SPL Midterms Reviewer

This
is exactly what we have indicated it to be: a reviewer, which we based
from our personal notes and annotations as well as the discussions of Atty.
CASE DOCTRINE
Iyok, and formatted for easier memorization and recall. The words and Inmates of National Bilibid Prison v. de Lima
phrases highlighted in orange and yellow are key points to remember. All for
love. Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as The Good Conduct
–BB x BM x KO Time Allowance Act which was passed into law on 29 May 2013
amended Articles 29[1], 94[2], 97[3], 98[4], and 99[5] of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815 or “RPC”). The important
amendments under RA 10592, among others, are as follows:
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 1) It expanded the application of the good conduct time allowance for
prisoners even during preventive imprisonment.
Lecture Notes and Annotations from the 2) It increased the number of days that may be credited for good
Class of Atty. Iyok Abitria conduct time allowance.
Ateneo Law School 3) It allowed additional deduction of 15 days for each month of study,
Rockwell Center, Makati City teaching, or mentoring service.
4) It expanded the special time allowance for loyalty and made it
applicable even during preventive imprisonment.
I. INTRODUCTION

Is GTCA a penal law? YES. While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a
WHAT IS A PENAL LAW? crime/offense or provide/prescribe a penalty as it addresses the
rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its provisions
Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment
acts and provide for punishment for their violations. It defines attached to the crime. The further reduction of the length of the
crimes and prescribes penalties. penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the
detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the
application of Article 22 of the RPC.1
WHAT IS A SPECIAL PENAL LAW?

Special penal laws are acts defining and penalizing violations of
law not included in the Revised Penal Code. 1
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is
not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this

Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence
has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Billie Blanco x Beatrice Medriano x Kia Opinion (1D/2E) | Ateneo Law 2022 | 1
Recall: ○ EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:
● No ex-post facto law2 or bill of attainder shall be enacted (PH 1) When there has been a final judgement; and
Consti, Art. 3, Sec. 22). Ex-post facto laws prohibits 2) When the accused is a habitual delinquent3.
retrospectivity of penal laws.
● In general then, laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW
the contrary is proven ( Art, 4, CC).
CLASSICAL THEORY POSITIVIST THEORY
○ EXCEPTIONS:
1) Where the law explicitly provides for retroactivity; Basis is man’s free will to choose Basis is the sum of social and
2) Where the law is curative or remedial; between good and evil, that is economic phenomena which
3) Where the law is procedural; and why more stress is placed upon conditions man to do wrong in
4) Where the law is penal in nature and favorable to the the result of the felonious act spite of or contrary to his
accused. than upon the criminal himself. volition. This is exemplified in
● Prospectivity, as one of the characteristics of criminal law tells The purpose of penalty is the provisions on impossible
us that (Art. 22, RPC): retribution. The RPC is generally crimes and habitual
○ GENERAL RULE: Penal laws are applied prospectively. governed by this theory. delinquency.
○ EXCEPTION: If the law is more favorable to the accused.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS. - Penal laws are construed strictly
2
An ex post facto law has been defined as one: against the state and liberally in favor of the accused.
1. which makes an action done before the passing of the law and
● This may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there
which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action;
or is doubt as to its interpretation.
2. which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when ● In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the
committed; or RPC, the Spanish text is controlling.
3. which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment ● In dubio pro reo. - When in doubt, for the accused.
than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or
4. which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense in order to convict the defendant. 3
Article 62, paragraph 5 (c), of the RPC, defines a habitual delinquent as
5. which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in follows:
effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done
was lawful; or For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual
6. that which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection conviction of the crimes of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. guilty of any of said crime, a third time or oftener.
Q: Why is the study of penal laws problematic?
penalties because the offender’s of the law is to discourage the
A: It becomes problematic, because it involves the balancing of
moral trait is the basis of the omission or commission of the
rights… the right of the state to promote peace and order and the
crime. act especially prohibited; also
individual’s right against deprivation of life, liberty, and property. In
since the act or omission is
penal laws… the most valuable rights are at stake. It is the highest
made evil only by special law.
level of intrusion to the life of the individual.

Recall:
Q: Why is it important to know the difference between special penal ● The elements of the crime:
laws and amendments to the RPC? 1) Mens rea (or, the intent); and
A: For amendments to the RPC, Book 1 of the RPC applies. But, for 2) Actus reus (or, the act).
SPL, Art. 10 of the RPC governs, wherein the RPC applies suppletorily, ● Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. - The act cannot be
unless the SPL provides for the contrary. For example, in RA 6425, or criminal where the mind is not criminal.
the Dangerous Drugs Act, what happened was not a n amendment to ○ Conviction of an intentional felony requires proof of the
the RPC, but rather, it is an SPL. The mere use by a special law of criminal act and intent.
penalties found in the RPC, by no means, make an offense there an
offense punished or punishable by the RPC. CASE DOCTRINES

SPL AND MALUM PROHIBITUM 1) People v. Quijada
Murder and homicide are defined and penalized by the Revised
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA Penal Code as crimes against persons. They are mala in se because
malice or dolo is a necessary ingredient therefor. On the other hand,
Wrong from its very nature Wrong because prohibited by the offense of illegal possession of firearm is defined and punished
law by a special penal law, P.D. No. 1866. It is a malum prohibitum
which the lawmaker, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, in the
Intent? Has the law been violated? exercise of his martial law powers, so condemned not only because
of its nature but also because of the larger policy consideration of
Defense is good faith or lack of Defense is lack of intent to containing or reducing, if not eliminating, the upsurge of crimes
criminal intent perpetuate vitally affecting public order and safety due to the proliferation of
illegally possessed and manufactured firearms, ammunition, and
Modifying circumstances are Modifying circumstances are not explosives. If intent to commit the crime were required, enforcement
taken into account in imposing considered since the intention of the decree and its policy or purpose would be difficult to
achieve. Hence, there is conceded wisdom in punishing illegal 3) ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon
possession of firearm without taking into account the criminal Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum
intent of the possessor. All that is needed is intent to perpetrate the prohibitum. As distinguished from mala prohibita, in the case of
act prohibited by law, coupled, of course, by animus possidendi. mala in se it is necessary, to constitute a punishable offense, for the
However, it must be clearly understood that this animus possidendi person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act a nd
is without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which an to have a criminal intent. On the other hand, in the case of mala
accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. prohibita, unless such words as "knowingly" and "willfully" are
contained in the statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is
2) Estrada v. Sandiganbayan necessary.
Plunder is a malum in se, requiring proof of criminal intent.
Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se, the Unlike other jurisdictions that require intent for a criminal
element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It prosecution of copyright infringement, the Philippines does not
is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime statutorily support good faith as a defense.
of plunder was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It The Intellectual Property Code requires strict liability for copyright
thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner. infringement whether for a civil action or a criminal prosecution; it
does not require mens rea or culpa.
Any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is a malum in se must
be deemed to have been resolved in the affirmative by the decision 4) Dungo v. People
of Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are
provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be
The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A.
heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts No. 7080, as amended.
punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala
in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala
law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or
mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is
for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se,- on the contrary, if it is
the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission
jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts. by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final
analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is
ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the
circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute. If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the
victim, the incidental deprivation of the victims liberty does not
The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum. The constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a preparatory act to
Senate deliberations would show that the lawmakers intended the the killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of the
anti-hazing statute to be ma/um prohibitum. The act of hazing victim. The crime committed would either be homicide or murder.
itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be
against public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the Philippine and American penal laws have a common thread on the
existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. concept of specific intent as an essential element of specific intent
Also, the defense of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution. crimes. Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind which
exists where circumstances indicate that an offender actively desired

certain criminal consequences or objectively desired a specific result to
SPL AND INTENT follow his act or failure to act. Specific intent involves a state of the
mind. It is the particular purpose or specific intention in doing the
GENERAL INTENT SPECIFIC INTENT prohibited act. Specific intent must be alleged in the Information
and proved by the state in a prosecution for a crime requiring
Presumed to exist from the mere Existence of the specific intent
specific intent. Kidnapping and murder are specific intent crimes.
doing of a wrongful act is not presumed since it is an

element of the crime
Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by

circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from the circumstances
The burden of proving the The burden of proving the
of the actions of the accused as established by the evidence on
absence of intent is upon the presence of specific intent is
record.
accused upon the prosecution as intent
is an element of the crime.
Specific intent is not synonymous with motive. Motive generally is
referred to as the reason which prompts the accused to engage in a
particular criminal activity. Motive is not an essential element of a
CASE DOCTRINES
crime and hence the prosecution need not prove the same. As a

general rule, proof of motive for the commission of the offense
1) People v. Delim
charged does not show guilt and absence of proof of such motive
in determining what crime is charged in an information, the
does not establish the innocence of accused for the crime charged
material inculpatory facts recited therein describing the crime
such as murder. The history of crimes shows that murders are
charged in relation to the penal law violated are controlling.
generally committed from motives comparatively trivial. Crime is

rarely rational. In murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim. In
kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the victim of his/her such absence must be proved by the accused. Generally, a specific
liberty. If there is no motive for the crime, the accused cannot be intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be
convicted for kidnapping. In kidnapping for ransom, the motive is proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may
ransom. Where accused kills the victim to avenge the death of a be shown, however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances
loved one, the motive is revenge. under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive
of the accused.
In this case, it is evident on the face of the Information that the Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating a check.
specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the house of This may be manifested by the accused’s offering to make
Modesto was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill him arrangements with his creditor as to the manner of payment or, as
with the attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the in the present case, averring that his placing his signature on the
malefactors of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their questioned checks was purely a result of his gullibility and
primary purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is no specific inadvertence, with the unfortunate result that he himself became a
allegation in the information that the primary intent of the victim of the trickery and manipulations of accused-at-large.
malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or liberty and
that killing him was merely incidental to kidnapping. Irrefragably 3) People v. Dela Rosa
then, the crime charged in the Information is Murder under Article Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be
248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit
268 thereof. a crime but he intended to commit an act, and that act is by the very
nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the
2) Recuerdo v. People crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to
Estafa is a felony committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done
criminally liable for estafa under paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of freely and consciously.
the Revised Penal Code, malice and specific intent to defraud are
required. While mere possession without criminal intent, is sufficient to
General criminal intent is an element of all crimes but malice is convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be
properly applied only to deliberate acts done on purpose and with shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on
design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a the part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without
felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused
malice by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here
actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing. refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the
The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal act and use of an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting a
in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense, person under Presidential Decree No. 1866. In order that one may
be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the
accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, and that The penalty of 14 years and eight 8 months under RA 6538 is
he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was made essentially within the range of the medium period of reclusion
in good faith and without criminal intent. temporal. However, such technical term under The Revised Penal
Code is not similarly used or applied to the penalty for carnapping.
The kind of possession punishable under PD No. 1866 is one where Also, the penalty for carnapping attended by the qualifying
the accused possessed a firearm either physically or constructively circumstance of violence against or intimidation of any person or
with animus possidendi or intention to possess the same. It is not force upon things, i.e., 17 years and 4 months to 30 years, does not
enough that the firearm was found in the person of the accused correspond to that in The Revised Penal Code. But it is different
who held the same temporarily and casually or for the purpose of when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is
surrendering the same. Admittedly, animus possidendi is a state of killed or raped in the course of the carnapping or on the occasion
mind. As such, what goes on into the mind of an accused, as his thereof, since this is penalized with reclusion perpetua to death.
real intent, could be determined solely based on his prior and
coetaneous acts and the surrounding circumstances explaining how It was error for the trial court to impose the penalty of." . .
the subject firearm came to his possession. imprisonment of 12 YEARS and 1 DAY as minimum to 17 YEARS
and 4 MONTHS of reclusion temporal as maximum. For these

reasons the use of the term reclusion temporal in the decretal
SPL AND PENALTIES portion of its decision is not proper. Besides, there is no basis for
the trial court to set the minimum penalty at 12 years and 1 day
CASE DOCTRINE since RA 6538 sets the minimum penalty for carnapping at 14 years
Mercado v. People and 8 months.

The crime committed is one penalized under RA 6538 or The
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 which is a special law and not under
The Revised Penal Code. Unless otherwise specified, if the special
penal law imposes such penalty, it is error to designate it with
terms provided for in The Revised Penal Code since those terms
apply only to the penalties imposed by the Penal Code, and not to
the penalty in special penal laws. This is because generally, special
laws provide their own specific penalties for the offenses they
punish, which penalties are not taken from nor refer to those in The
Revised Penal Code.


Treason After 20 years
PRESCRIPTION OF SPL
● GENERAL RULE: Prescription shall begin to run from the day
Act No. 3326 of the commission of the violation of the law.
Violations penalized by special acts4 shall, unless otherwise provided ○ EXCEPTION: If the date of the commission is NOT
in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules (Sec. known at the time, prescription begins to run from
1): the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceeding for its investigation and punishment ( Sec.
2).
Violations of municipal After 2 months
● The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
ordinances
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run
Offenses punished only by a After 1 year again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
fine or by imprisonment for constituting jeopardy (Sec. 2).
NOT MORE than 1 month, or
both Art. 90-93, RPC
● In prescription of crimes, it is the penalty prescribed by law
Offenses punished by After 4 years that should be considered; in prescription of penalties, it
imprisonment for MORE THAN is the penalty imposed that should be considered.
1 month, but LESS THAN 2
years Prescription of crimes (Art. 90, RPC)
Crimes punishable by death, After 20 years
Offenses punished by After 8 years reclusion perpetua, o
r reclusion
imprisonment for 2 years o
r temporal
MORE, but LESS THAN 6 years
Crimes punishable by other After 15 years
Any other offense punished by After 12 years afflictive penalties
imprisonment for 6 years or
MORE, except TREASON Crimes punishable by other After 10 years
correctional penalties, except
arresto mayor
4
Special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing violations of the law not Crimes punishable by arresto After 5 years
included in the Penal Code (Sec. 3, Act No. 3326).

mayor
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent
Libel or other similar offenses After 1 year from the Philippine Archipelago (See Art. 91, RPC).

Oral defamation and slander After 6 months ● The discovery of the crime should not be confused with the
by deed discovery of the offender. The fact that the culprit is
unknown will not prevent the period of prescription from
Light offenses After 2 months commencing to run. It is not necessary that the accused
be arrested.
Note: When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the
highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the Prescription of penalties (Art. 92, RPC)
rules contained in the first, second, and third paragraphs of this Penalties imposed by final After 20 years
article ( Art. 90, RPC). sentence of death and
reclusion perpetua
Prescription of crimes punishable by fines
● Fines are also classified as afflictive, correctional, or light Penalties imposed by final After 15 years
penalty (See Art. 26, RPC). sentence of other afflictive
● The crimes punishable by fines shall prescribe in 15 years, if penalties
the fine is afflictive; or in 10 years, if it is correctional; or
in two months, if the fine is light. The subsidiary penalty for Penalties imposed by final After 10 years
non-payment of the fine should not be considered in sentence of correctional
determining the period of prescription of such crimes. (See penalties, except arresto mayor
People vs. Basalo).
Penalty imposed of arresto After 5 years

mayor
Violations penalized under the RPC. - The period of prescription
shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is Penalties imposed by final After 1 year
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, sentence of light penalties
and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or ● The period of prescription of penalties commences to run
acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not from the date when the culprit evaded the service of his
imputable to him (See Art. 91, RPC). sentence (Art. 93, RPC).
● It is interrupted if the convict— shares. This is because the filing of the AAOI with a public office as
(1) Gives himself up, the equivalent of the "discovery" of the crime because the
(2) Be captured, document supposedly evidencing the acts charged then became
(3) Goes to a foreign country with which we have no accessible to the public, thus providing it with sufficient notice.
extradition treaty, or Since 10 years lapsed from the time the crime charged was deemed
(4) Commits another crime "discovered" on February 8, 1980 up to time when the complaint
was filed with the Ombudsman on March 1, 1990, it was concluded
before the expiration of the period of prescription. that the criminal charge had already prescribed and, therefore, it
found the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint proper.
● The period of prescription of penalties shall commenced to
run again when the convict escapes again, after having been BRION, Concurring and Dissenting:
captured and returned to prison. No, it has NOT P RESCRIBED. The Court correctly explained the
prescription, but only to the extent that the filing of Unicom’s AAOI

with the SEC provided the public constructive notice of the increase
CASE DOCTRINE of its capitalization and the conversion of its shares. The disclosure
Republic v. Cojuangco of these facts in the AAOI alone, however, did not establish or at least
give reasonable notice to the public of any undue injury to the
R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period government that constitutes the crime penalized under Section 3(e) of
should be computed in accordance with Section 2 of Act No. 3326, RA 3019.
which provides:
The gravamen of the crime penalized under Section 3(e) of RA 3019
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the is the undue injury caused to the government, which, in the present
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not case is allegedly the dilution of UCPB’s investment in Unicom’s
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of shares of stock when Unicom increased its capitalization from 10
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. million shares to 1 billion shares and converted the shares into
three difference classes. The undue injury could be discovered only
Prescription should be reckoned from February 8, 1980 as the point upon the filing, not of the AAOI on February 8, 1980 (which does
when the 10-year prescriptive period began to run, as it was at this not contain a listing of the shareholders and the amount of their
time that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued to shareholdings), but of Unicom’s General Information Sheet (GIS) for
Unicom the Certificate of Filing of the Amended Articles of 1980. Notably, the AAOI does not contain a listing of the
Incorporation (AAOI), which reflected the increase in Unicom’s corporation’s shareholders and the amount of their shareholdings;
capitalization, as well as the conversion and classification of its these are matters properly reported and reflected instead in the
corporation’s GIS – a matter the ponencia recognized when it It must be noted that the State itself presented the Amended
declared that "[c]hanges in shareholdings are reflected in the GIS Articles of Incorporation to establish its allegations because the
that corporations have been mandated to submit annually to the Amended Articles of Incorporation showed that UNICOM had
SEC. increased its capital stock to ₱1,000,000,000.00, divided as follows:
500,000,000 Class "A" voting common shares; 400,000,000 Class
The alleged undue injury to the public through the dilution of "B" voting common shares; and 100,000,000 Class "C" non-voting
United Coconut Planters Bank’s (UCPB’s) investment in Unicom’s common shares, all having a par value of ₱1.00 per share. The filing
shares of stock would thus be "discovered" only upon a review of in the SEC and the subsequent approval by the SEC of the Amended
Unicom’s GIS for 1980 (the year when the increase of capital stock Articles of Incorporation on February 8, 1980 indubitably
was approved), whose filing does not necessarily coincide with the consummated the unlawful transaction alleged in the information.
filing of the AAOI. It was only at this point that the public could be Reckoning the prescription period from February 8, 1980 was really
deemed to have constructive notice of the acts constituting the warranted by the records.
crime. Thus, the proper period to reckon the running of the

prescriptive period should be from the filing of Unicom’s GIS for
1980, which date would definitely be later than February 8, 1980. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
Art. 10, RPC
BERSAMIN, Concurring: Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
Yes, it has PRESCRIBED. It is more logical to reckon the special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code.
commission of the offense to the filing of the Amended Articles of This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the
Incorporation on February 8, 1980 in the Securities and Exchange latter should specially provide the contrary.
Commission (SEC). Indeed, the Certificate of Increase of Capital
Stock that UNICOM filed on September 17, 1979 involved the ● The Penal Code is not intended to supersede special penal
affected shareholdings. The second page of the certificate clearly laws. The special penal laws are controlling with regard to
showed that UCPB had subscribed to 4,000,000 no-par value shares offenses therein specially punished. Said clause only
worth ₱495 million. The certificate is significant because it restates the elementary rule of statutory construction that
reflected the very same shareholdings that respondents allegedly special legal provisions prevail over general ones.
diluted by increasing UNICOM’s capital stock from 10 million to one ● GENERAL RULE: W hen the special law uses the nomenclature
billion shares. of the Revised Penal Code, the RPC applies suppletorily.
● EXCEPTIONS:
Although it did not reflect the subject investment of UCPB, the (1) When the special law explicitly says that the RPC does not
Amended Articles of Incorporation filed on February 8, 1980 is apply suppletorily; and
indisputably the only trustworthy evidence that proved the dilution.
(2) When there is physical or legal impossibility (People v. therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its
Simon). technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its duration,
correlation and legal effects under the system of penalties native to
said Code. When, as in this case, the law involved speaks of prision
CASE DOCTRINES correccional, in its technical sense under the Code, it would
consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit otherwise.
1) People v. Simon
A review of such doctrines as applied in previous cases, however, The imposable penalty under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended
reveals that the reason why the rules on mitigating or aggravating by Republic Act No. 7659, is prision correccional, to be taken from
circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not the medium period pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal
be applied was because the special laws involved provided their Code, there being no attendant mitigating or aggravating
own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and circumstance.
which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in
the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties then provided by the In the case of the Dangerous Drugs Act as now amended by
special laws concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium Republic Act No. 7659 by the incorporation and prescription therein
or maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible to of the technical penalties defined in and constituting integral parts
consider the aforestated modifying circumstances whose main of the three scales of penalties in the Code, with much more reason
function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance should the provisions of said Code on the appreciation and effects
with the rules in Article 64 of the Code. of all attendant modifying circumstances apply in fixing the
penalty. Likewise, the different kinds or classifications of penalties
This is also the rationale for the holding in previous cases that the and the rules for graduating such penalties by degrees should have
provisions of the Code on the graduation of penalties by degrees supplementary effect on Republic Act No. 6425.
could not be given supplementary application to special laws, since
the penalties in the latter were not components of or contemplated Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
in the scale of penalties provided by Article 71 of the former. The has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal
suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical
provided in Article 10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the
is a legal or physical impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special maximum of said sentence.
law against, such supplementary application.
2) Ladonga v. People
The situation, however, is different where although the offense is The main idea and purpose of Article 10 is embodied in the
defined in and ostensibly punished under a special law, the penalty provision that the "code shall be supplementary" to special laws,

unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary.

B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application II. SPECIAL LAWS AFFECTING LIABILITIES
of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary

provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which,
by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied A. PROHIBITION ON THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
suppletorily. RA 9346

Indeed, in the recent case of Y u vs. People, the Court applied ● The imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited (Sec. 1).
suppletorily the provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under ○ RA 8177, otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by
Article 39 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22. Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. RA 7659), otherwise
known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws,
The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy in this executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the
case is analogous to the application of the provision on principals death penalty are repealed or amended accordingly.
under Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte.
In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed (Sec. 2):

USES NOMENCLATURE OF THE DOES NOT USE THE
RPC NOMENCLATURE OF THE RPC

Penalty of reclusion perpetua Penalty of life imprisonment

● Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua shall
not be eligible for parole5 under Act No. 4180, otherwise known
as the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Sec. 3).
● The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at
least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of

5
Parole is the conditional release of an offender from a correctional
institution after he has served the minimum of his prison sentence (See Revised
Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole).
general circulation of the names of persons convicted of offenses becomes eligible for pardon, is without possibility of parole
punished with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment who are although the maximum period
being considered or recommend for commutation6 or pardon shall in no case exceed 40 years
(Sec. 4).

○ The President may s till grant executive clemency7, as
provided for under Section 19, Article VII of the CASE DOCTRINES
Constitution (Sec. 4).
1) People v. Quiachon

The trial court and the CA correctly found the accused guilty of
Recall:
raping his daughter Rowena pursuant to Article 266-B of the

Revised Penal Code. The special qualifying circumstances of the
Distinction between Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment ( See
victim’s minority and her relationship to the accused, which were
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 6-A-92):
properly alleged in the Information and their existence duly
RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT admitted by the defense on stipulation of facts during pre-trial,
warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death on the
Prescribed by the RPC Imposed for serious offenses accused.
penalized by special laws
However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346
Carries with it accessory Does not carry with it accessory 27 on June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death enalty,
penalties penalties the penalty to be meted on the accused is reclusion perpetua in
accordance with Section 2.
Entails imprisonment for at least Does not appear to have any
30 years after which the convict definite extent or duration and The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 9346 is applicable in this
case pursuant to the principle in criminal law, favorabilia sunt
6
Commutation of Sentence refers to the reduction of the duration of a prison amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to
sentence of a prisoner (See Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of accused are given retroactive effect. However, the accused is not
Pardons and Parole). eligible for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that
7
Executive Clemency refers to Reprieve, Absolute Pardon, Conditional Pardon “persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
with or without Parole Conditions and Commutation of Sentence as may be whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of
granted by the President of the Philippines, where reprieve refers to the
the law, shall not be eligible for parole.”
deferment of the implementation of the sentence for an interval of time; it
does not annul the sentence but merely postpones or suspends its execution

(See Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole). Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the accused
because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity of
Before RA 9346 RA 9346
P75,000.00 is still proper because, following the pronouncement in
People v. Victor, the said award is not dependent on the actual Highest penalty: DEATH Highest penalty: RECLUSION
imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying PERPETUA
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty
attended the commission of the offense. Penalty prescribed: Penalty prescribed:
(In this case, because it is (In this case, because it is
2) People v. Abellera attempted rape, its effect on the attempted rape, its effect on the
On the applicable penalties, the imposition of reclusion perpetua is penalty is 2 degrees lower.) penalty is 2 degrees lower.)
proper for simple rape. However, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole should instead be imposed pursuant to DEATH RECLUSION PERPETUA
RA 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

The proper penalty for attempted rape is the penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. In Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion Temporal
the scale of penalties in Article 71 of the RPC, the penalty two
degrees lower than death is reclusion temporal. However, with the
abolition of the death penalty by RA 9346, the highest remaining
penalty is reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the penalty lower by Reclusion Temporal Prision Mayor
two degrees than reclusion perpetua is prision mayor, from which
the maximum penalty for attempted rape shall now be taken. Imposable penalty: RECLUSION Imposable penalty: PRISION
Consequently, the penalty lower by two degrees than reclusion TEMPORAL. MAYOR.
perpetua is prision mayor, from which the maximum penalty for
attempted rape shall now be taken. As the correctly imposed, 3) People v. Sarcia
“absent any modifying circumstance, the maximum term of the Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of No. 7659 was the governing law at the time the accused committed
prision mayor or from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years; while the the rape in question. Under the said law, the penalty of death shall
minimum term is one degree lower than prision mayor, i.e., prision be imposed when the victim of rape is a child below 7 years of age.
correccional, from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.” In this case, as the age of AAA, who was 5 years old at the time the
rape was committed, was alleged in the information and proven
during trial by the presentation of her birth certificate, which
showed her date of birth as January 16, 1991, the death penalty
should be imposed.
Highest penalty: DEATH

Penalty prescribed:
But, the accused cannot be deemed a minor at the time of the
(In this case, because there is 1 privileged mitigating circumstance,
commission of the offense to entitle him to the privileged
its effect on the penalty is 1 degree lower, and as per Art. 68,
mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the
from the imposed penalty. In this case, the penalty imposed by
Revised Penal Code. When accused testified on March 14, 2002, he
the courts was death.)
admitted that he was 24 years old, which means that in 1996, he

was 18 years of age. As found by the trial court, the rape incident
DEATH
could have taken place “in any month and date in the year 1996.”
Since the prosecution was not able to prove the exact date and
time when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime
of rape was committed on or after he reached 18 years of age. In Reclusion Perpetua
assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of
minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it Imposable penalty: RECLUSION PERPETUA
being more beneficial to the latter.

In any event, notwithstanding the presence of the privileged
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a
mitigating circumstance of minority, which warrants the lowering of
minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed
the public penalty by one degree, there is no justifiable ground to
by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However,
depart from the jurisprudential trend in the award of damages in
for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the
the case of qualified rape, considering the compensatory nature of
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death
the award of civil indemnity and moral damages.
is still the penalty to be reckoned with.

The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the
ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty
provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its
heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the
offender.

The litmus test therefore, in the determination of the civil
indemnity is the heinous character of the crime committed, which
would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty,
regardless of whether the penalty actually imposed is reduced to 1) Authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as may be
reclusion perpetua. necessary for carrying out its functions and duties; and
2) Empowered to call upon any bureau, office, branch,

subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the Government
B. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW for such assistance as it may need in connection with the
RA 4103 performance of its functions.

Who are disqualified? (Sec. 2) A majority of all the members shall constitute a quorum and a
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or majority vote shall be necessary to arrive at a decision.
life imprisonment;
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy, or proposal to commit ● Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty
treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of
sedition, or espionage; or those convicted of piracy; Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner's
3. Habitual delinquents; work and conduct which may be received in accordance with
4. Those who have escaped from confinement or evaded the rules and regulations prescribed, and from the study and
sentence; investigation made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is
5. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable
Chief Executive shall have violated the terms; probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty
6. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed without violating the law, and that such release will not be
one year; and incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of
7. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in
approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. accordance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder,
authorize the release of such prisoner on parole, upon such
Board of Pardons and Parole (Secs. 3 and 4) - Composed of terms and conditions as are herein prescribed and as may be
Secretary of Justice as Chairman and 4 members to be appointed by prescribed by the Board (Sec. 5).
the President with the consent of the Commission on ● Every prisoner released from confinement in parole by virtue
Appointments, i.e., 1 trained sociologist, 1 clergyman or education, 1 of this act shall (Sec. 6):
psychiatrist unless Board employs one, and other qualified persons by ○ Report personally to such government officials or other parole
training and experience. officers appointed by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence
● At least 1 member must be a woman. for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining
● Functions: portion of the MAXIMUM sentence imposed upon him OR
until finals release or discharge;
○ The limits of residence o f such paroled prisoner may be PHILOSOPHY AND INTENT OF ISLAW
fixed and changed by the Board from time to time in its
discretion; and CASE DOCTRINE
○ Final certificate of release – issued if during the period of De Joya v. The Jail Warden of Batangas City
surveillance, such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be
law-abiding citizen and shall not violate the laws of the In imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that
Philippine Islands. Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish penal code and has
● Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this Act adopted features of the positivist theory of criminal law. The
shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any of the positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum
conditions of his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence total of the social and economic phenomena to which the offense is
may issue an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any expressed. The adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified
part of the Philippine Islands by any police officer. In such case by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4, paragraph 2 of the
the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired Revised Penal Code (impossible crime), Article 68 and Articles 11 to
portion of the maximum sentence for which he was originally 14, not to mention Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code (penalties
committed to prison, unless the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes). Philippine penal law looks
shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner at the convict as a member of society. Among the important factors
(Sec. 8). to be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on him
are (1) his relationship towards his dependents, family and their
relationship with him; and (2) his relationship towards society at
Q: What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law? large and the State. The State is concerned not only in the
A: You cannot just say that the indeterminate sentence law is about imperative necessity of protecting the social organization against
the minimum and maximum of a sentence… rather, the indeterminate the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming
sentence law allows for the judgement sentencing an accused by a the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends. The
prison term should provide for a minimum and maximum, whereby purpose of penalties is to secure justice. The penalties imposed
the prisoner may be released on parole upon his service of the must not only be retributive but must also be reformative, to give
minimum sentence. the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a
productive and civic-spirited member of the community. The court
has to consider not only the primary elements of punishment,
namely, the moral responsibility of the convict, the relation of the
convict to the private complainant, the intention of the convict, the
temptation to the act or the excuse for the crime - was it done by a
rich man in the insolence of his wealth or by a poor man in the
extremity of his need? The court must also take into account the since the maximum term of imprisonment it imposed exceeds one
secondary elements of punishment, namely, the reformation of the year. If the trial court opts to impose a penalty of imprisonment of
offender, the prevention of further offenses by the offender, the one year or less, it should not impose an indeterminate penalty, but
repression of offenses in others. As Rousseau said, crimes can be a straight penalty of one year or less instead. Thus, the accused
thoroughly repressed only by a system of penalties which, from the may be sentenced to a straight penalty of one year, or a straight
benignity they breathe, serve rather than to soften than to inflame penalty of less than one year, i.e., ten months or eleven months. In
those on whom they are imposed. There is also merit in the view this case, considering the attendant circumstances, a straight
that punishment inflicted beyond the merit of the offense is so penalty of imprisonment of six months is reasonable.
much punishment of innocence.
2) People v. Manlulu

The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, the range of which is
DISQUALIFICATIONS IN ISLAW 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law to accused Rolando Manlulu, there being no
CASE DOCTRINES mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the maximum of his
penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion
1) Guinhawa v. People temporal, which is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4
The MTC sentenced the the accused to suffer imprisonment of from months, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next
two months and one day, as minimum, to four months of arresto lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is 6
mayor, as maximum. The CA affirmed the penalty imposed by the years and 1 day to 12 years, in any of its periods.
trial court. This is erroneous. Section 2 of Act 4103, as amended, As regards accused Dante Samson, although he is entitled to the
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, provides that mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the same is offset
the law will not apply if the maximum term of imprisonment does by reiteracion or habituality he having previously been convicted once
not exceed one year. of robbery and thrice of theft within ten (10) years prior to this
incident, each time serving sentence therefor, which further bars
In this case, the maximum term of imprisonment imposed on the him from availing of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
petitioner was four months and one day of arresto mayor. Hence, Law. Consequently, he should be sentenced to reclusion temporal
the MTC was proscribed from imposing an indeterminate penalty medium the range of which is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17
on the accused. An indeterminate penalty may be imposed if the years and 4 months. Furthermore, being a habitual delinquent as
minimum of the penalty is one year or less, and the maximum defined in the last paragraph of Art. 62 of The Revised Penal Code,
exceeds one year. For example, the trial court may impose an he should serve an additional penalty within the range of prision
indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum. And, as correctly
to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum, determined by the appellate court, the civil liability of both accused
is increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. In addition, both consistently held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise
accused are liable to indemnify the heirs of their victim in the does not apply to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
amount of P10,410.00 for hospitalization and funeral expenses.

Recall:
3) People v. Gardon
● Classification of Penalties
Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death when it is
○ Principal penalties: Those expressly imposed by the court
committed with the use of a deadly weapon. And when the
in the judgement of conviction
offended party is under 18 years of age and the offender is an
■ The principal penalties may be classified as divisible
ascendant of the victim, rape is qualified and becomes punishable
or indivisible.
by death as provided under the Death Penalty Law. In this case,
■ Divisible penalties are those that have a fixed
however, the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon,
duration and are divisible into 3 periods (i.e.,
and the qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her
minimum, medium, and maximum).
relationship with the accused as the latter's granddaughter were
■ Indivisible penalties are those which have no fixed
not properly alleged in the Informations, although the aggravating
duration, such as:
circumstance of use of a deadly weapon and the qualifying
1) Death;
circumstance of relationship were established during trial. Hence,
2) Reclusion perpetua;
the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.
3) Perpetual absolute or special disqualification;

and
Gardon shall not be entitled to parole in view of Republic Act No.
4) Public censure.
9346, Sec. 3 of which states that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses
○ Accessory penalties: Those that are deemed included in the
punished with reclusion perpetua,or whose sentences will be reduced
imposition of the principal penalties.
to reclusion perpetua,by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for
■ The accessory penalties are understood to be always
parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
imposed upon the offender by the mere fact that the
Sentence Law, as amended.”
law fixes a certain penalty for a given crime.

■ Accessory penalties do not determine jurisdiction.
The benefit of parole cannot be extended to Gardon even if he
They do not modify, or alter the nature of the penalty
committed the crimes for which he is now convicted prior to the
provided by the law.
effectivity of R.A. No. 9346. Sec. 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence
■ What determines jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
Law provides that the law "shall not apply to persons convicted of
extent of the principal penalty which the law imposes
offenses punished with death penalty or life - imprisonment."
for the crime charged in the information or complaint.
Although the law makes no reference to persons convicted to suffer

the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as Gardon, the Court has

Distinction Between Degree and Period:
Privileged Mitigating 1 degree lower than penalty
DEGREE PERIOD prescribed;
Cannot be offset by a Generic
Provided in the RPC for a A portion of a divisible penalty Aggravating
specific crime
Special Aggravating Cannot be offset by a Ordinary

Mitigating Circumstance
Scale of Penalties:

PENALTIES
Note: 2 ordinary mitigating has the same effect as 1 privilege
Death mitigating circumstances.
● Also, if the period is not specified, the default is in the medium
Reclusion Perpetua 20 years and 1 day to 40 years period.

Reclusion Temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20 years Example:
Prision Mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 years Penalty prescribed: Reclusion Perpetua to Death
(In this case, you consider the lesser indivisible penalty.)
Prision Correctional 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
1) 1 GA, no OM = Death
Arresto Mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months 2) No GA, 1 OM / No GA, no OM = Reclusion Perpetua
3) 1 PM = Reclusion Temporal
Arresto menor 1 to 30 days DEATH

Effects of Attending Circumstances:
ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES Reclusion Perpetua
Generic Aggravating Imposable penalty applied to its

maximum period
Reclusion Temporal
Ordinary Mitigating Imposable penalty applied to its 4) 1 PM, 1 GA = Reclusion Temporal in its maximum
maximum period 5) 1 PM, 1 OM = Reclusion Temporal in its minimum
6) 1 PM, No GA, No OM = Reclusion Temporal in its medium

DETERMINING THE SENTENCE IN ISLAW
Imposable penalty: Prision Correctional Max to Prision Mayor
CASE DOCTRINES Med in any of its periods as minimum to Prision Mayor Max to
Reclusion Temporal Med in its minimum a s the maximum.
1) People v. Ducosin
Crime: Frustrated Murder 2) People v. Temporada
Highest penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL MAXIMUM TO DEATH Crime: Illegal Recruitment on the Large Scale/Estafa
(For consummated murder) Highest penalty: PRISION CORRECTIONAL IN ITS MAXIMUM
Penalty prescribed: PERIOD TO PRISION MAYOR IN ITS MINIMUM PERIOD (If does
(In this case, because there is 1 ordinary mitigating circumstance - not exceed P22k)
plea of guilt, its effect on the penalty is the MAXIMUM term is in Penalty prescribed:
its minimum. Moreover, because the crime was frustrated m urder, (No attending circumstances. BUT, [t]he minimum penalty is
such is given the effect of 1 degree lower.) fixed within the range of the penalty, which is one degree lower
than the principal penalty. The maximum penalty is that penalty
DEATH actually imposed in accordance with the provisions of the
RECLUSION PERPERTUA Revised Penal Code such the incremental penalty rule under
Article 309 and graduation rule under Article 310. What is
RECLUSION TEMPORAL MAX unique, however, with estafa is that when the amount defrauded
is P32,000.00 or more, the prescribed penalty is not only
imposed in its maximum period but there is imposed an

incremental penalty of 1 year imprisonment for every P10,000.00
Reclusion Temporal Med
in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty which
Reclusion Temporal Min
may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years. This incremental

penalty rule is a special rule applicable to estafa and theft. In the
Prision Mayor Max
case of estafa, the incremental penalty is added to the maximum
period of the prescribed penalty at the discretion of the court, in
order to arrive at the penalty actually imposed (i.e., the maximum
Prision Mayor Med term, within the context of the ISL).
Prision Mayor Min
Prision Correctional Max
because of the ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
PRISION MAYOR MIN Prision mayor b eing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence,
PRISION CORRECTIONAL MAX the minimum of the indeterminate penalty is within the range of
the penalty next lower to it as prescribed by the Revised Penal
Code, i.e., prision correccional.)

RECLUSION TEMPORAL MAX
RECLUSION TEMPORAL MED
Prision Correctional Med
Prision Correctional Min RECLUSION TEMPORAL MIN

Imposable penalty: Prision Correctional Med to Prision
Correctional Min as minimum to Prision Correctional Max to
Prision Mayor Min in any of the periods as the maximum, adding
1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of PRISION MAYOR MAX
P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 PRISION MAYOR MED
years. PRISION MAYOR MIN

3) People v. Cesar
Crime: Direct Assault with Homicide
Highest penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL MIN TO MAX
Penalty prescribed: Prision Correctional Max
(In this case, because there is 1 ordinary mitigating circumstance - Prision Correctional Med
plea of guilt, its effect on the penalty is the MAXIMUM term is in Prision Correctional Min
its minimum. Moreover, because there was 1 privilege mitigating -
minority such is given the effect of 1 degree lower. The proper Imposable penalty: Prision Mayor Max as its maximum to Prision
method is to start from the penalty imposed by the Revised Penal Correctional Max as its minimum.
Code, i.e., reclusion temporal; then apply the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority and determine the penalty immediately 4) People v. Mantalaba
inferior in degree, i.e., prision mayor; and finally apply the same
in its maximum degree but within the minimum range thereof Crime: Dangerous Drugs Act / RA 9165
Highest penalty: RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation of
Penalty prescribed: penalties reduce the imposable penalty beyond or lower than
(In this case, under Sec 98 of RA 9165, when the offender is a prision correccional. It is for this reason that the three
minor, the penalty of acts punishable by life imprisonment to component penalties in the second paragraph of Section 20 shall
death shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Moreover, because each be considered as an independent principal penalty, and that
there was 1 privilege mitigating - minority such is given the effect the lowest penalty should in any event be prision correccional in
of 1 degree lower.) order not to depreciate the seriousness of drug offenses.

DEATH Applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be
RECLUSION PERPETUA one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion
temporal, t he 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
RECLUSION TEMPORAL MAX medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other
RECLUSION TEMPORAL MED mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. The
RECLUSION TEMPORAL MIN 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
Prision Mayor Max penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
Prision Mayor Med minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
Prision Mayor Min day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, would be the proper
imposable penalty.
Imposable penalty: Reclusion Temporal as its maximum to
Prision Mayor as its minimum. 5) Bacamas v. Sandiganbayan
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished
While modifying circumstances may be appreciated to determine by a special law such as R.A. 3019, the trial court shall sentence the
the periods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by this law, and the minimum prescribed by the Code for the offense," as is the rule for felonies
term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same therein. In the illustrative examples of penalties in special laws
law. The penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 is hereinbefore provided, this rule applied, and would still apply, only
"imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more to the first and last examples. Furthermore, considering the vintage
than fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and of Act No. 4103 as earlier noted, this holding is but an application
confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any and is justified under the rule of contemporanea expositio.

prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and other lawful income." Hence, the Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 month as minimum to 15 has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal
years as maximum imposed by the Sandiganbayan in the present Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical
case is within the range fixed by law. signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the
maximum of said sentence, the Court has applied the provisions of
6) People v. Simon ( supra.) the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional
It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium
indeterminate sentence for an offense under the Revised Penal period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now
Code, states that "if the offense is punished by any other law, the in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code.
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the Correlatively, to determine the minimum, the Court must apply the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that "in imposing
said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal
prescribed by the same." The Court held that this quoted portion of Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
the section indubitably refers to an offense under a special law an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
reference to the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the preceding properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and the minimum
illustrations, such that it may be said that the "offense is punished" which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
under that law. prescribed by the Code for the offense." (Emphasis ours.)

There can be no sensible debate that the aforequoted rule on 7) Mabunot v. People
indeterminate sentence for offenses under special laws was There are, however, instances when the penalties provided for in a
necessary because of the nature of the former type of penalties special law adopt the nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC.
under said laws which were not included or contemplated in the In such cases, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will
scale of penalties in Article 71 of the Code, hence there could be no be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under
minimum "within the range of the penalty next lower to that the RPC.
drugs is imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day to life imprisonment
In the petitioner's case, the maximum imposable penalty is prision and a fine ranging from P400,000 to P500,000.00, if the quantities
mayor in its minimum period. The minimum period is fuither of dangerous drugs are 5 grams or more but less than 10 grams of x
subdivided into three, to wit: (a) six (6) years and one (1) day to six x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu". Since appellant
(6) years and eight (8) months, as minimum; (b) six (6) years, eight was found to have been in illegal possession of 5.921 grams of
(8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months, shabu, appellant should have been meted the penalty of
as medium; and (c) seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day imprisonment ranging from 20 years and 1 day to life imprisonment
to eight (8) years, as maximum.36 As there were no established and a fine ranging from P400,000 to P500,000. As such, the penalty
attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the CA properly of 20 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum, and a
imposed the penalty of six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) fine of P400,000., imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the
day as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. CA, is proper. As expounded by J. Peralta in his Concurring Opinion,
"any period in excess of twenty 20 years [and one (1) day] is within
As to the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, Section the IS the range of the penalty."
Law provides that it shall be within the range of the per next lower

to that prescribed for the offense. The penalty next to prision mayor
in its minimum period is prision correccional maximum period. The ISLAW AND COMPLEX CRIME
CA imposed four (4) years, nine (9) months eleven (11) days of
prision correccional, which falls within the maximum range thereof. CASE DOCTRINE
The CA imposed the minimum indeterminate penalty w the Fransdilla v. People
allowable range, and the Court now finds no compelling reaso
modify the same. In Napolis v. Court of Appeals, the Court abandoned the doctrine
adopted in United States v. De los Santos that when the felonies of
8) People v. Oblias, Jr. y Arroyo robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299 of the Revised
Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for Penal Code and robbery with violence against or intimidation of a
illegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia be person under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code are committed,
imprisonment ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a the penalty for the latter crime (although the lighter one) should be
fine ranging from Pl0,000.00 to PS0,000.00. Hence, the imposed because the violence against or intimidation of a person
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from six (6) was the "controlling qualification," on the theory that "robbery
months and 1 day, as minimum, to 2 years, as maximum and a fine which is characterized by violence or intimidation against the
of Pl0,000 was correctly imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by
CA in Criminal Case No. 2008-0341. Section 11, Article II of RA force upon things, because where violence or intimidation against
9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous
the person is present there is greater disturbance of the order of SERVING THE MINIMUM
society and the security of the individual."
CASE DOCTRINE
When the elements of both provisions are present, that the crime is Barredo v. Vinarao
a complex one, calling for the imposition — as provided in Art. 48 of
said Code — of the penalty for the most serious offense. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, however, the trial
court erred in imposing a straight penalty of imprisonment for 30
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the years in the carnapping case. The sentence imposed by the trial
complex crime is that for the more serious felony, which, in this court deprived Barredo of the benefits of the Indeterminate
case, was the robbery in an inhabited house by armed men Sentence Law. Hence, it was void insofar as it failed to impose an
punishable by reclusion temporal, to be imposed in the maximum indeterminate sentence.
period (i.e., 17 years, four months and one day to 20 years). Hence,
the maximum of the indeterminate sentence of 12 years of prision Since the crime was committed by means of violence against or
mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion intimidation of persons, the imposable penalty under the
temporal, must be corrected to 17 years, four months and one day of Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 was imprisonment for not less than 17
reclusion temporal. years and 4 months and not more than 30 years. Furthermore,
pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court should have
imposed an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term not
ISLAW AND ACCESSORY PENALTY exceeding the maximum fixed by the special penal law and a
minimum term not less than the minimum term prescribed by the
CASE DOCTRINE same law. Therefore, the proper imposable penalty is imprisonment
Villareal v. People not for 30 years but for an indeterminate sentence of 17 years and
4 months as minimum to 30 years as maximum
By operation of Articles 40 to 45 and 73 of the Revised Penal Code,
a corresponding accessory penalty automatically attaches every Barredo has to serve the penalties imposed on him successively in
time a court lays down a principal penalty outlined in Articles 25 the order of their severity. Hence, he has to first serve the more
and 27 thereof. The applicable accessory penalty is determined by severe penalty, i.e., that imposed in the carnapping case:
using as reference the principal penalty imposed by the court imprisonment for 17 years and 4 months as minimum to 30 years
before the prison sentence is computed in accordance with the ISL. as maximum. Only after he has served this will he commence
serving the less severe penalty imposed in the illegal possession of

firearms case: imprisonment for 4 years, 2 months and 1 day as

minimum to 6 years as maximum.
Per the certification issued by the Bureau of Corrections, as of April welfare of society." Should he violate the conditions of his parole,
3, 2007, Barredo has served a total of 18 years, 4 months and 26 accused-appellant may be ordered rearrested, to serve the
days, inclusive of his good conduct time allowance and preventive remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence.

imprisonment. Thus, while he has already served the minimum
penalty in the carnapping case, he has not yet served the minimum Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a
penalty in the illegal possession of firearms case. Consequently, he correctional institution after he serves the minimum term of his
is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Neither is prison sentence. The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminal
he eligible for parole because only prisoners who have served the liability of the offender. Parole is not one of the modes of totally
minimum penalty imposed on them may be released on parole on extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised
such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Board of Penal Code. Similarly, accused-appellant's release on parole did not
Pardons and Parole. extinguish his civil liability. Thus, accused-appellant's civil liability
subsists despite his release on parole.
His claim that the Board of Pardons and Parole passed a resolution
recommending the commutation of his sentence does not justify Moreover, the grant of parole would be improvident if the CA
the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Commutation of sentence decision finding accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentencing
is a prerogative of the Chief Executive. Hence, even if his claim him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua were to be affirmed
were true, the recommendation of the Bureau of Pardons and by this Court. In such a case, the determination of the Board that
Parole was just that, a mere recommendation. Until and unless accused-appellant would have already served the minimum penalty
approved by the President, there is no commutation to speak of. imposed on him would turn out to be erroneous. Worse, in basing
its determination of accused-appellant's eligibility for parole on the
penalty imposed in the RTC decision, the Board effectively ignored
the decision of the CA.
PAROLE AND LIABILITY

CASE DOCTRINE Furthermore, the Board violated its own rules disqualifying from
People v. Abesamis parole those convicted of an offense punished with reclusion
perpetua. Thus, the Board should be warned in no uncertain terms
The appeal was not mooted by accused-appellant's release on for acting ultra vires, carelessly disregarding the CA decision and
parole. His release only meant that, according to the Board, he had improvidently granting parole to accused-appellant.
already served the minimum penalty imposed on him and that he
was "fitted by his training for release, that there [was] reasonable
probability that [he would] live and remain at liberty without violating
the law and that such release [would] not be incompatible with the
C. PROBATION LAW based on the modified decision before such decision
PD 968, as AMENDED BY PD 1257 and RA 10707 becomes final.
● WHERE TO FILE: The application for probation based on the
Purpose (Sec. 2, PD 968, as amended): modified decision shall be filed:
1. Promote t he correction and rehabilitation of an offender b y ○ In the trial court where judgment of conviction
providing him with individualized treatment; imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered;
2. Provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent or
offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a ○ In the trial court where such case has been re-raffled.
prison sentence; and ● In a case involving several defendants where some have
3. Prevent the commission of offenses. taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for
probation by submitting a written application and attaching
Probation. - Refers to, a disposition under which a defendant, after thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction.
conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed ● The accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he
by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer (Sec. 3, PD seek a review of the modified decision which already
968). imposes a probationable penalty.
● Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a
GRANT OF PROBATION ( Sec. 4, PD 968, as amended) term of imprisonment or a fine only.
● Court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a ● FILING OF AN APPLICATION = WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO
defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application APPEAL.
by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, ● An order granting or denying probation shall not be
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the appealable.
defendant on probation for such period and upon such
terms and conditions as it may deem best. POST-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION (Sec. 5, PD 968, as amended). - No
● WHEN TO FILE: No application for probation shall be person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the by the probation officer and a determination by the court that the
appeal from the judgment of conviction. ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as that of
○ PROVIDED, when a judgment of conviction imposing the defendant will be served thereby.
a non-probationable penalty is appealed or ● The investigation report to be submitted by the probation
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through officer under Section 5 hereof shall be in the form
the imposition of a probationable penalty, the prescribed by the Probation Administrator and approved by
defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation the Secretary of Justice (Sec. 6, PD 968, as amended).
● The probation officer shall submit to the court the (5) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
investigation report on a defendant not later than 60 days provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33
from receipt of the order of said court to conduct the hereof (Sec. 9, PD 968, as amended).
investigation. The court shall resolve the petition for
probation not later than 5 days after receipt of said report CONDITIONS OF PROBATION (Sec. 10, PD 968, as amended). - Every
(Sec. 7, PD 968, as amended). probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions
requiring that the probationer shall:
CRITERIA FOR PLACING A PERSON IN PROBATION. - In determining (a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his
whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court shall supervision at such place as may be specified in the order
consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, within 72 hours from receipt of said order; and
environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and (b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time
available institutional and community resources. and place as specified by said officer.
● Probation shall be denied i f the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be The court may also require the probationer to:
provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; (a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
or (b) meet his family responsibilities;
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the (c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said
offender will commit another crime; or employment without the prior written approval of the
(c) probation will d epreciate the seriousness of the offense probation officer;
committed ( Sec. 8, PD 968, as amended). (d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and
treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution,
WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS? - The benefits shall not be when required for that purpose;
extended to those: (e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(1) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more (f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction,
than 6 years; recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(2) convicted of any crime against national security; (g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(3) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an (h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
offense punished by imprisonment of more than 6 months and 1 (i) permit to probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit
day or a fine of more than Php 1000; and his home and place or work;
(4) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this (j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his
Decree; and residence without its prior written approval; or
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAROLE AND PROBATION
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the
defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible PAROLE PROBATION
with his freedom of conscience.
Conditional release of a prisoner Privilege of remaining in the
A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance at which time from correctional institution, community instead of going to
the court shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and after serving the minimum prison after conviction.
explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions period of prison sentence.
prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense,
he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he May only be applied for after a A convict who has been
was placed on probation ( Sec. 11, P
D 968, as amended). person has served the minimum sentenced to less than six years
of the imposed prison sentence. imprisonment without resource
The court may upon application of either the probationer or the to an appeal may apply for
probation officer revise or modify the conditions of the period of probation.
probation (Sec. 12, PD 968, as amended).

PERIOD OF PROBATION ( Sec. 14, PD 968, as amended). NATURE OF PROBATION
IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE IN ALL OTHER CASES CASE DOCTRINES

THAN A YEAR
1) Villareal v. People
Probation shall not exceed 2 Probation shall not exceed 6 The law requires that an application for probation be filed with the
years. years. trial court that convicted and sentenced the defendant, meaning
the court of origin. Here, the trial court that originally convicted
TERMINATION OF PROBATION (Sec. 16, PD 968, as amended). - After and sentenced Tecson et al.of the crime of homicide was Branch
the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and 121 – not Branch 130 – of the Caloocan City RTC.35 Neither the
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the judge of Branch 130 in his Orders nor Tecson et al.in their
final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled pleadings have presented any explanation or shown any special
the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is authority that would clarify why the Applications for Probation had
deemed terminated. not been filed with or taken cognizance of by Caloocan City RTC
Branch 121. While we take note that in a previous case, the CA
issued a Decision ordering the inhibition of Branch 121 Judge
Adoracion G. Angeles from hearing and deciding Criminal Case No.

C-38340(91), the ruling was made specifically applicable to the trial
of petitioners therein, i.e. accused Concepcion, Ampil, Adriano, and
S. Fernandez. 2) Santos To v. Pano

Tecson et al. thus committed a fatal error when they filed their Under Section 9 of said law, the disqualified offenders are the
following:
probation applications with Caloocan City RTC Branch 130, and not
with Branch 121. The applicants are not at liberty to choose the (a) those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
forum in which they may seek probation, as the requirement under than six years;
Section 4 of the Probation law is substantive and not merely
procedural. Considering, therefore, that the probation proceedings (b) those convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
were premised on an unwarranted exercise of authority, we find that
Caloocan City RTC Branch 130 never acquired jurisdiction over the (c) those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an
case. offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one
day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos;
In any event, Tecson et al. were ineligible to seek probation at the
time they applied for it. Probation is a special privilege granted by (d) those who have been once on probation under the provisions of the
the state to penitent qualified offenders who immediately admit decree; and
their liability and thus renounce their right to appeal. In view of
their acceptance of their fate and willingness to be reformed, the (e) those who were already serving sentence at the time the
state affords them a chance to avoid the stigma of an incarceration substantive provisions of the decree became applicable, pursuant to
record by making them undergo rehabilitation outside of prison. Section 33.
Some of the major purposes of the law are to help offenders to
Under the above-quoted provision, Santos To may not be
eventually develop themselves into law-abiding and self respecting
disqualified from being entitled to the benefits of probation. In
individuals, as well as to assist them in their reintegration with the
expressly enumerating the offenders not qualified to enjoy the
community.
benefits of the probation law, the clear intent is to allow said
It must be reiterated that probation is not a right enjoyed by the benefits to those not included in the enumeration.
accused. Rather, it is an act of grace or clemency conferred by the
3) Office of Court Administrator v. Librado
state. The Applications for Probation of Tecson et al., therefore,
The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct, which involves
should not have been granted by RTC Branch 130, as they had
moral turpitude. While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law
appealed their conviction to the CA.
(P.D. No. 968, as amended) is to save valuable human material, it
must not be forgotten that unlike pardon probation does not
obliterate the crime of which the person under probation has been through probation. To sustain the Amandy's construction of Sec. 2,
convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot P.D. 1990 would defeat the very purpose of the amendment.
justify his retention in the government service. He may seek to
reenter government service, but only after he has shown that he is The policy consideration in disqualifying offenders penalized with
fit to serve once again. It cannot be repeated too often that a public more than 6 years imprisonment is the seriousness of the crime
office is a public trust, which demands of those in its service the committed as would bring it outside the beneficent objective of the
highest degree of morality. law.
4) Amandy v. People Denial of the probation application in this particular case is further

The original Probation Law of 1976, Presidential Decree No. 968 justified by the gravity of the drug menace and by the increase of
provided in its Section 9 that "(t)he benefits of this Decree shall not the penalty for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act which bring it
be extended to those: (a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of outside the range of probationable offenses. Again, the punishment
imprisonment of more than six years." of drug pushers and drug users is a matter of legislative policy.
In 1980, Batas Pambansa Blg. 76 amended Section 9 of P.D. 968 by

stating that the benefits of the Decree shall not be extended to
those "sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of OTHERS
more than six years and one day."
CASE DOCTRINES
Subsequently, in 1985 then President Marcos promulgated
Presidential Decree No. 1990 which amended BP 76 and returned 1) Baclayon v. Mutia. - Probation statutes are liberal in character
to the earlier formulation in P.D. No. 968. The latest decree on the and
matter excludes from the benefits of the Probation Law any enable the courts to designate practically any condition it chooses
applicant who has been "sentenced to serve a maximum term of as long as the probationer’s constitutional rights.
imprisonment of more than six years."
2) Rura v. Lopena
P.D. 1990 realizes the need to correct B.P. 76 which extended to Rura convicted of 5 counts of Estafa and tried under a single decision
offenders penalized to suffer the penalty of 6 years and 1 day, the which sentenced him to 17mo 25d. Rura appealed to the RTC which
benefits of the Probation Law. Thus, it amended B.P. 76 by affirmed the lower court. Rura applied for probation which was
reverting to P.D. 968 such that only those sentenced to suffer opposed by a probation officer because under Sec 9 of PD968,
correctional penalties shall be entitled to suspended sentences probation does not apply to those who have previously been convicted
by final judgement of imprisonment of not less than 1 month and one
day xxx.
RA 10592
When he applied for probation he had no previous conviction by
final judgement. When he applied for probation, the only conviction Preventive Imprisonment is imposed upon a person before he/she
against him was the judgement which was the subject of his is convicted if he/she cannot afford bail, or his/her criminal case is
application. non-bailable.

D. SUBSIDIARY PENALTY F. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
RA 10159 PD 1829

Art. 39. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine x What is Obstruction of Justice?
x x he shall be subject to subsidiary personal liability (rate: 1d/highest It is the act of knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
MIN wage at the time of judgment). delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases.
● PRINCIPAL PENALTY: prision correccional OR arresto and
fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine x x x How is it committed?
is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding
exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case shall it or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of
continue for more than 1 year. No fraction or part of the day any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit,
shall be counted against the prisoner. intimidation, force or threats;
● PRINCIPAL PENALTY: Fine only.
○ SI shall NOT EXCEED 6 months if culprit has been (b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper,
convicted for a grave/ less grave felony record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity,
○ SI shall NOT EXCEED 15 day if for a light felony authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in
only. any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to
● PRINCIPAL PENALTY: HIGHER than prision correccional = be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
NO MORE SI. cases;
● Prisoner is not relieved of subsidiary personal liability in
case his financial circumstances should improve. (c) 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
E. PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction;
publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a the investigator or to the court.
crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or
concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the What is the penalty?
same purpose or purposes; Penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine
ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both. If any of the acts
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher
service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.
fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
What if the offender is a public official or employee?
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or Offender shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder,
object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases; ARTICLE 19. RPC

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in Who are “accessories”?
consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the Those who:
prosecution of a criminal offender; a. having knowledge of the commission of the crime;
b. without having participated therein, either as principals or
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of accomplices
any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any c. take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent manners:
such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official 1. By profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether effects of the crime.
lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in
the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases; 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent
the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating principal, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
authorities for purposes of background information and not for treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the

Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some

other crime.
Recall:

● The body of the crime or corpus delicti refers to the fact that a

crime has actually been committed. It is made up of: (1) the

criminal act; and (2) the agency or the person who committed

the criminal act.

● What is the effect of some special laws on accessories?
Difference between Obstruction of Justice and Accessory to a crime
○ The accessory may become a principal if charged
Obstruction of Justice Accessory to a crime under the special law.
○ HENCE, an accessory may be prosecuted under PD
A separate crime Part of the original crime 1829 on obstruction of justice as a principal, provided
that a separate information shall be prepared for the
Offender is a principal Offender is an accessory
crime of obstruction. When convicted, the penalty to
Intent is to obstruct, impede, Intent is to prevent the be imposed is the higher penalty under PD 1829 or
frustrate or delay the discovery of the crime. any other law including the RPC.
apprehension of suspects and
the investigation and Q; What is the crime when any of the acts mentioned in PD 1829 is
prosecution of criminal cases penalized by any other law with a higher penalty? Can you complex
obstruction justice with another crime? For example, obstruction
Punishes both private and Punishes public officials who justice through crime of bribery?
public individuals but with an abused their positions A: Crime committed is still obstruction of justice but the higher
additional penalty for public penalty is imposed. This is why it is vague in the Philippines. If it is a
officials Punishes private individuals special penal law, the Supreme Court will say it is not absorbed,
but only when author of the although it is the same tactus reus. In other jurisdictions, it will be
It is not limited to a set of crime is guilty of treason, absorbed because they are the same and besides, you may complex
particular crimes parricide, murder, or an the crime because penalty is the same.
attempt to take the life of the
Chief Executive, or is known to ELEMENTS
be habitually guilty of some
other crime CASE DOCTRINE
Padiernos v. People
It was observed that the information duly alleges all the essential
NOTE: Intent is material in determining whether the accused is elements of the crime of obstruction of justice under Section 1(b).
liable under PD 1829 or merely as an accessory. The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the
accused of taking and carrying away the truck so that it could not
Sec. 19(b) of P.D. 1829 Art. 19 (2), RPC
be used as evidence and to avoid its confiscation and forfeiture in
Obstruction of justice is “Accessories” as those who, favor of the government as a tool or instrument of the crime.
committed by any person who with knowledge of the
knowingly or willfully commission of the crime and In this case, the Court emphasized that the truck that carried the
obstructs, impedes, frustrates without having participated undocumented lumber serves as material evidence that is
or delays the apprehension of therein, either as principals or indispensable in the criminal investigation and prosecution for
suspects and the investigation accomplices, take part violation of P.D. 705. Particularly, the truck is an indispensable link
and prosecution of criminal subsequent to its commission to the persons involved in the illegal possession/transportation of
cases by: by concealing or destroying the the seized lumber as the permit for the transportation of the
(b) altering, destroying, body of the crime, its effects or lumber necessarily involves the truck and the lumber.
suppressing or concealing any instruments, in order to
paper, record, document, or prevent its discovery.
object, with intent to impair its OBSTRUCTION AND ILLEGAL SEARCH
verity, authenticity, legibility,
CASE DOCTRINE
availability, or admissibility as
Posadas v. Ombudsman
evidence in any investigation

of or official proceedings in
Third persons have a right to prevent the arrest of suspects where
criminal cases, or to be used in
such arrest is illegal, and the same cannot be construed as a
the investigation of, or official
violation of P.D. No. 1829, §l(c) – this pertains to the harboring or
proceedings in criminal cases.
concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or
has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any
In the present case, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 — the offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
illegal possession of lumber — had already been discovered at the prosecution and conviction.
time the Padiernos et al. took the truck. Hence, they are not liable
as accessories for violation of P.D. 705. They are, however, liable In this case, petitioners’ objection to the arrest of the students
for obstruction of justice. cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, §l(c) without
rendering it unconstitutional. Petitioners had a right to prevent the
arrest of Taparan and Narag at the time because their attempted
50 < x < 200 Arresto mayor med to prision
arrest was illegal due to lack of warrant of arrest.
correccional min

The court emphasized that the need to enforce the law cannot be 200 < x < 6000 Prision correccional min to
justified by sacrificing constitutional rights. The absence of med
probable cause for the filing of an information against petitioners is
evident from the records. They cannot be indicted because they 6000 < x < 12000 Prision correccional med to
dared to uphold the rights of the students. max

12000 < x < 22000 Prision Mayor
G. FENCING
PD 1612 More than 22000 Prision Mayor max + 1 year for
each additional 10,000 but
What is Fencing? (Sec. 2(a)) shall not exceed 20 years
It is the “act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell Who is liable when the fence a partnership, firm, corporation or
or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any association? (Sec. 4)
article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should The president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or
be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.
crime of robbery or theft.”
What is the presumption of fencing? (Sec. 5)
Who is a Fence? (Sec. 2 (b)) Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of
It includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be
or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. prima facie evidence of fencing.

Penalties What is the requirement when selling second hand articles? (Sec. 6)
Value of the Property (PHP) Penalty All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of
any good, article item, object of anything of value obtained from an
5 and below Arresto mayor min unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the
same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or
5 < x < 50 Arresto mayor med permit from the station commander of the Integrated National
Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity
or buying, intent to gain is hard to prove. Meanwhile, in mala in se
is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated
case, when offender commits act voluntarily, criminal intent is
National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to
presumed because act is evil in itself.
carry out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to

secure the clearance or permit required by this section or who

violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations

promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a

fence.
ELEMENTS

Q: One conceals a cellphone subject to robbery, what is the crime? CASE DOCTRINES
A: It depends on the intent. The simple act of concealing a cellphone
subject to robbery there are different crimes that could be charged. It 1) Ong v. People
could be obstruction of justice, accessory or fencing depending on the The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows:
intent. (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
(2) the accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the
Q: Is Fencing mala prohibitum? commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
A: The court in Dimat v. People answered this in the affirmative. This is possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
because fencing–buying and selling stolen articles– is not evil in sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything
itself. Criminal intent still has to be proven. of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft;
Q: Given that fencing is mala prohibitum, is good faith still a defense? (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article,
A: YES. Although mere possession constitutes a prima facie evidence item, object or anything of value has been derived from the
of fencing this presumption is rebuttable. One of the elements of proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
fencing is the intent to gain and in case where the same is absent, (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or
crime of fencing is not committed. This is why intent should not be for another.
synonymous with mala in se and mala prohibitum because intent
could be required by the law. Just like in Fencing, it is a mala In this case, all elements of fencing were present. The Court noted
prohibitum but the law requires intent. that Ong, who was in the business of buy and sell of tires for 24
years, ought to have known the ordinary course of business in
Q: Why is there a need for a presumption of fencing? purchasing from an unknown seller.
A: Because if this is indeed a mala prohibitum and the person the
fence voluntarily committed the act of fencing, there is no criminal The Court opined that circumstances normally exist to forewarn a
intent to be presumed because it is not malum in se. In simple selling
reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been documents of the Nissan Safari should have alerted Dimat that the
derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such as (1) the time same came from an illicit source. Thus, Dimat, by buying the car
and place of the sale, both of which may not be in accord with the without proper documents proves that he is liable of fencing.
usual practices of commerce, (2) the nature and condition of the
goods sold, and (3) the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged NOTE: All crimes that are in essence theft and robbery are
in the business of selling goods. This according to the Court included. I.e. carnapping, qualified theft, piracy, highway robbery,
justifies the presumption that “mere possession of any goods, . . ., cattle rustling.
object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery 3) Capili v. Court of Appeals
or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing” – a Manzo, the former houseboy of Diokno, stole several pieces of
presumption that is “reasonable for no other natural or logical jewelry from the latter and sold the same to Capili. The Court held
inference can arise from the established fact of . . . possession of that, as a rule, mere possession is enough to give rise to a
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.” presumption of fencing. In this case, Capili, who was in possession
of at least two of the stolen items, has not rebutted this
Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law in selling second presumption.
hand tires. Section 6 of P.D. 1612 requires stores, establishments or
entities dealing in the buying and selling of any good, article, item, Penalty of fencing is based on the value of the thing. Although
object or anything else of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer Diokno testified that the jewelries amounted to 3M, her testimony
or supplier thereof to secure the necessary clearance or permit from is hearsay and is inadmissible for purposes of determining the
the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the value of the stolen items inasmuch as her testimony was not based
town or city where that store, establishment or entity is located on her own personal knowledge but on the appraisals made by
before offering the item for sale to the public. It was pointed out jewelers and what her mother told her. Meanwhile, Manzo
that Ong has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances from established that he sold the stolen items to the fence for
the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell but, in P50,000.00, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
this particular transaction, he was remiss in his duty as a diligent said amount is presumed to be the value thereof as it is the only
businessman who should have exercised prudence. value established by the prosecution.

2) Dimat v. People 4) Cahulogan v. People
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its While the crime of Fencing is defined and penalized by a special
violation is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of penal law, the penalty provided therein is taken from the
criminal intent. nomenclature in the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

In this case, the fact that seller Tolentino was not able to produce The Court noted that as may be gleaned from its whereas clauses,
PD 1612 was enacted in order to provide harsher penalties to those Robbery/Theft, will be punished more severely than the principal of
who would acquire properties which are proceeds of the crimes of such latter crimes.
Robbery or Theft, who prior to the enactment of said law, were
punished merely as accessories after the fact of the said crimes. This incongruence in penalties therefore, impels an adjustment of
This rationale was echoed in Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, where the penalties. But as the Court remains mindful of the fact that the
Court held that while a Fence may be prosecuted either as an determination of penalties is a policy matter that belongs to the
accessory of Robbery/Theft or a principal for Fencing, there is a legislative branch of the government, it finds it prudent to instead,
preference for the prosecution of the latter as it provides for furnish both Houses of Congress, as well as the President of the
harsher penalties. Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice,
pursuant to Article 540 of the RPC, copies of this ruling in order to
While PD 1612 penalizes those who acquire properties which are alert them on the aforestated incongruence of penalties, all with
proceeds of Robbery or Theft, its prescribed penalties are similar to the hope of arriving at the proper solution to this predicament.
the latter crime in that they are largely dependent on the value of

the said properties. In fact, a reading of Section 3 of PD 1612 and
Article 309 of the RPC (which provides for the prescribed penalties H. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
for the crime of Theft) reveals that both provisions use the same RA 9344 as amended by RA 10630
graduations of property value to determine the prescribed penalty;
in particular, if the value: (a) exceeds P22,000.00, with additional Definition of Terms (Sec. 4)
penalties for each additional P10,000.00; (b) is more than 1. "Child" refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18)
P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00; (c) is more than years.
P6,000.00 but not exceeding P12,000.00; (d) is more than P200.00 2. "Child at Risk" refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at
but not exceeding P6,000.00; (e) is more than P50.00 but not the risk of committing criminal offenses because of
exceeding P200.00; and (f) does not exceed P5.00. personal, family and social circumstances, such as, but not
limited to, the following:
However, with the recent enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, (1) being abused by any person through sexual, physical,
which adjusted the values of the property and damage on which psychological, mental, economic or any other means
various penalties are based, taking into consideration the present and the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or
value of money, as opposed to its archaic values when the RPC was unable to provide protection for the child;
enacted in 1932, the graduation of values in Article 309 was (2) being exploited including sexually or economically;
substantially amended, without any concomitant adjustment for PD (3) being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search
1612. This development would then result in instances where a and inquiry, the parent or guardian cannot be found;
Fence, which is theoretically a mere accessory to the crime of (4) coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or
without a parent or guardian; their families and communities as socially functioning
(5) being out of school; individuals. Physical mobility of residents of said centers
(6) being a street child; may be restricted pending court disposition of the charges
(7) being a member of a gang; against them.
(8) living in a community with a high level of criminality or
drug abuse; and Rights of the Child in Conflict with the Law (Sec. 5):
(9) living in situations of armed conflict. (Note: the list is not exclusive)
3. “Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is 1. Right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman
alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an or degrading treatment or punishment;
offense under Philippine laws. 2. Right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment
4. "Juvenile Justice and Welfare System" refers to a system or life imprisonment, without the possibility of release;
dealing with children at risk and children in conflict with 3. Right not to be deprived, unlawfully or arbitrarily, of his/her
the law, which provides child-appropriate proceedings, liberty; detention or imprisonment being a disposition of
including programs and services for prevention, diversion, last resort, and which shall be for the shortest appropriate
rehabilitation, re-integration and aftercare to ensure their period of time;
normal growth and development. 4. Right to be treated with humanity and respect, for the
5. "Youth Detention Home" refers to a 24-hour child-caring inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner which takes
institution managed by accredited local government units into account the needs of a person of his/her age. In
(LGUs) and licensed and/or accredited non government particular, a child deprived of liberty shall be separated
organizations (NGOs) providing short-term residential care from adult offenders at all times. No child shall be detained
for children in conflict with the law who are awaiting court together with adult offenders. He/She shall be conveyed
disposition of their cases or transfer to other agencies or separately to or from court. He/She shall await hearing of
jurisdiction. his/her own case in a separate holding area. A child in
6. "Youth Rehabilitation Center" refers to a 24-hour conflict with the law shall have the right to maintain
residential care facility managed by the Department of contact with his/her family through correspondence and
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), LGUs, licensed visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
and/or accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD, which 5. Right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate
provides care, treatment and rehabilitation services for assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of
children in conflict with the law. Rehabilitation services are the deprivation of his/her liberty before a court or other
provided under the guidance of a trained staff where competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a
residents are cared for under a structured therapeutic prompt decision on such action;
environment with the end view of reintegrating them into 6. Right to bail and recognizance, in appropriate cases;
7. Right to testify as a witness in his/her own behalf under the
AGE CRIMINAL CIVIL LIABILITY
rule on examination of a child witness;
LIABILITY
8. Right to have his/her privacy respected fully at all stages of
the proceedings; 15 and below NO, Intervention YES
9. Right to diversion if he/she is qualified and voluntarily
avails of the same; 15 years, 1 day but NO, Intervention YES
10. Right to be imposed a judgment in proportion to the gravity below 18, without
of the offense where his/her best interest, the rights of the discernment
victim and the needs of society are all taken into
consideration by the court, under the principle of 15 years, 1 day but YES, Diversion YES
restorative justice; below 18, with
11. Right to have restrictions on his/her personal liberty limited discernment
to the minimum, and where discretion is given by law to the
judge to determine whether to impose a fine or 18 and above YES YES
imprisonment, the imposition of fine being preferred as the
more appropriate penalty; ● A child is deemed to be 15 years of age on the day of the
12. In general, the right to automatic suspension of sentence; fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
13. Right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment, if
qualified under the Probation Law; How should the age of the minor proved? (Sec. 7)
14. Right to be free from liability for perjury, concealment or As a rule, the child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
misrepresentation; and presumption of minority until he/she is proven to be 18 years old or
15. Other rights as provided for under existing laws, rules and older. The age may be determined from the child's birth certificate,
regulations. baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the
absence of these documents, age may be based on information
The State further adopts the provisions of the United Nations from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In
or "Beijing Rules", United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in
Juvenile Delinquency or the "Riyadh Guidelines", and the United his/her favor.
Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Liberty.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (Sec. 6, as amended by prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court may
10630) file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age
before the Family Court which shall decide the case within
community-based intervention program supervised by the local
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of
social welfare and development officer, unless the best interest
all interested parties.
of the child requires the referral of the child to a youth care

facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ managed by LGUs or licensed and/or
If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law
accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD.
and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a

motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where
Child is considered DANA – Dependent, Abandoned, Neglected or
the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
Abused by Parents
proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
The child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written

authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child in a
Difference between Intervention and Diversion
youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’: Provided, That if the child
INTERVENTION has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute
(Sec. 18) the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper
petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed
- A Comprehensive juvenile intervention program covering at by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office
least a 3-year period shall be instituted in LGUs from the (LSWDO): Provided, further, That the minimum age for children
barangay to the provincial level. committed to a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ shall be
- Series of activities which are designated to address issues twelve (12) years old.
that caused the child to commit an offense.
- It may take the form of and individualized treatment program Who is a Neglected Child under PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare
like counseling, skills training, education, and other activities Code?
that will enhance his psychological, emotional and 1. Child who commits Serious Crimes (Sec. 20-A)
psycho-social well-being. A child who is above 12 up to 15 and who commits parricide,
murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Sec. 20 as where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or
amended) rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or
In General: occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No.
The authority which will have an initial contact with the child 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable
has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of by more than 12 years of imprisonment. Such child shall be
his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child’s mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care
nearest relative. The child shall be subjected to a faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile
Intervention and Support Center (IJISC).
and Contract → Diversion Program → Final Discharge

below if complied with all conditions
2. Child who are Repeated Offenders (Sec. 20-B)
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) *Note: Diversion is conducted by law enforcement officer or Punong Barangay
with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer or other
years of age and who commits an offense for the second time or members of the LCPC. It may be conducted at the Katarungang Pambarangay,
oftener: Provided, That the child was previously subjected to a the police investigation or the inquest or preliminary investigation stage and at
community-based intervention program. Such child shall undergo all levels and phases of the proceedings including judicial level.
an intensive intervention program supervised by the local social Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes (Sec. 20-C)
welfare and development officer: Provided, further, That, if the Any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes use, takes
best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a advantage of, or profits from the use of children, including any
youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or person who abuses his/her authority over the child or who, with
guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the
commitment of the child: Provided, finally, That if the child has child and shall induce, threaten or instigate the commission of the
no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by law for the crime
written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper committed in its maximum period.
petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed
by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No. Joint Parental Responsibility (Sec. 20-D)
603, as amended." The court may require the parents of a child in conflict with the law
to undergo counseling or any other intervention that, in the opinion
of the court, would advance the welfare and best interest of the
DIVERSION child.
(Sec. 23)
‘Parents’ shall mean: (a) Biological parents of the child, (b) Adoptive
- Children over 15 but under 18 who acted with discernment
parents of the child, or (c) Individuals who have custody of the
shall undergo diversion programs without court proceedings.
child.

More Court proceeding → Guilty → Automatic The parents shall be liable for damages unless they prove, to the
than 6 Suspension of Sentence → Rehabilitation → If 21 satisfaction of the court, that they were exercising reasonable
years and above, Sec. 51 (Agricultural camps) applies supervision over the child at the time the child committed the
offense and exerted reasonable effort and utmost diligence to
6 years Diversion* (NO Court intervention) → Diversion prevent or discourage the child from committing another offense.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
Detention of the Child Pending Trial (Sec. 36) circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
Children detained pending trial may be released on bail or disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
recognizance. In all other cases and whenever possible, detention Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
pending trial may be replaced by alternative measures, such as
close supervision, intensive care or placement with a family or in Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law (Sec. 39)
an educational setting or home. Institutionalization or detention of Upon the recommendation of the social worker who has custody of
the child pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort the child, the court shall dismiss the case against the child whose
and for the shortest possible period of time. sentence has been suspended and against whom disposition
measures have been issued, and shall order the final discharge of
Whenever detention is necessary, a child will always be detained in the child if it finds that the objective of the disposition measures
youth detention homes established by local governments in the city have been fulfilled.
or municipality where the child resides.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect
In the absence of a youth detention home, the child in conflict with the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense,
the law may be committed to the care of the DSWD or a local which shall be enforced in accordance with law.
rehabilitation center recognized by the government in the province,
city or municipality within the jurisdiction of the court. The center Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court (Sec. 40)
or agency concerned shall be responsible for the child's appearance If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures
in court whenever required. imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been
fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed
Automatic Suspension of Sentence (Sec. 38) to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or
Once the child who is under 18 at the time of the commission of rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be
the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall brought before the court for execution of judgment.
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the If said child in conflict with the law has reached 18 while under
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to
with the law under suspended sentence, without need of discharge the child, to order execution of sentence, or to extend
application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the
still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 or more at the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Credit in Service of Sentence (Sec. 41)
The child in conflict with the law shall be credited in the services of public urination, and trespassing, shall be for the protection of
his/her sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and children. No penalty shall be imposed on children for said
detention under this Act. violations, and they shall instead be brought to their residence or
to any barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to the
Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment (Sec. 42) custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention programs shall
The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child be provided for in such ordinances. The child shall also be recorded
in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the as a ‘child at risk’ and not as a ‘child in conflict with the law’. The
child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into ordinance shall also provide for intervention programs, such as
account the best interest of the child. counseling, attendance in group activities for children, and for the
parents, attendance in parenting education seminars."
Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other
Training Facilities (Sec. 51) What are Offenses not Applicable to Children? (Sec. 58)
A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon 1. Vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised
order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of Penal Code
confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp 2. Mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563
and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, 3. Sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the Provided that said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling
DSWD. and treatment program.

What is a Status Offense? (Sec. 57, as amended) What are the prohibited acts? (Sec. 60-61)
Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if 1. Branding or labeling children as young criminals, juvenile
committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall delinquents, prostitutes or attaching to them in any manner
not be punished if committed by a child. any other derogatory names;
2. Discriminatory remarks and practices particularly with
Violations of Local Ordinances by Children (Sec. 57-A) respect to the child's class or ethnic origin;
Ordinances enacted by local governments concerning juvenile 3. Employment of threats of whatever kind and nature;
status offenses such as, but not limited to, curfew violations, 4. Employment of abusive, coercive and punitive measures
truancy, parental disobedience, anti-smoking and anti-drinking such as cursing, beating, stripping, and solitary
laws, as well as light offenses and misdemeanors against public confinement;
order or safety such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct, 5. Employment of degrading, inhumane and cruel forms of
public scandal, harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, punishment such as shaving the heads, pouring irritating,
criminal nuisance, vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering, corrosive or harmful substances over the body of the child
in conflict with the law, or forcing him/her to walk around
the community wearing signs which embarrass, humiliate, R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took
and degrade his/her personality and dignity; and effect on May 20, 2006. Its intent is to promote and protect the
6. Compelling the child to perform involuntary servitude in rights of a child in conflict with the law or a child at risk by
any and all forms under any and all instances. providing a system that would ensure that children are dealt with in
a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of
Children in Conflict with the Law 15 Years Old and Below (Sec. 64) disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision orders,
Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children 15 years old and counseling, probation, foster care, education and vocational
below at the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately training programs and other alter-natives to institutional care.
be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local
social welfare and development officer. Such officer, upon thorough R.A. No. 9344 modified the minimum age limit of criminal
assessment of the child, shall determine whether to release the irresponsibility for minor offenders previously provided in
child to the custody of his/her parents, or refer the child to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. From
prevention programs as provided under this Act. Those with “under nine years of age” and “above nine years of age and under
suspended sentences and undergoing rehabilitation at the youth fifteen” who acted without discernment, Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344
rehabilitation center shall likewise be released, unless it is contrary raised the same to “fifteen years old or under” and “above fifteen
to the best interest of the child. but below 18” who acted without discernment.

In providing exemption, the new law—as the old paragraphs 2 and
Q: Why do we need a separate Juvenile Justice and Welfare System?
3, Article 12 of the RPC did—presumes that the minor offenders
A: In order to punish and discipline the children in conflict with the
completely lack the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, so
law in a manner APPROPRIATE to their nature as children and
that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for which they cannot
PROPORTIONATE to their needs.
be held accountable. The current law also drew its changes from

the principle of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers the
Q: What is doli incapax?
ages 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives minors of these
A: It pertains to the incapacity of a child to commit a crime due to lack
ages a chance to right their wrong through diversion and
of understanding between right and wrong.
intervention measures.

INTENT OF THE LAW
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
CASE DOCTRINE
Sierra v. People CASE DOCTRINES
Sections 6 and 20 of R.A. No. 9344.
1) Ortega v. People
What is controlling, with respect to the exemption from criminal As to Rodel’s situation, it must be borne in mind that he was 16
liability of the CICL, is not the CICL’s age at the time of the years old at the time of the commission of the crime. A
promulgation of judgment but the CICL’s age at the time of the determination of whether he acted with or without discernment is
commission of the offense. necessary pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344.

The basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate
circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC is the complete the consequences of his unlawful act, which capacity may be known
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts
absence of negligence on the part of the accused. Therefore, and circumstances afforded by the records in each case.
although one commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of
the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, As the Court found that Rodel acted with discernment, he is not
no criminal liability arises. exempted from criminal liability however, his sentence, must be
automatically suspended pursuant to Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344.
However, while R.A. No. 9344 exempts children 15 years old and

below from criminal liability, Section 6 thereof expressly provides
that there is no concomitant exemption from civil liability. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

2) Madali v. People CASE DOCTRINE
R.A. No. 9344 is given retroactive effect in favor of the accused who People v. Jacinto
is not a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides: Retroactive effect of penal laws.—Penal Although Jacinto was only 17 during the commission of the crime
laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person of rape, circumstances proved that he acted with discernment.
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is
defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of In determining the proper penalty, the Court applied Article 68 of
the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced the Revised Penal Code which states that when the offender is a
and the convict is serving the same. minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed
by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. Hence, by
Raymund, who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the
the crime, should be exempt from criminal liability and should be penalty of death is lowered to reclusion perpetua.
released to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to
However, the fact that the offender was still a minor at the time he enactments and in the passage of its acts the legislature is
committed the crime has no bearing on the gravity and extent of supposed to have in mind the existing legislations on the subject
injury suffered by the victim and her family. The litmus test in the and to have enacted the new act with reference thereto.
determination of the civil indemnity is the heinous character of the
crime committed. 2) People v. Sarcia
In this case, the Court overturned its ruling in Gubaton.

Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344 reads:
SUSPENDED SENTENCE Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence.—Once the child who is
under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
CASE DOCTRINES offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the
1) Declarador v. Gubaton offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344 merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the suspension of suspended sentence, without the need of application: Provided,
sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the
years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her juvenile is already eighteen (18) of age or more at the time of the
guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as pronouncement of his/her guilt. Upon suspension of sentence and after
amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
deleted from Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344. Evidently, the intention impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the,
of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided Supreme Court on Juvenile in Conflict with the Law.
in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M.
No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a Such provision makes no distinction as to the nature of the offense
crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life committed by the child in conflict with the law, unlike P.D. No. 603
imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. The said P.D. and SC Rule provide that
disqualified from having their sentences suspended. the benefit of suspended sentence would not apply to a child in
conflict with the law if, among others, he/she has been convicted of
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court opined that statutes in pari an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
materia (on the same matter) should be read and construed imprisonment.
together because enactments of the same legislature on the same
subject are supposed to form part of one uniform system; later In construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the Court is guided by the
statutes are supplementary or complementary to the earlier basic principle of statutory construction that when the law does not
distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since R.A. No. 9344 does
not distinguish between a minor who has been convicted of a In the instant case, the Court held that Mantalba can no longer
capital offense and another who has been convicted of a lesser avail of suspension because he’s passed the age of 21. However, he
offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should apply the may serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict with the law institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities
who has been found guilty of a heinous crime. pursuant to Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.

While Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that suspension of
sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the IMPRISONMENT
law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the CASE DOCTRINES
said suspension of sentence until said child reaches the maximum
age of 21. 1) Hubilla v. People
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of
In the instant case, Sarcia is about 31 years of age. Thus, the reclusion temporal for homicide. Considering that Hubilla was 17
application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now when he committed the homicide, such minority was a privileged
moot and academic. He may, however, benefit from Section 51 mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty to prisión mayor.
which provides for confinement in agricultural camps and other By further applying ISLAW, CA correctly imposdd the indeterminate
training facilities. penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of prisión
correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prisión
mayor, as maximum.
AGRICULTURAL CAMP
A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law)
CASE DOCTRINE provides certain guiding principles in the trial and judging in cases
People v. Mantalaba involving a child in conflict with the law. One of them is that found
in Section 46(2), in conjunction with Section 5(k), whereby the
The Court in this case cited People v. Sarcia and reiterated that: restrictions on the personal liberty of the child shall be limited to
“While Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that suspension of sentence the minimum.
can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already
eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of On its part, R.A. No. 9344 nowhere allows the trial and appellate
his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of courts the discretion to reduce or lower the penalty further, even
sentence until said child reaches the maximum age of 21.” for the sake of enabling the child in conflict with the law to qualify
for probation. A review of the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 reveals,
however, that the imprisonment of children in conflict with the law
is by no means prohibited. While Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 9344
bestows on children in conflict with the law the right not to be
unlawfully or arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; imprisonment as a
proper disposition of a case is duly recognized, subject to certain
restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment, namely: (a) the
detention or imprisonment is a disposition of last resort, and (b) the
detention or imprisonment shall be for the shortest appropriate
period of time.

2) SPARK v. Quezon City
Prohibition in Section 57-A is clear, categorical, and unambiguous.
It states that “[n]o penalty shall be imposed on children for x x x
violations [of] juvenile status offenses].”

Thus, for imposing the sanctions of reprimand, fine, and/or
imprisonment on minors for curfew violations, portions of Section 4
of the Manila Ordinance directly and irreconcilably conflict with the
clear language of Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended, and hence,
invalid. On the other hand, the imposition of community service
programs and admonition on the minors are allowed as they do not
constitute penalties.

Child Abuse & Child Pornography
Who May File a Complaint

Definition of “Child/ren” RA 7610 (a) Offended party
(Child Abuse) (b) Parents or guardians
RA 9344 Refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) (c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the
(JJWA) years. third degree of consanguinity
(d) Officer, social worker or representative of a
RA 7610 Refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age licensed child-caring institution
(Child Abuse) or those over but are unable to fully take care of (e) Officer or social worker of the Department
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, of Social Welfare and Development
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination (f) Barangay chairman
because of a physical or mental disability or (g) At least three (3) concerned responsible
condition citizens where the violation occurred.
RA 9775 Refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age RA 9775 (a) Offended party

(Child or over, but is unable to fully take care of (Child (b) Parents or guardians
Pornography) himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, Pornography) (c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical third degree of consanguinity
or mental disability or condition. (d) Officer, social worker or representative of a
licensed child-caring institution
For the purpose of this Act, a child shall also refer (e) Officer or social worker of the Department
to: of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
(1) a person regardless of age who is (f) Local social welfare development officer
presented, depicted or portrayed as a child (g) Barangay chairman
as defined herein (h) Any law enforcement officer
(2) computer-generated, digitally or manually (i) At least three (3) concerned responsible
crafted images or graphics of a person who citizens residing in the place where the
is represented or who is made to appear to violation occurred
be a child as defined herein. (j) Any person who has personal knowledge of
the circumstances of the commission of any
offense under this Act.

I. CHILD ABUSE urban or rural areas without the care of parents or a
RA 7610 guardian or basic services needed for a good quality
Definition of Terms: of life;
(1) Children - refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age (d) Being a member of a indigenous cultural community
or those over but are unable to fully take care of and/or living under conditions of extreme poverty or
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, in an area which is underdeveloped and/or lacks or
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical has inadequate access to basic services needed for a
or mental disability or condition good quality of life;
(e) Being a victim of a man-made or natural disaster or
(2) Child abuse - refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual calamity; or
or not, of the child which includes any of the following: (f) Circumstances analogous to those abovestated
(a) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, which endanger the life, safety or normal
sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment development of children.
(b) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades
or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child Section 5:
as a human being Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether
(c) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration
survival, such as food and shelter or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
(d) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(3) Circumstances which gravely threaten or endanger the
survival and normal development of children: (a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child
(a) Being in a community where there is armed conflict prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the
or being affected by armed conflict-related following:
activities; (1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(b) Working under conditions hazardous to life, safety (2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute
and normal which unduly interfere with their by means of written or oral advertisements or other
normal development; similar means;
(c) Living in or fending for themselves in the streets of (3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute; to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under paragraph
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other (b) of Section 5:
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage ● when any person is receiving services from a child in a
such child in prostitution. sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of similar establishments. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or than that prescribed for the consummated felony under
subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators the attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution under
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape this Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal
and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Code.
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when Section 7:
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be Child Trafficking. – Any person who shall engage in trading and
reclusion temporal in its medium period; and dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other
manager or owner of the establishment where the consideration, or barter, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed in its
place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover maximum period when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age.
or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity
for which the license has been issued to said establishment. Section 8:
Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking. – There is an attempt to
Section 6: commit child trafficking:
Attempt to Commit Child Prostitution. – There is an attempt to (a) When a child travels alone to a foreign country without
commit child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a): valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the
● when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle permit or justification from the child's parents or legal
of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or guardian;
other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other (b) When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring
hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would institution recruits women or couples to bear children for
lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about the purpose of child trafficking; or
(c) When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse, (iii) Exploitation
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates (iv) To be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to
birth for the purpose of child trafficking; or the child's development
(d) When a person engages in the act of finding children (v) including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential
among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the
day-care centers, or other child-during institutions who can Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the
be offered for the purpose of child trafficking. penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor,
Section 9: twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more
Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows. – Any person who shall his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer
hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or
obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video, massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar
or model in obscene publications or pornographic materials or to places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
sell or distribute the said materials shall suffer the penalty of maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
prision mayor in its medium period. pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not
apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree
If the child used as a performer, subject or seller/distributor is of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law,
below twelve (12) years of age, the penalty shall be imposed in its local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a
maximum period. social, moral or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any
Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any capacity with one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a
the care of a child who shall cause and/or allow such child to be minor as provided in the preceding paragraph shall suffer
employed or to participate in an obscene play, scene, act, movie or the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine
show or in any other acts covered by this section shall suffer the of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided,
penalty of prision mayor in its medium period. however, That should the perpetrator be an ascendant,
stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be
Section 10: imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a
Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. – loss of parental authority over the minor.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of (d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
(i) Child abuse operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
(ii) Cruelty whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along
the child's parent or guardian, with the express
with him to such place or places any minor herein described
agreement of the child concerned, if possible, and
shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium
the approval of the Department of Labor and
period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
Employment
(P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate such a
(b) Provided, that the following requirements in all
place or establishment.
instances are strictly complied with:
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a
(i) The employer shall ensure the protection,
street child or any other child to;
health, safety and morals of the child;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(ii) The employer shall institute measures to
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
prevent the child's exploitation or
pushing; or
discrimination taking into account the
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the
system and level of remuneration, and the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium period
duration and arrangement of working
to reclusion perpetua.
time; and

(iii) The employer shall formulate and
General Rule: Children below 15 years old cannot be employed. implement, subject to the approval and
supervision of competent authorities, a
Exception: continuing program for training and skill
(1) When a child works directly under the sole responsibility acquisition of the child.
of his parents or legal guardian and where only members
of the employer's family are employed Before engaging child, secure a work permit from the
(a) Provided, however, that his employment neither Department of Labor and Employment.
endangers his life, safety and health and morals,
nor impairs his normal development Absolute Prohibition: child models in commercials/ads
(b) Provided, further, that the parent or legal guardian promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating drinks, tobacco and
shall provide the said minor child with the its byproducts, and violence.
prescribed primary and/or secondary education

(2) When a child's employment or participation in public &
Hours of Work of a Working Child (RA 9231)
entertainment or information through cinema, theater,
radio or television is essential Age Hours of Work
(a) Provided, the employment contract concluded by
Below 15 Not more than
psychologically or may prejudice morals
20 hours a week / 4 hours a day
c. Is performed underground, underwater or at

dangerous heights
Not allowed to work between
d. Involves the use of dangerous machinery,
8:00 PM-6:00 AM
equipment and tools such as power-driven or
15 years old and Not more than explosive power-actuated tools
below 18 40 hours a week / 8 hours a day e. Exposes the child to physical danger such as, but
not limited to the dangerous feats of balancing,
Not allowed to work between physical strength or contortion, or which requires
10:00 PM-6:00 AM the manual transport of heavy loads
f. Is performed in an unhealthy environment exposing
the child to hazardous working conditions,
Worst Forms of Child Labor (RA 9231) elements, substances, co-agents or processes
1. All forms of slavery, as defined under the "Anti-trafficking in involving ionizing, radiation, fire, flammable
Persons Act of 2003", or practices similar to slavery such as substances, noxious components and the like, or to
sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom extreme temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations
and forced or compulsory labor, including recruitment of g. Is performed under particularly difficult conditions
children for use in armed conflict h. Exposes the child to biological agents such as
2. The use, procuring, offering or exposing of a child for bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoans, nematodes and
prostitution, for the production of pornography or for other parasites
pornographic performances i. Involves the manufacture or handling of explosives
3. The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal or illicit and other pyrotechnic products
activities, including the production and trafficking of
dangerous drugs and volatile substances prohibited under Atty Iyok: Includes muro-ami fishing and m
ining.
existing laws
4. Work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is
carried out, is hazardous or likely to be harmful to the
health, safety or morals of children, such that it:
a. Debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a human being
b. Exposes the child to physical, emotional or sexual
abuse, or is found to be highly stressful
RA 7610 | Child Abuse and unresponsiveness to questions are all
Case Doctrines insufficient to conclude that AAA is suffering
from retardation such that she was unable to
Section 5(b) comprehend the consequences of consenting
Requisites: to a sexual act.
(1) The accused commits acts of sexual intercourse OR
lascivious conduct People v. Larin The law not only covers a situation in which a
(2) Act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution OR child is abused for profit but also covers a
subject to other sexual abuse situation in which a child engages in any
(3) The child whether male or female is below 18 years old. lascivious conduct due to force or intimidation.
Thus, Section 5(b) penalizes, not only child
People v. Abello People v. Abello prostitution (essence is profit), but also all
& For a victim with a physical or mental disability other forms of sexual/child abuse of children.
People v. Base or condition be considered a “child” under RA
and Bermas 7610, it must be proven, upon evaluation of a Moral coercion or ascendancy is enough. A
qualified physician, psychologist, or victim’s submissiveness to a person in position
psychiatrist, that such victim is incapable of of power (who may be a parent or an adult who
taking care of him/herself fully because of such has had some continued relationship of trust
disability and condition or of protecting with the child) does not exonerate the latter
him/herself from abuse. from criminal liability, as the law does not
require physical violence on the person of the
Polio a lone, absent any finding that a 21-year victim.
old individual is incapable of taking care of
herself or protecting herself from abuse, is Quimvel v. People A violation of Section 5(b) occurs even though
insufficient. the accused committed sexual abuse agains
the child victim only once, even without a prior
People v. Base and Bermas sexual affront.
In making a diagnosis of mental retardation, a
thorough evaluation based on history, physical People v. Tulagan Controlling case on application of RA 7610,
and laboratory examination made by a particularly Section 5(b). Please see tables below
clinician is necessary. Claims of for (nomenclature of) penalties.
hard-headedness, uttering senseless words,
Section 10 Bongalon v. It is only when the laying of hands is shown
Any person who shall commit any other acts of: People beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the
(1) Child abuse accused to debase, degrade, or demean the
(2) Cruelty intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a
(3) Exploitation; OR human being should it be punished as child
(4) Be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's abuse.
development
Accused acted only in the spur of anger, and
including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. should be liable for slight physical injuries
603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as under Article 266(1) of the RPC (He only hit the
amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum child in the neck). The mitigating
period. circumstances of passion or obfuscation are
also considered as accused acted under the
De Guzman v. The law expressly penalizes any person who belief that the victim had thrown stones at his
Perez commits other acts of neglect, child abuse, two minor daughters ad burned his daughter’s
cruelty or exploitation, or be responsible for hair.
other conditions prejudicial to the child’s
development including those in Article 59 of Atty Iyok: If accused had slapped or hit the victim
PD 603 but must not be covered by the Revised in the face, it may become a case of child abuse.
Penal Code.
Rosales v. People Any act of discipline and an exercise of loco
In this case, neglect of a child punished under parentis (by teachers) is considered child abuse
Article 59 of PD 603 is also a crime penalized if it is unnecessary, violent and excessive.
under Article 277, par. 2 of the RPC
(abandonment of minors). Hence, it is excluded The act of child abuse need not be habitual.
from the coverage of RA 7610.
Jabalde v. People The spontaneity of the acts of the accused
Araneta v. People Unlike the fourth kind of child abuse under against the victim is just a product of the
Section 10, the first three kinds (commits any instinctive reaction of a mother to rescue her
other acts of child abuse, cruelty, or own child from harm and danger.
exploitation) do not require that the act be
prejudicial to the child’s development. Torres v. People Petitioner’s act of whipping victim on the neck
with a wet t-shirt in a public place is an act
that debases, degrades, and demeans the national comprehensive program for the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child. It is a survival of the most vulnerable members of the
form of cruelty. population.
Escolano v. Debasement - act of reducing the value,

People quality, or purity of something

Degradation - act of lessening a person’s or
thing’s character or reputation

Demean - to lower in status, condition,
reputation or character

Utterances of the accused were not considered
by the court as to have intended to debase,
degrade, or demean the child victim.
Patulot v. People While there was no intent per se t o debase,
degrade, or demean the children, there was
nonetheless an intent to commit a wrongful
act by throwing the boiling oil towards the
mother of the victims which instead hit and
inflicted injuries upon the 3-year old minor and
the 2-month old baby.

Under Article 4 of the RPC, a person commits a
felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended. Thus,
accused remains liable.

The Court stresses that RA 7610 is a measure
geared towards the implementation of a
PENALTIES UNDER RA 7610 or CHILD ABUSE LAW
Based from People v. Tulagan

SEXUAL BELOW 12 OR DEMENTED 12 TO BELOW 18 OR 18 & ABOVE, 18 & ABOVE
INTERCOURSE Sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12 WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
years of age or is demented IS ALWAYS STATUTORY
RAPE.
EIPSOSA CRIME CRIME CRIME

Statutory rape Sexual abuse in relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 Rape
Article 266-A, par. 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B of Article 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B of
the RPC the RPC

IMPOSABLE PENALTY IMPOSABLE PENALTY IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the
RPC perpetua RPC

EXCEPTION
When the victim is below 7 years old, the crime is
considered as Qualified Rape, with the penalty of
death
Inducer CRIME CRIME CRIME

Statutory rape Sexual abuse in relation to Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Art. 266-A (1) of RPC in relation to Article 17
(principal by inducement) and Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610

IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the IMPOSABLE PENALTY
RPC Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua
EXCEPTION
death
Those who profit CRIME CRIME CRIME

Statutory rape Sexual abuse in relation to Sec. 5(c) of RA 7610 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
(motel owner, etc.) Art. 266-A (1) of RPC in relation to Article 17
(principal by indispensable cooperation) and Sec. 5(c)
of RA 7610

IMPOSABLE PENALTY IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
RPC perpetua

EXCEPTION
death
With consent CRIME No crime No crime

Statutory rape
Article 266-A, par. 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B of
NOTE: Consent is the RPC

immaterial if victim is IMPOSABLE PENALTY
under 12 years old Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the
RPC

EXCEPTION
death
Force, threat and CRIME CRIME CRIME

Statutory rape Rape Rape
intimidation and Article 266-A, par. 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B of Article 266-A, par. 1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of Article 266-A, par. 1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of
deprived of reason the RPC the RPC the RPC

Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the
RPC RPC RPC

EXCEPTION
death
With consent, virgin, CRIME CRIME No crime

Statutory rape Qualified seduction
offender is a person Article 266-A, par. 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B of Article 337 of the RPC EXCEPTION
in authority the RPC If incestuous (victim is sister or any descendant),
Qualified Seduction, par. 2
Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Prision correccional i n its minimum and medium
RPC periods
EXCEPTION EXCEPTION
When the victim is below 7 years old, the crime is If incestuous (victim is sister or any descendant),
considered as Qualified Rape, with the penalty of penalty next higher, Qualified Seduction, par. 2
death
With agent, through CRIME CRIME CRIME

Statutory rape Simple seduction Rape
deceit, virgin of good Article 266-A, par. 1(d) in relation to Article 266-B of Article 338 of the RPC Article 266-A, par. 1(c) in relation to Article 266-B of
reputation the RPC the RPC

Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Arresto mayor Reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the
RPC RPC

EXCEPTION
death

SEXUAL ASSAULT BELOW 12 OR DEMENTED 12 TO BELOW 18 OR 18 & ABOVE, 18 & ABOVE
WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Statutory sexual assault Lascivious Conduct Sexual assault
Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso Section 5(b) of RA 7610 Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to Article 266-B of the
of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (concept of "sexual assault" subsumed under the term RPC
"Lascivious Conduct" used in the IRR)

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion Prision mayor, pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC
perpetua

Statutory sexual assault Lascivious Conduct in relation to Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso
of Section 5(b) of RA 7610

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua
Statutory sexual assault Lascivious Conduct in relation to Sec. 5(c) of RA 7610 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
(motel owner, etc.) Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso
of Section 5(b) of RA 7610

perpetua

Statutory sexual assault
Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso
NOTE: Consent is of Section 5(b) of RA 7610

under 12 years old Reclusion temporal in its medium period

Statutory sexual assault Sexual assault Sexual assault
intimidation and Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso Article 266-A, par. 2 of the RPC in relation to Article Article 266-A, par. 2 of the RPC in relation to Article
deprived of reason of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 266-B of the RPC 266-B of the RPC

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Prision mayor Prision mayor

Statutory sexual assault Sexual assault
offender is a person Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso Article 266-A par. 2(c) of the RPC in relation to Article
in authority of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 266-B of the RPC

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Prision mayor
With agent, through CRIME CRIME CRIME

Statutory sexual assault Sexual assault Sexual assault
deceit, virgin of good Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to the second proviso Article 266-A par. 2(c) of the RPC in relation to Article Article 266-A, par. 2(c) of the RPC in relation to Article
reputation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 266-B of the RPC 266-B of the RPC

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Prision mayor Prision mayor

ACTS OF BELOW 12 OR DEMENTED 12 TO BELOW 18 OR 18 & ABOVE, 18 & ABOVE
LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness Lascivious Conduct Acts of Lasciviousness
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second Section 5(b) of RA 7610 Article 336 of the RPC
proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (concept of "sexual assault" subsumed under the term
"Lascivious Conduct" used in the IRR)

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion Prision correccional
perpetua

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness Lascivious Conduct in relation to Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second
proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610

perpetua

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness Lascivious Conduct in relation to Sec. 5(c) of RA 7610 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
(motel owner, etc.) Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second
proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610

perpetua

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second
NOTE: Consent is proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610

under 12 years old Reclusion temporal in its medium period

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness
intimidation and Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second Article 336 of the RPC Article 336 of the RPC
deprived of reason proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610
Reclusion temporal in its medium period Prision correccional Prision correccional

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent of the
offender is a person Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second offended party
in authority proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 Article 339 of the RPC

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Arresto mayor
With agent, through CRIME CRIME No crime

Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent of the
deceit, virgin of good Article 336 of the RPC in relation to the second offended party
reputation proviso of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 Article 339 of the RPC

Reclusion temporal in its medium period Arresto mayor

J. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY advertise, promote, export or import any form of child
RA 9775 pornography
(4) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to
Definition of Terms: sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That
(1) Grooming - refers to the act of preparing a child or someone possession of three (3) or more articles of child pornography
who the offender believes to be a child for sexual activity or of the same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent
sexual relationship by communicating any form of child to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast
pornography. It includes online enticement or enticement (5) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue
through any other means for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to,
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in
(2) Luring - refers to the act of communicating, by means of a establishments purporting to be a legitimate business
computer system, with a child or someone who the offender (6) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication
believes to be a child for the purpose of facilitating the companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
commission of sexual activity or production of any form of entities, to distribute any form of child pornography
child pornography (7) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or
control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage,
(3) Pandering - refers to the act of offering, advertising, participate or assist in any form of child pornography
promoting, representing or distributing through any means (8) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child
any material or purported material that is intended to cause (9) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography
another to believe that the material or purported material (10) To willfully access any form of child pornography
contains any form of child pornography, regardless of the (11) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated
actual content of the material or purported material in this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when two (2) or more
Section 4: persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
Unlawful or Prohibited Acts of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it
(1) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to (12) To possess any form of child pornography.
perform in the creation or production of any form of child
pornography Syndicate - carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
(2) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child conspiring or confederating with one another
pornography

(3) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast,


SPL Midterms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPL Midterms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPL Midterms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This

Generic Aggravating Imposable penalty ​applied to its

IMPRISONMENT OF ​NOT MORE IN ALL OTHER CASES CASE DOCTRINES

4) ​Amandy v. People Denial of the probation application in this particular case is further

In 1980, ​Batas Pambansa Blg. 76 ​amended Section 9 of P.D. 968 by

RA 9775 Refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age RA 9775 (a) Offended party

Escolano v. Debasement - act of reducing the value,

EIPSOSA CRIME CRIME CRIME

Inducer CRIME CRIME CRIME

Those who profit CRIME CRIME CRIME

With consent CRIME No crime No crime

Force, threat and CRIME CRIME CRIME

With consent, virgin, CRIME CRIME No crime

With agent, through CRIME CRIME CRIME

EIPSOSA CRIME CRIME CRIME

Inducer CRIME CRIME CRIME

With consent CRIME No crime No crime

Force, threat and CRIME CRIME CRIME

With consent, virgin, CRIME CRIME No crime

With agent, through CRIME CRIME CRIME

EIPSOSA CRIME CRIME CRIME

Inducer CRIME CRIME CRIME

Those who profit CRIME CRIME CRIME

With consent CRIME No crime No crime

Force, threat and CRIME CRIME CRIME

With consent, virgin, CRIME CRIME No crime

With agent, through CRIME CRIME No crime

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Generic Aggravating Imposable penalty applied to its

IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE IN ALL OTHER CASES CASE DOCTRINES

4) Amandy v. People Denial of the probation application in this particular case is further

In 1980, Batas Pambansa Blg. 76 amended Section 9 of P.D. 968 by