Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Furthermore, considering the vintage of Act No. 4103 as earlier noted, this
holding is but an application and is justified under the rule of contemporanea
expositio. Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No.
7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code
in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and effects. In
fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, we have
applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at
prision correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the
medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now
in the effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code.
(People v Martin Simon)
OF RECLUSION PERPETUA
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
exceed one year.
i.
j.
In "People -vs- Conrado Lucas, 240 SCRA 66, the Supreme Court
declared that despite the amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal
Code, reclusion perpetua remained an indivisible penalty. Hence, the penalty
does not have any minimum, medium and maximum period. Hence, there is
no such penalty of medium period of reclusion perpetua.
(People versus Tiburcio Baculi, 246 SCRA)
IMPOSITION OF WRONG PENALTY:
IT DOES NOT OBTAIN FINALITY
NATURE OF PENALTY
QUALIFIED THEFT
Under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum of the
penalty for qualified theft is prision mayor to reclusion temporal. However,
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the crime shall
be two (2) degrees higher than the specified in Article 309 of the Code.
Under Article 74 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty higher by one
degree than another given penalty, and if such higher penalty is death, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua of forty (40) years with the accessory
penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused
shall not be entitled to pardon before the lapse of forty (40) years.
PURPOSES OF PROBATION:
a. to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing
him with personalized community based treatment;
b. to provide an opportunity for his reformation and reintegration into the
community;
If, during the trial, the accused was detained but, after trial, he was
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is still entitled to the full credit of
c.
The petition or application for probation must be filed directly with the
Court which sentenced the accused within 15 days from date of promulgation
of the decision convicting the accused, or in short within the period to appeal
otherwise the judgment shall become final and the accused shall be deemed
to have waived his right to probation.
Upon filing of petition for probation, the court shall suspend the
execution of sentence.
Likewise, the filing of a petition for probation shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal and in case an appeal is made immediately after
conviction, a filing of petition for probation still within the period to appeal,
that is within fifteen days from date of promulgation shall be deemed a
withdrawal of the appeal.
b. to report to the probation officer at least once a month during the period
of probation.
permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home
and place of work;
reside at premises approved by the court and not to change his residence
w/o prior written approval; and
satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the probationer and
not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of
conscience.
m. plant trees ( see circular of the SC )
Any government office may ask for the records of probation from the
court for its official use or from the administrator.
Sec. 29, PD 968:
VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF
PROBATION RECORDS. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six
months and one day to six years and a fine ranging from hundred to six
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who violates Section 17
hereof.
MODIFICATION OF CONDITION
OR PERIOD OF PROBATION
If the accused appeals his conviction for the purpose of totally reversing his
conviction, he is deemed to have waived his right to probation.
The rule that if the accused appeals his conviction only with respect to the
penalty, as he believes the penalty is excessive or wrong, as the penalty is
probationable, and the appellate court sustains the accused may still apply
for probation, has already been abandoned.
An appeal therefore,
irrespective of its purpose, to overturn the entire decision or only with respect
to penalty is a waiver to probation, has already been abandoned. An appeal
therefore, irrespective of its purpose, to overturn the entire decision or only
with respect to penalty is a waiver to probation.
PERIOD OF PROBATION
If the probationer has been sentenced to an imprisonment of not more than
one year, the probation shall not exceed two years;
In all other cases, not to exceed six years;
In case the penalty is fine, the probation shall not be less than the period of
subsidiary imprisonment nor more than twice of the subsidiary imprisonment.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS
OF PROBATION
The investigation report and the supervision and history of a
probationer obtained under PD No. 968 and under these rules shall be
privileged and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other
than the probation administration or the court concerned the court which
granted the probation or where the probation was transferred may allow the
probationer to inspect the aforesaid documents or his lawyer, whenever such
disclosure may be desirable or helpful to them.
The main criterion laid down by the Probation law in determining who may be
granted probation is based on the penalty imposed and not on the nature of
the crime. By the relative lightness of the offense, as measured by the
penalty imposed, more than by its nature, as the law so ordains the offender
is not such a serious menace to society as to be wrested away therefrom, as
the more dangerous type of criminals should be. Hence, in the case at bar,
the first reason given by the respondent judge for his denial of the petition for
probation that, "probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense
committed" would thus be writing into the law a new ground for disqualifying
a first-offender from the benefits of probation. (Santos v. Cruz-Pano,
1/17/83)
The accused must file a Petition for Probation within the period for appeal. If
the decision of conviction has become final and executory, the accused is
barred from filing a Petition for Probation (Pablo Francisco v. C.A., 4/6/95).
Probation is a mere privilege and its grant rests solely upon the discretion of
the court. As aptly noted in U.S. vs. Durken, this discretion is to be
exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society and only incidentally
for the benefit of the accused. (Tolentino v. Alconcel, G.R. No. 63400,
3/18/83). Even if a convicted person is not included in the list of offenders
disqualified from the benefits of a decree, the grant of probation is
nevertheless not automatic or ministerial, (Pablo Bernardo v. Balagot, 215
SCRA 526) therefore a petition for probation may be denied by the Court.
A judgment of conviction becomes final when the accused files a petition for
probation. However, the judgement is not executory until the petition for probation is
resolved. The filing of the petition for probation is a waiver by the accused of his right
to appeal the judgement of conviction (Heirs of Francisco Abueg v. C.A., supra).
." Evidently, the law does not intend to sum up the penalties imposed
but to take each penalty, separately and distinctly with the others.
Consequently, even if petitioner was supposed to have served his prison
term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of
prision correccional sixteen (16) times as he was sentenced to serve the
prison term for "each crime committed on each date of each case, as alleged
in the information(s)," and in each of the four (4) informations, he was
charged with having defamed the four (4) private complainants on four (4)
different, separate days, he was still eligible for probation, as each prison
term imposed on petitioner was probationable. (Francisco v. CA; 4/16/95)
VIOLATION OF RA 6425,
A VALID CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL
IN SERVICE IN THE GOVERNMENT
DESPITE PROBATION
hopes that" Mr. Cuevas, Jr., "will continue with the assistance he has been
giving to his community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to
render legal and other services to the more unfortunate members of society".
(In Re: Cuevas, Jr.; 1/27/98)
robbing and stealing have become profitable. Hence, a law was enacted to also punish those
who buy stolen properties. For if there are no buyers then the malefactors could not profit
from their wrong doings.
WHAT IS FENCING LAW AND HOW IT CAN BE COMMITTED
"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself
or for another, shall buy receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him,
to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. A
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or
other organization who/ which commits the act of fencing.
The mere expiration of the period for probation does not, ipso facto,
terminate the probation. Probation is not co-terminus with its period, there
must be an order from the Court of final discharge, terminating the probation.
If the accused violates the condition of the probation before the issuance of
said order, the probation may be revoked by the Court (Manuel Bala v.
Martinez, 181 SCRA 459).
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF FENCING; AND ITS PENALTIES:
ANTI-FENCING LAW
OF 1979 (PD NO. 1612)
The person liable is the one buying, keeping, concealing and selling
the stolen items. If the fence is a corporation, partnership, association or firm,
the one liable is the president or the manager or the officer who knows or
should have know the fact that the offense was committed.
DEFINITION
Fencing as defined in Sec. 2 of PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows or should be known
to him, or to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, GR 111426, 11 July 94).
The law provide for penalty range for persons convicted of the crime
of fencing. Their penalty depends on the value of the goods or items stolen
or bought:
a.
b.
c.
The Anti-Fencing Law was made to curtail and put an end to the rampant robbery of
government and private properties. With the existence of "ready buyers", the "business" of
5.
"Station Commander" shall refer to the Station
Commander of the Integrated National Police within the territorial limits of the
town or city district where the store, establishment or entity dealing in the
buying and selling of used secondhand articles is located.
d.
e.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if
such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50
pesos.
f.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if
such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
The law requires the establishment engaged in the buy and sell of
goods to obtain a clearance or permit to sell "used second hand items",
to give effect to the purpose of the law in putting an end to buying and
selling stolen items. Failure of which makes the owner or manager liable
as a fence.
1.
The Station Commander shall require the owner of a store or
the President, manager or responsible officer in having in stock used secondhand
articles, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice for
the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days within five
(5) days after the period covered, which shall contain:
a.
complete inventory of such articles including the names and
addresses from whom the articles were acquired.
b.
Full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale including the time
and place of sale
c.
Place where the articles are presently deposited.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The Implementing Rules provides for the guidelines of issuance of
clearances or permits to sell used or secondhand items and it provided for
the definition of the following terms:
1.
"Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods,
article, items, object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer
or supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been used.
2.
"Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons,
partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other entity or
establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business of
dealing in or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph;
2.
Those who wish to secure the permit/clearance, shall file an
application with the Station Commander concerned, which states:
a.
name, address and other pertinent circumstances
b.
article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name
and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article was
acquired.
c.
Include the receipt or document showing proof of legitimacy of
acquisition.
3.
The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached
to the application and may require the presentation of other additional documents, if
necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the article,
subject to the following conditions:
3.
"Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed to
include any individual dealing in the buying and selling used secondhand
articles, as defined in paragraph hereof;
4.
"Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one
purchases used secondhand articles for the purpose of resale to third
persons;
a.
if the Station Commander is not satisfied with the proof of
legitimacy of acquisition, he shall cause the publication of the notice, at the expense
of the one seeking clearance/permit, in a newspaper of general circulation for two
consecutive days, stating:
> articles acquired from unlicensed dealer or supplier
> the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were
acquired
> that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at
the address of the store, establishment or other entity seeking the
clearance/permit.
4.
If there are no newspapers in general circulation, the party
seeking the clearance/permit shall, post a notice daily for one week on the bulletin
board of the municipal building of the town where the store, firm, establishment or
entity is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles in his possession
are to be sold or offered for sale.
5.
If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of
the notice, no claim is made to any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the
Station Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought.
6.
If before expiration of the same period for the publication of the
notice or its posting, it shall appear that any of the articles in question is stolen
property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as evidence in any
appropriate case to be filed.
Articles held in restraint shall kept and disposed of as the
circumstances of each case permit. In any case it shall be the
duty of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the
Commission on Audit of the case and comply with such
procedure as may be proper under applicable existing laws,
rules and regulations.
7.
The Station Commander shall, within seventy-two (72) hours
from receipt of the application, act thereon by either issuing the clearance/permit
requested or denying the same. Denial of an application shall be in writing and shall
state in brief the reason/s thereof.
8.
Any party not satisfied with the decision of the Station
Commander may appeal the same within 10 days to the proper INP (now PNP)
District Superintendent and further to the INP (now PNP) Director. The decision of
the Director can still be appealed top the Director-General, within 10 days, whose
decision may be appealed with the Minister (now Secretary) of National Defense,
within 15 days, which decision is final.
10
On the same vein, the third element did not exist in the case of D.M.
Consunji, Inc. (Consunji v. Esguerra, 07/30/96) where the subject of the court
action are the alleged stolen phelonic plywood owned by D.M. Consunji, Inc.,
later found to be in the premises of MC Industrial Sales and Seato trading
Company, owned respectively by Eduardo Ching and the spouses Sy.
Respondents presented sales receipts covering their purchase of the items
from Paramount Industrial, which is a known hardware store in Caloocan,
thus they had no reason to suspect that the said items were products of theft.
11
DISTINCTION BETWEEN
FENCING AND ROBBERY.
ACTS PUNISHABLE IN BP 22
a.
any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on
account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank, for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, or credit, or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawee, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
12
b.
Any person who having sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the
full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety days from date
appearing thereon, for which reason, it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
c.
Any person who issue any check whose account already closed
whether the drawee knows that his account is closed or not.
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES
REGARDING THE CHECK
IS NOT A DEFENSE
NOTICE, AN INDISPENSABLE
REQUISITE FOR PROSECUTION
13
14
from the fact of drawing, issuing or making a check, the payment of which
was subsequently refused for insufficiency of funds. It is important to stress,
however, that this is not a conclusive presumption that forecloses or
precludes the presentation of evidence to the contrary. (Lim Lao v CA 274
SCRA 572)
This ruling was reiterated in the case of Lim vs. Rodrigo, 167 SCRA
487, where it was held:
Besides, it was held in People v. Hon. Manzanilla, supra, that as
"violation of the bad checks act is committed when one 'makes or draws and
issues any check [sic] to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time
issue that he does not have sufficient funds' or having sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank . . . shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a
period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason
it is dishonored by the drawee bank," "knowledge" is an essential ingredient
of the offense charge. As defined by the statute, knowledge, is, by itself, a
continuing eventuality, whether the accused be within one territory or
another. This being the case, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City has
jurisdiction to try Criminal Case No. 2089-R (688).
In the case at bench it appears that the three (3) checks were
deposited in Lucena City. As to the second error wherein the petitioner
asserted that the checks were issued "as a guarantee only for the feeds
delivered to him" and that there is no estafa if a check is issued in payment of
a pre-existing obligation, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the petitioner
obviously failed to distinguish a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 from estafa under
Article 315 (2) [d] of the Revised Penal Code. It further stressed that B.P.
Blg. 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks were issued as a
guarantee or for deposit only, for it makes no distinction as to whether the
checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or
merely to guarantee the said obligation and the history of its enactment
evinces the definite legislative intent to make the prohibition all-embracing.
(Ibasco vs CA, 261 SCRA 572)
15
(g)
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
(h)
Corrupt practices of public officers.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i)
( j)
16
c. the public officer acted with manifest partiality evident bad faith or
gross, inexcusable negligence; and
xxx
the
xxx
(e).
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees
of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions.
17
PRE-CONDITION OF SUSPENSION
(PREVENTIVE) UNDER SEC. 13, RA 3019
It is mandatory for the court to place under preventive suspension a
public officer accused before it. Imposition of suspension, however, is not
automatic or self-operative. A pre-condition thereof is the existence of a valid
information, determined at a pre-suspension hearing. Such a hearing is in
accord with the spirit of the law, considering the serious and far-reaching
consequences of a suspension of a public official even before his conviction,
and the demands of public interest for a speedy determination of the issues
involved in the case. The purpose of the pre-suspension hearing is basically
to determine the validity of the information and thereby furnish the court with
a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the
merits of the case, or refuse suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or
correct any part of the proceeding which impairs its validity. The accused
should be given adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of
the criminal proceedings against him; e.g. that he has not been afforded the
right to due preliminary investigation; that the acts imputed to him do not
constitute a specific crime (under R.A. 3019 or the Revised Penal Code)
warranting his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of the Act;
or that the information is subject to quashal on any of the grounds set out in
Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. But once a proper determination of the
validity of the information has been made, it becomes the ministerial duty of
18
the court to forthwith issue the order of preventive suspension. The court has
no discretion, for instance, to hold in abeyance the suspension of the
accused official on the pretext that the order denying the latter's motion to
quash is pending review before the appellate courts.
(Segovia v.
Sandiganbayan; GR 124067, Mar. 27, 1998)
Graft Act or for bribery under a valid information requires at the same
time that the hearing be expeditious, and not unduly protracted such as
to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the Act. Hence, if the
trial court, say, finds the ground alleged in the quashal motion not to be
indubitable, then it shall be called upon to issue the suspension order
upon its upholding the validity of the information and setting the same
for trial on the merits.' (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan)
GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED
IN PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION CASES
"In the leading case of Luciano, et al. vs. Mariano, et al. (L-32950,
July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 187), we have set out the guidelines to be followed
by the lower courts in the exercise of the power of suspension under Section
13 of the law, to wit:
(c)
By way of broad guidelines for the lower courts in
the exercise of the power of suspension from office of public officers
charged under a valid information under the provisions of Republic Act
No. 3019 or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
bribery, pursuant to section 13 of said Act, it may be briefly stated that
upon the filing of such information, the trial court should issue an order
with proper notice requiring the accused officer to show cause at a
specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from
office pursuant to the cited mandatory provisions of the Act. Where
either the prosecution seasonably files a motion for an order of
suspension or the accused in turn files a motion to quash the
information or challenges the validity thereof, such show-cause order
of the trial court would no longer be necessary. What is indispensable
is that the trial court duly hear the parties at a hearing held for
determining the validity of the information, and thereafter hand down its
ruling, issuing the corresponding order of suspension should it uphold
the validity of the information or withhold such suspension in the
contrary case.
xxx
xxx
(c)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions."
To hold a person liable under this section, the concurrence of the
following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution:
"(1) That the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in
conspiracy with the former;
(2) That said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the
performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public
positions;
(3) That he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the
government or a private party; and
(4)
That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence."
(Llorente v. Sandiganbayan;
GR 122166, Mar. 11, 1998)
(d)
No specific rules need be laid down for such presuspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the accused should be
given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the
criminal proceedings against him, e.g., that he has not been afforded
the right of due preliminary investigation, the act for which he stands
charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act
No. 3019 or of the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which
would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13
of the Act, or he may present a motion to quash the information on any
of the grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The
mandatory suspension decreed by the act upon determination of the
pendency in court or a criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-
19
a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud. (Spiegel v Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2nd
Series 895, 1007). It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with
furtive design or some motive of self interest or ill will for ulterior purposes
(Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167). Evident bad faith
connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong
or cause damage."
In Jacinto, evident bad faith was not appreciated because the actions
taken by the accused were not entirely without rhyme or reason; he refused
to release the complainant's salary because the latter failed to submit her
daily time record; he refused to approve her sick-leave application because
he found out that she did not suffer any illness; and he removed her name
from the plantilla because she was moonlighting during office hours. Such
actions were measures taken by a superior against an erring employee who
studiously ignored, if not defied, his authority.
(Llorente v.
Sandiganbayan)
SUSPENSION (PREVENTIVE) OF
LOCAL OFFICIALS SHALL ONLY
BE FOR 60 DAYS
On the other hand, we find merit in petitioner's second assigned
error. The Sandiganbayan erred in imposing a 90 day suspension upon
petitioner for the single case filed against him. Under Section 63 (b) of the
Local Government Code, "any single preventive suspension of local elective
officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days."
(Rios v. Sandiganbayan; GR 129913, Set. 26, 1997)
"(f)
Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any
matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary
or material benefit or advantage, or for purpose of favoring his own
interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating
against any other interested party."
Here, the neglect or refusal to act within a reasonable time is the
criminal act, not the causing of undue injury. Thus, its elements are:
20
The trial court has thus held incorrectly in considering appellant, who
is legally married to Roxan's natural grandmother, as among those named in
the enumeration. Appellant is merely a step-grandparent who obviously is
neither an "ascendant" nor a "step-parent" of the victim. In the recent case of
People vs. Atop, 24 the Court rejected the application of the mandatory death
penalty to the rape of a 12-year old victim by the common-law husband of the
girl's grandmother. The Court said:
21
'punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the
punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in
the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous,
something more than the mere extinguishment of life.'"
A reading of Section 19 (1) of Article III will readily show that there is
really nothing therein which expressly declares the abolition of the death
penalty. The provision merely says that the death penalty shall not be
imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes the
Congress hereafter provides for it and, if already imposed, shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua. The language, while rather awkward, is still plain
enough". (People v. Echegaray)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
22
(6)
(22)
(23)
(24)
Qualified bribery
23
(People v. Echegaray)
(4)
Rape with the victim becoming insane, rape with homicide and
qualified
TWO INSTANCES WHEN DEATH MAY
BE IMPOSED WHEN CONSTRUED
UNDER RA 7659
xxx
xxx
Thus, construing R.A. No. 7659 in pari materia with the Revised
Penal Code, death may be imposed when (1) aggravating circumstances
attend the commission of the crime as to make operative the provision of the
Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the maximum penalty; and
(2) other circumstances attend the commission of the crime which indubitably
characterize the same as heinous in contemplation of R.A. No. 7659 that
justify the imposition of the death, albeit the imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death. (People v. Echegaray)
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1.
when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the commonlaw spouse of the parent or the victim.
2.
when the victim is under the custody of the police or military
authorities.
3.
when the rape is committed in full view of the husband,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of
consanguinity.
4.
when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7)
years old
5.
when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6.
when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement
agency.
7.
when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has suffered permanent physical mutilation." (Sec. 11 )
(5)
The maximum penalty [of death] shall be imposed if the offense was
committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more
persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain in the commission of any crime." (Sec. 23) include those in
R.A. 7165
24
Appellant in this case was convicted and meted the penalty of life
imprisonment and fine of twenty thousand pesos under RA 6425 for
transporting more or less 6 kilos of marijuana on July 1990. RA 7659, which
took effect on December 31/93, amended the provisions of RA 6425,
increasing the imposable penalty for the sale or transport of 750 grams or
more of marijuana to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Such penalty is not favorable
to the appellant as it carries the accessory penalties provided under the RPC
and has a higher amount of fine which in accordance with ART 22 of the
same code should not be given retroactive effect. The court, therefore, finds
and so holds that the penalty of life imprisonment and fine in the amount of
twenty thousand pesos correctly imposed by the trial court should be
retained. (PP v Carreon, 12/9/97)
25
for certain heinous crimes, including robbery with homicide and robbery with
rape. By the same statute, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code was
amended to read as follows: "Any person guilty of robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation on any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall
have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. . . .
(Emphasis supplied) Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. No. 7659, however, cannot be applied retroactively in this case. To do
so would be to subject the appellant to the death penalty which could not
have been constitutionally imposed by the court a quo under the law in effect
at the time of the commission of the offenses. (People v. Timple)
26
Moreover, under the present rule, for the accused to continue his
provisional liberty on the same bail bond during the period to appeal, consent
of the bondsman is necessary. From the record, it appears that the
bondsman, AFISCO Insurance Corporation, filed a motion in the trial court
on January 06, 1987 for the cancellation of petitioners' bail bond for the
latter's failure to renew the same upon its expiration. Obtaining the consent
of the bondsman was, thus, foreclosed. ( Aniceto Sabbun Maguddatu and
Laureana Sabbun Maguddatu, Petitioners, -vs- Honorable COURT OF
APPEALS (Fourth Division and People of the Philippines, Respondents.
G.R. No. 139599, Feb. 23, 2000)
WHEN ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH IS PRESENT.
USE OF MOTOR
CIRCUMSTANCE
VEHICLE
AS
QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING
The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same
was perpetrated by means thereof. (PP -vs- THADEOS ENGUITO
Defendant-Appellant. G.R. 128812, Feb. 28, 2000)
ELEMENTS OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
27
(1) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2)
an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination;
and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution
to allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his act. (PP -vsROGELIO GALAM, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 114740, Feb. 15, 2000)
Moreover, Milyn Ruales also testified that the knife used by accused
was hidden from view. Thus, Isabel Ruales was not prepared for such a
violent attack, especially considering that, at the time, she was unarmed and
was burdened with a large basket filled with about six kilos of corn and dried
fish hanging from her shoulders and thus, could not have possibly warded off
the blow or run away from her assailant. Although Milyn Ruales described
the attack having been frontal, this does not negate treachery since the
essence of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack,
giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.
Thus, we hold that the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. (PP -vs- CORNELIA SUELTO alias "ELY" alias
"ROGELIA SUELTO", G.R. No. 126097, Feb. 8, 2000)
(c)
changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the
law annexed to the crime when committed;
(d)
alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon
less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
"The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who goes to
another's house to slander him, hurt him or do him wrong, is more guilty than
he who offends him elsewhere." (PP -vs- JOSE & NESTOR BiAS,
Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 121630, Dec. 8, 1999)
(e)
assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes
penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(f)
28
SECTION 2.
Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Explosives. The penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal and a fine of not
less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire,
dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other
explosives, including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail
bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of
producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury
or death to any person.
29
SECTION 3.
Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4.
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 6. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
Lawfully Manufactured Explosives. The penalty of prision
correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
repack, alter or modify the composition of any lawfully manufactured
explosives."
SECTION 5.
Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. The term
unlicensed firearm shall include:
1) firearms with expired license; or
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of
the crime.
We stress that the essence of the crime penalized under P.D. 1866
is primarily the accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess the
firearm, ammunition or explosive as possession by itself is not prohibited by
law. (People v. Cortez, 324 scra 335, 344)
b.
the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not
have the license or permit to possess the same. (People v. Castillo, 325 SCRA 613)
30
Thus, the unauthorized use of a weapon which has been duly licensed in the
name of its owner/possessor may still aggravate the resultant crime. In the case at
bar, although appellants may have been issued their respective licenses to possess
firearms, their carrying of such weapons outside their residences and their
unauthorized use thereof in the killing of the victim may be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in imposing the proper penalty for murder. (Pp. V. Molina;
Gr 115835-36; July 22, 1998)
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1.
upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380
or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture
of any firearm or ammunition
2.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
31
5.
1.3.
6.
Any person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or erase
the serial number of any firearm.
7.
Any person who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the
composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives.
CRIME OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM
MALUM PROHIBITUM
The offense of illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum
punished by a special law, in which case good faith and absence of criminal
intent are not valid defenses. (People v De Gracia, 7/6/94)
1.
1.1.
1.2.
i.
ii.
iii.
32
iv.
outside his residence when he has no permit to carry it outside his residence
(Pastrano v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 287). A fortiori, the use of a
licensed firearm by one not licensed or permitted to use it would still be illegal
possession.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION BUT IN GOOD FAITH:
A security guard employed by a security agency and issued a
firearm by the agency has the right to assume that the firearm issued to him
is a licensed firearm. If it turns out that the firearm is not licensed, there is no
animus possidendi of an unlicensed firearm. (Cuenco v. People, 33 SCRA
522).
2.1 It is clear that where there is no other offense except the unlawful
possession of a firearm, the penalties provided for in the amended
Section 1 shall be imposed: prision correccional in its maximum
period for low-powered firearms, and prision mayor in its maximum
periods for high-powered firearms. Thus in People v. Nunez, G.R.
112092 (March 1, 2001) holds that a person may be convicted of
simple illegal possession if the illegal possession is proved and the
frustrated murder and murder case involving the use of the illegal
possession has not been sufficiently proved. People v. Avecilla,
G.R. 117033 (February 15, 2001) teaches that the crime of illegal
possession of firearms, in its simple form, is committed any of the
crimes of murder, homicide, rebellion, insurrection, sedition or
attempted coup detat.
33
34
35
NOTE: Under Republic Act 8294, the penalty depends upon the caliber of
the gun. Suppose there is no testimony as to the caliber of the gun?
Compare "People -vs- Wilfredo Filoteo," 290 SCRA 627 where the
accused was convicted of Murder and violation of PD 1866 and during the
pendency of the appeal, Republic Act 8294 took effect. Our Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction of the Accused of two (2) crime of Homicide and
violation of PD 1866, as amended, and applied the penalty for the crimes
under the amendment.
In "People -vs- Veriato Molina, et al.," 292 SCRA 742, our Supreme
Court En Banc declared that where the accused was convicted of said
crio,es, by the Trial Court but that during the pendency of the appeal, with the
Supreme Court, Republic Act 8294 took effect, the accused should only be
convicted of Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm as mere a special
aggravating circumstance.
Murder, under Republic Act 8294, is used in its generic term and,
hence, includes Parricide
(People versus Octavio Mendoza,
GR No. 109270-80, January 18,1999)
Under the amendment, the death penalty may now be imposed if the
accused is convicted of Murder with the use of licensed or unlicensed
firearms.
36
retroactively applied in the case at bar. It was thus error for the trial court to
convict the appellant of two (2) separate offenses, i.e., Homicide and Illegal
Possession of Firearms, and punish him separately for each crime. Based
on the facts of the case, the crime for which the appellant may be charged is
homicide, aggravated by illegal possession of firearm, the correct
denomination for the crime, and not illegal possession of firearm,
aggravated by homicide as ruled by the trial court, as it is the former
offense which aggravates the crime of homicide under the amendatory law.
37
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkietalkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in
the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either
before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person:
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3
hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
LISTENING TO CONVERSATION
IN EXTENSION LINE OF TELEPHONE
IS NOT WIRE-TAPPING
38
"a)
Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"b)
When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
"c)
By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
"d)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.
"2)
By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
39
conscious, when the man mounted her and lusted after her virtue. Her
justification was that she never objected to the sexual act from the start
because she thought that the man was her boyfriend with whom she was
having sex almost every night for the past three (3) weeks as they were
getting married and wanted already to have a baby. In other words, her urge
could not wait for the more appropriate time. (People v. Salarza, Jr.)
mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under the
circumstances, or to have courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.
Even in cases of rape of mature women, this Court recognized their different
and unpredictable reactions. Some may shout; some may faint; and some
may be shocked into insensibility; while others may openly welcome the
intrusion. (People v. Agbayani; GR 122770, Jan. 16, 98)
NATURE OF INTIMIDATION
IN RAPE CASES
40
held that a knife is a deadly weapon. (Pp. V. Alfeche; GR 124213, Aug. 17,
1998)
DWELLING AS AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE IN RAPE CASES
It is clear, however, that the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling is attendant in the commission of the crime. Article 14(5) of the
Revised Penal Code provides that this circumstance aggravates a felony
where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation. In the instant case, the aforesaid
circumstance of dwelling was definitely present in the commission of the
crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon. (Pp. V. Prades; GR 127569,
July 30, 1998)
41
stories are true. For that matter, no young Filipina of decent repute would
falsely and publicly admit that she had been ravished and abused
considering the social stigma thereof. People v Tabugoca, GR No. 125334)
HEINOUSNESS OF RAPE OF
ONES DESCENDANT
In the case before us, the accused raped his own flesh and blood at
such a tender age of eleven. He thus violated not only he purity and her trust
but also the mores of his society which he has scornfully defined. By
inflicting his animal greed on her in a disgusting coercion of incestuous lust,
he forfeits all respect as human being and is justly spurned by all, not least of
all, by the fruit of his own loins whose progeny he has forever stained with his
shameful and shameless lechery. People v jenelito Escober Y Resuento,
Nov 6/97)
MERE DISCIPLINARY CHASTISEMENT
IS NOT ENOUGH TO DOUBT CREDIBILITY
OF RAPE VICTIM WHO IS A DESCENDANT
Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make
daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame
and humiliation upon them and their own family and make them the object of
gossip among their classmates and friends.
It is unbelievable that
Jacqueline would fabricate a serious criminal charge just to get even with her
father and to emphasize with her sister. The sisters would not contrive
stories of defloration and charge their own father with rape unless these
42
EXAMINATIONS
NECESSARY
OF
ALL
SPECIMENS
IN
DRUG
CASES
NOT
The elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) that such act is accomplished by using force or
intimidation; or when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or when the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
43
there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assuming a situation of superiority notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor deliberately chosen by him in the commission of the crime. To
properly appreciate it, it is necessary to evaluate not only the physical
condition of the parties and the arms or objects employed but the incidents in
the total development of the case as well.
44
impair the complainant's credibility when the said variance does not alter the
essential fact that the complainant was raped. Variance as to the time and
date of the rape, the number of times it was committed or the garments
which the accused or the complainant wore at the time of the incident do not
generally diminish the complainant's credibility. However, the serious
discrepancy between the two sworn statements executed a day apart by the
complainant in this case, bearing on a material fact, is very substantial
because it pertains to the essential nature of the offense, i.e., whether the
offense was consummated or merely attempted. In People vs. Ablaneda,
wherein a housewife executed a sworn statement for attempted rape and
later changed the accusation to consummated rape without a rational
explanation, this Court held that the general rule does not apply when the
complainant completely changed the nature of her accusation.
The
contradiction does not concern a trivial or inconsequential detail but involves
the essential fact of the consummation of the rape. (PP -vs- ALBERT
ERNEST WILSON, G.R. No. 135915, Dec. 21, 1999)
45
gratification from a fiance, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext
of love. Love is not a license for lust." (PP -vs- DANTE CEPEDA Y
SAPOTALO, G.R. No. 124832, Feb. 1, 2000)
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IN CASES OF QUALIFIED RAPE
PLACES NOTORIOUS FOR HOLD-UPS DONE
CONSIDERED AGGRAVATING AS NIGHT TIME
AT
NIGHT
IS
Considering that the place where the crime took place was
"notorious for hold-ups done at night, precisely to maximize the advantage of
darkness," we cannot but agree with the trial court that nighttime was
purposely sought by accused-appellants "for the more successful
consummation may be perpetrated unmolested or so that they could escape
more thoroughly." (PP -vs- FELIMON ALIPAYO Y TEJADA, ET AL., G.R.
No. 122979, Feb. 2, 2000)
Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each
of the sixteen other rapes charged should be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The victim's testimony was overly generalized and lacked specific
details on how each of the alleged sixteen rapes was committed. Her bare
statement that she was raped so many times on certain weeks is clearly
inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish the guilt of accusedappellant insofar as the other sixteen rapes charged are concerned. In
People vs. Garcia this Court succinctly observed that:
xxx
the indefinite testimonial evidence that complainant was raped
every week is decidedly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish the
46
47
instituted the complainant for rape against the three to avoid being bruited
around as a woman of loose morals."
cudgels for them than for the woman to admit her own acts of indiscretion.
(PP -vs- ERWIN AGRESOR, G.R. Nos. 119837-39, Dec. 9, 1999)
48
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or
education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(2)
(3)
(4)
49
PD 1210
ARTICLE 192 OF PD 603 AS AMENDED IS FURTHER
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find
that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against him the
court shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit
such minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social Welfare, or to
any training institution operated by the government, or duly licensed
agencies or any other responsible person, until he shall have reached
twenty-one years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem
proper, after considering the reports and recommendations of the
Department of Social Welfare or the agency or responsible individual under
whose care he has been committed.
"Art. 192.
Suspension of sentence and Commitment of Youthful
Offender. - If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court
should find that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against
him, the court, shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil
liability chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment
of conviction, the court upon application of the youthful offender and if it finds
that the best interest of the public as well as that of the offender will be
served thereby, may suspend all further proceedings and commit such minor
to the custody or care of the Department of Social Services and
Development or to any training institution operated by the government or any
other responsible person until he shall have reached twenty one years of
age, or for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering
the reports and recommendations of the Department of Social Services and
Development or the government training institution or responsible person
under whose care he has been committed.
PD 1210
ARTICLE 191 OF PD 603 IS HEREBY
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS
"Article 101.
Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. - A
youthful offender held for physical and mental examination or trial or pending
appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall from the time of his arrest be committed
to the care of the Dept. of Social Services and Development or the local
rehabilitation center or a detention home in the province or city which shall be
responsible for his appearance in court whenever required: Provided, that in
the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable distance from
the venue of the trial, the provincial, city and municipal jail shall provide
quarters for youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court may,
in its discretion upon recommendation of the Department of Social Services
& Development or other agency or agencies50authorized by the CouRt,
rElease a youthFul offender on50recognizance, to the custody of his parents
or other suitable persoN who shall be responsible for his appearance
whenever required. However, in the case of those whose cases fall under the
The benefits of this article shall not apply to a youthful offender who
has once enjoyed suspension of sentence under its provisions or to one who
is convicted of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment or to one
who is convicted for an offense by the Military Tribunals.
PD 1179
APPEAL
The order of the court denying an application for suspension of sentence
under the provisions of Article 192 above shall not be appealable."
50
(b)
Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape
or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
When the youthful offender has reached the age of twenty-one while
in commitment, the court shall determine whether to dismiss the case in
accordance with the extent preceding article or to pronounce the judgment
conviction. In the latter case, the convicted offender may apply for probation
under the provisions of Presidential Decree Numbered Nine Hundred and
Sixty-Eight.
(c)
Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as
manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or
of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment
serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity
for which the license has been issued to said establishment.
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT
CHILD PROSTITUTION
RA 7610
CHILD ABUSE LAW
CHILD TRAFFICKING
51
Any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with children
including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for money,
or for any other consideration, or barter, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed in its maximum
period when the victim under twelve (12) years of age.
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT
CHILD TRAFFICKING
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking under Section 7 of this
Act:
(a)
When a child travels alone to a foreign country without valid
reason therefor and without clearance issued by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development or written permit or justification
from the child's parents or legal guardian;
(a)
Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to
the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential
Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
(b)
When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring
institution recruits women or couples to bear a children for the
purpose of child trafficking; or
(b)
Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor,
twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any
public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension
house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar
places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a
fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this
provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and
tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
(c)
When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse,
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates birth for
the purpose of child trafficking;
(d)
When a person engages in the act of finding children among
low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care centers,
or other child-during institutions who can be offered for the purpose
of child trafficking.
A penalty lower two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the
consummated felony under Section 7 hereof shall be imposed upon the
principals of the attempt to commit child trafficking under this Act.
(c)
Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any
one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as
provided in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor
in its medium period and a fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000); Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an ascendant,
stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be imposed shall be
prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority over the minor.
OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
AND INDECENT SHOWS
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce
a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or
in video, or model in obscene publications or pornographic materials or to
sell or distribute the said materials shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in
its medium period.
(d)
Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of may public or private place of accommodation, whether for
occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including residential places, who allows
any person to take along with him to such place or places any minor herein
described shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period
52
and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of
the license to operate such a place or establishment.
(d)
The safety and protection of those who provide services
including those involved in fact-finding missions from both government and
non-government institutions shall be ensured. They shall not be subjected to
undue harassment in the performance of their work;
(e)
Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a
street child or any other child to :
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
Public infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and rural
health units shall not be utilized for military purposes such as command
posts, barracks, detachments, and supply depots; and
(f)
All appropriate steps shall be taken to facilitate the reunion
of families temporarily separated due to armed conflict.
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts
punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1
of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of
murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries,
respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Article
337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal
Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the
consent of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade,
respectively, shall bE53One (
dEgree higher tHan that53imposed by law
when the victim is under twelve (12) years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the
care of the department of Social Welfare and Development.
(a)
Children shall not be the object of attack and shall be entitled
to special respect. They shall be protected from any form of threat, assault,
torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment;
(b)
Children shall not be recruited to become members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines of its civilian units or other armed groups,
nor be allowed to take part in the fighting, or used as guides, couriers, or
spies;
(c)
Delivery of basic social services such as education, primary
health and emergency relief services shall be kept unhampered;
53
CONFIDENTIALITY
At the instance of the offended party, his name may be withheld from
the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or
columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case of
television and radio broadcasting, producer and director of the film in case of
the movie industry, to cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case
of violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation and suffering of
the offended party.
RA 7658
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
Children below fifteen (15) years of age shall not be employed except:
1)
When a child works directly under the sole responsibility of
his parents or legal guardian and where only members of the employer's
family are employed: Provided, however, That his employment neither
endangers his life, safety, health and morals, nor impairs his normal
development; Provided, further, That the parent or legal guardian shall
provide the said minor child with the prescribed primary and/or secondary
education; or
2)
Where a child's employment or participation in public
entertainment or information through cinema, theater, radio or television is
essential: Provided, The employment contract is concluded by the child's
parents or legal guardian, with the express agreement of the child
concerned, if possible, and the approval of the Department of Labor and
54
Appellant Eduardo Cordova did not even ask for the suspension of
his arraignment on the ground that he was suffering from insanity. Paragraph
(a), Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the
arraignment of an accused who appears to be suffering from an unsound
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the
charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto, shall be suspended. In
the case at bar, Eduardo Cordova even took the witness stand to testify.
(Pp. V. Cordova, supra.)
55
case and order the final discharge56of said offender; or (2) to prOnounce the
judgment of conviction. In56Plain and siMpLe language, It is either dismIssal
or sENtence. (Pp. V. Garcia; supra.)
The Child and Youth Welfare Code does not apply to those
convicted of offenses punishable by death, or reclusion perpetua
(Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended by Presidential Decree N. 603, as
amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1179 and 1210). The fact is Bolioc is
now twenty-three years old. He is not entitled to a suspended sentence. He
is entitled to a two-degree reduction of the penalty (Art. 68, RPC).
(Pp. V. Mendez; GR L-48131; 5/30/83)
Essentially, the law imposes duties both to the access device issuer
and holder, and penalize certain acts deemed unlawful for being detrimental
to either the issuer or holder, or both.
The trial court has two alternative courses of action with respect to a
youthful offender whose sentence it had suspended and who is returned to
the court upon his reaching the age of majority. These are: (1) to dismiss the
56
credit card account the following: 1) annual percentage rate; 2) annual and
other fees; 3) and balance calculation method; 4) cash advance fee; and 5))
over the limit fee.
Clearly, in this case decided in 1999, the Court was concerned about
an access device issuer's vulnerability to abuse the provisions of the
contract. It is quite surprising, however, that the Court did not make reference
to RA No. 8484 to think that it was already in effect when the resolution was
promulgated.
Failure on the part of the issuer to fulfill the above requirements will
result in the suspension or cancellation of its authority to issue credit cards,
after due notice and hearing, by the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and such other government agencies.
The Court said notwithstanding the fact that the contract of the
parties is a contract of adhesion the same is valid. However, if the same
should include terms difficult to interpret as to hide the true intent to the
detriment of the holder, holding it void requires no hesitation. Thus, contracts
which provide for ambiguous terms of payment, imposition of charges and
fees may be held void invoking the principle of the contract of adhesion.
57
The law provides for sixteen (16) prohibited acts which refer to the
production, use, possession of or trafficking in unauthorized or counterfeit
access devices. It also includes acts deemed fraudulent that increase the
amount involved in commercial transactions using access devices. Obtaining
money or anything of value through the use of an access device with intent to
defraud or gain, and fleeing thereafter.
In the final analysis, the law basically seeks to address the issue of
fraud in the issuance and use of access devices, especially credit cards.
Fraud may be committed by the issuer by making false or vague information
in the application or solicitation to open credit card accounts. The applicant or
holder, on the other hand, fraudulently misrepresents himself by giving wrong
identity, false profession or employment, or bloated income.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Chemical Diversion the sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately
imported, in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any
person or entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug, and
shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling or concealment of
such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use of
permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.
58
1.
Under this Act there is no more distinction between prohibited drug and
regulated drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals enumerated in
Tables I and II of the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances.
2.
The penalties provided by R.A. 7659 was changed , adopting partially the
penalties in R.A. 6425.
3.
In planting evidence any person now maybe held liable. Before, only law
enforcement agents.
4.
Drug Syndicate Any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or
joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under
this Act.
59
60
rights shall also be suspended during the pendency of an appeal from such
conviction (Sec.35)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
DRUG RELATED CASES
1. Any elective local or national official found to have (1) benefited from the
proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in the Law, or has (2)
received any financial or material contributions or donations from natural or
juridical persons found guilty of trafficking dangerous drug as prescribed in the
law, shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any
elective or appointive positions in the government, its divisions, subdivisions, and
intermediaries, including government-owned or controlled corporations (\sec.27)
2. Any person found guilty of planting any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity, shall be
punished with death. (Sec. 29).
3. Any person violating any regulation issued by the Dangerous Drug Board
shall be punished with imprisonment ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years
and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00 in addition to the administrative
sanction which may be imposed by the Board (Sec. 32)
Any person who is found guilty of planting nay dangerous drug and/ or
controlled precursor and essential chemicals, regardless of quantity and purity,
shall suffer the penalty of death. (Sec. 29). Previosly, only law enforcement
agent maybe held liable (R.A. 7659).
ACCESORY PENALTIES
Any person convicted under this Law (R.A.9165) shall be disqualified to
exercise his/her civil rights such as, but not limited to, the right of parental
authority or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, the
rights to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos, and
political rights such as but not limited to, the right to vote and be voted for. Such
61
7.) Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party,
or a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at
least two (2) person.
8.) Possession or having under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit of intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body, during parties, social gatherings or
meetings, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) person
WHAT ARE THE PRIVILEGE NOT
AVAILABLE TO VIOLATOR OF THIS ACT?
1.) Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of
the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea-bargaining.
2.) Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this
Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail
of the privilege granted by the Probation Law of P.D. No. 968, as
amended, except minors who are first-time offenders.
TERMINATION OF THE
GRANT OF IMMUNITY
62
f.)
All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected
both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory
drug test.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS UNDER
THE COMPULSARY SUBMISSION PROGRAM
In case the informant or witness referred to under the Law falls under
the applicability of Section 34, such individual cannot avail of the provision
under Article VIII of the Law.
63
B. Composition
Under R.A. 6424 as amended, the Dangerous Drug board was
composed of seven ex officio members as follows: (a) The Minister of
Health or his representative; (b) the Minister of Justice or his
representative; (c) The Minister of National Defense or his
representative; (d) The Minister of Education and Culture or his
representative; (e) The Minister of Finance or his representative; (f)
The Minister of Social Service and Development or his representative;
and (g) The Minister of Local Government or his representative (Sec.
35 Art. 8, R.A. 6424)
The Minister of Health shall be the Chairman of the Board and the
Director of the National Bureau of Investigation shall be the
permanent consultant of the Board.
Under Section 78 of R.A. 9165, the membership of the Dangerous
Drugs Board was expanded to seventeen (17) members, three (3) of
which are permanent members, twelve (12) shall be in ex officio
capacity, and the remaining two (2) shall be regular members.
The three (3) permanent members, who shall possess At least
seven-year training and experience in the field of dangerous drugs
and in any of the following fields: in law, medicine, criminology,
psychology or social work, shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines. The President shall designate a Chairman, who shall
have the rank of a secretary from among the three (3) permanent
members who shall serve for six (6) years. Of the two (2) other
members, who shall have the rank of undersecretary, one (1) shall
serve for four (4) and the other for two (2) years. Thereafter, the
person appointed to succeed such members shall hold office for a
term of six (6) years and until their successors shall have been duly
appointed and qualified.
The other twelve (12) members who shall be ex officio members
of the Board are the following: (1) Secretary of the Department of
Justice or his/her representative; (2) Secretary of the Department of
Health or his/her representative; (3) Secretary of the Department of
National Defense or his/her representative; (4) Secretary of the
Department of Finance or his/her representative; (5) Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment or his/her representative; (6)
Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government or
his/her representative; (7) Secretary of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development or his/her representative; (8) Secretary of
the Department of Foreign Affairs or his/her representative; (9)
Secretary of the Department of Education or his/her representative;
(10) Chairman of the Commission of Higher Education or his/her
64
o.)
p.)
q.)
r.)
Note:
There are however certain power and duties of the PDEA
enumerated under Section 84 of R.A. 9165 which seems to overlap with
the functions of prosecutors such as (1) the preparation for prosecution
or the causing of the filing of appropriate criminal cases for violation of
the Law; and (2) filing of charges and transmittal of evidence to the
proper court and which have to be clarified in the Implementing Rules
and Regulation that may be issued by the DDB and the PDEA later.
JURISDICTION OVER DRUG RELATED CASES
The Supreme Court shall designate special court from among
the existing Regional Trial Court in each judicial region to exclusively
try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of
courts designated in each judicial region shall be based in their
respective jurisdiction.
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutor to exclusively handle
cases involving violations of this Act.
65
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
OF DANGEROUS DRUG CASES
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be
terminated within the period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public
prosecutor and probable cause is established, the corresponding
information shall be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the
termination of the investigation. If the preliminary investigation is
conducted by a judge and a probable cause is found to exist, the
corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within
forty-eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the records of the case.
(Sec. 90)
During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no property,
or income derived thereform, which may be confiscated and forfeited, shall
be disposed, alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodio legis
and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the same.
The proceeds of any sale or disposition of any property confiscated
under this section, forfeiture, custody and maintenance of the property
pending disposition, as well as the expense for publication and court costs.
The proceeds in excess of the above expenses shall accrue to the Board to
be used in its campaign against illegal drugs.
66
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE OF
FIRST-TIME MINOR OFFENDER
An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense mentioned in Section 11 of R.A. 9165 but not
more that eighteen (18) years of age at the time when the judgment should
have been promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense, may
be given the benefits of a suspended sentence, subject to the following
conditions:
a.) He/She has not been previously convicted of violating any provision
of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the
Revised Penal Code; or any special penal laws;
b.) He/She has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care
of a DOH-accredited physician; and
c.) The Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be
suspended.
PRIVILEGE OF SUSPENDED SENTENCE CAN BE AVAIL ONLY ONCE
BY A FIRST-TIME MINOR OFFENDER
The privilege of suspended sentence shall be availed of only once by
accused drug dependent who is a first-time offender over fifteen (15) years of
67
age at the time of the commission of the violation of Section 15 of this Act but
not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when judgment should
have been promulgated. (Sec. 68)
PROMULAGATION OF SENTENCE
FOR FIRST-TIME OFFENDER
If the accused first-time minor offender violates any of the conditions
of his/her suspended sentence, the applicable rules and regulations of the
Board exercising supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over him,
including the rules and regulations of the Center should confinement be
required, the court shall pronounce judgment of conviction and he/she shall
serve sentence as any other convicted person. (Sec. 69)
68
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years without
prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent provision of the Revised
Penal Code.
The Penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1)
day to six (6) years and a fine ranging from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00)
to Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00), shall be imposed upon any person who,
having official custody of or access to the confidential records of any drug
dependent under voluntary submission programs, or any one who, having
gained possession of said records, whether lawfully or not, reveals their
content to any person other than those charged with the prosecution of the
offense under this Act and its implementation. The maximum penalty shall be
imposed, in addition to the absolute perpetual disqualification from any public
office, when the offender is a government official or employee. Should the
records be used for unlawful purposes, such as blackmail of the drug
defendant of the members of his/her family, the penalty imposed for the
crime of violation of confidentiality shall be in addition to whatever crime
he/she convicted of. (Sec. 72)
EXCEPTION TO NECESSITY
OF A SEARCH WARRANT
There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person
arrested. An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any
money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission
of the crime or was in fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner
with the means of committing violence or of escaping, which may be used as
evidence in the trial of the case. (People v. Musa; GR 96177, 1/27/93)
69
the accused must not solely rely on the pardon as a basis for the release of
the accused from confinement. (People v. Maquilan)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
POSEUR-BUYER, GENERALLY
NEED NOT TESTIFY
The testimony of the poseur-buyer or of the confidential informant is
no longer material considering that accused-appellants drug pushing was
positively attested to. Moreover, informants are generally not presumed in
court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable
service to the police. (People v. Girang; GR 97949, 2/1/95)
70
3.
Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the
vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4.
5.
6.
7.
71
informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of accusedappellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise had
probable cause to search accused-appellant's belongings since she fitted the
description given by the NARCOM informant. Since there was a valid
warrantless search by the NARCOM agents, any evidence obtained in the
course of said search is admissible against accused-appellant. Again, this
case differs from Aruta as this involves a search of a moving vehicle plus the
fact that the police officers erected a checkpoint. Both are exceptions to the
requirements of a search warrant.
People v. Solayao, applied the stop and frisk principle which has
been adopted in Posadas v. Court of Appeals. In said case, Solayao
attempted to flee when he and his companions were accosted by
government agents. In the instant case, there was no observable
manifestation that could have aroused the suspicion of the NARCOM agents
as to cause them to "stop and frisk" accused-appellant. To reiterate,
accused-appellant was merely crossing the street when apprehended. Unlike
in the abovementioned cases, accused-appellant never attempted to flee
from the NARCOM agents when the latter identified themselves as such.
Clearly, this is another indication of the paucity of probable cause that would
sufficiently provoke a suspicion that accused-appellant was committing a
crime.
This Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General's contention for
the Malasugui case is inapplicable to the instant case. In said case, there
was probable cause for the warrantless arrest thereby making the
warrantless search effected immediately thereafter equally lawful. On the
contrary, the most essential element of probable cause, as expounded above
in detail, is wanting in the instant case making the warrantless arrest
unjustified and illegal. Accordingly, the search which accompanied the
warrantless arrest was likewise unjustified and illegal. Thus, all the articles
seized from the accused-appellant could not be used as evidence against
her.
(People v. Menguin)
72
probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested.
Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that
the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As such, the
articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for
these are "fruits of a poisoned tree" and, therefore, must be rejected,
pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
(People
v.
Menguin)
REQUISITE
JUDICIAL
MEANING OF TO TRANSPORT
IN DRUG CASES
Lawmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are expected to
enforce. The Court is not unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement
73
74