also alleged to be undertaking any representation or misrepresentation that would confuse or tend to confuse the goods of the petitioner with those of the respondents, or vice versa.

MCDONALD’S CORPORATION C. L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC. (2004) FACTS: McDonalds Corp. filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition case against L.C. Big Mak Burger. The use of the name creates confusion in the minds of the consumers. In its defense, Big Mak claims that they are distinct from the McDonalds product even though they also sell hamburgers, they use a different wrapper, a different mascot and they sell different products like pizza and siopao.

MCDONALD’S CORPORATION C. L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC. (2004) HELD: For trademark infringement, the test of dominancy is now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the Intellectual Property Code which defines infringement as the colorable imitation of a registered mark xxx or a dominant feature thereof. Absent proof that respondents adoption of the Big Mak mark was due to honest mistake or was fortuitous, the inescapable conclusion is that respondents adopted the Big Mak mark to ride on the coattails of the more established Big Mac mark. Thus, we hold that confusion is likely to result in the public mind. We sustain petitioners claim of trademark infringement.

TORRES V. SPOUSES PEREZ (2012) FACTS: The petitioner was convicted of unfair competition against the defendant. Torres registered the products she supplied to SM under the vendor code of the Perez spouses. The said vendor code was in the name of a partnership involving the respondents. However, upon the dissolution of the partnership, SM retained the supplier’s code even though it was Torres who was supplying the products.

TORRES V. SPOUSES PEREZ (2012) HELD: The key elements of unfair competition are "deception, passing off and fraud upon the public." No deception can be imagined to have been foisted on the public through different vendor codes, which are used by SM only for the identification of supplier’s products.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001 R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 9194

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) Covered institution refers to: (1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (2) insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission; and (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant;

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, preneed companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) ‘Covered transaction’ is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. (As amended by RA 9194)

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) ‘Suspicious transactions’ are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of the following circumstances exist: (1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification; (2) the client is not properly identified; (3) the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client;

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) (4) taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under the Act; (5) any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the client's past transactions with the covered institution; (6) the transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been committed; or (7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing.

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) “Monetary instrument” refers to: (1) coins or currency of legal tender of the Philippines, or of any other country; (2) drafts. checks and notes; (3) securities or negotiable instruments, bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates, trust certificates, custodial receipts or deposit substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction tickets and confirmations of sale or investments and money marked instruments; and (4) other similar instruments where title thereto passes to another by endorsement, assignment or delivery.

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) “Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having direct relation to the following: Kidnapping for ransom

R.A 9165

R.A. No. 3019

Plunder under R.A. No. 7080

Robbery and extortion

Jueteng and masiao

Piracy on the high seas

Qualified theft

Swindling

Smuggling

R.A. No. 8792

Hijacking, destructive arson

Fraudulent practices under the Securities Regulation Code

Felonies and offense of a similar nature under the penal laws of other countries

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 4) Money Laundering Offense. — Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following: (a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property.

PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 4) (b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above. (c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, preneed companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission

REPUBLIC V. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS, INC. (2006) FACTS: The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) issued freeze orders against various bank accounts of respondents for activities relating to money laundering. Accordingly, before the lapse of the period of effectivity of its freeze orders, the AMLC filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) various petitions for extension of effectivity of its freeze orders.

REPUBLIC V. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS, INC. (2006) HELD: R.A. 9194 transferred to the Court of Appeals the authority to issue freeze orders from the AntiMoney Laundering Council as well as to extend its effectivity. Prior to R.A. 9194, the AMLC had the authority to issue freeze orders of bank accounts under investigation by itself. At present, the AMLC needs to file a petition before the CA who will issue the freeze order after determination of probable cause.

REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT (2008) FACTS: The Republic filed a complaint in the RTC Manila for civil forfeiture of assets (with urgent plea for issuance of temporary restraining order [TRO] and/or writ of preliminary injunction) against the bank deposits maintained by Glasgow in CSBI.

REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT (2008) HELD: RA 9160, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations lay down two conditions when applying for civil forfeiture: (1) when there is a suspicious transaction report or a covered transaction report deemed suspicious after investigation by the AMLC and (2) the court has, in a petition filed for the purpose, ordered the seizure of any monetary instrument or property, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, related to said report. For civil forfeiture cases in violation of R.A. 9160, the RTC is the proper venue to file the complaint. The RTC may issue summons or cause the publication as notice of petition against the defendant. (IRR of R.A. 9160)

BANK SECRECY LAW R.A. No. 1405

MANDATE (SEC. 2) All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

PROHIBITED ACT (SEC. 3)

It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.

EXCEPTION TO BANK SECRECY RULE Bank deposits may be inquired, examined and looked into in any of the following cases: 1. Written permission of depositor; 2. Impeachment cases; 3. Court order in bribery and dereliction of duty cases against public officials; 4. Deposit is the subject of the litigation; 5. Anti-graft cases, as provided in the Anti-Graft Law; or 6. Deposit may be inquired into by the AMLC without a court order.

ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT R.A. No. 4200

ACTS PUNISHABLE: 1.

Not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.

ACTS PUNISHABLE: 2. Be a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person; and

ACTS PUNISHABLE: 3. Willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits or cause such violation.

EXCEPTIONS Nothing is this Act shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving the crimes of:     

Treason Espionage Mutiny in the high seas Provoking war and disloyalty in case war Piracy

EXCEPTIONS  





Kidnapping Rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion Violations of CA 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security; and Sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition.

GANAAN V. IAC (1986) FACTS: Accused Ganaan overheard a telephone conversation and offered such conversation as evidence. ISSUE: Is an extension telephone among the prohibited devices under the Anti-Wiretapping Act?

GANAAN V. IAC (1986) HELD: No. The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.

RAMIREZ V. CA (248 SCRA 590) FACTS: Ramirez filed a complaint for damages against Garcia alleging that the latter vexed and humiliated her during a conversation. She recorded the conversation secretly and introduced as evidence a verbatim transcript of the said recording. Accordingly, Ramirez was charged of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

RAMIREZ V. CA (248 SCRA 590) HELD: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, even a person privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter will qualify as a violator under this provision of R.A. 4200.

DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012 R.A. No. 10173

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) consent refers to any freely given, specific, informed indication of will, whereby the data subject agrees to the collection and processing of his or her personal sensitive personal, or privileged information. Consent shall be evidence by written, electronic or recorded means. data subject refers to any individual whose personal, sensitive personal, or privileged information is processed

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) data processing systems refers to the structure and procedure by which personal data is collected and further processed in an information and communications system or relevant filing system, including the purpose and intended output of the processing; personal data refers to all types of personal information

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) personal information refers to any information, whether recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual.

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) personal information controller refers to a natural or juridical person, or any other body who controls the processing of personal data, or instructs another to process personal data on its behalf.

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) sensitive personal information refers to personal information:  About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status, age, color, and religious, philosophical or political affiliations;  About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person, or to any proceeding for any offense committed or alleged to have been committed by such person, the disposal of such proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such proceedings;

IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3) 



Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual which includes, but not limited to, social security numbers, previous or current health records, licenses or its denials, suspension or revocation, and tax returns; and Specifically established by an executive order or an act of Congress to be kept classified.

RIGHTS OF A DATA SUBJECT SEC. 34, IRR OF R.A. NO. 10173 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

right to be informed; right to object; right to access; right to rectification; right to erase or block; right to damages; and right to data portability.

PUNISHABLE ACTS Punishable Act

Min Jail Term

Maximum Jail Term

1 year

3 years

P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00

Sensitive personal information Access due to negligence Personal information

3 years

6 years

P500,000.00 P4,000,000.00

1 year

3 years

P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00

Sensitive personal information Improper disposal Personal information

3 years

6 years

P500,000.00 P4,000,000.00

6 months

2 years

P100,000.00

1 year

3 years

P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

Unauthorized processing Personal information

Sensitive personal information

Minimum Fine

Maximum Fine

P500,000.00

PUNISHABLE ACTS Punishable Act

Min Jail Term

Max Jail Term

Min. Fine

Max Fine

1 year & 6 months

5 years

P500,000.00

P1,000,000.00

2 years

7 years

P500,000.00

P2,000,000.00

1 year

3 years

P500,000.00

P2,000,000.00

5 years

P500,000.00

P1,000,000.00

Processing for Unauthorized Purposes Personal information

Sensitive personal information Intentional Breach

Concealment breach

of

security 1 year & 6 months

PUNISHABLE ACTS Punishable Act

Min Jail Max Jail Min. Fine Max Fine Term Term

Malicious Disclosure

1 year & 6 months

5 years

P500,000

P1,000,000

Personal information

1 year

3 years

P500,000

P1,000,000

Sensitive personal information

3 years

5 years

P500,000

P2,000,000

3 years

6 years

Unauthorized Disclosure

Combination of Acts

Large Scale

P1,000,000 P5,000,000

Maximum penalty in corresponding scale of penalties

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951 (AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED PENAL CODE) SIGNED

INTO LAW ON

29 AUGUST 2017.

PERTINENT AMENDMENTS 

Light felonies as defined under Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are: (a) infractions of law or the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor; or (b) fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided.

SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE RPC WAS REVISED AS FOLLOWS: Penalty

Under old RPC

Afflictive

If it exceeds Php6,000.00

Correctional

Php200.00 to Php6,000.00

Light

Less than Php200.00

Under R.A. No. 10951

If it exceeds Php1,200,000.00

Php40,000.00 Php1,200,000.00

Less than Php40,000.00

to

PENALTIES FOR ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLES 299 AND 302 OF THE RPC Article 299

Felony Robbery in inhabited house public building edifice devoted worship.

an or or to

Under old RPC

Under R.A. No. 10951

Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed Php250.00 x x x

Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed Php50,000.00 x x x

When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds Php250.00, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds Php50,000.00, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed Php250.00.

The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed Php50,000.00.

PENALTIES FOR ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLES 299 AND 302 OF THE RPC When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed Php250.00, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.

When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed Php50,000.00, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two (2) next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.

PENALTIES FOR ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLES 299 AND 302 OF THE RPC 302

Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.

Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision correccional if any of the following circumstances is present x x x

Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds Php50,000.00 shall be punished by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods x x x

When the value of the property takes does not exceed Php250.00, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

When the value of the property taken does not exceed Php50,000.00, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER ARTICLE 309 OF THE RPC Penalty

Value of Property under Value of Property under Old RPC R.A. No. 10951

Prision mayor in its More than Php12,000.00 More than Php1,200,000.00 minimum and medium but does not exceed but does not exceed periods Php22,000.00 Php2,200,000.00 If the value of the thing stolen exceeds Php22,000.00 amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of prision mayor, and one year for each additional Php10,000.00, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.

If the value of the thing stolen exceeds Php2,200,000.00, the penalty shall be the maximum period of prision mayor, and one (1) year for each additional Php1,000,000.00, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years

PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER ARTICLE 309 OF THE RPC Prision correccional in More than Php6,000.00 More than its medium and but does not exceed Php600,000.00 but does Php12,000.00. maximum periods not exceed Php1,200,00.00 Prision correccional in More than Php200.00 but More than Php20,000.00 its minimum and does not exceed but does not exceed Php6,000.00. Php600,000.00 medium periods

Arresto mayor in its Over Php50.00 but does over Php5,000.00 but does not exceed Php20,000.00 medium period to not exceed Php200.00. prision correccional in its minimum period Arresto mayor to its full Over Php5.00 but does not Over Php500.00 but does exceed Php50.00 not exceed Php5,000.00 extent Arresto mayor in its Does not exceed Php5.00 minimum and medium periods

Does Php500.00

not

exceed

Penalty Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos

Value of Property under Old RPC If the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed Php5.00. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.

Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Php20,000.00

Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding Php50.00

Value of Property under R.A. No. 10951

If the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed Php500.00. If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable. When the value of the thing stolen is not over Php5.00, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.

Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine of not exceeding Php5,000.00

When the value of the thing stolen is not over Php500.00, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.

PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC Penalty

Value of Property under Old RPC

Prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods

does not Php200.00

Prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods

more than Php200.00 but does not exceed Php6,000.00.

exceed

Value of Property under R.A. No. 10951 does not Php40,000.00

exceed

more than Php40,000.00 but does not exceed Php1,200,000.00

PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC Penalty

Value of Property under Old RPC

Value of Property under R.A. No. 10951

Prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period

more than Php6,000.00 but is less than Php12,000.00

more than Php1,200,000.00 but does not exceed Php2,400,000.00

Reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods

more than Php12,000.00 but is less than Php20,000.00

more than Php2,400,000.00 but does not exceed Php4,400,000.00

PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC Penalty

Value of Property under Old RPC

Reclusion temporal in its maximum period

Reclusion perpetua

Value of Property under R.A. No. 10951

more than Php4,400,000.00 but does not exceed Eight million Php8,800,000.00. exceeds Php20,000.00

exceeds Php8,800,000.00

PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315 OF THE RPC Penalty

Value of Property under Old RPC

Value of Property under R.A. No. 10951

Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period

Over Php12,000.00 but does not exceed Php22,000.00

over Php2,400,000.00 but does not exceed Four million Php4,400,000.00

If such amount exceeds Php22,000.00, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.

If such amount exceeds Php4,400,000.00, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional Php2,000,000.00; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.

PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315 OF THE RPC Penalty

Value of Property under Old RPC

Value of Property under R.A. No. 10951

Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods

Over Php6,000.00 but does not exceed Php12,000.00

Over Php1,200,000.00 but does not exceed Php2,400,000.00

Arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period

Over Php200.00 but does not exceed Php6,000.00

Over Php40,000.00 but does not exceed Php1,200,000.00

Arresto mayor in its maximum period

Does not Php200.00

Does not Php40,000.00

exceed

exceed

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Treason (Art. 114);  Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);  Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art. 129);  Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136);  Sedition (Art. 140);  Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);  Inciting to sedition (Art. 142) 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143);  Disturbance of proceedings (Art. 144);  Illegal associations (Art. 147);  Direct assaults (Art. 148);  Indirect assaults (Art. 149);  Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions (Art. 150); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person (Art. 151);  Tumults and other disturbances of public order; tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance (Art. 153);  Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful detainer (Art 154);  Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);  Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163);  Mutilation of coins; importation and utterance of mutilated coins (art. 164); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer; importing and uttering such false or forged notes and documents (Art. 166);  Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);  Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);  Falsification by public officer or employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister (Art.171);  Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents (Art. 172); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. (Art. 174);  Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art. 176);  Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 178);  False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);  False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);  False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);  Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows (Art. 201);  Prostitutes (Art. 202);  Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor (Art. 209);  Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213);  Prohibited transactions (Art. 215);  Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art. 216);  Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218);  Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country (Art. 219);  Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221);  Removal, concealment, or destruction of documents (Art. 226);  Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);  Opening of closed documents (Art. 228); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229);  Public officer revealing secrets of private individuals (Art. 230);  Open disobedience (Art. 231);  Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);  Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234);  Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);  Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);  Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 237);  Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239);  Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority (Art. 243);  Unlawful appointments (Art. 244);  Abortion practiced by a physician (Art. 259);  Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);  Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 266);  Slight illegal detention (Art. 268);  Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);  Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);  Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody: indifference of parents (Art. 277);  Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);  Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280);  Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);  Grave threats (Art. 282);  Other light threats (Art. 285);  Grave coercions (Art. 286);  Light coercions (Art. 287);  Other similar coercions (Art. 288); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats (Art. 289);  Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence (Art. 290);  Revealing secrets with abuse of office (Art. 291);  Revelation of industrial secrets (Art. 292);  Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship (Art. 299); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building (Art. 302);  Theft (Art. 309);  Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum (Art. 311);  Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property (Art. 312);  Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);  Swindling (Art. 315);  Other deceits (Art. 318);  Special cases of malicious mischief (Art. 328); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Other mischiefs (Art. 329);  Destroying or damaging statues (Art. 331);  Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child (Art. 347);  Libel by means of writing or similar means (Art. 355);  Threatening to public and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art. 356); 

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY

R.A. NO. 10951: Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. 357);  Slander (Art. 358);  Slander by deed (Art. 359);  Intriguing against honor (Art. 364); and  Imprudence and negligence (Art. 365). 

Thank You!