CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2018

Principle of generality

 Criminal laws apply to all persons

Those who enjoy blanket diplomatic injury from suit cannot be prosecuted for violations of penal
laws.
Consuls are subject of criminal jurisdiction of the country where he is assigned. However, he may
not be prosecuted from acts although violative of penal laws but were connected to the
performance of official functions.

Two kinds of Intent:

1. General intent – which is presumed by law.
2. Specific intent
In praeter intentionem, there is notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting
felony.
Error in personam is not an absolutory cause, because it is punishable under Article 4 paragraph 1.
It does not negate the liability of the offender.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Jacinto vs. People
The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against
persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was
inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one
impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor
or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

There is no crime of frustrated theft because the moment the unlawful taking is complete, there is
already a consummated crime of theft.

PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE

A person who commits a felony is liable for the direct, natural and logical consequences of his
wrongful act even where the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. Hence, an accused
who originally intended to conceal and to bury what he thought was the lifeless body of the victim
can be held liable as a principal, not simply as an accessory, where it is proven that the said victim
was actually alive but subsequently died as a direct result of such concealment and burial. Romeo
threw the body of Kevin as what he was ordered to do so but unknown to him, Kevin was still alive.
The medical examination showed that the cause of death of Kevin was drowning. Thus, Romeo is
liable as principal (People vs Ortega, G.R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997).

MOTIVE IS MATERIAL IN THE FOLLOWING CASES

1. The acts bring about variant crimes;

2. There is doubt whether the accused committed the crime, or the identity of the accused is
doubtful;
3. The evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial;
4. There is a need to determine whether direct assault is present in offenses against person in
authority committed when he is not in the performance of his official duties;
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing; and
6. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons.

CONSPIRACY
Two kinds of Conspiracy:
1. Direct – based on a preconceived plan.
 2. Implied – there is no preconceived plan but conspiracy is established at the spur of the
moment based on the turn of events.
Two kinds of Multiple Conspiracy:
1. Wheel or Circle – there is a Hub which deals either collectively or individually with his
subordinates or the Spokes.
2. Chain – present in ordinary business transactions or in dealing with contrabands or narcotics.

It is not required for conspiracy to exist that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior
to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the
same purpose and were united in its execution. Direct proof of such agreement is not necessary. It
may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from
the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of
interest. (People v. Bustamante G.R. No. 172357. DEL CASTILLO, J.)

Mere association with the principals by direct participation, without more, does not suffice.
Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy. It must be shown that
the person concerned has performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. In
fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation or approval to
cooperate, is not sufficient to prove conspiracy. (Salapuddin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184681,
February 25, 2013, J. VELASCO JR.).

ATTEMPTED MURDER

In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were
it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound
sustained would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the accused should
be convicted only of attempted murder and not frustrated murder (People vs. Labiaga, G.R. No 202867,
July 15, 2013).

Mitigating Circumstances

If the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, immediate vindication of a grave

offense, and sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation are present, ONLY ONE of these must
be appreciated. Because, all arose from the same facts.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of physical defect may be appreciated, it must be
necessary that defect is related to the offense committed.
The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt must be on the original crime charged and not on the
basis of plea bargaining agreement.

Child in conflict with the law

- if the child is below fifteen, he is absolved regardless of discernment.
- HOWEVER, if the child is above fifteen but below eighteen years old, discernment is material.
If the child acted without discernment he is absolved. But if he acted WITH discernment he
must be prosecuted in court.
If the child in conflict with the law acted with discernment, was prosecuted in court and
judgement was promulgated against him, and he was less than 21 years of age at the time of
promulgation of judgment, he is to be given the benefit of suspended sentence.
If the child is over 21 years of age at the time of the promulgation of judgment he is no longer
entitled to have his sentence suspended and, the EFFECT OF MINORITY is only to lower the
penalty to be imposed on him by one degree because minority is a Privileged Mitigating
Circumstance.

What is Castle Doctrine?

Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that
designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home, as a place in which
that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force
(up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution
for the consequences of the force used."
 CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS

The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or character of
the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies to
punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted
at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling,
and the like. Fine and imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition. It takes more than
merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
Constitution. The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it
cruel and unusual. To come under the ban, the punishment must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive,
wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community
(Corpus vs. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014).

CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2018

Humanitarian reasons as mitigating circumstance

This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth
and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in
criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing:

(1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.
(Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila, Br. 17, G.R. No.157977, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 290,
298)
TREACHERY

In ambush, the crime is carried out to ensure that the victim is killed and at the same time, to
eliminate any risk from any possible defenses or retaliation from the victim—ambush
exemplifies the nature of treachery. (People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015).

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES VS. PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

Prescribed Penalty Prescription Prescribed Penalty Prescription

Death, reclusión perpetua or 20 years Death and reclusión perpetua 20 years

reclusión temporal Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Other afflictive penalties 15 years Correctional penalty, with the 10 years
Correctional penalty, with the 10 years exception of those punishable
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall 5 years
by arresto mayor, which shall 5 years prescribe in five years.
prescribe in five years. Light penalties 1 year
Libel or other similar offenses 1 year PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Oral defamation and slander 6 months
by deed
Light offenses 2 months

INTERRUPTION OF THE RUNNING OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

The running of the prescriptive period shall be interrupted:

1. Crime punishable by the RPC – interrupted upon the filing of the case before the fiscal’s office.
2. Crime punishable by special law – interrupted upon the filing of the case before the fiscal’s office
even for purposes of preliminary investigation.
3. Violation of municipal ordinance – interrupted upon the filing of the case before the appropriate
court.

Effect if Prosecutor Delays in Filing an Information

The filing of the complaint with the Fiscal’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
The Office of the Prosecutor miserably incurred some delay in filing the information but such mistake
or negligence should not unduly prejudice the interests of the State and the offended party. As held
in People v. Olarte, it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on
account of delays that are not under his control. All that the victim of the offense may do on his
part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite complaint (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168641,
April 27, 2007).

In the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes, that which is more favorable to the
accused is to be adopted.

RA 3019, Section 11 provides that all offenses punishable under said law shall prescribe in ten (10)
years. This period was later increased to fifteen (15) years with the passage of BP 195, which took
effect on March 16, 1982. This does not mean, however, that the longer prescriptive period shall apply
to all violations of RA 3019. As such, the longer prescriptive period of 15 years pursuant to BP Blg.
195 cannot be applied to crimes committed prior to the effectivity of the said amending law on March
16, 1982 (People v. Pacificador, G.R. No. 139405, March 13, 2001).

GUIDELINES IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE RECKONING POINT

FOR THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF VIOLATIONS OF
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

1. As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the commission of the offense.
2. If the date of the commission of the violation is not known, it shall be counted from the date of
discovery thereof.
3. In determining whether it is the general rule or the exception that should apply in a particular
case, the availability or suppression of the information relative to the crime should first be
determined.

Since the commission of the offense is not known to the parties at the time, involving as it does the
grant of behest loans which was recognized as a violation that, by their nature, could be concealed
from the public eye by the simple expedient of suppressing their documentation, the prescription
shall run from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation.
The prescriptive period commenced not on January 6, 2003 (Filing Affidavit-Complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman) but on January 4 1993, the date when the crimes were discovered by the Ad-Hoc
Committee. The Ombudsman was thus correct to rule that the crime had already prescribed (PCGG
vs. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 206357, November 12, 2014, J. VELASCO JR.).

SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY AS AMENDED

A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded
his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence on the occasion of disorder resulting from
a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not
participated, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe (Sec. 4, R.A. 10592).

A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay
in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe (Sec. 4, R.A.
10592).

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES VIS-À-VIS COMPLEX CRIME

In People v. Desierto, although the burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger
of the Thompson sub-machine gun, in view of its special mechanism, the person firing it has only to
keep pressing the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually. Although it is true that several
successive shots were fired by the accused in a short space of time, yet the factor which must be taken
into consideration is that, to each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon the victims,
corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally
liable for as many offenses as those resulting from every single act that produced the same. Hence, it
is not the act of pressing the trigger which should produce the several felonies, but the number
of bullets which actually produced them (People v. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, G.R. Nos. 100382-100385
March 19, 1997).

SPECIAL COMPLEX COMPOUND CRIME DELITO CONTINUADO

CRIME
It is the law which specifies
for the crimes that should
be combined.
The law provides for a
single penalty.
A light felony committed in
the commission of the
crime is absorbed.
The law merely states two Offender is impelled by a
or more grave or less grave single criminal impulse
felonies or an offense is commits a series of overt
necessary to commit the acts in about the same time
other. and place violating one
The penalty to be imposed provision of law.
will be the most serious
crime in its maximum
period.
A light felony committed
would constitute a
separate and distinct

charge.

CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2018

CRIM 2
Who is an accountable public officer?

An accountable public officer is one who has actual control of public funds or property by reason
of the duties of his office. The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the
controlling factor. The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee, the fact that as part
of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it, is
the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer
or employee.

A mere clerk in the provincial or municipal government may be held guilty of malversation if he or
she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same (Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
161784-86 April 26, 2005).

ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS IN RELATION TO

VIOLATION OF ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT

Violation of Anti-Sexual Harassment Act can be committed even by means of words alone while in
the crime Acts of Lasciviousness, there is a need for an act of making physical contact with the body
of another person for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification other than, or without intention
of, sexual intercourse. The contact may be by the body of the accused such as the lips, hands, foot or
by means of any object or instrument. Therefore, a person charged with Acts of Lasciviousness can
still be punished under Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (Sec. 3(a) R.A. 7877 & Art. 336 RPC).

RAPE
If the intention is to rape the victim, accused cannot be convicted of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of
the accused is to rape the victim (People v. Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, September 18, 2013).

The Court convicted the accused therein for only one count of rape despite the three successful
penetrations because there is no indication in the records from which it can be inferred that the
accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault other than his lustful
desire to change positions inside the room where the crime was committed. (People vs. Aaron,
G.R. NOS. 136300-02. September 24, 2002)

If there are 3 penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein
the accused would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he has regained his
strength, he would again rape the victim Hence, it can be clearly inferred from the foregoing that
when the he decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon the
victim, he was not motivated by a single impulse but rather by several criminal intent. Hence,
his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is indubitable. (Lucena vs. PeopleG.R. No. 190632, February
26, 2014)

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the
robbery. Absence of proof of an attempt to stop the killing of one of the victims, plus the finding of
conspiracy, make accused-appellants liable as principals for the crime of Robbery with Homicide
(People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013).

QUALIFIED THEFT

The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks
and had access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Metrobank cashier’s checks (and
took the amount indicated therein) suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely
abused the confidence reposed in him by the bank as assistant cashier (People v. Salonga, (2001)
as cited in PNB v. Tria, G.R. No. 193250 April 25, 2012, J. VELASCO JR.).

FENCING

The crime of fencing only applies to proceeds of theft or robbery. It does not apply to other crimes of
gain like estafa. The crime committed by a person who took a share of the proceeds of a crime other
than robbery or theft would make him only an accessory (Notes and Cases in Special Penal Laws,
Boado, 2015. p. 418).

ESTAFA

In estafa with abuse of confidence either (1) by misappropriating the thing received, or (2) by
converting the thing received or (3) by denying that the thing was received, demand need not be
formal or written as the law does not qualify. The word demand should be interpreted in its
general meaning as to include BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL DEMAND. Castro went to the house of
Asejo in Pangasinan to make an oral demand for the return of the money. This was admitted by both
of them in their testimonies. Thus, the failure to present a written demand as evidence is not fatal.
Hence, Asejo is guilty of estafa (Asejo vs People, G.R. No. 157433, July 24, 2007, J. VELASCO Jr.).

BIGAMY

Lack of Knowledge of the Previous Marriage May be a Defense

In bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the
circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous
marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of
the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused. Hence, it is a defense on
the part of the second spouse in a prosecution for Bigamy that he or she does not know that the other
spouse has a prior subsisting marriage (People vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975).

Void Second Marriage is not a Defense

Santiago’s affirmative defense in this criminal case of bigamy, is that her marriage with Santos was
void for having been secured without a marriage license. But as elucidated earlier, they themselves
perpetrated a false Certificate of Marriage by misrepresenting that they were exempted from the
license requirement based on their fabricated claim that they had already cohabited as husband and
wife for at least five years prior their marriage. Santiago married Santos while knowing fully well that
they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under the Family Code.
Consequently, it will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow Santiago to use her illegal act
to escape criminal conviction for bigamy (Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015).

NOTE: Do not confuse this ruling with the exception held in Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February
6, 2004, where the SC considered the declaration of nullity of the first marriage on the ground of lack
of marriage ceremony previous or subsequent to the celebration of the second marriage, as a valid
defense. It was held that the mere act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid
marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Hence, bigamy is not committed. IN
CONTRAST with Santiago v. People, the accused raised the defense that the second marriage was
void for having been celebrated without a valid marriage license. The SC did not consider this as a
valid defense because the accused are estopped from raising lack of marriage license; they themselves
misrepresented that they were exempted from the license requirement based on their fabricated
claim that they had already cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years prior their marriage.

PREMATURE MARRIAGE DECRIMINALIZED

R.A. 10655 (March 13, 2015) decriminalized the crime of premature marriage. Article 1 of the said law
provides that “without prejudice to the provisions of the Family Code on paternity and filiation, Article
351 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, punishing the crime of premature
marriage committed by a woman, is hereby repealed”.

MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS vis-à-vis PERJURY

LIBEL- PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

Before a statement would come within the ambit of a privileged communication, it must be
established that:

a. The person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or
of the one to whom it is made;
b. the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or
duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and
c. The statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice

The memorandum is not simply addressed to an officer, a board or a superior, rather, the
communication was addressed to all the staff of the agency who obviously do not have the power to
furnish the protection sought. The irresponsible act of furnishing the staff a copy of the memorandum
is enough circumstance which militates against the Lagaya’s pretension of good faith and
performance of a moral and social duty (Lagaya v. People, G.R. No. 176251, July 25, 2012).

LIBEL

For a libel charge to prosper, the words imputed must be defamatory. Malice is necessarily
rendered immaterial. To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they
would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers
to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty
of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the person
or persons up to public ridicule. Here, the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" is
not defamatory because it does not tend to induce suspicion on Salvador’s character, integrity and
reputation as mayor of Cadiz City. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, 14 February 2011).
LIBEL vis-à-vis ORAL DEFAMATION vis-à-vis SLANDER BY DEED

Libel Oral Defamation Slander by Deed

Is a public and malicious Any act, omission, condition or It is a crime against honor which is
imputation even if true of a crime, circumstances against a person committed by performing any act
vice or defect, real or imaginary or done orally in public tending to which casts dishonor, discredit or
any act or omission, condition, cause dishonor, discredit, contempt to another person.
status, or circumstance tending to contempt or ridicule.
cause dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or a juridical
person, or blacken the memory of
one who is dead.
 CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

PERJURY

Chua’s declaration under oath for naturalization that he is of good moral character and residing at
Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is material to his petition for naturalization. He
committed perjury for this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a
verified petition made for a legal purpose (Chua v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003).

MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY

May a private individual be held liable for malversation of public funds?

Yes. A public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official position,
or even a private individual, may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property
if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to
commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property (Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
161784-86 April 26, 2005).

Demand is Not an Element of Malversation but A Requisite of Application of Presumption

While demand is not an element of the crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the application of
the presumption of malversation. The presumption being referred is that referred to under Article
217 of the RPC as amended by R.A. 1060 “The failure of a public officer to have duty forthcoming any
public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall
be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use”. Without this
presumption, the accused may still be proven guilty based on direct evidence of malversation. There
is no proof that Pescadera misappropriated the GSIS contributions for his personal use. The
prosecution merely relied on the presumption of malversation which was disproved because there
was no demand on him by the Provincial Auditor or by the Special Audit Team to account for the GSIS
contributions. Thus, he is acquitted (Estino v. People, G.R. Nos. 163957-58, April 7, 2009, J. VELASCO
Jr.).

8
 CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2018

In estafa under paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must
be the efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from
the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the prosecution
must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it
not for the issuance of the check of the offender.

BP 22 vis-à-vis ESTAFA

B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) Article 315 of Revised Penal Code

Even though the check was issued in payment of pre-
existing obligation, liability is incurred.
Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability
Crime against public interest
Only the drawer is liable and if drawer was a juridical
entity, the officer thereof who signed the check shall
be liable. The indorser is not liable
Drawer is given five banking days from notice of
dishonor to make good the cash value of the check to
avoid criminal liability
It is malum prohibitum
The check should be issued concurrently and
reciprocally in payment of the exchange
consideration, not for a pre-existing obligation.
Damage to the offended and deceit of offender are
essential elements.
Crime against property
Not only the drawer but even indorsee may incur
liability if he was aware at the time of the
indorsement of the insufficiency of funds.
Drawer is given only three calendar days after notice
of dishonor to make good the cash value to avoid
liability
It is malum in se

PROBATION LAW

Appeal Does Not Automatically Foreclose Application for Probation

No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal
from the judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-
probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition
of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified
decision before such decision becomes final. This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of
probation should he seek a review of the modified decision which already imposes a probationable
penalty. (R.A. 10707 Section 1, amending Section 4 of PD No. 968, Approved November 26,
2015)

9
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

10
 CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

ARSON

There is no complex crime of arson with multiple homicide. (People vs Malngan, G. R. No. 170470,
September, 26, 2006). Accordingly, in cases where both burning and death occur, it is necessary to
ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:

a. if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on
the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;

b. if the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire
is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only;
lastly,

c. if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done
so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and
distinct crimes committed homicide/murder and arson.
11
 CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

ANTI-HAZING LAW

The crucial ingredient distinguishing hazing from crimes against persons is the infliction by a
person of physical or psychological suffering on another, with the latter’s consent, and in
furtherance of his admission or entry into an organization (People v. Bayabos, G.R. Nos. 171222 &
174786, February 18, 2015).

The failure by school authorities to take any action to prevent the offenses as provided by the
law exposes them to criminal liability as accomplices in the criminal acts. Thus, the institution
and its officers cannot stand idly by in the face of patently criminal acts committed within their
sphere of responsibility. They bear the commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes covered by
the Anti-Hazing Law are not committed (People v. Bayabos, G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786, February
18, 2015).

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN

Women May Also Be Held Liable

Section 3(a) of the law defines “violence against women and their children” as any act or series of
acts committed by any person against a woman who, among others, the person has or had a sexual
or dating relationship. Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual
or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships (Garcia vs. Drilon,
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013).

Principle of Conspiracy Also Applies

While the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle
of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code. This is because Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly
provides that the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to the said law. The parents-in-law of
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be the proper respondents in the case filed by the
latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan's husband) had community of design and
purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her
to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally
and physically (Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008).
12