Special Penal Laws

Bar 2023
Hon. Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito
Associate Justice
Court of Appeals
 General Principles

• SPL – laws that define and

penalize crimes not included in
the Revised Penal Code
Are laws amending the provisions of
the RPC considered special laws?

No.

Example:
RA 8353, Anti-Rape Law
 mala in se vs. mala prohibita
Mala in se (felony) Mala prohibita (offenses)

• basis of criminal liability is the • basis of liability is the

moral fiber of the offender voluntariness
• good faith is a defense • good faith is not a defense
• lack of intent is a defense • lack of intent is not a defense
• modifying circumstances are • Modifying circumstances are
taken into account in the not taken into account
imposition of penalty
 mala in se vs. mala prohibita
Mala in se (felony) Mala prohibita (offenses)

• degree of participation • degree of participation

determines the penalty does not affect liability
• stage of accomplishment • punishable only when
affects the penalty consummated
• generally punishable under • Generally violations of
the RPC SPL
• Involve moral turpitude • Not evil per se
 Two Views

If inherently wrong,
If punishable by Special offense shall be treated as
Law, the offense is malum malum in se, even if
prohibitum. punished under Special
Law.
First View
 Estrella vs. People
G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020

Fencing is malum
prohibitum. (PD 1612)
 Villareal v. People
G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012

Hazing is malum
prohibitum. (RA11053)
 Escandor vs. People
G.R. No. 211962, July 06, 2020
Justice Leonen
Sexual Harassment is malum prohibitum. (RA 7877)

The defense of respondent that he never intended to violate RA No. 7877 was
rejected. It was held that in prosecuting an offender for sexual harassment, intent
is immaterial. Mere commission is sufficient to warrant a conviction. Even
without intent, sexual harassment is penalized. His attempt to kiss petitioner was
a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorial
— that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual.
Respondent's defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were
more appalling because he was a married man. Respondent's act showed a low
regard for women and disrespect for petitioner's honor and dignity.
 Luciano vs. Estrella
G.R. No. L-31622, August 31, 1970
Villa vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 87186, April 24, 1992

Section 3 (g) of RA No. 3019 punishes a public officer, who have

entered, on behalf of the government, into a contract or transaction
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. Violation of
this provision partakes of the nature of malum prohibitum.

Lack of benefits from the contract is not a defense on the part of the
public officer.
 NOTE HOWEVER,

Private individuals, who benefitted from the contact, which is grossly

and manifestly disadvantageous to government, will be held liable
under Section 4 (b) of RA No. 3019. In other words, notwithstanding
the allegation of conspiracy with public officer to violate Section 3(g),
the liability of these private individuals will be based on Section 4 (b),
which punishes any person for knowingly inducing or causing the
public officers to commit Section 3(g). In violation of Section 4 (b),
criminal intent must necessarily be proved. Violation of Section 4 (b)
is malum in se.
 NOTE FURTHER

The offense under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be

committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident
bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused
committed gross inexcusable negligence. (Plameras v. People, G.R.
No. 187268, September 4, 2013) Since malice, evident bad faith or
manifest partiality is an element of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA
No. 3019, this crime also partakes the character of malum in se.
 Villanueva vs. People
G.R. No. 237864, July 8, 2020

Section 3 (d) of RA No. 3019 punishes a public officer

or any member of his family, who accept employment in
a private enterprise with whom such public officer has a
pending official business with during the pendency
thereof or within one year from its termination as it is
considered a corrupt practice. It is malum prohibitum.
Second View
 Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 224162, November 7, 2017
Plunder (RA 7659) is malum in se.

For when the acts 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 law, especially since in the case of plunder the
predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to
treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions
for violations of BP Blg. 22 or of an ordinance against jaywalking,
without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.
People vs. Udang, G.R. No. 210161, January 10, 2018 (Justice Leonen)
People vs. Caoili, G.R. No. 196342, August 08, 2017
People vs. Caballo, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013

Sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA

No. 7610 is considered by the Supreme Court
as malum prohibitum simply because it is
punishable under special law. In sum, the
first view was applied in this case.
 People vs. Mabunot
G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016

Child abuse under Section

10 of RA No. 7610 was
considered as malum in se.
 Lucido vs. People
G.R. No. 217764, August 7, 2017
Justice Leonen

Child abuse was considered

as malum prohibitum.
 Patulot vs. People
G.R. No. 235071, January 7, 2019

The Supreme Court considered child abuse as

malum in se. Accordingly, when the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they
are punished by a special law. Physical abuse of a child under
RA No. 7610 is inherently wrong; hence, criminal intent on
the part of the offender must be clearly established with the
other elements of the crime.
 MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITUM

Child abuse under Section 10 RA 7610 Sexual Abuse Section 5 (b) RA 7610
Plunder under RA 7659 Fencing
Carnapping Hazing
Piracy/Highway Robbery/Brigandage Sexual harassment
under PD532
Trafficking in Person Section 3 (g) RA 3019
Terrorism Technical Malversation
Section 3 (d) RA 3019

Section 4 (b) RA 3019

Section 3 (e) RA 3019
Relationship between SPL and
RPC (Article 10, RPC)

SPL not subject to the

provisions of the RPC

RPC has supplementary

application to the SPL
 People v. Simon
G.R. No. 93028, July 29,1994

The RPC shall have supplementary

application to the SPL whenever the latter
uses its nomenclature of penalties and
necessarily, with its duration, correlation
and legal effects under the system of
penalties in the RPC to such SPL.
 What is the effect of the institution of
criminal action on prescriptive period?

• The institution of the criminal action shall

interrupt the running period of prescription of
the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws (Section 1, Rule
110).
 Prescriptive period crimes covered by
Revised Penal Code
Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the
basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of
this article (RPC).
 Summary of the Period under RPC
Penalty Prescriptive Period

Death/RP/RT 20 years

PM or afflictive penalties 15 years

Prision Correctional/ Correctional penalty 10 years

Arresto Mayor 5 years

Libel 1 year

Oral defamation/slander 6 mos.

Light offenses 2 mos.
 Prescriptive period for Special Laws
and Ordinance
• Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided
in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year
for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one
month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for
more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those
punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and
(d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six
years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty
years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two
months (Sec. 1, Act 3326).
 Summary of the Prescriptive Period under
Special Laws and Ordinances
Penalty Prescriptive Period
Treason After 20 years
6 years or more After 12 years
2 years or more but less than 6 years After 8 years
more than 1 month but less than 2 years After 4 years
Fine or not more than 1 mo. imprisonment After 1 year
ordinances After 2 mos.
 Different Prescriptive Periods

For corruption under R.A. No. 3019 as amended by

R.A. No. 10910, the prescriptive period is 20 years.

For sexual harassment under RA No. 7877, the

prescriptive period is 3 years.
 Act No. 3326 on the rule of
commencement and interruption of the
running of prescriptive period is still
applicable to corruption under R.A. No. 3019,
and sexual harassment under RA No. 7877.
 When is prescriptive period interrupted?

Crime covered by RPC, by the filing of the complaint or information.

The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws
(Section 1, Rule 110).
For Special Laws and Ordinance
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy (Section 2, Act No. 3326).
 Rule on prescription for violations of municipal
ordinances and specials laws.

Act. 3326 provides that the period of prescription shall be

suspended “when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person.
In Zaldivia vs. Reyes (211 SCRA 277, 283), the SC interpreted
“proceedings as judicial proceedings.
Thus, for violations of ordinances and special laws, the filing of the
case before the court interrupts the running of the prescriptive period.
 Rule on prescription for violations of municipal
ordinances and specials laws.

 NOTE: The ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes is not anymore

controlling:

 People vs Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105 – “There is no more

distinction between cases under the RPC and those
covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of
the period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes
is not controlling in special laws.”
 Rule on prescription for violations of municipal
ordinances and specials laws.

• The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of

whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised
Penal Code or by special law, it is the filing of complaint
or information in the office of the public prosecutor for
purposes of preliminary investigation that interrupts the
period of prescription (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, GR
Nos. 169823-24, September 14, 2013).
 Please TAKE NOTE:

• With respect to ordinances, Act 3326, still applies.

• The prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy (Section 2, Act No. 3326).
 THUS:
• Zaldivia vs. Reyes is still controlling in so far as ordinances are
concerned:
• Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed with the
Office of the Prosecutor who then files the Information in court, this
already has the effect of tolling the prescription period. The recent
People v. Pangilinan categorically stated that Zaldivia v. Reyes is not
controlling as far as special laws are concerned. Pangilinan referred to
other cases that upheld this principle as well. However, the doctrine of
Pangilinan pertains to violations of special laws but not to ordinances
(Jadewell vs. Lidua, G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013).
 People vs. Lee
G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019

The Supreme Court said that Jadewell presents a

different factual milieu as the issue involved therein
was the prescriptive period for violation of a city
ordinance, unlike in the Pangilinan and other related
cases, where the issue refers to prescription of
actions pertaining to violation of a special law.
 Special Penal Laws Protecting Women and
Children and Preventing Sexual Abuses
1 - Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)

2- Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610)

3- Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208, R.A. No. 10364, R.A. No. 11862)

4.-An Act Providing Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age of
Determining the Commission of Statutory Rape (R.A. 11648)

5. Prohibition of Child Marriage Law (R.A. No. 11596)

6- Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9775)

7 - Anti- Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9995)
 1.
Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children (RA 9262)
 IMPORTANT:

• Garcia v. Drilon
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013

• RA 9262 is constitutional!
Violative?
 Garcia v. Drilon
G.R. No. 179267 June 25, 2013

To include or not no include men?

Senator Loi Estrada’s proposed legislation

Sotto-Legarda Amendment
 Women are the "usual" and "most
likely“ victims of violence
official statistics on violence

Female violence comprised more than 90% of all forms of

abuse and violence and more than 90% of these reported cases
were committed by the women's intimate partners such as their
husbands and live-in partners.

While there are men who may have been victims, their
number is “negligible.”
 WHO COULD BE VICTIMS?

A- WOMEN
• Wife
• Former wife
• Woman into (or once into) a sexual relationship
• Woman into (or once into) a dating relationship
• Woman who has a common child with the accused
 B- CHILDREN

Common child

Child of the woman with other man

Legitimate

Illegitimate
 Who could be accused of
Violation of R.A. No. 9262?
Husband

Former husband

Man into a sexual relationship

Man who has a child with complainant

Man into dating relationship

 Sexual relationship

-refers to a single sexual act

-may or may not result in the

bearing of the child
 Dating relationship

-parties live as husband and wife

-cohabitation is without the benefit of

marriage

-romantically involved overtime and on a

continuing basis
 Casual Acquaintance

- Not covered

- Ordinary socialization between two

individuals in a business of social
context is not dating relationship.
R.A. No. 9262 does not single out
the husband or father or the male
partner as the culprit.
 Garcia v. Drilon
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
 VAWC may be committed "against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship."
 The use of the gender-neutral word "person"
who has or had a sexual or dating relationship
with the woman encompasses even lesbian
relationships.
 Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan
G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008

 Principle of Conspiracy

 A wife alleged that her husband and

parents-in-law were causing verbal,
psychological and economic abuses upon
her so she filed Permanent Protection
Order (PPO) against them.
Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262

SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. — For

purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal
Code and other applicable laws, shall have
suppletory application.
 Article 8 of the
Revised Penal Code

ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. —

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in
the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a

felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
 Reasons

1) Under the Principle of Conspiracy, the act

of one is the act of all.

2) Liberal construction

3) Some provisions of R.A. No. 9262 includes

the phrase “through another”
 Example:
Section 5 (h) of R.A. No. 9262
“(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or
reckless conduct, personally or through
another, that alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to the
woman or her child. This shall include, but
not be limited to, the following acts:”
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
 What acts may be penalized?

I- Physical abuse

II- Coercive or Restrictive Acts

III- Sexual Abuse

IV- Emotional/Psychological Abuse

I- Physical abuse

a) Causing physical harm (5a) (parricide, murder,

homicide, penalty under RPC; serious pi –PM; less
serious pi-PC; and SPI-AM)

b) Threat to cause physical harm (5b) (2 degrees lower

than the penalty for the consummated crime, in no case
lower than AM)

c) Attempt to cause physical harm (5c) (AM)

d) Placing in fear of imminent physical harm (5d) (AM)

II- Coercive and Restrictive acts (5e)

A – Through force, threats, physical harm or intimidation

(PC)

a) Compel or attempt to compel the woman or child to

engage in conduct (right to desist)

b) Desist from conduct (right to engage)

a) Restrict or attempt to restrict freedom of movement or

conduct
B - Commission of other acts intended to control or restrict
movement or conduct (PC)

1) Threat to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child

a) of custody;
b) of financial support legally due her or her family;
c) of a legal right;

2) Deliberately providing the woman’s children insufficient financial support;

3) Preventing the woman to engage in any legitimate profession, occupation,

business or activity;

4) Controlling the victim’s own money or properties;

5) Solely controlling the conjugal or common money or properties

◦
• C –Inflicting or threatening to inflict
physical harm on oneself for the
purpose of controlling her actions or
decisions (5f) (AM)
III –Sexual abuse (5g) (PM)

- causing or mere attempt to cause

- by force, or threat of force, physical harm or

intimidation (directed to the woman or her child or
her or his immediate family)

- to engage in any sexual activity

- the sexual activity does not constitute rape

IV – PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE (5h) (PM)

∗Engaging in “purposeful, knowing or reckless

conduct”

-that alarms or causes “substantial” emotional or

psychological distress to the woman or her child

-personally or through another

NOT LIMITED TO:

1) Stalking;
2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the
residence;
3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property
of the woman or her child against their will;
4) Destroying property or personal belongings;
5) Inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or
child;
6) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence
∗ Causing mental or emotional anguish,
public ridicule or humiliation (5i) (PM)

NOT LIMITED TO:

1) repeated verbal and emotional abuse

2) denial of financial support
3) denial of custody of minor children
4) denial of access to the woman’s child or
children
 AAA v. BBB
G.R. No. 212448, JAN 11, 2018

May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over

an offense constituting psychological violence
under RA 9262 committed through marital
infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship
occurred or is occurring outside the country?
 Transitory/Continuing Offense

Psychological violence

Causing Mental and Emotional anguish

 Ang v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010

The offender attached the face of his ex-girlfriend

on a nude body of a woman in a picture and sent it
on her cellphone with the threat to post it in the
internet.
It was held to be psychological violence under
Section 5 (h).
"romance" = "a love affair."
An "away-bati" or a fight-and-kiss thing between
two lovers is a common occurrence. Their taking
place does not mean that the romantic relation
between the two should be deemed broken up
during periods of misunderstanding.
 Dinamling v. People
G.R. No. 199522, June 2, 2015

Neither the physical injuries suffered nor the actual physical

violence committed by the offender is necessary to prove the essential
elements of Section 5 (i) UNLESS it was the physical violence that is
alleged to have caused the mental and emotional suffering.

Here, complainant was publicly punched, kicked and stripped of her

pants and underwear.
Again, what acts may be penalized?

I- Physical abuse

II- Coercive or Restrictive Acts

III- Sexual Abuse

IV- Psychological Abuse

 IMPORTANT!

ACHARON v. PEOPLE,
G.R. NO. 224946, November 9,
2021 decided by Justice Caguioa
 ACHARON v. PEOPLE,
G.R. NO. 224946, November 9, 2021

Abandoned the Variance Doctrine

enunciated in Melgar v. People, G.R. No.
223477, February 14, 2018 and Reyes v.
People, G.R. No. 223477, February 14,
2018.
 Remember!

Mere failure to provide support DOES NOT justify a

conviction of economic abuse since those entitled to support can file a
civil case for support. In order to justify a criminal conviction of
economic abuse, the failure to give financial support must have been
done with the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman’s
movement or conduct as to constitute the offense of violation of
Section 5 (e) of R.A. No. 9262 or the failure to provide support
caused mental or emotional anguish to the woman and /or to the
child as to constitute Violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262.
 ACHARON v. PEOPLE,
G.R. NO. 224946, November 9, 2021
• Violation of R.A. No. 9262 is mala in
se!
 Knutson vs. Flores
G.R. No. 239295, July 12, 2022
• YES.
• Section 9 (b )26 of RA No. 9262 explicitly allows "parents or guardians
of the offended party" to file a petition for protection orders. The exact
provision was incorporated in Section 12 (b ) 27 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9262 and Section 8 (b)28 of A.M.
No. 04-10-11-SC,29 or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their
Children. The statute categorically used the word "parents" which
pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child
victim.
 Knutson vs. Flores
G.R. No. 239295, July 12, 2022
• A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC states that the Rules of Court shall
apply in a suppletory manner to petitions for protection
orders. Under Section 5, Rule 3 of Rules of Court, "[a}
minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be
sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if
he has none, a guardian ad litem.
 AAA v. People
G.R. No. 229762, November 28, 2018

The husband’s act of taking the conjugal

properties and bringing them to the house
of his mother without regard to his wife’s
feelings and against her will causing
mental, emotional anguish to the latter
constitutes violation of Section 5(i).
 XXX v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021.
(Section 5 (i) malum prohibitum
• All the elements of a violation of Section 5 (e)(2) of RA 9262 are present, as it
was established that: (a) XXX and AAA were married after being pregnant with
BBB; (b) XXX acknowledged BBB as his child; (c) he failed to provide sufficient
support for BBB; (d) he withheld financial support for BBB due to the ire he felt
towards his wife; (e) he only provided financial support after the complaint against
him in the Prosecutor's Office was filed. In the case at bar, XXX deliberately
deprived his son BBB of financial support for the latter's sustenance, clothing,
medical, and educational expenses. From the moment the child was born until the
case was filed, petitioner was only able to give a total of about P10,000.00 in a
span of five years.
 Malum Prohibitum

Since RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against

Women and Their Children Act of 2004 is a
special law, the act of deprivation of financial
support is considered malum prohibitum.
Petitioner's argument of absence of malice or
intent is immaterial and the only inquiry to be
made is whether or not XXX committed the
act.
 BUT NOTE!

XXX v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 252087, Feb. 10,
2021
 XXX v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 252087, February 10, 2021
(accused suffering from PTSS and paranoid ideation)

In this case, while the prosecution established that XXX failed to

provide adequate support to his daughter, there is no evidence that he
did so intentionally. Moreover, there is convincing evidence that
XXX's Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome and paranoid ideations were
of such a nature and degree that he could not bring himself to work
and provide for his family even though it may have been proved that
he has the physical capacity to do so. To begin with, We must
emphasize that what distinguishes Section 5(i) from the other
violations of Section 5 of R.A. 9262, are the indispensable
requirements of (1) psychological violence; and (2) emotional anguish
or mental suffering.
INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME :
INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT
It is well-settled in criminal law that while criminal intent need not be
proved in the prosecution of acts mala prohibita, which are generally
punished in such special penal laws as R.A. No. 9262, the prosecution still
has the burden to prove that the prohibited act was intentional or
voluntary. There is a well-settled distinction between INTENT TO
COMMIT THE CRIME and INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT. A
person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but if he
intend to commit an act-and that act is, by the very nature of things, the
crime itself –then he can be held liable for the malum prohibitum.
Conversely, if a person did not intend to perpetrate an act which has been
defined by law to be the crime itself, then he is not guilty of the act.
 ACHARON v. PEOPLE,
G.R. NO. 224946, November 9, 2021
• Violation of R.A. No. 9262 is mala in
se!
Mental illness incapacitated accused.
Here, the evidence shows that petitioner could not provide support
because: (1) AAA prevented him from doing so by refusing what he
could offer; and (2) he was suffering from an incurable mental illness
which, though not sufficient to be considered a form of insanity,
was to a degree that effectively incapacitated him from earning. In
light of the foregoing, We agree with petitioner's contention that the
third and fourth elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262
were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 XXX v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 241390, January 13, 2021
(marital infidelity, bringing of mistress to the conjugal home)
A judicious study of the case reveals that all the elements of the crime
charged were duly established. Psychological violence is considered an
indispensable element in violation of Section 5(i). The first and second
elements of the offense are uncontested. The offended party is a woman and
her child or children. YYY is the wife of petitioner with whom they have five
children. One of their children, AAA, testified in court about the infidelity
of her father and how his mistress lived with them in her parents' conjugal
home. As to the third and fourth elements, it is duly established that
petitioner committed psychological violence through marital infidelity and
public ridicule or humiliation, which caused mental anguish and emotional
suffering upon his wife.
 XXX v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 243049, October 05, 2020
(extra-marital affair)

The prosecution was able to prove AAA's mental and

emotional anguish upon learning XXX's infidelity when she
appeared to testify. It was duly put on record that AAA looked mad
at XXX when she testified and cried when she was recounting her
experience with XXX. Her testimony was also corroborated by her
brother who was present when AAA confronted XXX.
 Araza v. People
G.R. No. 247429, September 08, 2020
(proof of mental suffering)

Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator,

while emotional anguish or mental suffering are the effects caused
to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The law does
not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill
due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather,
the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering
to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering,
jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be
presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party. I
 Esteban Donato Reyes v. People
G.R. No. 232678, July 03, 2019
(reducing support because wife filed bigamy)

• It is noteworthy that AAA charged Reyes with Bigamy not merely to torment or
harass him but to enforce her right and protect her interest as petitioner's legal
wife considering that he contracted a second marriage with one Marilou Osias
Ramboanga during the subsistence of his marriage with AAA. Evidently, the
denial of financial support is designed to subjugate AAA's will and control her
conduct, either to pressure her to withdraw said criminal case for Bigamy or
dissuade her from pursuing it, or at least, to discourage her from filing
additional cases against him.
 Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem
G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014

1) Whether or not a foreign national has an

obligation to support his minor child under
Philippine law; and

2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held

criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his
unjustified failure to support his minor child
 Aggravating
circumstances

1) The act is committed while the woman

or child is pregnant; and

2) The act is committed in the presence

of her child.
Battered Woman Syndrome:
Then and now
 People v. Genosa
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

• Battered woman- a woman who is repeatedly subjected

to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her
to do without concern for her rights.

• Battered women include wives or women in any form of

intimate relationship with men.
 Battered Woman Syndrome

- characterized by the so-called "cycle of

violence", which has three phases:

(1)the tension-building phase;

(2) the acute battering incident; and
(3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, non-violent)
phase.
 People v. Genosa
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
1) No sufficient proof of BWS

2) The existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself

establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner.

3) The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not

merely imaginary

(NOTE: evidence was considered in the context of self-defense as the

deceased had gone to bed already and therefore there was no more
unlawful aggression.)
 People v. Genosa
SC merely appreciates :
•the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation
•Psychological paralysis
•BWS not considered as a defense
 Battered Woman Syndrome is NOW a valid
defense on the victim’s part under RA 9262!!

1) victim will not incur criminal or civil liability

2) elements for justifying circumstance of self-defense need not be

present

3) the court shall be assisted by expert psychiatrist or psychologist (26)

4) victim shall not be disqualified from having custody of her children

just because she has BWS (27)
 CAVEAT

• In NO CASE shall the custody of the

minor children be given to the
perpetrator of the offense on a woman
who has BWS. (26)
Prohibited defense for the accused

• Being under the influence of alcohol, illicit

drug or any other mind-altering substance
SHALL NOT BE a defense. (27)
Exemption from liability of
intervening persons

Any person
Private individual
Police authority
Barangay official
 Requisites

responded or intervened
 without using violence or restraint greater
than necessary
reason for interference is to ensure safety
of the victim
acted in accordance with the law (34)
Salary: exempt or not?
 VERY IMPORTANT:
Notwithstanding other laws to the country, the court
shall order an appropriate percentage of the income or
salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by the
respondent’s employer and for the same to be
automatically remitted directly to the woman.

Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay without

justifiable cause shall render the respondent or his
employer liable for indirect contempt of court.
 Issue

What if the employer is the government, can you

direct the government to remit the portion of the
salary to the applicant?
 Republic v. Yahon,
G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
Section 8 (g) of R.A. No. 9262 used the general term
"employer," which includes in its coverage the military
institution, S/Sgt. Yahon's employer.

Where the law does not distinguish, courts should

not distinguish. Thus, Section 8 (g) applies to all
employers, whether private or government.
FOLLOWING THE TREND IN THE U.S.

It bears stressing that Section 8 (g) providing for spousal and

child support, is a support enforcement legislation. In the United
States, provisions of the Child Support Enforcement Act allow
garnishment of certain federal funds where the intended
recipient has failed to satisfy a legal obligation of child support.
As these provisions were designed "to avoid sovereign immunity
problems" and provide that "moneys payable by the Government
to any individual are subject to child support enforcement
proceedings," the law is clearly intended to "create a limited
waiver of sovereign immunity so that state courts could issue
valid orders directed against Government agencies attaching
funds in their possession."
 Republic v. Yahon,
G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
FACTS:

RTC, Br. 22, Cagayan De Oro issued a TPO directing

Commanding General/Officer of the Finance Center of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, among others, to
WITHHOLD any retirement, pension and other benefits
of respondent
Laws exempting retirement benefits,
pensions, etc..

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1638

Section 31. The benefits authorized under this

Decree, except as provided herein, shall not be
subject to attachment, garnishment, levy,
execution or any tax whatsoever; neither shall they
be assigned, ceded, or conveyed to any third
person: x x x
 R.A. No. 8291, otherwise known as the "Government
Service Insurance System Act of 1997"

SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. —

... xxx xxx
The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as
well as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the
benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment,
garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by
the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or administrative
bodies including Commission on Audit (COA)
disallowances and from all financial obligations of the
members x x x
 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

SEC. 13. Property exempt from execution. — Except as

otherwise expressly provided by law, the following property,
and no other, shall be exempt from execution x x x

(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property

obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from
the Government;
REPUBLIC v. YAHON
G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014

It is basic in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable

conflict between two laws, the later enactment must prevail, being the
more recent expression of legislative will. x x x

We hold that Section 8 (g) of R.A. No. 9262, being a later

enactment, should be construed as laying down an exception to the
general rule above-stated that retirement benefits are exempt from
execution. The law itself declares that the court shall order the
withholding of a percentage of the income or salary of the respondent
by the employer, which shall be automatically remitted directly to the
woman "[n]otwithstanding other laws to the contrary."
 Mabugay-Otamias v. Republic
G.R. No. 189516, June 8, 2016

A writ of execution lies against the pension benefits

of a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, which is the subject of a deed of
assignment drawn by him granting support to his wife
and five (5) children. The benefit of exemption from
execution of pension benefits is a statutory right that
may be waived, especially in order to comply with a
husband's duty to provide support under Article XV of
the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code.
PROTECTION ORDERS
 Kinds

Barangay Protection Order

Temporary Protection Order

Permanent Protection Order

Can the court deny the
application for TPO or PPO
just because the application has
been granted a BPO or has a
pending BPO application?
 No.

Section 8. Protection Orders. x x x

• The issuance of a BPO or the pendency of
an application for a BPO shall not preclude a
petitioner from applying for, or the court
from granting a TPO or PPO.
 OBJECT

Prevent further acts of violence

Minimize any disruption in the victim’s daily life

Facilitate the opportunity and ability of the victims to

independently regain control over his life
 Who may file?
1. the offended party

2. parents or guardians of the offended party

3. ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives of the offended party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity;

4. officers or social workers of the DSWD or social workers of LGU

5. police officers, preferably those in charge with the women and children’s desks

6. Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad

7. Lawyer counselor, therapist or health care provider of the petitioner

8. At least 2 concerned, responsible citizens of the place where the violence against women and their children occurred and who have personal
knowledge of the offense committed
•(Section 9, AM NO. 04-10-11-SC)
 Pavlow v. Mendenilla
G.R. No. 181489, April 19, 2017
The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is
expressly given personality by Section 9 (b) 1 of R.A. No. 9262 to file a civil
action petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for her child.

In filing such a petition, she avails of a remedy that is distinct from the criminal
action under Section 5 of the same law.

The mere filing of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of
an information in court, does not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that
precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection order.
 VENUE
RULE: The Family Court of the place where the OFFENDED PARTY RESIDES.

EXCEPT:

In the absence of Family Court, in the RTC, MeTC, MCTC, MTC, MCCTC of
the place where the OFFENDED PARTY RESIDES

(Section 9, AM NO. 04-10-11-SC)

Temporary Protection Order
 When to issue?
1) When the Judge is satisfied that that there IS REASONABLE GROUND TO
BELIEVE that an IMMINENT DANGER OF VIOLENCE EXIST or ABOUT
TO RECUR.

2) Issuance may be EX PARTE (maybe issued on the same day the Application was
received)

3) It shall be effective for 30 DAYS from service on the party sought to be enjoined
Tua v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 170701,
January 22, 2014 citing Garcia v. Drilon

Ex-parte issuance of TPO does not violate the

due process clause.
 Ruling:
Since "time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further
violence is to be prevented," the court is authorized to issue
ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing
when the life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy
and there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is
necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and
imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence,
which is about to recur.
No need to fear that the Judge has no rational basis

1. The victim by verifying the Application takes full responsibility, criminal or

civil, for every allegation therein.

2. Likened to a writ of preliminary attachment to prevent the victim of

VAWC from further suffering harrowing experiences and possibly even death,
if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented.

3. There is an opportunity for the respondent to be heard.

What accompanies the TPO when served
upon the respondent?

1) Notice to file Opposition (5 days)

2) Notice of Preliminary Conference
3) Notice of Hearing on the PPO within the 30-
day period

(Section 15, AM NO. 04-10-11-SC)

 “Violation of this Order is punishable by law.

If the respondent appears without counsel on the date of the

preliminary conference and hearing on the merits on the issuance of PPO,
the court shall not reschedule or postpone the preliminary conference and
hearing but shall appoint a lawyer for the respondent and immediately
proceed with said hearing.

If the respondent fails to appear on the date of the preliminary

conference and hearing on the merits despite proper notice, the court shall
allow EX PARTE PRESENTATION of evidence by the petitioner and
render judgment on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record.
NO delegation of the reception of evidence shall be allowed.”
Reliefs available even in the absence of decrees

• The reliefs enumerated under Section 8

shall be granted even in the absence of a
decree of legal separation or annulment or
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage.
I. Reliefs relating to possible physical violence

8 (a) Prohibition against committing or threat to commit any

of the acts penalized under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262

8 (h) Prohibition from the use of any firearm or deadly

weapon, including directive to surrender, revocation of
license and disqualification if a law enforcement agent –
directive for the agency to investigate and take action
II – Reliefs relating to the use of properties and
financial support

8 (c) – Removal and exclusion of the respondent from

the residence of the petitioner, temporarily to protect
petitioner or permanently (provided no property right is
violated), and to remove personal effects
• Court may DIRECT law enforcement agents (LEA) to escort
respondent until he gathered his things and leave the place.
8 (e) Direct lawful possession and use by
petitioner of an automobile or other personal
effects regardless of ownership.
• Court may DIRECT law enforcement agents (LEA) to
assist petitioner.

8 (g) Direct respondent to provide support to

the woman and/or her child, if entitled to legal
support.
III– Reliefs Relating to psychological abuses

8 (b) – Prohibition from harassing, annoying,

telephoning, contacting or communicating with
petitioner, directly or indirectly
 VERY IMPORTANT:

Notwithstanding other laws to the country, the court shall order an appropriate
percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by
the respondent’s employer and for the same to be automatically remitted directly to
the woman.
Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay without justifiable cause shall
render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect contempt of court.
 2.
Special Protection of Children
Against Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination (RA 7610)
 “Children”

• persons below eighteen (18) years of age; or

• those over that age but are unable to fully

take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition.
 People v. Abello
G.R. No. 151952, March 25, 2009
• The victim is a 21-year old polio victim. She was not able to study. She could
only write and read her name. The accused was charged with Acts of
Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.
• The RTC and CA considered her polio as a physical disability that rendered
her incapable of normal function.
• Not considered as child within the contemplation of the law as no evidence
was presented to show that she was incapable of fully taking care of herself.
 Prohibited Acts
• Child Prostitution [Section 5 (a)]
• Other Sexual Abuse [Section 5 (b)]
• Child Trafficking [Sections 7 and 8]
• Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows
[Section 9]
• Other Acts of Abuse [Section 10 (a)]
• Employment of children below 15 years old
[Section 12]
 Who are liable under Section 5
RA 7610?

Section 5 (a) - the offender is the

procurer/pimp/Mama San

Section 5 (b) – the customer/client

 Who are liable under Section 5
RA 7610?

Section 5 (a) - the offender is the

procurer/pimp/Mama San

Section 5 (b) – the customer/client

 ELEMENTS

acts
committed

state or
age of the condition
victim of the
victim
 Elements of Section 5 (a), RA 7610
1. The accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induce
child prostitution;

2. The act is done through, but not limited to, the

following means:
• Acting as a procurer
• Inducement through written or oral advertisement
• Taking advantage of influence or relationship
• Threatening or using violence
• Giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefits
3. The child is exploited or intended
to be exploited in prostitution;

4. The child is below 18 years of

age
Who are the children exploited in
Prostitution?

• Male or female
“Children • Indulge in sexual
exploited in intercourse or lascivious
prostitution” conduct
• For money, profit or
consideration
AGAIN, who may be held liable under
Section 5 (a)?

• engage in
• Promote, advertise
• facilitate or
• induce
• profited (manager or owner)
 ELEMENTS OF SECTION 5 (b)
of RA 7610
1. Accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct;

2. The act is performed with a child exploited in

prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18

years of age (MALTO v. PEOPLE)
Who are the children subjected
to other sexual abuse?

“Children • Male or female

subjected to • Indulge in sexual intercourse
prostitution or lascivious conduct
and other • due to the coercion or
sexual influence of any adult,
syndicate or group
abuse”
 “Influence” or “Coercion”
The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a
child to engage in or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.

The term "influence" means the "improper use of power or trust in any way that
deprives a person of free will and substitutes another's objective.

" Meanwhile, "coercion" is the "improper use of . . . power to compel another to

submit to the wishes of one who wields it."
 People v. Caballo
G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013

Assurance of love
Promise to use “withdrawal method”
Promise of marriage

These are classified as psychological coercion and

influence
READ: SECTION 5 (b)
• SECTION 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children,
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
x x x x x x
• (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected 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 be reclusion temporal in its
medium period; and
 “Lascivious conduct”
• The intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any
object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any
person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with
the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area of a person. (Section 32,
Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 7610)
 “Acts of lasciviousness”

• lewd is defined as obscene, lustful,

indecent, lecherous; it signifies that form of
immorality that has relation to moral
impurity; or that which is carried on a
wanton manner. (SEE Lutap v. People, G.R.
No. 204061, February 5, 2018. )
 Two kinds of Rape

Penile Rape

Rape by Sexual Assault

(instrument or object rape, gender free rape)
 Confused?
Lascivious
conduct under
RA 7610
Rape by Sexual Sexual Abuse
Assault under under RA 7610
Article 266-A (2)

Acts of
Rape under lasciviousness
Article 266-A (1) under Article
336
Acts of
lasciviousness
under Article 339
 People v. Tulagan
G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019
 What is the significance of tulagan?

It reconciled the provisions on Acts of

Lasciviousness, Rape and Sexual Assault under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8353 and Sexual Intercourse and Lascivious
Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610
 What crime is committed if the victim is under 12 years old
and the accused committed acts of lasciviousness defined
under article 336 of RPC

“Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised

Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610."

However, pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5 (b) of

R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in
its medium period.
 What crime is committed if the victim is 12 (now 16) years old
but below 18 or over 18 but classified as child under 7610 and the
accused committed acts of lasciviousness defined under article
336 of RPC?

“Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of

R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty
is reclusion temporal in its medium
period.”
What is the crime committed if the victim is below
12 (now 16) years old and the accused committed
sexual assault under Art. 266-a(2)?

“Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the

RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610".”

Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is still reclusion

temporal in its medium period, and not prision mayor.
 What crime is committed if the victim is 12 (now 16) years old but
below 18 or over 18 but classified as child under 7610 and the accused
committed sexual assault defined under Article 266-a(2) of RPC

“Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b)

of R.A. No. 7610" with the imposable penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua. It should not make any
reference to the provisions of the RPC.
 What crime is committed if the victim is below 12
(now 16) years old and the accused had carnal
knowledge with the victim?

“Rape under Art. 266-A (1d), in relation to

Art. 266-B.”
 What crime is committed if the victim is 12 (now 16) years
old but below 18 and the accused had carnal knowledge with
the victim under the circumstances provided in Art. 266-a
(1a, b, c,)?

“Rape under Art. 266-A (1d), in relation to

Art. 266-B.”
What if the child is classified as
exploited?
 Crime Committed -12 12 -18 18 and 18+
(now 16)

Acts of lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness Lascivious conduct NA

committed against under Article 336 of under Section 5 (b) of
exploited children the RPC IN RELATION RA 7610; reclusion
to Section 5 (b) of RA temporal in its medium
7610, reclusion period to reclusion
temporal in its medium perpetua
period (50k x3) (50k x 3)

Sexual Assault Sexual Assault under Lascivious conduct NA

committed against Article 266-A (2) of the under Section 5 (b) of
exploited children RPC IN RELATION to RA 7610; reclusion
Section 5 (b) of RA temporal in its medium
7610, reclusion period to reclusion
temporal in its medium perpetua
period (50k x 3) (50k x 3)
 Sexual Intercourse Rape under Article 266-A Sexual abuse under Section NA
committed against (1) of the RPC: reclusion 5(b) of RA 7610, reclusion
exploited children perpetua, except when the temporal in its medium
victim is below 7 years old period to reclusion perpetua
in which case Death (75k x 3)
Penalty shall be imposed

Rape by carnal knowledge Rape under Article 266-A Rape under Article 266-A Rape under Article 266-A
(1) in relation to Art. 266- (1) in relation to Art. 266- (1) in relation to Art. 266-
B of the RPC, reclusion B of the RPC, reclusion B of the RPC, reclusion
perpetua except when the perpetua (75k x 3) perpetua (75k x 3)
victim is below 7 years old,
death (75k x 3)
Rape by Sexual Sexual Assault Lascivious conduct Sexual Assault
Assault under Article 266-A under Section 5 (b) under Article 266-A
(2) of the RPC in of RA 7610; (2) of the RPC,
relation to Section 5 reclusion temporal in prision mayor
(b) of RA 7610, its medium period
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua
in its medium
period
 Summation of Tulagan
1. If the child is below 12 (now 16), and rape, or sexual
assault, or acts of lasciviousness is committed, the applicable
provision is that of the RPC (Art. 266-A, 1 & 2 and Art. 336).
However, if the penalty imposed under R.A. 7610 is higher,
then impose the penalty in RA 7610.

2. If the child is 12 (now 16) years old and above but below
18 and rape is committed under Art. 266-A, 1a, b, c, the
applicable provision is Art. 266-A in relation Art. 266-B.
 Summation of Tulagan
3. If the child is 12 (now16) years old and above but below 18 and sexual
assault is committed under Art. 266-A, 2, the applicable provision is RA 7610 –
Lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), RA 7610.

4. If acts of lasciviousness, or rape, or sexual assault is committed against a

child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse, determine whether the
child is below 12 (now16) years or above 12 (now16) but less than 18. If below
12 (now 16), apply the RPC. But in case of acts of lasciviousness and sexual
assault, apply the penalty in RA 7610. If 12 (now16) years old and
above but below 18, apply RA 7610, specifically Sec. 5(b), RA 7610.
 IMPORTANT!
Bangayan v. People
G.R. 235610, September 16, 2020
Consequently, although We declared in Malto that the Sweetheart Theory is unacceptable in
violations of RA 7610 since "a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot
validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person," We deem it judicious to review the
Decision of the court a quo and reiterate Our recent pronouncements in Tulagan and Monroy and clarify
the ambiguity created in the Malto case in resolving the case at bar.

Where the age of the child is close to the threshold age of 12 years old, as in the case of
AAA who was only 12 years and one month old at the time of the incident, evidence must be
strictly scrutinized to determine the presence of sexual consent. The emotional maturity and
predisposition of a juvenile, whose age is close to the threshold age of 12, may significantly
differ from a child aged between 15-18 who may be expected to be more mature and to act with
consciousness of the consequences of sexual intercourse.
 This case has a different factual milieu
compared to others.
In this case, there are special circumstances that reveal the
presence of consent of AAA. The sexual congress
between Bangayan and AAA was not limited to just one incident.
They were in a relationship even after the incident alleged in the
Information and had even produced two (2) children. To Our
mind, these are not acts of a child who is unable to discern good
from evil and did not give consent to the sexual act. (Bangayan v.
People, G.R. No. 235610, [September 16, 2020])
 In this exceptional situation, We are not prepared to punish two
individuals and deprive their children from having a normal family life
simply because of the minority of AAA at the time she began
dating Bangayan. The benefits of living in a nuclear family to AAA and their
two (2) children outweigh any perceived dangers of the on-going romantic
relationship Bangayan has with AAA who is 15 years younger than him.
This arrangement is more favorable to the welfare of both parties as they
are planning to get married. We verified from the records
that Bangayan was single at the time he gave his personal circumstances
when he testified in court. This is more consistent with the principle of
upholding the best interests of children as it gives Bangayan an opportunity
to perform his essential parental obligations and be present for their two (2)
children. (Bangayan v. People, G.R. No. 235610, [September 16, 2020])
 Encinares v. People
G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021
Violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, instead of Section 10 (a) of the same Act.

As can be gleaned from the above-mentioned provisions, Section 5 (b) of RA

7610 specifically applies in cases of sexual abuse committed against children, which
includes lascivious conduct; whereas, Section 10 (a) thereof punishes other forms of child
abuse not covered by particular provisions of RA 7610. Evidently, the offense will not fall
within the purview of Section 10 (a) of RA 7610 if the same is specifically penalized by a
particular provision, such as Section 5 (b).
The term "lascivious conduct" was given a specific definition in the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, viz.: "the intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction
of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area of a person."
 Putting a child’s penis on one’s mouth is a
lascivious conduct punishable under Section 5b.
In light of the clear definition of the term vis-à-vis the evidence presented in this case, the
Court finds that petitioner's acts of putting AAA's penis inside his mouth and playing with it for
ten (10) minutes constitute Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. As such, it was
an error for the courts a quo to have convicted him under Section 10 (a) of the same Act. True,
the Information filed against petitioner charged him under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610. However,
it is a well-settled rule that "the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not
by the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated but by the facts
alleged in the indictment, that is, the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the
information, and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of
law. The facts alleged in the body of the information, not the technical name given by the
prosecutor appearing in the title of the information, determine the character of the
crime." Further, the information must sufficiently allege the acts or omissions complained of to
inform a person of common understanding what offense he is being charged with — in other
words, the elements of the crime must be clearly stated.
 Versoza vs. People
G.R. No. 184535, September 03, 2019
The word “age” in the phrase “person below 18 years
of age” in Section 3 of RA No. 7610 is either chronological or
mental. A person who has a cognitive disability would be
considered a child under RA No. 7610 based on his or her
mental age, not chronological age. For purpose of Section 3 of
RA No. 7610, there is no difference between actual age and
mental age. Thus, a mentally-retarded adult (24 years of age),
who had a mental age of an 8-year-old, is a child protected by
RA No. 7610.
 People vs. Ybanez,
G.R. No. 220461, August 24, 2016

Since the concept of a child in RA No.

7610 is adopted by RA No. 9208, a
mentally-retarded adult is a child within the
context of qualified trafficking in person.
 People vs. Pusing
G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016
Justice Leonen

Under Section 5 (b) of RA No 7610, when the child

subjected to sexual abuse is under 12 years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape and acts of
lasciviousness under RPC. The word “age” in the phrase “when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age” in Section 5 (b) of
RA No. 7610 is either chronological or mental. For purpose of
Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, there is no difference between
actual age and mental age. Hence, the victim whose actual age
is 12 years old but her mental age is 9 years old, is considered as
a victim under 12 year of age within the contemplation of
Section 5 (b).
 People v. Pueyo
G.R. No. 192327, February 26, 2020
(From Section 10 (a) to Rape by Sexual Assault in relation to
Section 5 (b)

AAA was born on March 15, 1991. In the morning of

November 4, 1997, AAA was playing with her younger brother, CCC, and
two other playmates on a bulldozer parked near her residence. Pueyo,
who was doing welding works nearby, got angry at the children and told
them to climb down the bulldozer. All except AAA complied. She went
down and sat with her legs spread apart on a pile of coconut lumber. It
was then that Pueyo approached AAA and poked a welding rod onto her
genital area. AAA cried in pain and saw that her private part was bleeding.
 Accused-appellant Flor Pueyo is guilty of the crime of Sexual Assault
defined and penalized under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. Pueyo's acts,
however, merit a conviction for a graver offense. The courts below found Pueyo
criminally liable under Section 10(a), RA 7610, which require the following elements:
(1) AAA's minority; (2) the acts constituting physical abuse committed by Pueyo
against AAA; and (3) the fact that the said acts are clearly punishable under RA
7610. The fact of minority of AAA is long settled, her being six years old at the time
of the incident and eight years old when she took the witness stand. It was likewise
established that Pueyo physically abused AAA when he poked her genitals with a
welding rod, an act that is plainly child abuse as contemplated under Section 3(b) of
RA 7610. While all three requisites for violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610
obtain against Pueyo, his greater culpability for statutory rape by sexual
assault in relation to RA 7610 cannot be overlooked.
 People v. Nocido
G.R. No. 240229, June 17, 2020
(following Tulagan Principles)

The victim, AAA, a 12-year[-]old lass. She narrated that on

August 3, 2009, she and her friends attended a wake. At around 3:00
o'clock in the morning, while walking along xxxxxxxxxxx St.
accused [Bagon] suddenly accosted and pointed a fan knife at her.
As soon as [Bagon] got hold of her, accused-appellant Nocido and
accused [Ventura] approached her. Ventura and [Bagon] were able
to forcibly bring her to an alley that leads to a vacant house. It was
accused-appellant who guided them to the secluded area.
 FIRST RULE
First, if sexual intercourse is committed with
an offended party who is a child less than 12 (now 16)
years old or is demented, whether or not exploited in
prostitution, it is always a crime of statutory rape;
more so when the child is below 7 years old, in which
case the crime is always qualified rape.
 SECOND RULE
Second, when the offended party is 12 (now 16) years old or
below 18 and the charge against the accused is carnal knowledge
through "force, threat or intimidation," then he will be prosecuted
for rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC. In contrast, in case of
sexual intercourse with a child who is 12 years old or below 18 and who is
deemed "exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse," the crime could
not be rape under the RPC, because this no longer falls under the concept
of statutory rape, and the victim indulged in sexual intercourse either "for
money, profit or any other consideration or due to coercion or influence of
any adult, syndicate or group," which deemed the child as one "exploited in
prostitution or other sexual abuse."
 The proper designation of the crime of rape by sexual assault committed against a
victim who is twelve (12) (now 16) years old or below eighteen (18) or eighteen (18)
under special circumstances, is lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610.

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other
sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12)
(now 16) 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 be reclusion temporal in its medium
period.
 People v. Quinto
G.R. No. 246460, June 08, 2020
AAA, who was then 14 years of age, was on her way to the
store to buy bread when she noticed her neighbor, accused-appellant,
behind her pointing a knife. She was brought to the house of a
certain "Bornoy". Accused-appellant brought AAA to another room
where he ordered her to sniff marijuana. Out of fear, she followed
accused-appellant. Thereafter, she felt dizzy. That was the time when
accused-appellant undressed her and inserted his penis in her private
part. When he was done, he ordered her to put on her clothes and
warned her not to tell anyone about what transpired. She went to her
house afterwards, which is located nearby. In time, she revealed her
harrowing experience to her aunt.
 Double Jeopardy

In the aforementioned case, it was already ruled that

if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender cannot be
accused of both rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1(a) of
the RPC and sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610 because it may violate the right of the accused against
double jeopardy. Furthermore, under Section 48 of the RPC, a
felony, in particular rape, cannot be complexed with an
offense penalized by a special law, such as R.A. No. 7610,
 Assuming that the elements of both violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
and of Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the RPC are mistakenly alleged in the same
Information — e.g.. carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse was due to "force or
intimidation" with the added phrase of "due to coercion or influence," one of the
elements of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610; or in many instances wrongfully designate the
crime in the Information as violation of "Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) in relation to
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," although this may be a ground for quashal of the
Information under Section 3(1) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court — and proven during
the trial in a case where the victim who is 12 years old or under 18 did not consent to the
sexual intercourse, the accused should still be prosecuted pursuant to the RPC, as amended
by R.A. No. 8353, which is the more recent and special penal legislation that is not only
consistent, but also strengthens the policies of R.A. No. 7610. Indeed, while R.A. No. 7610
is a special law specifically enacted to provide special protection to children from all forms
of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial
to their development, We hold that it is contrary to the legislative intent of the same law if
the lesser penalty (reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua) under Section 5(b)
thereof would be imposed against the perpetrator of sexual intercourse with a child 12
years of age or below 18.
 People vs. Abay
G.R. No. 177752, February 24, 2009
Rape and Sexual Abuse identical

The essence of sexual abuse and rape or acts

of lasciviousness is having sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a victim without her consent, or
capacity to give consent. Since these crimes are
identical, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused
cannot be held liable of both crimes because his right
against double jeopardy will be prejudiced.
 People vs. Udang
G.R. No. 210161, January 10, 2018

The offender can be liable for rape

and sexual abuse because they are
separate crimes with distinct
elements.
 Note the ruling in the 2020 case of
People v. Quinto on double jeopardy!!
Man child
 Attempt to Commit Prostitution
• Person having in his company a child
• Not related to him
• Alone with him inside a room, cubicle, inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or similar establishments, vessel,
vehicle, secluded area
• Lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is
about to be exploited (Section 6)
 Attempt to commit Prostitution
• Person
- receiving services from a child
- in a sauna parlor, bath, massage clinic,
health club and similar establishments
 Section 10 -Other Acts of Abuse
child abuse

cruelty

exploitation

conditions prejudicial to the child's development

those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603

having a minor companion, less than 12 or 10 years junior

one who deliver, induce or offer the minor for someone’s company

owner, manager etc. who allows a child to be in the company

 Encinares vs. People
G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021

Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 specifically applies in cases of

sexual abuse committed against children, which includes
lascivious conduct; whereas, Section 10 (a) thereof punishes other
forms of child abuse not covered by particular provisions of RA
7610. Evidently, the offense will not fall within the purview of
Section 10 (a) of RA 7610 if the same is specifically penalized by
a particular provision, such as Section 5 (b).
 People v. Court of Appeals
GR No. 171863, August 20, 2008
The acts prejudicial to child’s development should not be covered
by other provisions of RA 7610.

Examples:
• using a child for begging under Art. 59 (7) PD 603 is already penalized under
Section 10 (e ) of RA 7610 hence the charge should not be under Section 10 (a)
• selling or abandoning a child penalized under Article 59 (3) of PD 603 is already
penalized under Section 7 of RA 7610 Section 10 (a)
 Another example

Neglect to provide the child with education

according to the family’s station and financial
condition penalized under Article 59 (4) of PD 603
cannot be charged under Section 10 (a) as it is
already penalized under Article 277 of the Revised
Penal Code
 Talocod v. People
G.R. No. 250671, October 7, 2020

Mere shouting of invectives at a child,

when carelessly done out of anger, frustration, or
annoyance, does not constitute Child Abuse under
Section 10 (a) of RA 7610, absent evidence that the
utterance of such words were specifically intended to
debase, degrade, or demean the victim's intrinsic worth
and dignity.
 In this case, the records are bereft of any evidence showing
that petitioner's utterance of the phrase: "Huwag mong pansinin yan. At
putang ina yan. Mga walang kwenta yan. Mana-mana lang yan!" was
specifically intended to debase, degrade, or demean AAA's intrinsic
worth and dignity as a human being. To the contrary, it appears that
petitioner's harsh utterances were brought about by the spur of the
moment, particularly, out of her anger and annoyance at AAA's
reprimand of EEE.
 Also for Other Acts of Abuse
Any person
who shall use, • (1) Beg or use begging as a
coerce, force means of living;
• (2) Act as conduit or middlemen
or intimidate a in drug trafficking or
street child or pushing; or
any other child • (3) Conduct any illegal activities
to;
 Child abuse
Maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child
which includes any of the following:
• (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;
• (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
• (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food
and shelter; or
• (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child
resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his
permanent incapacity or death.
 Bongalon v. People
G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013.
• Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child
constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a)
of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands
is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the
accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic
worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it
be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished
under the Revised Penal Code.
Instances when infliction of physical injuries
maybe penalized under Section 10 (a)?
If the infliction of physical injuries is accompanied by
psychological abuse.

If the infliction of physical injuries constitutes cruelty.

If the infliction of physical injuries debases, degrades and

demeans the dignity of the child as a human being.
 NOTE!

The act should not be penalized under

Section 10 (a) if the act is punishable
under the specific provision of RA
7610 or the Revised Penal Code.
 Employment of Children below 15 years
old is prohibited
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;|||

(Prohibition Against the Employment of Children, Republic Act No. 7658, [November 9,
1993])
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 Employment: and

Provided, That the following requirements in all instances are strictly complied with. cd||

| (Prohibition Against the Employment of Children, Republic Act No. 7658, [November 9, 1993])
 3.

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of

2003
(RA 9208) as amended by
RA10364 and RA 11862
 Laws on Trafficking
1) Republic Act No. 9208
Anti-Trafficking Act of 2003

2) Republic Act No. 10364

Expanded Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012

3) Republic Act No. 11862

Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022 (NEW LAW)
What is trafficking in persons?
 Refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing,
offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders by means of
threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person for the purpose of
exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or
the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or
the removal or sale of organs.
basic elements of trafficking

Acts

Means Purpose
 ACTS
R.A. NO. 9208 R.A. No. 10364 R.A. NO. 11862
recruitment obtaining same
transportation hiring
transferring providing
harboring offering
receipt of persons maintaining
Adoption
 Casio case v. Rodriguez CASE
Convicted/Acquitted
People v. Casio People v. Rodriguez
December 3, 2014 September 20, 2017
Chicks mo dong? Sir Babae Sir!
INFO: INFO:
“hire and recruit for purposes of “recruit, transport, harbor,
prostitution” committed on May provide, introduce” committed on
3, 2008 August 8, 2006
 MEANS
R.A. NO. 9208 R.A. No. 10364 R.A. NO. 11862
threat adoption induced by any form of same
consideration
use of force
other forms of coercion
abduction
fraud
deception
abuse of power or position
taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person
or the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve
the consent of a person having
control over another person
 PURPOSE
R.A. NO. 9208 R.A. No. 10364 R.A. NO. 11862
exploitation (which includes exploitative - engagement of others for
at a minimum, the the production or
exploitation or the distribution, or both, of
prostitution or sexual materials that depict child
exploitation of others) sexual abuse or
exploitation materials
(CSAEM)
forced labor or services
slavery
servitude
removal or sale of organs
 ACT, MEANS AND PURPOSE
under R.A. No. 11862
-by means of threat, or
-recruitment, use of force, or other - for the purpose of
exploitation which includes
obtaining, hiring, forms of coercion, at a minimum, the
abduction, fraud,
providing, offering, deception, abuse of
exploitation or the
prostitution of others, or the
transportation, power of position, taking engagement of others for the
transfer, advantage of the production or distribution, or
both, of materials that depict
vulnerability of the
maintaining, person, or the giving or child sexual abuse or
harbouring, or receiving of payments of exploitation or other forms of
sexual exploitation
receipt of persons benefits to achieve the (CSAEM), forced labor or
consent of a person services, slavery, servitude, or
adoption having control over the removal or sale of organs.
another person
 IMPORTANT!

Section 3 (a) is a mere

GENERAL DEFINITION! We
have to specify the particular
punishable acts.
 Arambullo v. People
G.R. No. 241834 July 24, 2019

It must be clarified that Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 merely provides for the general
definition of "Trafficking in Persons" as the specific acts punishable under the law
are found in Sections 4 and 5 of the same (including Sections 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C if
the amendments brought about by RA 10364 are taken into consideration). This is
evinced by Section 10 which provides for the penalties and sanctions for committing
the enumerated acts therein. Notably, Section 10 (c) of RA 9208 (renumbered as
Section 10 [e] under RA 10364) of the law also provides for penalties for "Qualified
Trafficking in Persons" under Section 6. Nonetheless, since Section 6 only provides
for circumstances which would qualify the crime of "Human Trafficking," reference
should always be made to Sections 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, or 5 of the law.
 ARMBULO CASE
convicted under the new law

Section 4 (k) (4) under RA Section 4 (a) of RA 9208

10364
The use, procuring or offering of To recruit, obtain, etc. x x x for
a child for illegal activities or the purpose of forced labor,
work which, by its nature or the slavery, involuntary servitude,
circumstances in which it is or debt bondage;
carried out, is likely to harm their
health, safety or morals
 SPECIFIC PUNISHABLE ACTS

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons (TIP)

Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking

Section 8. Violation of Confidentiality

Section 11. Use of Trafficked Persons

 IMPORTANT!
People v. Sayo,
G.R. No. 227704, April 10, 2019
(SEC. 5 CANNOT BE QUALIFIED BY SEC. 6, Rep. Act No. 9208 [2003], as
amended)
Offenses punished under Section 5 cannot be qualified by Section 6 as
what the latter seeks to qualify is the act of trafficking and not the
promotion of trafficking. To be sure, this was clarified in the amendatory
law, RA 10364 or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012
where Section 6 was amended. x x x As can be gleaned from the
amendment, only violations of Section 4 on Trafficking in Persons can be
qualified. Section 5 on Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons, being
separate and distinct offenses, cannot be qualified as the law does not
expressly provide therefor. The clarificatory amendment, being beneficial
to the accused, must be applied in his favor.
 CASE PROBLEM 1
(consent)
Anna, a 15-year old child went with her gay friend Greta to Malate. Greta is a
well-known pimp in the area. Being a friend of Anna, Greta never offered her
(Anna) to his male customers.
One time, Greta asked Anna if she wanted to earn. He told her that she would
earn P500.00 if she would go with a male customer inside a nearby motel.
Anna consented. When the male foreigner gave Greta P5,000.00, Anna got her
P500.00 and went with the male foreigner. Anna was raped inside the motel.

Is Greta liable for trafficking?

 IMPORTANT:

In trafficking CONSENT is immaterial!

“with or without consent”

 CASE PROBLEM 2
(PROOF OF Means:
CHILD VICTIM)
• Supposed in the story of Anna and Greta, Anna was not given
P500.00 and she did not ask for it either. Greta did not even force or
influence her to go with the foreigner.

• Assuming Greta accompanied Anna to the motel in Malate and

turned her over to the male foreigner, may Greta be held liable for
trafficking?
 The “means” need not be proved
anymore if the victim is a child
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or
receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption
is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall
also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.”
Section 3 (a), second par. of R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
 Child considered vulnerable

When the victim is a child, there is no need

anymore to prove the existence of any of the
means employed. By her minority alone, the law
assumes her vulnerability.
Should the accused be able to
consummate the purpose to have
a case of trafficking?
 People v. Casio
G.R. No. 211465, December 3, 2014

"Chicks mo dong?“
(Cebu City)
 People v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017.

"Sir, sir, babae, sir.“

(Oplan Bugaw, QC Avenue)
 CASE PROBLEM
 Anna, a 15-year old child went with her gay friend Greta to
Malate. Greta is a well-known pimp in the area. Being a friend
of Anna, Greta never offered her to his male customers.

 But one time, Greta asked Anna if she wanted to earn. He told
her that she would earn P500.00 if she would go with a male
customer inside a nearby motel. Anna readily consented.
When the male foreigner gave Greta P5,000.00, Anna got her
P500.00 and went with the male foreigner. Anna was raped
inside the motel.

 Is Greta liable for trafficking? Greta claimed that Anna

consented to the act.
 IMPORTANT:

In trafficking CONSENT is

immaterial!

NOTE:

“with or without consent”

 CASE PROBLEM
Supposed in the story of Anna and Greta, Anna
was not given P500.00 and she did not ask for it
either. Greta did not even force or influence her to
go with the foreigner.

Assuming Greta accompanied Anna to the motel in

Malate and turned her over to the male foreigner.
May Greta be held liable for trafficking even with
paying Anna?
 The “means” need not be proved anymore if
the victim is a child

“The recruitment, transportation, transfer,

harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the
purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is
induced by any form of consideration for exploitative
purposes shall also be considered as 'trafficking in
persons' even if it does not involve any of the means
set forth in the preceding paragraph.” Section 3 (a)
 Child considered vulnerable

When the victim is a child, there is no

need anymore to prove the existence
of any of the means employed. By
her minority alone, the law
assumes her vulnerability.
“Taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person”

• “Abuse of a victim’s vulnerability” is defined in the UN

Protocol to Suppress, Prevent and Punish in Trafficking in
Persons Especially Women and Children “any situation in
which the person involved has no real and acceptable
alternative but to submit to the abuse involved.” These
persons are vulnerable because of physical, emotional,
economic, political and socio-cultural factors.”
 Definition of a Child

Below 18 years of age

Over but unable to take care or

protect himself/herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of physical or
mental disability or condition.
 DEFINITION OF A CHILD in case of
“overseas domestic work”

A person below twenty-

four (24) years old. (Sec. 4, last
paragraph, RA 11862)
 People v. Bandojo
G.R. No. 234161, October 17, 2018

Lack of knowledge of private

complainant's minority is
immaterial. Accused may still be
held guilty.
 People vs. Leocadio,
G.R. No. 237697, July 15, 2020
(consummated crime)

The fact that there were no actual indecent shows that were
performed by the victims, except for BBB, is immaterial. It is not
necessary that the victims have performed or are performing the
act of prostitution or sexual exploitation at the time when the
perpetrators were apprehended. The material fact in the crime
charged is that the purpose of the perpetrators is to engage the
victims in the said act of prostitution or sexual exploitation
 People vs. Ramirez,
G.R. No. 217978, January 30, 2019

Accused approached PO1 Nemenzo and offered him the

sexual services of four girls, two of whom were minors, for P2,400.00.
The police operation had been the result of previous surveillance.
Both minor victims testified that this incident was not the first time
that accused pimped them out to customers. It was held that the
crime of trafficking in person involving prostitution is considered
consummated even if no sexual intercourse (or no actual sexual
exploitation) had taken place since the mere transaction consummates
the crime.
 PUNISHABLE ACTS
• 4 (a) To recruit, obtain, hire, etc. on the pretext
domestic or overseas employment or training or
appretinceship

• 4(b) To introduce or match any Filipino woman to a

foreigner for marriage in exchange of any
consideration, for exploitative purposes

• 4(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated,

for the exploitative purposes
 PUNISHABLE ACTS
• 4 (d) To organize tours (SEX TOURISM)
• 4 (e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography
• 4 (f) To adopt for consideration for exploitative
purposes
• 4 (g) To adopt or facilitate the adoption for
exploitative purposes
• 4 (h) To recruit, hire, adopt etc. for the purpose of
removal or sale of organs of said person
 PUNISHABLE ACTS
• 4 (i) To recruit, transport, obtain, etc. or adopt a
child to engage in armed activities in the
Philippines or abroad.

• 4(j) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain etc. for

the purpose of forced labor, slavery, debt
bondage and involuntary servitude or any scheme
intended to cause the person:
 PUNISHABLE ACTS

a)To believe that if the person did not

perform such labor or services, he or she or
another person would suffer serious harm or
physical restrain.
b)To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal
processes
 PUNISHABLE ACTS
• 4 (k) - To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain
etc. or adopt or receive a child for the
purpose of exploitation or trading them,
act of baring and/or selling a child for any
consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of
exploitation of children shall include:
 1) all forms of slavery

 2) use or procuring or offering for prostitution,

production of pornography, or for pornographic
performances

3) The use, procuring or offering for drug

trafficking

4) The use, procuring or offering of a child for

illegal activities or work harmful to his health,
safety and morals
 PUNISHABLE ACTS

Attempted Trafficking in Person – when overt acts

have been committed but the offender failed to
or did not execute all the elements of the crime,
by accident or by reason of some cause other
than voluntary desistance. (SEC4-A RA 9208
SEC5 RA10364)
 In case the victim is a child, the following shall be considered
Attempted Trafficking
 4-A (a) Facilitating travel of a child who travels alone to a foreign country w/o valid
reason and w/o clearance from DSWD or permit form parents

 4-A (b) Executing Affidavit of consent or written consent for adoption

 4-A (c) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the purpose of selling the child

 4-A (d) Simulating birth for the purpose of selling the child

 4-A (e) Soliciting a child or acquiring custody through any means from hospitals,
clinics, nurseries
 Accomplice Liability

• Whoever knowingly aids, abets,

cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
(SEC 4-B RA9208; SEC 6 RA10364)
 Accesories
anyone who has knowledge of the commission of the crime

without having participated, either as principal or accomplice,

take part in the commission of the following

a) by profiting or assisting the offender to profit

b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime or
effects
c) by harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime unless accessory acts with abuse of
his or her public functions or is known to be habitually
guilty(SEC 4-C RA9208; SEC 7 RA10364)
 Acts that Promote Trafficking
• 5 (a) Leasing/subleasing (NOTE “knowingly”)
• 5 (b) To produce, print, issue fake certificates/stickers as
proof of compliance
• 5(c) To advertise, publish, print, etc. including use of
technology and the internet or any propaganda material to
promote trafficking
• 5 (d) To assist in the misrepresentation or fraud to facilitate
clearances from govt.
• 5 (e) To facilitate exit or entry of person who is in
possession of tampered docs
 5 (f) To confiscate, conceal or destroy passport or travel
docs of trafficked persons
 5 (g) To knowingly benefit or to make use of the labor or
services of a person held in condition of involuntary
servitude
 5 (h) To tamper or destroy evidence or to influence or
attempt to influence witnesses in the investigation or
prosecution of a case. ( SEC8 RA10364)
 5 (i) To destroy, conceal etc. actual or purported
passport, travel, immigration or working permit in order
to restrict person’s liberty to travel
 5 (j) To utilize his office to impede the investigation,
prosecution or execution of lawful orders
 People vs. Saxo
G.R. No. 227704, April 10, 2019
Accused owned a house where its room was offered for lease for every
paying customer of the complainants, who engaged in sex for a fee. Accused is
aware of these prostitution activities since he cleaned the room after the
complainant and her customer finished using it. Moreover, he sold condoms to
complainant's male customers before using the room. The trial court trial court
convicted him of qualified trafficking in person for knowingly leasing his house for
the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons under Section 5 of RA No. 9208.
The Supreme Court said that the trial court committed a serious error. The crime
under Section 5 of RA 9208 must be properly denominated as “acts that promote
trafficking in persons,” and not qualified trafficking in person.
 Use of Trafficked Persons
Any person who buys or engages services of
trafficked person for prostitution (PC max to PM, or
6 yrs to 12 yrs, FINE not less than P50 k but not
more than P100k) (SEC11 RA9208/SEC13 RA10364)

Probation law shall not apply

Except:

Section 5 RA 7610 (RT MED to RPPerpetua 500k to P1M)

Rape (RP, P1M to 5M)
 Qualified Trafficking
• 6 (a) Victim is a child
• 6 (b) When adoption is effected through RA 8043
• 6 (c) When committed by a syndicate or in large scale
• 6 (d) When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant, parent, sibling,
guardian or person who exercises authority, or when the offense is
committed by public officer or employee (RA10364)
• 6 (e) Offender is recruited for prostitution in the military or LEA
• 6 (f) Offender is member of the military or LEA
• 6 (g) Victim dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation, HIV or AIDS
• 6 (h) Offender commits one or more violations over a period of 60 or
more days
• 6 (i) Offender directs or through another manages the trafficked
victim
 People v. XXX and YYY
G.R. No. 235652, July 09, 2018
(qualified trafficking)
As correctly ruled by the courts a quo, accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of three (3) counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4 (e) in relation to
Section 6 (a) and (d) of RA 9208 as the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt
that: (a) they admittedly are the biological parents of AAA, BBB, and CCC, who were all minors
when the crimes against them were committed; (b) they made their children perform acts of
cybersex for different foreigner customers, and thus, engaged them in prostitution and
pornography; (c) they received various amounts of money in exchange for the sexual exploitation
of their children; and (d) they achieved their criminal design by taking advantage of their
children's vulnerability as minors and deceiving them that the money they make from their lewd
shows are needed for the family's daily sustenance.
 People v. Jonathan Westlie Kelley, Dela Rosa and Datu
G.R. No. 243653, June 22, 2020
(Syndicated trafficking)

OOO started working in April 2013. She explained that dancers like her
were subject to customers' option to pay a 'bar fine' of P2,000.00, so they can be
taken out for sexual intercourse. She recalled having been bar fined 10 times. She
added, however, that she had been 'tabled' more times, during which, customers
would fondle her genitals. She pointed to Dela Rosa as a mamasang, apart from
Datu, and to Westlie as the 'tagapuna,' or the monitor who admonished dancers
when they were not doing anything. . The operation led to the arrest of Westlie,
Carlota, and Datu, as well as the rescue of sixteen (16) victims, AAA, BBB, CCC,
DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO, and PPP.
 Accused-appellants were found guilty of operating as a syndicate to commit
qualified trafficking in persons. Their offense was committed as much against the
15 other women rescued on May 22, 2013 as it was against OOO. Even if it was
only OOO who personally testified, her testimony, along with those of P/Supt.
Puapo and PO3 Pagumpaton, and the entire corpus of evidence adduced by the
prosecution attest to the manifold operation of accused-appellants whose object
was by no means OOO alone. AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH,
III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, and PPP are as much victims of accused-
appellants' sinister designs. They are each equally deserving of a measure of
recompense. As such, this Court orders the payment of moral damages, not just
to OOO, but to each of the 15 other victims rescued on May 22, 2013.
Likewise, each of accused-appellants contributed to realizing
the objectives of their sinister operation. Their
contributions may have been varied, but they were no
less necessarily connected. Their culpability as knowing
individuals each enabling and assisting a perverse scheme
impels liability for damages from each of them to each of
their victims.
 People v. Susan Sayo and Alfredo Roxas
G.R. No. 227704 April 10, 2019
(plaza girls)

The combined testimonies of AAA, BBB, and CCC known as the "plaza girls"
disclosed that several months prior to November 15, 2005, these "plaza girls" have been
under the control and supervision of SAYO as commercial sex workers. Sayo would
receive a portion for every male customer of AAA,BBB and CCC.

SAYO would regularly furnish AAA, BBB and CCC with male customers on the
average five (5) customers per week. the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-
Women and Children Complaint Division (CIDG-WCCD) received a letter from the
International Justice Mission (IJM), an International Non Government Human Rights
Organization, requesting for police assistance on the possible rescue of three (3) minors
exploited for prostitution in Pasig City.
 Meanwhile, SAYO informed the "plaza girls" on that they have
customers for that night. AAA, BBB and CCC met SAYO at the Pasig Plaza.
There, she introduced them to the three men. The three male customers were
actually the agents of the ClOG-WCCD and IJM. After the negotiation was
concluded, all of them proceeded to the house of ALFREDO ROXAS AAA saw
the customers gave to ROXAS the Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00). The
undercover agents, SAYO and ROXAS talked about the payment for the girls'
services outside the house. When the Nine Hundred Pesos (P900.00) was handed
by one of the customers to SAYO to cover the payment for the services of AAA,
BBB and CCC, the CIDG-WCCO agents announced that it was a raid. At that
point, PO3 Anthony Ong executed the pre-arranged signal, in reaction to which,
the back-up operatives who were deployed in different strategic locations rushed
towards them and arrested SAYO and ROXAS.
 RULING

Section 4 of RA 9208 refers to those acts which directly involve trafficking in persons, such as
recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring, receiving, buying, offering, selling, or trading persons to
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude, or debt bondage. Meanwhile, Section 5 refers to those acts that promote or
facilitate any of the aforementioned predicate acts of Trafficking in Persons.

The Court upholds the findings of the courts a quo that Roxas knowingly leased a room in
his house for the purpose of prostitution. SAYO died during appeal so his criminal liability
was extinguished.
 Fernando Arambullo v. People
G.R. No. 241834 July 24, 2019

Petitioner and his minor son, Dominique Dimple Arambulo (Dominique),

invited the latter's three (3) schoolmates who were also minors, namely AAA, BBB,
and CCC, to their house sometime in 2011. It was then revealed that the purpose of
the meeting was to discuss petitioner's plans to commit robberies with the help of
AAA, BBB, and CCC. Upon learning about this, CCC expressed his desire to leave
but petitioner got angry and punched him; thus, he was forced to join the group.
AAA, BBB, and CCC then similarly testified that not only was petitioner the
mastermind of the series of robberies they subsequently committed against various
people, but he was also the driver of their getaway tricycle.
 Section 3 (a) only defines, Sections 4 and 5
provides for the punishable acts
It must be clarified that Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 merely provides for the
general definition of "Trafficking in Persons" as the specific acts punishable under the
law are found in Sections 4 and 5 of the same (including Sections 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C if
the amendments brought about by RA 10364 are taken into consideration). This is
evinced by Section 10 which provides for the penalties and sanctions for committing the
enumerated acts therein. Notably, Section 10 (c) of RA 9208 (renumbered as Section 10
[e] under RA 10364) of the law also provides for penalties for "Qualified Trafficking in
Persons" under Section 6. Nonetheless, since Section 6 only provides for circumstances
which would qualify the crime of "Human Trafficking," reference should always be
made to Sections 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, or 5 of the law.
• Hence, convictions for "Qualified Trafficking in Persons" shall rest on: (a)
the commission of any of the acts provided under Sections 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C,
or 5; and (b) the existence of any of the circumstances listed under Section 6.
Otherwise stated, one cannot be convicted of "Qualified Trafficking in
Persons" if he is not found to have committed any of the punishable acts
under the law.
 Forced labor and slavery

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the
following acts:

To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

Relatedly, Section 3 (d) of RA 9208 in its original form defines the term “forced labor and slavery” as “the
extraction of work or services from any person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use
of force or coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-
bondage or deception.”
 People v. Ranie Estonilo De Guzman
G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020
The prosecution claimed that Estonilo approached AAA,8 then 12 years old, in an
effort to convince the latter to "mamakla" in exchange for money. For this purpose,
Estonilo even introduced him to a "client" who offered P2,000.00 for AAA's sexual
services, but AAA refused.

However, Estoni1o was persistent with his recruiting efforts, while, AAA was on his
way home with his friend, BBB, then 11 years old, when Estonilo called their
attention. Estonilo persistently coerced AAA to have sex with BBB at a nearby vacant
lot in exchange for P300.00 so that they will learn how to perform sexual acts.
In this case, the courts a quo found that the prosecution, through the
testimonies of both AAA and BBB, was able to establish that Estonilo
had indeed befriended the two (2) minors in order to recruit them and
thereafter, pimp them to his clients. For this purpose, he was able to
take advantage of AAA and BBB's minority and coerce them into
committing sexual acts with one another, under the pretext that they
needed to learn how to perform such acts with fellow males so that
they can earn monetary consideration for the same.
 Geographical Scope

Place of Place of Place of

Origin Transit Destination
 QUERY

• Juana is a resident of Pampanga. She went with her

gay friend Greta to a motel in Malate, Manila on the
latter’s promise that he would give her P500.00 if she
would meet his foreigner customer. They boarded a
bus in Pampanga. They stopped in Bulacan to take their
lunch. In the motel, Juana had sexual intercourse with
the foreigner.

• Where should the trafficking case be filed?

 Venue
Where the offense or any element thereof was
committed.

IMPORTANT!

Where the trafficked person ACTUALLY

RESIDES at the time of the commission of the
offense (SEC.9)
 Prior Exclusive Jurisdiction

• The court where the criminal action is

first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to
the exclusion of other courts. (SEC.9)
 Extra-territorial jurisdiction

Accused is a Filipino citizen

Accused is a permanent resident of the Philippines

Victim is a citizen of the Philippines

 IMPORTANT!

Philippines exercises extra-territorial jurisdiction regardless

of whether trafficking is penalized in the country of destination.

If Trafficking, being a continuing offense, was EITHER

commenced in the Phil. or committed in another country
(SEC 26-A of RA 9208, as amended by RA 11862).
 QUERY
• Suppose Marlon is already prosecuted for
trafficking in Malaysia where he was arrested.
Can Jennifer, the Filipina victim who was able to
return to country, still prosecute him in the
Philippines?
• Once a foreign government has
prosecuted or is prosecuting the
accused, no prosecution maybe
commenced in the Philippines
EXCEPT UPON THE APPROVAL OF
THE DOJ SECRETARY. (SEC 23 RA
10364)
Who may file complaint for
trafficking?
• Any person who has personal knowledge of the
offense
• Trafficked person or offended party
• Parents or legal guardians
• Spouse
• Siblings
• Children
• NOTE: They may seek the assistance of
IACAT in the filing of the complaint. (Section
37 RULES)
Against whom the case of trafficking
may be filed?
 I - NATURAL PERSONS
- any person who played a part to make the trafficking in
persons possible

ex: recruiter matchmaker

transporter solemnizing officer
one who maintained
one who hired public officials
one who received advertisers
user guards/bouncers
 II- Juridical persons
Corporations, partnership, association, club,
establishment

Penalty shall be imposed upon the

owner
president
partner
manager
any responsible officer who participated
 III - FOREIGNER

• Shall be immediately deported after

serving sentence

• BARRED permanently from entering the

country
 QUERY
• Totoy, a 16-year old boy was recruited by Hakim to go
to Marawi. He was told that he would work in a
construction site for a salary of P6,000.00 a month. To
his surprise, he was not brought to a construction site.
Instead, he was required to use a gun and to kill
soldiers for the Maute Group. He was able to kill 3
soldiers before he was able to escape.
• May Totoy be charged with murder or homicide for the
killing of the soldiers?
 Freedom from liability
Trafficked persons shall not be penalized for
acts committed as a direct result, or as an
incident or in relation to being trafficked based
on the acts of trafficking enumerated in the Act
or in obedience to the order of the trafficker.

Cannot be prosecuted, fined or penalized for

violation of Article 202. (SEC 17 RA 10364)
RETALIATORY SUITS TO BE HELD IN ABEYANCE

• The prosecution of retaliatory suits

against victims of trafficking shall
be held in abeyance pending final
resolution and decision of criminal
complaint for trafficking. (SEC 17-C
RA 9208 IN REL 20 RA10364)
 Significant Amendments
UNDER RA NO. 11862!!!
• ONLINE SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN (OSAEC) which refers
to the use of digital or analog communication and ICT as means to abuse and exploit children
sexually, which includes cases in which contact child abuse or exploitation offline is combined
with an online component. This can also include the production, dissemination and possession of
CSAEM or CSAM; online grooming of children for sexual purposes; sexual extortion of children;
sharing image-based sexual abuse; commercial sexual exploitation of children; exploitation of
children through online prostitution; and live-streaming of sexual abuse, with or without the
consent of the victim. (Sec. 3 [w], RA 11862)
• CHILD LAUNDERING refers to an act of stealing and selling a child to adopting parents under
false pretenses and using schemes such as falsifying the child's details or manipulating the child's
origins to make the child appear an orphan or foundling. (Sec. 3 [l], RA 11862)
 CSAEM/CSAM

• Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Material or Child Sexual Abuse Material
(CSAEM or CSAM) refers to photos, images, videos, recordings, streams, or
any other representation or form of media, depicting acts of sexual abuse
and exploitation of a child or representation of a child as a sexual object,
whether or not generated digitally or by, through, and with the use of
information and communications technology. It shall also include materials
that focus on real or simulated genitalia or other private body parts of a
child. (Sec. 3 [m], RA 11862)
 ADDITIONAL QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• 6(j) When the crime is committed during a crisis, disaster, public health concern,
pandemic, a humanitarian conflict, or emergency situation, or when the trafficked person
is a survivor of a disaster or a human –induced conflict. (Section 6 (j) RA 11862)
• 6(k)When the trafficked person belongs to an indigenous community or religious minority
and is considered a member of the same; (Section 6 (k) RA 11862)
• 6(l) When the crime has resulted in pregnancy; (Section 6 (l) RA 11862)
• 6(n) When the trafficked person suffered mental or emotional disorder as a result of being
victim of trafficking, or (Section 6 (n) RA 11862)
• 6(o) When the act is committed by or through the use of ICT or any computer system.
 4
(AMENDMENT ON STATUTORY RAPE)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11648

An Act Providing for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age for Determining the
Commission of Statutory Rape, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815
as Amended, Otherwise Known as “The Revised Penal Code,” Republic
Act No. 8353, also known as “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997” and Republic
Act No. 7610, Otherwise Known as the “Special Protection of Children
Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.” APPROVED
MARCH 4, 2022.
 Article 266-A of the RPC is amended
Rape is committed by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person
under any of the following circumstances: x x x

•x x x

(d) When the offended party is under 16 years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present: Provided, that
there shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person having carnal
knowledge of another person under 16 years of age when the age difference
between the parties is not more than 3 years, and the sexual act in question is
proven to be consensual, non-abusive and non-exploitative: provided further
that if the victim is under 13 years of age, this exception shall not apply.
 “Non-abusive”

Absence of undue influence, intimidation,

fraudulent machinations, coercion, threat, physical,
sexual, psychological or mental injury or
maltreatment, either with intention or through
neglect, during the conduct of sexual activities with
the child victim.
 “Non-exploitative”

There is no actual or attempted act

or acts of unfairly taking advantage of the
child’s position of vulnerability, differential
power, or trust during the conduct of sexual
activities.
 Other laws were amended to change the
“12 years old” to “16 years old”
Articles 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code on Qualified
Seduction and Simple Seduction.

Sections 5 (b), 7, 9 and 10(b) of R.A. No. 7610 on Child

Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse, Child Trafficking, Obscene
Publication and Indecent Shows and Other Acts of Neglect,
Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Condition Prejudicial
to the child’s Development.
 6.
Anti-Child Pornography Act of
2009 (RA 9775)
Who is a child?
person below eighteen (18) years of age or
over, but is unable to fully take care of
himself/herself or protect himself/herself
 a person regardless of age who is presented,
depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein;
and
computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted
images or graphics of a person who is represented
or who is made to appear to be a child as defined
herein.
 “Child Pornography”
any representation

- visual, audio or written combination thereof,

- by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any

other means,

- of a child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit

sexual activities.
 Malum in se

intent is material

Ex: Serious artistic, political and

scientific value
 Cyber Child Pornography

1. Trafficking in person

2. Child Pornography under RA 9775 but the penalty shall

be higher by one degree

3.Cybersex under Section 4 of RA 10175

 Disini v. Secretary of Justice
GR NO. 202225, February 11, 2014

Offender cannot be prosecuted for

cyber child pornography under RA
10175 and child pornography under RA
9775 as it would violate double jeopardy
 Live child pornography

Prosecute under RA 9208 or the Anti-trafficking

Act!

A live show is not representation similar to

electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, or magnetic
means
 "Explicit Sexual Activity''
 actual or simulated
(1) sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, but not
limited to, contact involving genital to genital, oral to
genital, anal to genital, or oral to anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
(2) bestiality;
(3) masturbation;
(4) sadistic or masochistic abuse;
(5)lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts,
pubic area and/or anus; or
(6)use of any object or instrument for lascivious acts.
Section 4. Unlawful or Prohibited Acts. - It shall be
unlawful for any person:

(a)To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a

child to perform in the creation or production of any
form of child pornography; (EMPLOYER)

(b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of

child pornography; (PRODUCER)

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

advertise, promote, export or import any form of child
pornography; (PUBLISHER)
Inducement Production Publication
(d) To possess any form of child pornography with the
intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided.
***That possession of three (3) or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be prima facie
evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or
broadcast; (POSSESSOR with INTENT)

(e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue

for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to,
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in
establishments purporting to be a legitimate business;
(PROVIDER OF THE VENUE)
(f) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication
companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;
(DISTRIBUTOR)

(g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or

control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child pornography; (ONE
WHO PERMIT)

(h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;

(LURE/GROOM)
(i) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;
(PANDERER)

(j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;

(ACCESS)

(k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in

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

(l) To possess any form of child pornography (POSSESSOR)

 Syndicated Child Pornography

SECTION 5. Syndicated Child

Pornography. — The crime of child
pornography is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another.
 Cadajas v. People
G.R. No. 247348, November 16, 2021.
At around 5:30 in the morning of November 18, 2016, BBB was shocked
when she read the conversation between petitioner and AAA. She found that
petitioner was coaxing her daughter to send him photos of the latter's breast
and vagina. AAA relented and sent petitioner the photos he was asking.
When AAA learned that her mother read their conversation, she rushed to a
computer shop to delete her messages. BBB, however, was able to force her
to open petitioner's Facebook messenger account to get a copy of their
conversation.
Petitioner was charged for violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 and
for child pornography as defined and penalized under Section 4 (c) (2) of
R.A. No. 10175 in relation to Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) and (c) (5) of R.A. No. 9775.
 Ruling
One can be convicted for committing child pornography upon
proof of the following: (1) victim is a child; (2) victim was induced or
coerced to perform in the creation or production of any form of child
pornography; and (3) child pornography was performed through
visual, audio or written combination thereof by electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means. This Court
finds that the prosecution was able to prove these facts by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Mere possession is punishable
Thus, contrary to petitioner's contention, his act of inducing AAA to
send photos of her breasts and vagina constitutes child pornography and
explicit sexual activity under Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) and (c) (5) of R.A. No. 9775.
While there was no showing that petitioner intended to sell AAA's photos
to other people, this did not exonerate him from liability under the said
provision. During the Pre-Bicameral Conference Committee meeting that
led to the enactment of R.A. No. 9775 the members of the Technical
Working Group made a distinction between the act of merely possessing
child pornography materials from the act of making a profit out of it.
• From the foregoing, it is decisively clear that the crime of child pornography as defined and
penalized under R.A. No. 9775 should be classified as a crime mala in se. As parens patriae, this act of
grooming minors for sexual abuse should not be tolerated. We should not be complicit in reinforcing
this belief upon the minors that sex with children is acceptable and thereby fuel a pedophile's
fantasies prior to committing sexual abuse, which clearly happened in the instant case. Contrary to
the appreciation of evidence of the other members of this Court, the circumstances of this case
showed the intent of petitioner to abuse AAA and engage in acts of child pornography by inducing
the latter to exhibit her private parts to him. Petitioner, being the one with mental maturity, should
have known that it was not just legally, but inherently wrong for AAA, a minor, to show her private
parts, particularly, through a mobile device. If indeed, petitioner loved AAA, he should have
protected her dignity, being a minor. However, as the exchanges of petitioner and AAA would show,
it was through petitioner's prodding that led to AAA's act of exhibiting her private parts. Thus, this
Court concurs with the findings of the courts a quo that the prosecution was able to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner induced or coerced the minor victim to perform in the creation of
child pornography and that the same was done through a computer system.
• The courts a quo did not err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 4 (c) (2) of R.A. No. 10175, in relation to Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) and (c) (5) of R.A. No. 9775.
NOTE: Anti-Child Pornography Act was
repealed by R.A. No. 11930

Republic Act No. 11930 or The Anti-

Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of
Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child Sexual
Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM)
Act. (Lapsed into law on July 30, 2022)
 The new law defines OSAEC.
• ONLINE SEXUAL ABUSE OR EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
(OSAEC) refers to the use of ICT as a means to abuse and/or exploit
children sexually, which includes cases in which offline child abuse and/or
exploitation is combined with an online component. This can also include,
but is not limited to, the production, dissemination and possession of
CSAEM; online grooming of children for sexual purposes; sexual extortion
of children, sharing image-based sexual abuse; commercial sexual
exploitation of children; exploitation of children through online prostitution;
and live-streaming of sexual abuse, with or without the consent of the
victim: Provided, That OSAEC may be used interchangeably with online
child sexual exploitation or abuse (OCSEA
 The new law defines CSAEM/CSAM
• CHILDD SEXUAL ABUSE OR EXPLOITATION MATERIAL OR CHILD
ABUSE MATERIAL (CSAEM/CSAM) - refers to any representation,
whether offline, or by, through or with the use of ICT, by means of visual,
video, audio, written, or any combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical,
digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of a child engaged or involved
in real or simulated sexual activities, or depicting acts of sexual abuse or
exploitation of a child as a sexual object. It shall also include materials that
focus on the genitalia or other private body parts of a child. For purposes of
this Act, CSAEM may interchangeably be referred to as CSAM.
 Section 4 –Punishable Acts
SECTION 4. Unlawful or Prohibited Acts. — Regardless of the
consent of the child, it shall be unlawful for any person to
commit the following acts through online or offline means or
a combination of both:
• (a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce, extort, engage, or coerce a child to perform or
participate in whatever way in the creation or production of any form of OSAEC and CSAEM;
• (b) To produce, direct, manufacture, facilitate, or create any form of CSAEM, or participate in
the production, direction, manufacture, facilitation or creation of the same;
• (c) To offer, sell, distribute, advertise, promote, export, or import, by any means, any form of
CSAEM;
• (d) To knowingly publish, transmit and broadcast, by any means, any form of CSAEM;
 Punishable Acts under the new law
• (e) To permit or influence the child to engage, participate or assist in any form of CSAEM;
• (f) To produce, direct, create, hire, employ or pay a facilitator to stream or livestream acts of child
sexual abuse or exploitation;
• (g) To stream or live-stream acts of, or any form of, child sexual abuse and exploitation;
• (h) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a child or to induce or influence the
same, for the purpose of violating this Act;
• (i) To introduce or match a child to a foreign national or to any person for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this Act;
• (j) For film distributors, theaters and ICT services by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of CSAEM or to facilitate the commission of any of the offenses
under this Act;
 Punishable Acts under the new law
• (k) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, the commission of any of the
offenses of this Act;
• (l) To provide a venue for the commission of prohibited acts under this section such as
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses, private homes, or other establishments;
• (m) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child: Provided, That grooming taking place
offline as a prelude to violations under this Act shall also be penalized;
• (n) To sexualize children by presenting them as objects of sexual fantasy, or making them
conversational subjects of sexual fantasies, in any online or digital platform;
• (o) To engage in pandering as defined under this Act;
• (p) To willfully subscribe, join, donate to, or support an internet site that hosts OSAEC or
the streaming or live-streaming of child sexual abuse and exploitation;
 Punishable Acts under the new law
• (q) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means of any brochure, flyer,
or any material that promotes OSAEC and child sexual abuse or exploitation;
• (r) To possess any form of CSAEM: Provided, That possession of three (3) or more
CSAEMs is prima facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;
• (s) To willfully access any form of CSAEM; and
• (t) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in this section:
• Provided, That the investigation or prosecution of offenses under this Act shall be
without prejudice to appropriate investigation and prosecution mechanisms under
Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Acts of
2003," as amended, and other related laws.
 7.
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2009
(RA 9995)
 "Photo or video voyeurism"
• the act of taking photo or video coverage
• of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity or
• of capturing an image of the private area of a person
or persons
• without the latter's consent,
• under circumstances in which such person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy
 "Capture"

• with respect to an image, means to videotape,

photograph, film, record by any means, or
broadcast.
 "Broadcast"

• means to make public

• by any means
• a visual image
• with the intent that it be viewed by a
person or persons
 OR
 the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting,
sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or

recordings of such sexual act or similar activity

through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar
means or device without the written consent of the
person/s involved,

notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo

or video coverage of same was given by such person/s.
 TWO CONSENT

Consent to the capturing/recording

Consent to the exhibition or sale, etc.

What if both consented to the recording
and to the selling etc.?

Still punishable but

under Article 201 (2) (b)
for indecent shows.
 "Under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy"
• means circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy,
without being concerned that an image or a private
area of the person was being captured; or
circumstances in which a reasonable person would
believe that a private area of the person would not be
visible to the public, regardless of whether that person
is in a public or private place.
 Can a participant in the sexual act who
recorded the act without the consent of the
partner be held liable?
YES!

The act states “any person.”

If the non-consenting party is a woman who is or was in a

relationship with the offender, case of RA 9262 may also be filed.
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited
and declared unlawful for any person:

(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or

group of persons performing sexual act or any similar
activity or to capture an image of the private area of
a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast
without the consent of the person/s involved and
under circumstances in which the person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy; (CAPTURE)
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act
or any similar activity with or without consideration;
(REPRODUCE)

(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed,

such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be
the original copy or reproduction thereof; or (SELL)

(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or

broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or
exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and other similar means or device.
(BROADCAST)
 Exemption:
• any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of
the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of
photo or video voyeurism:
• Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or
granted upon written application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism
has been committed or is about to be committed, and
• that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention
of, such crime.
Are peeping toms covered by the Act?

NO, if they do not take

photo or video.
 Inadmissibility of Evidence

• Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof,

obtained or secured by any person in violation
of the preceding sections shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.
 8

Child Marriage Prohibition

Law (RA 11596)
 “Marriage”

- refers to any marriage entered into where one or both parties are
children as defined in the paragraph above, and solemnized in civil or
church proceedings, or in any recognized traditional, cultural or
customary manner.

-it shall include an informal union or cohabitation outside of wedlock

between an adult and a child, or between children
 “Guardians”

- relatives or individuals taking custody of a child

in the absence of the parents, or anyone to whom
a child is given or left for care or custody, whether
permanent or temporary; or persons judicially
appointed by a competent court as guardians
 “Parents”

biological parents

adoptive parents
 “Solemnizing officer”

- refers to any person authorized to officiate a

marriage under Executive Order No. 209,
otherwise known as “The Family Code of the
Philippines," or recognized to celebrate
marriages by reason of religion, tradition, or
customs.
 I - Facilitation of Child Marriage

Any person who causes, fixes, facilitates, or arranges

a child marriage

PENALTY - PM in its medium period and a

FINE of not less than Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000.00)
 Higher penalty

- If committed by a ascendant, parent, adoptive parent, step

parent, or guardian of the child

PENALTY - prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less

than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), and

perpetual loss of parental authority

 II- Production/printing/issuing etc. of
fraudulent or tampered documents

- for the purpose of misrepresenting the age of a child to facilitate

child marriage or evade liability under this Act shall be liable
under this section, without prejudice to liability under other laws

- if the perpetrator is a public officer, he or she shall be dismissed

from the service and may be perpetually disqualified from holding
office, at the discretion of the courts
 III - Solemnization of Child Marriage|||
- Any person who performs or officiates a child marriage

PENALTY - prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less
than P50,000.00:

- If the perpetrator is a public officer, he or she shall be DISMISSED

from the service and may be perpetually disqualified from holding
office, at the discretion of the courts
 IV - Cohabitation of an Adult with a Child outside
Wedlock

- an adult partner who cohabits with a child outside

wedlock

- PENALTY - prision mayor in its maximum period

and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00)
 Public Crimes

- can be initiated by a
concerned individual
 9

Anti-Fencing Law of 1979

 What is fencing?

a. "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.
 Elements of Fencing
1. Robbery or theft has been committed.

2. The accused, who is neither a principal or an accomplice in the commission of

robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses etc. or any manner deal with the stolen or
robbed item or article, which is the proceed of the crime.

3. The accused knows or should know that the said item or article has been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft, and

4. There is intent to gain for himself or another.

 Jaime Ong v. People
G.R. No. 190475 April 10, 2013
(“should know” means)

Accused Ong alleged that he had been engaged in the business of

buying and selling tires for twenty-four (24) years and denying that he had
any knowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing. He
further averred that a certain Ramon Go (Go) offered to sell thirteen (13)
Firestone truck tires allegedly from Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City, for
P3,500 each. He bought all the tires for P45,500, for which he was issued
a Sales Invoice dated 18 February 1995 and with the letterhead Gold Link
Hardware & General Merchandise (Gold Link).[
 “should know”
The accused knew or should have known that the said article, item,
object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft. The words "should know" denote the fact that a person of
reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance
of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such
fact exists. Ong, who was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the past
twenty-four (24) years, ought to have known the ordinary course of business in
purchasing from an unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached Ong and
offered to sell the thirteen (13) tires and he did not even ask for proof of
ownership of the tires. The entire transaction, from the proposal to buy
until the delivery of tires happened in just one day.
 Actual knowledge is not required
• Actual knowledge that the property is stolen is not required. Fencing is
committed if the accused should have known that the property is stolen
taken into consideration the attending circumstances such as (1) the price of
the property is so cheap; (2) expensive jewelry is being offered for sale at
midnight in a street; (3) accused knew that the car he bought was not
properly documented (Dimat vs. People, supra); or (4) new tires are being
peddled in the streets by an unknown seller (Ong vs. People, supra)
 Lim v. People
G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016

Accused Mariano Lim bought the heavy equipment

from Petronilo Banosing for P400,000.00 Pesos. Banosing
showed him a Certificate of Ownership that stated that the
heavy equipment is his. He checked with the DPWH in
Manila and found out that the subject heavy equipment is not
included in the inventory of equipment of the DPWH.
 Ownership and the fact of theft, not proved.
Being the government agency in charge of construction projects, the DPWH
is expected to have a database of all equipment and materials it uses for easy
reference of its employees. The prosecution's failure to present a sufficient
proof of ownership of the grader despite the many opportunities it had to do so
places doubt on the DPWH's claim of ownership. Thus, it cannot be said that the
first element of fencing had been established.

In fact, the prosecution even failed to conclusively establish that the

grader had been stolen. Engr. Gulmatico's testimony on the alleged act of theft
should not be given any weight considering that he had no personal knowledge of
the actual theft.
 Lim vs. People,
G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016

If the information alleged that the accused “knows”

that the property is stolen, he cannot be convicted of
fencing on the ground that he “should have
known” that the same was derived from the
proceeds of theft because of his constitutional right
to be informed
 Clearance from PNP Commander: when is it
needed?

• Clearance is required not before buying but

before re-selling!
• SECTION 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. —
For purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
buy and sell of any good, article, item, object or anything of value obtained
from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same
for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the
station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city
where such store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of
Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police shall
promulgate such rules and regulations to 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.
 Lim v. People
G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016
(no need for clearance in this case, requisites not present)

first, that the person, store, establishment or entity is in the business of

buying and selling of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value;

second, that such thing of value was obtained from an unlicensed dealer
or supplier thereof; and

third, that such thing of value is to be offered for sale to the public.
Should there be prior conviction for the person who committed the
theft or robbery before there could be prosecution for fencing?

• No there is no need.
SEE: Lim v. People
G.R. No. 211977. October 12, 2016.
 IMPORTANT PRESUMPTION:
• Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
 Anti-fencing law is malum prohibitum.

Cahulogan v. People
G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018.
 Cahulogan v. People
G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018.
The graduation of values in Article 309 was substantially amended, without any concomitant
adjustment for PD 1612. This development would then result in instances where a Fence, which is
theoretically a mere accessory to the crime of Robbery/Theft, will be punished more severely than
the principal of such latter crimes. This incongruence in penalties therefore, impels an adjustment
of penalties.

However, while it may be the most expeditious approach, a short cut by judicial fiat is a
dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited judicial legislation. As the Court
remains mindful of the fact that the determination of penalties is a policy matter that belongs to
the legislative branch of the government, it finds it prudent to instead, furnish both Houses of
Congress, as well as the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the
Department of Justice, pursuant to Article 5 of the RPC, copies of this ruling in order to
alert them on the aforestated incongruence of penalties, all with the hope of arriving at the
proper solution to this predicament.
 Dizon-Pamintuan v. People
G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994
(PD 1612 more severe penalty)
PD 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the
effects of the crimes of robbery and theft." Evidently, the accessory in the crimes of robbery
and theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or under PD 1612.
However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the
crime of fencing. Elsewise stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and
fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct offenses. The state may thus choose to
prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the
preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a malum
prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher
penalty based on the value of the property.
Should intent to gain be proved before one can be convicted
of fencing?

The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in

themselves called "acts mala in se," and acts which would not
be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids the, called
"acts mala prohibita." This distinction is important with
reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The
rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs,
but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been
violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is
immaterial. (SEE Dunlao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111343,
August 22, 1996.)
 Should there be proof of purchase of the
stolen item?

• The law does not require proof of purchase of the

stolen articles by petitioner, as mere possession
thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of
fencing. (SEE Dunlao v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 111343, August 22, 1996.)
 If the value of the property stolen or taken was not
proved, can there still be conviction?

If there is no available evidence to prove the value of

the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to
prove it, the corresponding penalty to be imposed on
the accused-should be the minimum penalty
corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00.
(SEE People v. Dator, 344 SCRA 236 (2000).
 10
Anti-Illegal Numbers Game Law
PD 1602 as amended by RA 9287
 Who may be held liable under PD 1602
as amended?
Bettor "Mananaya", "Tayador“

Personnel or Staff of Illegal, Numbers Game Operation.

Collector or Agent "Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador“

Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor "Encargado“

Maintainer, Manager or Operator

Financier or Capitalist.

Protector or Coddler
 What are the prohibited acts?

a) Illegal Numbers Game. — Any

form of illegal gambling activity which
uses numbers or combinations thereof
as factors in giving out jackpots.
b) Jueteng. — An illegal numbers game that involves the-combination of thirty-seven
(37) numbers against thirty-seven (37) numbers from numbers one (1) to thirty-seven (37)
or the combination of thirty-eight (38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local
lottery where bets are placed and accepted per combination, and its variants.

c) Masiao. — An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived

from the results of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion or any result
thereof based on any fictitious Jai Alai game consisting of ten (10) players pitted against
one another, and its variants.

d) Last Two. — An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived
from the last two (2) numbers of the first prize of the winning Sweepstakes ticket which
comes out during the weekly draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO),
and its variants.
 Penalties
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days, if such person acts as a BETTOR;

b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if such person acts as a
PERSONNEL OR STAFF of an illegal numbers game operation;
• The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any person who allows his vehicle, house building or land to be used in the operation of the illegal
numbers games.

c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such person acts as a
COLLECTOR OR AGENT;

d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if such person acts as a
COORDINATOR, CONTROLLER OR SUPERVISOR;

e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, if such person acts
as MAINTAINER, MANAGER OR OPERATOR a; and,

f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years; if person acts as a
FINANCIER OR CAPITALIST;

g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, if such person acts
as a PROTECTOR OR CODDLER.
 Prima facie Evidence

Possession of gaming
paraphernalia
 If the offender is a government official or
employee, the penalty is higher.
• Save for a bettor and protector, the penalty of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three million
pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and
perpetual absolute disqualification from public office
For a recidivist, the
penalty next higher in
degree is imposable.
 11
Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (RA 3019)
 Who is a public officer?
Elective or appointive

Permanent or temporary

Classified of Unclassified

Receiving compensation , even nominal

 Maligalig v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 236293, December 10, 2019

Petitioner argued that since BASECO is a private corporation

under the tutelage of PCGG as conservator and that he was elected to
the BOD by reason of his being a stockholder of the company, he
cannot be considered as a public official or employee within the
definition of Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Not being a public official or
employee, he asserts that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over his
person and that, consequently, the Office of the Ombudsman also has
no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation against him.
 Ruling
A public officer is defined in the Revised Penal Code as
"any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular
election, or appointment by competent authority, shall take
part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in
said Government, or in any of its branches, public duties
as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank
or class."
 The concept of a public officer was
expounded further in the Serana case, where it
was held that, "An investment in an individual of
some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit
of the public makes one a public officer." As
President of a sequestered company like
BASECO, petitioner is expected to perform
functions that would benefit the public in general.
 Government-owned and controlled
corporations

For the purpose of RA 3019

includes those with and
without original charters.
 “Public officers”

All public officers whether in the career service

or non-career service, who receive compensation even
nominal, from the national government, the local
government, the government owned and controlled
corporations and all other agencies of the government
maybe charged under RA 3019, such as contractual
employees and re-elected officials.
 Carpio Morales v. CA
G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015
• The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the abandonment
is PROSPECTIVE in effect;

• (Condonation of administrative misconduct committed during his

expired term by reason of a public officer’s election is now
abandoned.)
• (Condonation never applies to criminal liability.)
• SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:

• (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an

act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the
latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit
such violation or offense.
 Elements of Section 3 (a)
TWO WAYS OF VIOLATING SECTION 3 (a)

1) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer

to perform (a) an act in violation of rules and regulations
duly promulgated by competent authority (b) an offense in
connection with the official duties of the latter;

2) A public officer allowing himself to be persuaded,

induced, or influence to commit such violation
 Examples

• Cashier and Auditor

• In RE Lanuevo, 66 SCRA 245

• Bar Confidant, without authority of the Supreme Court, requested 5 examiners
to re-evaluate an examinee’s answers resulting to the passing in the Bar
 Section 3 (b)
• (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Government
and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
 Elements of Section 3 (b)
The offender is a public officer.

He requested and/or received a gift, present or consideration

The gift, present or consideration was for his benefit.

The gift, present or consideration was requested and/or received in connection with a
contract or transaction with the government; and

The officer has the right to intervene in such contract or transaction in his official
capacity.
 Mabini vs. Raga
A.M. No. P-06-2150, June 21, 2006
(lechon)
Complainant presented a letter signed by Branch 28 employees, including respondent,
thanking Governor Roño for his “donation” of P1,500.00. However, there is no proof
whatsoever that a solicitation took place. The cash gift of P1,500.00 was received not by
respondent Lilia alone, but together with eleven other employees of Branch 28, to
purchase lechon for their Christmas party; hence, the individual benefit of the employees
may be considered nominal. Neither does it appear from the evidence that the nominal
gift was given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor. Thus, respondent Lilia
cannot be held liable under Republic Act No. 6713 because the governor’s gift, aside from
being unsolicited, was also nominal or insignificant in value; and not given in
anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor. The receipt of the gift does not fall within the
ambit of Section 7 (d) of RA No. 6713, in relation to Sections 3 (c) and (d
Section 14 of RA No. 3019 recognizes as lawful receipt of
unsolicited gift of insignificant value of a gift given as a
token of gratitude. This provision provides: Unsolicited
gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or
given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship
according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from
the provisions of this Act
 Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan
127 SCRA 363
• The official intervention should be required by law in a contract or
transaction.
• Assistant Principal agreed to facilitate the payment of the salary
differentials of the teachers with the obligation on the part of the
teachers to pay P36.00.
• Acquitted. As a principal he is not required by law to intervene.
 Section 3 (c) and (d)
• (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for
another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for
the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section
thirteen of this Act.
• (d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency thereof or within one
year after its termination.
 Section 3 (e)
• (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.
 Elements of Section 3 (e)

(1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,

judicial, or official functions;

(2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, or evident bad faith, or
gross inexcusable negligence; and

(3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
 Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 50691, December 5, 1994
• The second element enumerates the different modes by which means the offense penalized
in Section 3 (e) may be committed. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a
disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose
or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through
some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has
been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may
be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never
fail to take on their own property."
• These definitions prove all too well that the three modes are distinct and different from each
other. Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the prohibited acts
under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant conviction.
 The injury must be real and actual.

NO REAL INJURY:
withholding of salary for non submission of DTR

NO REAL INJURY:
refusal to grant clearance because of an existing liability

NO REAL INJURY:
where sufficient consideration exists in favour of the government
 Villarosa vs. Hon. Ombudsman,
G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019
(technical malversation, not Section 3 (e)
Manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence are
not elements of technical malversation. Hence, public
officers, who commits technical malversation, may not be
held liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019
unless additional circumstance establishes manifest
partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable
negligence.
Using tobacco fund to finance the regular operations of the
municipality, which are not in accordance with the law creating
such fund constitutes technical malversation. However, it was
held that the mere act of using government money to fund
a project which is different from what the law states you
have to spend it for does not fall under the definition of
manifest partiality nor gross inexcusable negligence
 Section 3 (f)

• ( 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 the purpose of favoring his own interest or
giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other
interested party.
NOTE: Neglect or delay must be
accompanied by a demand
impliedly or expressly of any
benefit or consideration for himself
or another. Otherwise, liability is
only administrative.
 Section 3 (g)

• (g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or

transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same,
whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
 Factors to consider

Does the public officer have the authority to conclude the transaction and
bind the government? (Ingco v. Sandiganbayan,272 SCRA 563)

Is the contract existing or already rescinded? (Duterte v. Sandiganbayan,

289 SCRA 721)

Is the disadvantage to the government gross or negligible?

 Section 3 (h)
• (h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
 “Intervention”

Actual

In the official capacity of the Public officer

 Section 3 (i)
• (i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain,
or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring
the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a
member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even
if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action
of the board, committee, panel or group.
NOTE:

Interest for personal gain shall be

presumed against those public officers
responsible for the approval of manifestly
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transactions
or acts by the board, panel or group to which
they belong.
• ( j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for
or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.
• (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his
official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date. (Prior
knowledge)
 NOTE: The person giving the gift, present,
share, percentage or benefit referred to in
subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the
public officer the employment mentioned in
subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely
release of the confidential information referred to in
subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the
offending public officer, be punished under Section
nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily
disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the Government.
RA 3019 makes no time distinction.
 11
Anti-Plunder Act
(RA 7659)
• "SEC. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. — Any
public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of
his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. (AS AMENDED BY
RA 7659)
 Who is a public officer?

• means any person holding any public office

in the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines by virtue of an appointment,
election or contract.
What is included in the term government?

• includes the National Government, and any of

its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or -controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.
 What does “Ill gotten wealth means”?
• any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of
any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired
by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or
series of the following means or similar schemes :

• 1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or

malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
• 2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share,
percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned;

• 3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets

belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies
or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries;

• 4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares

of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including
promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
• 5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of
decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or
special interests; or

• 6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority,

relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines.
 Macapagal Arroyo v. People
G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016

The concept of malversation as a

predicate crime of plunder is the same
as that of malversation under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code.
 Arroyo vs. People,
G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017

If there are several accused in plunder case, who acted under a single
conspiracy, or wheel conspiracy, or chain conspiracy, the main
plunderer must be identified. The law on plunder requires that a
particular public officer must be identified as the one who amassed,
acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth in the amount of at least P50
million. Surely, the law requires in the criminal charge for plunder
against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer
and her co-conspirators.
 A case for plunder involving the misappropriation of PCSO funds
amounting to P360 million was filed against ten (10) accused including
President Arroyo. However, the information did not identify President
Arroyo or any other accused as the principal plunderer. Hence, the case
was dismissed. It was held that because plunder is a crime that only a public
official can commit by amassing, accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in
the aggregate amount or total value of at least ₱50,000,000.00, the
identification in the information of such public official as the main plunderer
among the several individuals thus charged is logically necessary under the law
itself. The individuals charged therein were 10 public officials; hence, it was
only proper to identify the main plunderer or plunderers among the 10 accused
who herself or himself had amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth
with the total value of at least ₱50,000,000.00.
 Enrile v. People
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015,

In the crime of plunder, the amount of

ill-gotten wealth acquired by each accused
in a conspiracy is immaterial for as long as
the total amount amassed, acquired or
accumulated is at least P50 million.
May a private individual be punished for
plunder?

YES. Any person who

participated with the said public officer
in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder
shall likewise be punished for such
offense.
 Napoles vs. Carpio-Morales
G.R. Nos. 213542-43, March 15, 2016

While the primary offender in violation of RA No. 3019 and

plunder are public officers, private individuals may also be held liable
for the same if they are found to have conspired with said officers in
committing the same. This proceeds from the fundamental
principle that in cases of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all. In this case, Janet Napoles engaged in the illegal hemorrhaging of
Senator Enrile's PDAF. Thus, they are rightfully charged as a co-
conspirator for corruption and plunder
Penalties imposed according to RPC

In the imposition of penalties, the degree

of participation and the attendance of
mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be
considered by the court.
 Forfeiture of the proceeds

The court shall declare any and all ill-

gotten wealth and their interests and other
incomes and assets including the properties
and shares of stocks derived from the deposit
or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the
State.“
Should each act be proved distinctly from
each other?

NO, it is enough that the

acts show a pattern of accumulation.
The series of acts in the nature of
continued crime deemed only as one.
Plunder is malum in se.
 12
Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act
(RA10591)
Classifications of firearms

Parts of Firearms

Ammunition
• SECTION 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition. — The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and
ammunition shall be penalized as follows:
• (a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;
• (b) The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed if three (3) or more small arms or Class-A light weapons are
unlawfully acquired or possessed by any person;
• (c) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light
weapon;
• (d) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-B light weapon;
• (e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in
paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of
the following conditions:
(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
(2)Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the
shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the
like;
(3)Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm
silencer;
(4)Accompanied with an extra barrel; and
(5)Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.
• (f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a small arm;
• (g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a small arm or Class-A
light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person
charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the former
violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
• (h) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-A light weapon;
• (i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon.
If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-A light weapon, the former violation shall
be absorbed by the latter;
• (j) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a Class-B light weapon; and
• (k) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a Class-B light weapon. If the violation of this
paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the unlawful
acquisition or possession of a Class-B light weapon, the former
violation shall be absorbed by the latter.
 Loose firearm

• refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or

altered firearm, firearm which has been lost or
stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered
firearms in the possession of an individual other
than the licensee and those with revoked licenses in
accordance with the rules and regulations.
• SECTION 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. — The use of a
loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose
firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that
prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for
illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose
firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that
imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the
penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws
of which he/she is found guilty.
• If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup
d' etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of
rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d' etat.

• If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm,
the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate
offense.
Penalty for the Felony/Crime Committed
shall be imposed if the penalty for illegal
possession is lower

Felony/Crime

Illegal
Possession
 Penalty for Illegal Possession shall be
imposed if the penalty for the Felony/Crime
is lower
Illegal
possession

Felony/Crime
 The penalty are equal
(penalty for the felony/crime plus additional
penalty of PM in its minimum period)

Illegal
Felony/crime Possession of
Firearm
Elements of Illegal Possesion of Firearms

• (a) the existence of the firearm or ammunition; and

• (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the
firearm or ammunition does not have the corresponding
license or permit to possess it. Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G. R.
No. 121917, 12 March 1997, 269 SCRA 402.
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs
Act of 2002
(RA 9165)
 PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals.

Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort.

Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort.

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.

Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties,

Social Gatherings or Meetings.

Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and

Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings.

Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.

 Section 5, RA 9165
• “Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and
all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions.”
 Elements of Sale of Drug

1) the identities of the buyer and seller,

2) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and

3) the existence of the corpus delicti.

(People vs. De Guzman, GR No. 219955, February 5, 2018).

 Buy-Bust-Operation

Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned

procedures for apprehending drug peddlers and
distributors. These operations are often utilized by
law enforcers for the purpose of capturing
lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious
activities (People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 162
[2013]).
 Buy-Bust-Operation

A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one,

is not necessary, especially where the police
operatives are accompanied by their informant
during the entrapment. Hence, the said buy-
bust operation is a legitimate, valid entrapment
operation (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No.
219953, April 23, 2018).
 Buy-Bust-Operation
That no test buy was conducted before the arrest is of no
moment for there is no rigid or textbook method of
conducting buy-bust operations. x x x x The Court will not
pretend to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts police
authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their
entrapment operations. The selection of appropriate and
effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is best left to
the discretion of police authorities (People vs. Edgardo
Adrid, G.R. No. 201845. March 6, 2013).
 Buy-Bust-Operation
On the contention that the poseur buyer and the accused are total
strangers and sale cannot be done in public or crowded places.

This Court observed in many cases that drug pushers sell their prohibited
articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as
well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have
become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the
law. Hence, what matters is not the time and venue of the sale, but the fact
of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited
drugs (Ching vs. People, GR No. 177237, October 17, 2008).
 Buy-Bust-Operation
Non-presentation of money used to buy drugs.

Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of

the money used in a buy-bust operation much less is it required
that the boodle money be marked. Similarly, the absence of
marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution provided that the prosecution has adequately proved
the sale (People vs. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011).
 Buy-Bust-Operation
Use of fluorescent powder, not indispensable.

The presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder is not an indispensable

evidence to prove that the appellant received the marked money.
Moreover, there is no rule requiring that the police officers must apply
fluorescent powder to the buy-bust money to prove the commission of
the offense. In fact, the failure of the police operatives to use fluorescent
powder on the boodle money is not an indication that the entrapment
operation did not take place (Flores vs. People, G.R. No. 222861, April
23, 2018).
 Buy-Bust-Operation
Simultaneous exchange of marked money and prohibited drugs, not
necessary.

There is no rule of law which requires that in buy-bust operations there

must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited
drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. Section 5 punishes not only
the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer
to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. In the
distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is
immaterial (People vs. Conception, G.R. No. 178876, June27, 2008).
 Buy-Bust-Operation
Lack of Prior Coordination with the PDEA

It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not

invalidate operations on account of the law enforcers' failure to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, the Court noted
that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations
implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure
on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA
prior to conducting a buy-bust operation (People vs. Figueroa, G.R.
No. 186141, April 11, 2012).
 “Objective Test”
In determining the credibility of the prosecution witnesses regarding
the conduct of buy-bust operation, the objective test is employed.

Objective test, demands "the details of the purported transaction during

the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale” (People vs. Dumagay, G.R. No. 216753, February 7, 2018).
Illegal sale of drugs vs. Trading of drug
Are the elements of illegal sale of drugs the same as
trading of illegal drugs?

Are the drugs subject of illegal sale required to be

presented as corpus delicti in trading of illegal drugs?

What is the difference between sale of illegal drugs and

trading of illegal drugs?
 De Lima vs. Guerrero
G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017

It should be noted that the subject of these cases was

"Illegal Sale" of dangerous drugs — a crime separate and
distinct from "Illegal Trading" averred in the Information
against De Lima. The elements of "Illegal Sale" will
necessary differ from the elements of Illegal Trading
under Section 5, in relation to Section 3 (jj), of RA 9165.
Section 3 (jj) Trading. — Transactions involving the
illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals using
electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text
messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios,
internet, instant messengers and chat rooms or acting
as a broker in any of such transactions whether for
money or any other consideration in violation of this
Act.
It is obvious from the foregoing that the crime of illegal trading has been
written in strokes much broader than that for illegal sale. In fact, an illegal
sale of drugs may be considered as only one of the possible component
acts of illegal trading which may be committed through two modes:
(1) illegal trafficking using electronic devices; or (2) acting as a broker in
any transactions involved in the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs.

With the complexity of the operations involved in Illegal Trading of drugs, as

recognized and defined in RA 9165, it will be quite myopic and restrictive to
require the elements of Illegal Sale — a mere component act — in the
prosecution for Illegal Trading.
 Section 6, RA 9165
“Any person or group of persons who shall maintain a
den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or
sold in any form.”

“Upon any person or group of persons who shall

maintain a den, dive, or resort where any controlled
precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any
form.”
 Section 6, RA 9165
• If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same
shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the
government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall
specifically allege that such place is intentionally used in the
furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution
shall prove such intent on the part of the owner to use the
property for such purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner
shall be included as an accused in the criminal complaint.
 Section 6, RA 9165

For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the

prosecution must establish with proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is
administered, used, or sold. It must be established that the alleged
drug den is a place where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to
and/or used by customers of the maintainer of the den (People vs.
Galicia, G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018).
 Section 7, RA 9165
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is
aware of the nature of the place as such.

(b) Any person who, not being included in the

provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is
aware of the nature of the place as such and shall
knowingly visit the same.
 Section 11, RA 9165
• Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
• Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
possess any dangerous drug.

• NOTE:
• The penalty is dependent on the kind and amount of
the prohibited drugs possessed.
 Section 11, RA 9165
Elements:

(1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug;

(2) his possession was not authorized by law; and

(3) he freely and consciously possessed the drug (Asiatico v. People,

G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011).
 Section 12, RA 9165
Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or
have under his/her control any equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body.
 Section 12, RA 9165
Elements:

(1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment,

apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body; and

(2) such possession is not authorized by law (People vs. Villar,

G.R. No. 215937, November 9, 2016).
 Section 13, RA 9165

Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties,

Social Gatherings or Meetings.

Any person found possessing any dangerous

drug during a party, or at a social gathering or
meeting, or in the proximate company of at least
two (2) persons
 Section 14, RA 9165
Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
Any person, who shall possess or have under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or 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) persons.
 Section 15, RA 9165

Use of Dangerous Drugs

A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be

positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory
test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6)
months rehabilitation in a government center for the first
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act.
 Section 15, RA 9165

People vs. Sullano, G.R. No. 228373, March 12, 2018

May an accused be prosecuted for violation of

Section 15 if he was found positive for drug use in a
random drug testing?
 Section 15, RA 9165

People vs. Sullano, G.R. No. 228373, March 12, 2018

An analysis of the construction of the sentence yields no other

conclusion. Section 15 is unambiguous: the phrase "apprehended
or arrested" immediately follows "a person," thus qualifying the
subject person. It necessarily follows that only apprehended or
arrested persons found to be positive for use of any
dangerous drug may be prosecuted under the provision.
 Section 15, RA 9165
Social Justice Society vs. DBB, G.R. No. 157870,
November 3, 2008

Section 36
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office
with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test
 Section 15, RA 9165

Social Justice Society vs. DBB, G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008

The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are "randomness"

and "suspicionless". In the case of persons charged with a crime before the
prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or
suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are
antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They
are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion.
 Section 15, RA 9165
Use of Dangerous Drugs

A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be

positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a
minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government
center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of
Article VIII of this Act.
 Section 15, RA 9165
Dela Cruz v. People, 739 Phil. 578 (2014).

"A person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean

any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The
phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed
under Article II of the law.
 Section 15, RA 9165
Dela Cruz v. People, 739 Phil. 578 (2014).

To make the provision applicable to all persons

arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed
under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding
its meaning. Note that accused appellant here was
arrested in the alleged act of extortion.
PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF RA 9165
 “Corpus Delicti” is the drug itself

In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus

delicti is the dangerous drug itself. (People v. Jaafar, G.R. No.
219829, 18 January 2017.) The corpus delicti is established by
proof that the identity and integrity of the subject matter of the
sale, i.e., the prohibited or regulated drug, has been preserved;
hence, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt
the identity of the dangerous drug to prove its case against the
accused (People v. Ameril, G.R. No. 203293, 14 November
2016).
 “Corpus Delicti” is the drug itself

The prosecution can only forestall any doubts on the identity of

the dangerous drug seized from the accused to that which was
presented before the trial court if it establishes an unbroken
chain of custody over the seized item. The prosecution must be
able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its
presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti (Santos v.
People, G.R. No. 220333, 14 November 2016).
 “Corpus Delicti” is the drug itself

In other words, it must be established with

unwavering exactitude that the dangerous
drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same as that seized from
him in the first place (People vs. Calvelo,
G.R. No. 2223526, December 6, 2017).
 Chain of Custody
The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized
item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition (People v. Gonzales, 708
Phil. 121, 132 [2013]).
 Links in Chain of Custody
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court (People v. Villar, G.R. No. 215937, 9 November 2016).
 RA NO. 10640
Section 21.(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with
an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
 RA 10640
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
 Acquittal for non-compliance with
Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165

People vs. Alvarado, G.R. No. 234048, April 23, 2018

It must be stressed, however, that the non-compliance must be for

"justifiable grounds." In this case, the arresting officers failed to convince
the Court that they had justifiable reasons not to strictly comply with the
provisions of the law requiring the presence of an elected official, DOJ and
media representatives during the physical inventory and photographing of
the seized shabu.
 Acquittal for non-compliance with
Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165
People vs. Alsarif, G.R. No. 217805, April 2, 2018
• While the law allows the physical inventory and photographing to
be done at the nearest police station, the presence of the
insulating witnesses during this step is vital. Without the
insulating presence of these persons, the possibility of switching,
planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the credibility
of the seized drug and other confiscated items.
• In the present case, it appears that the media representative, DOJ
representative, and the elected public official were only present
during the time the certificate of inventory was prepared.
 Acquittal for non-compliance with
Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165
People vs Macud, G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017
• Despite the mandatory language of the law, rigid compliance with the
above procedure is not expected. For this reason, the last proviso of
Section 21 (a) of the IRR states that "non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items." The prosecution must thus
be able to explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and to
prove as facts the grounds raised to justify non-compliance. Moreover,
it must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence must have been preserved.
 Acquittal for non-compliance
with Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165
People vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 230228, December 132017.

The records of the case show that the physical inventory of the confiscated drug and the
photographs of the same where only done in the presence of the accused-appellant,
Brgy. Captain Vergara and media representative Nebrejo. Clearly, a representative of the
DOJ, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, was not present during the inventory of
the seized item.

More importantly, the apprehending team did not immediately conduct the physical
inventory and the taking of the photographs at the time the suspected drug was
confiscated or at the nearest police station. Instead, they travelled fifty four (54)
kilometers from Puerto Galera, the place of the seizure, to Calapan City before they
conducted the inventory of the seized drug.
 Acquittal for non-compliance with
Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165

People vs. Lumudag, G.R. No. 201478, August 23, 2017

Yet, such saving mechanism is conditioned upon a clear showing on the

part of the agents of the law not only that the non-compliance with the
requirements was upon justifiable grounds, but also that the evidentiary
value of the seized items was properly preserved by the apprehending
team. As the records bear out, however, the required justification was not
given herein by any of the members of the buy-bust team.
 Acquittal for non-compliance
with Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165

• People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009.

• The non-disclosure of the justification by the members of the buy-bust
team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the
shabu admitted as evidence against the accused.
• The unavoidable consequence of the non-disclosure of the justification was
the non-establishment of the chain of custody, which, in turn, raised serious
doubt on whether or not the shabu presented as evidence was the shabu
supposedly sold by Lumudag, or whether or not shabu had really been sold
by him.
 Conviction despite non-compliance
with Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165

People vs. Lamana, G.R. No. 188313, August 23, 2017.

There were valid reasons for conducting the marking, photographing and
inventorying at the PDEA Station instead of at the place of the arrest. It was PO2
Velasquez who explained that he and the rest of the buy-bust team had to leave the
scene immediately after the arrest of Lamama to avoid a commotion or reprisal
inasmuch as Lamama, who was a notorious person, could have cohorts around.
PO2 Velasquez added that the documents and instruments needed for the marking,
photographing and inventorying were inside the PDEA Station.
 Conviction despite non-compliance with
Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165

People vs. Tamana, G.R. No. 208643, December 5, 2016

While nowhere in the prosecution's evidence would show the "justifiable ground"
which may excuse the police operatives involved from making an immediate physical
inventory of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not render
appellants' arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from them as inadmissible in
evidence. Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent
failure of appellants to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue
of disposition and preservation of the subject drug before the trial court. They cannot
be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance
with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.
 Conviction despite non-compliance
with Section 21, Art. 11, RA 9165

People vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 221465, November 16, 2016

Despite non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, when
there is a showing of an unbroken chain of custody of the seized item from the
moment of its seizure by the buy-bust team, to the investigating officer, to the time it
was brought to the crime laboratory for examination, the non-compliance is not fatal.

Appellant contends that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu should have
been made immediately after his apprehension. We do not agree. PO2 Garcia was
able to explain his fear of being trapped in the alley where the buy-bust operation
was conducted if he were to proceed with the marking of the evidence at the site.
 Conviction despite non-compliance with Section 21,
Art. 11, RA 9165
People vs. Guillergan, G.R. No. 218952, October 19, 2016

In People v. Dimaano, we held that the purpose of Section 21 is to protect

the accused from malicious imputations of guilt by abusive police
officers. However, Section 21 cannot be used to thwart the legitimate
efforts of law enforcement agents. Slight infractions or nominal
deviations by the police from the prescribed method of handling the
corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.
Substantial adherence to Section 21 will suffice as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team.
 People vs Romy Lim, G.R. No. 231989,
September 4, 2018
• In the sworn statements or affidavits, the apprehending or seizing
officers must state their compliance with the requirements of
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
• In case of non-observance of the provision, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or
explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized or
confiscated items.
 People vs Romy Lim, G.R. No. 231989,
September 4, 2018
• If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn
statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file
the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of
probable cause.
• If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may
exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant
of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance
with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.
 What are the acceptable justifications?

People vs. Vicente Sipin y De Castro, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018
The attendance was impossible because the area is remote
Safety will be compromised during the conduct of inventory
The elected officials themselves were involved
Earnest effort to secure the witness but to no avail
Time constraints and urgency of the situation
PLEA BARGAINING
 RA 9165 prohibits Plea Bargaining

Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. –

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.
 Estipona vs. Hon. Frank Lobrigo
G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

The SC declare Section 23 of RA 9165 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is

now the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court and no longer shared
with the Executive and Legislative departments.

PLEA BARGAINING IS PROCEDURAL

 A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC

PLEA BARGAINING
FRAMEWORK IN DRUGS CASES
 SC Framework on Plea Bargaining
OFFENSE CHARGE ACCEPTABLE PLEA PENALTY
BARGAIN
Section 11, par. 3. Possession of Section 12. Possession of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a
Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus fine ranging from P10,000 to
of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, and Other Paraphernalia for P50,000
cocaine is less than 5 grams) Dangerous Drugs
Section 11, par. 3. Possession of Section 12. Possession of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a
Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus fine ranging from P10,000 to
of marijuana is less than 300 and Other Paraphernalia for P50,000
grams) Dangerous Drugs
Section 11, par. 2. Possession of Section 11, par. 3. Possession of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a
Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity Dangerous Drugs fine ranging from P300,000 to
of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, P400,000
cocaine is 5 grams or more but not
exceeding 10 grams)
 SC Framework on Plea Bargaining
OFFENSE CHARGE ACCEPTABLE PLEA PENALTY
BARGAIN

Section 12. Possession of Section 15. Use of Dangerous 6 months treatment and
Equipment, Apparatus and Other Drugs rehabilitation
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs

Section 14. Possession of Section 15. Use of Dangerous 6 months treatment and
Equipment, Apparatus and Other Drugs rehabilitation
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
during Parties, Social Gatherings or
Meetings
 SC Framework on Plea Bargaining
OFFENSE CHARGE ACCEPTABLE PLEA PENALTY
BARGAIN
Section 5. Sale, Trading, etc. of Section 12. Possession of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a
Dangerous Drugs Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus fine ranging from P10,000 to
(Methamphetamine hydrochloride and Other Paraphernalia for P50,000
or shabu only Dangerous Drugs

.01 gram to .99 grams

(methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu only)
Section 5. Sale, Trading, etc. of Section 12. Possession of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a
Dangerous Drugs (Marijuana only) Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus fine ranging from P10,000 to
and Other Paraphernalia for P50,000
.01 gram to 9.99 grams of Dangerous Drugs
marijuana only
 REMEMBER the new Clarificatory Guidelines
in Plea Bargaining !!!
(Not within the coverage but just for added knowledge)

People v. Montierro, (G.R No.

254564), Baldadera v. People (G.R. No. 254564);
and Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association
Expressing its Concern over the Ramifications of
the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R. No.
250295 (A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC) (July 26, 2022)
 New Guidelines in Plea Bargaining

1. Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by

way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in
court.

2. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead

guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense
charged.
 3. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is
compliant with the provisions of the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework
in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency
assessment be administered. If the accused admits drug use, or denies
it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then he/she
shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less
than six (6) months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty
and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up program if the
penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative for drug
use/dependency, then he/she will be released on time served,
otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the
counselling period at the rehabilitation center.
4. As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the
parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. Regardless
of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to
plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a
matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound
discretion of the court.
Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter
into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the courts will automatically
approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in
granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant
circumstances, including the character of the accused.
5. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if
the objection to the plea bargaining is valid
and supported by evidence to the effect that:
• a. the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known
in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker,
has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has
been charged many times; or
• b. when the evidence of guilt is strong.
6. Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea
bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs
Cases.

7. Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on

the ground that the accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the
acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though
in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Court, if any.

8. If the prosecution objects to the accused’s plea bargaining proposal due tothe
circumstances enumerated in item no. 5, the trial court is mandated tohear the
prosecution’s objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trialcourt finds the
objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
9. If an accused applies for probation
in offenses punishable under RA No.
9165, other than for illegal drug
trafficking or pushing under Section 5
in relation to Section 24 thereof, then
the law on probation shall apply.
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
(RA 9745)
 Torture

intentional whether physical

infliction of severe
pain or suffering or mental
 Purpose
• obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession;
• punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed or
is suspected of having committed; or
• intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person;
• or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind
 Who inflicted?

- the pain or suffering is inflicted by or at

the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority
 Note!

It does not include pain or

suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful
sanctions.
Other inhuman and degrading punishment

• refers to a deliberate and aggravated treatment or

punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act,
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against a person under his/her custody, which
attains a level of severity causing suffering, gross humiliation
or debasement to the latter.
 Victim

• refers to the person subjected to torture or other cruel,

inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
• and any individual who has suffered harm as a result
of any act(s) of torture, or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment
 “Order of Battle"
-refers to any document or determination made by the military,
police or any law enforcement agency of the government,

listing the names of persons and organizations that

• it perceives to be enemies of the State,
• it considers as legitimate targets as combatants,
• it could deal with, through the use of means allowed by domestic and
international law.
 Acts of torture
• (a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a
person in authority or agent of a person in authority upon another in
his/her custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or
dysfunction of one or more parts of the body, such as:

• (1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with

truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;
• (2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or
human excreta and other stuff or substances not normally eaten;
• (3) Electric shock;
• (4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically
heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of
pepper or other chemical substances on mucous
membranes, or acids or spices directly on the
wound(s);
• (5) The submersion of the head in water or water
polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or
blood until the brink of suffocation;
• 6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily
position;
• (7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign
objects into the sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of the
genitals;
• (8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body
such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
• (9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;
• (10) Pulling out of fingernails;
• (11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and
extreme cold;
• (12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head
to the point of asphyxiation;
• (13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
perception, memory, alertness or will of a person, such as:
• (i) The administration of drugs to induce confession
and/or reduce mental competency; or
• (ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain
symptoms of a disease; and
• (14)Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
 “Mental/Psychological Torture"
refers to acts committed by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority which are calculated
to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a
person's dignity and morale, such as:
• (1) Blindfolding;
• (2) Threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s) with bodily
harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
• (3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;
• (4) Prolonged interrogation;
• (5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or prisoner;
• (6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of
liberty from one place to another, creating the belief that
he/she shall be summarily executed;
• (7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
• (8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the
person's family, relatives or any third party;
• (9) Denial of sleep/rest;
• (10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked,
parading him/her in public places, shaving the victim's head
or putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;
• (11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with
any member of his/her family; and
• (12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.
• Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, an Absolute
Right. — Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as criminal acts shall apply to all
circumstances.
 Not sufficient justifications

a state of war or a threat of war,

internal political instability, or

any other public emergency, or

a document or any determination comprising an "order of battle"

• Prohibited Detention

Secret detention places, solitary confinement,

incommunicado or other similar forms of
detention, where torture may be carried out with
impunity, are hereby prohibited.
• Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
(RA 11479)
 Who are liable?
1)Terrorist Individual shall refer to any natural person who commits any of the acts
defined and penalized under this Act;

2) Terrorist Organization, Association or Group of Persons shall refer to any entity organized for the purpose
of engaging in terrorism, or those proscribed under Section 26 hereof or the United Nations Security
Council-designated terrorist organization.

3) Accessory

NOTE: No person, regardless of relationship or affinity, shall be exempt from liability under this
section.
 Note:

No person, regardless of
relationship or affinity, shall be
exempt from liability under this
section.
 Acts of Terrorism

- intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or

endangers a person's life;

- intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a

government or public facility, public place or private property;

- acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or

destruction to critical infrastructure; (Section 4)
 Acts of Terrorism

- develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports,

supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological,
nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and

- release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods

or explosions (Section 4)
 Purposes
- to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof,

- create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear,

- to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international

organization, or

- seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social

structures of the country, or

- create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, (Section 4)

“TERRORISM” SHALL NOT INCLUDE

- advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage

of work, industrial or mass action,
and other similar exercises of civil
and political rights
 PENALTY

- Life imprisonment without the benefit of parole

and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592,
otherwise known as "An Act Amending Articles 29,
94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code"
 Other Punishable Acts
Threat to commit terrorism. ( 12 years imprisonment) (Section 5)

Planning, Training, Preparing, and Facilitating the Commission of Terrorism, possessing objects
connected with the preparation for the commission of terrorism, or collecting or making documents
connected with the preparation of terrorism. (life imprisonment) (Section 6)

Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. (life imprisonment) (Section 7)

Proposal to Commit Terrorism. (twelve (12) years) (Section 8)

Inciting to Commit Terrorism. Any person who, without taking any direct part in the commission of terrorism,
shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in Section 4 hereof by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end. (twelve (12) years)
(Section 9).
 Other Punishable Acts

Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization. (life imprisonment)

(Section 10)

Organizing or facilitating the travel of individuals to a state other than their state
of residence or nationality for the purpose of recruitment. (life imprisonment)
(Section 10)

Voluntarily and knowingly joining any organization, association or group of

persons knowing that such organization, association or group of persons is
proscribed or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a terrorist
organization. (twelve (12) years) (Section 10)
 Means of Recruitment
a) Recruiting another to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign state;

b) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve

in any capacity in or with such an armed force;

c) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda containing any information relating to the

place at which or the manner in which persons may make applications to serve or obtain
information; or

d)Performing any other act with the intention of facilitating or promoting the recruitment of
persons to serve in any capacity in or with such armed force.
 Foreign Terrorist
(a) For any person to travel or attempt to travel to a state other than his/her state of
residence or nationality, for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, or preparing
for, or participating in terrorism, or providing or receiving terrorist training;

(b) For any person to organize or facilitate the travel of individuals who travel to a
state other than their states of residence or nationality knowing that such travel is
for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or
participating in terrorism or providing or receiving terrorist training; or

(c) For any person residing abroad who comes to the Philippines to participate in
acts of terrorism perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating
in terrorism or provide support for or facilitate or receive terrorist training here or
abroad. (life imprisonment) (Section 11)
 Providing support –punished as principal

Providing Material Support to Terrorists, knowing that such individual or

organization, association, or group of persons is committing or planning to
commit such acts, shall be liable as principal to any and all terrorist activities
committed by said individuals or organizations, in addition to other criminal
liabilities he/she or they may have incurred in relation thereto. (life
imprisonment) (Section12)
 Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications
(Section 16)

any private
secretly wiretap, using any mode, communications,
overhear and form, kind or type conversation,
Written order Law of electronic, discussion/s, data,
listen to,
of the Court of enforcement intercept, screen,
mechanical or other information,
Agent/military equipment or messages in
Appeals read, surveil, device or whatever form, kind
record or collect technology or nature, spoken or
written words
 Between whom

(a) between members of a judicially declared and

outlawed terrorist organization;

(b) between members of a designated person as

defined in Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 10168; or

(c) any person charged with or suspected of

committing any of the crimes
 IMPORTANT!
UNAUTHORIZED SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance, interception and recording

of communications between lawyers and
clients, doctors and patients, journalists and
their sources and confidential business
correspondence shall not be authorized.
 EX PARTE APPLICATION WITH THE
COURT OF APPEALS
(1) for the issuance of an order, to compel telecommunications service
providers (TSP) and internet service providers (ISP) to produce all customer
information and identification records as well as call and text data records,
content and other cellular or internet metadata of any person suspected of
any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act; and

(2) furnish the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) a copy of

said application. The NTC shall likewise be notified upon the issuance of the
order for the purpose of ensuring immediate compliance.
 Detention without Judicial Warrant
(Section 29)

- the law enforcement agents/military are duly authorized in

writing by the ATC;

- they have taken custody of a person suspected of committing any

of the acts of terrorism; and

- they delivered said suspected person to the proper judicial

authority within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days
 14-day period may be extended to a
maximum period of 10 days if
(1) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve
evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation;

(2) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the

commission of another terrorism; and

(3) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.

 Duties of law enforcement agent/military
personnel

1) NOTIFY THE JUDGE OF THE NEAREST COURT

• a) the time, date, and manner of arrest;
• b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and
• c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s.
2) FURNISH THE ATC and the CHR of the written notice
given to the judge.
Duty of the head of the detention facility.

- ensure that the detained suspect is informed of his/her

rights as a detainee;

- ensure access to the detainee by his/her counsel or

agencies and entities authorized by law to exercise visitorial
powers over detention facilities.
 Penalty for failing to notify the judge.

The penalty of imprisonment

of ten (10) years shall be imposed
upon the police or law enforcement
agent or military personnel.
 No Torture or Coercion in Investigation
and Interrogation
(Section 33)

The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and

degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in Sections 4
and 5 of Republic Act No. 9745 otherwise known as the
"Anti-Torture Act of 2009," at any time during the
investigation or interrogation of a detained suspected
terrorist is absolutely prohibited and shall be penalized under
said law.
 Inadmissibility of Evidence

Any evidence obtained from said detained

person resulting from such treatment shall be, in its
entirety, inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative
investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
 Calleja v. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 252578, et. al., December 7, 2021

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11479 was declared by the Supreme

Court as not unconstitutional, except for (1) part of the proviso of
Section 4 (“intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a
person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to public
safety") as void for vagueness as it has a chilling effect on free speech,
and (2) a part of Section 25 (the second mode of designation) on
designation as a terrorist organization for being overbroad.
 The main part of Section 4 provides for
the actus reus, the mens rea, and corresponding
imposable penalty for the crime of terrorism;
in this regard, the main part is thus subdivided
into three components.
 The first component enumerates
the conduct which consists of the
actus reus of terrorism, i.e., Section 4
(a) to (e), or the overt acts that
constitute the crime.
 The second component enumerates the purposes or
intents of any of the actus reus, i.e., to intimidate the general
public or a segment thereof; to create an atmosphere or spread
a message of fear; to provoke or influence by intimidation the
government or any international organization; to seriously
destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or
social structures of the country, or create a public emergency
or seriously undermine public safety. This is the mens rea
component of terrorism, which is inferred from the nature and
context of the actus reus.
 The third component
provides the imposable penalty for
the crime of terrorism, i.e., life
imprisonment without the benefit
of parole and the benefits of R.A.
No. 10592.
 Unconstitutional Proviso

Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not

include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work,
industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil
and political rights, which are not intended to cause death
or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a
person's life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.
 On the other hand, the proviso, if
rephrased into its logical inverse, purports to allow
for advocacies, protests, dissents, stoppages of
work, industrial or mass actions, and other similar
exercises of civil and political rights to be
punished as acts of terrorism if they are
"intended to cause death or serious physical harm
to a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create
a serious risk to public safety."
 A textual review of the main part of Section 4 shows
that its first and second components provide a clear correlation
and a manifest link as to how or when the crime of terrorism is
produced. When the two components of the main part of
Section 4 are taken together, they create a demonstrably valid and
legitimate definition of terrorism that is general enough to
adequately address the ever-evolving forms of terrorism, but
neither too vague nor too broad as to violate due process or
encroach upon the freedom of speech and expression and other
fundamental liberties.
 The proviso was supposedly included in Section 4 to safeguard
and protect said rights. To the Court's mind, it was enough for Congress to
state that terrorism as defined in Section 4 "shall not include advocacy,
protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other
similar exercises of civil and political rights." However, Congress
unnecessarily included the "Not Intended Clause," thereby invading the
area of protected freedoms. In fact, the government's official
understanding of the "Not Intended Clause" achieves the exact opposite of
the proviso's supposedly noble purpose. As rightly pointed out by
petitioners, it "shifts the burden" upon the accused "to prove that
[his] actions constitute an exercise of civil and political rights,"
contrary to the principle that it is the government that has the burden
to prove the unconstitutionality of an utterance or speech.
 As such, the Court agrees with petitioners that the proviso's "Not Intended
Clause" is void for vagueness as it has a chilling effect on the average person.
Before the protester can speak, he must first guess whether his speech would be
interpreted as a terrorist act under Section 4 and whether he might be arrested,
indicted, and/or detained for it. They will have to contend whether the few hours
they would spend on the streets to redress their grievances against the government
is worth the prospect of being indefinitely incarcerated, considering that terrorism
under Section 4 would be an unbailable offense as per Section 7, Rule 114 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure. The danger of the clause is made graver by the fact
that by shifting the burden to the accused to explain his intent, it allows for law
enforcers to take an "arrest now, explain later" approach in the application of the
ATA to protesters and dissenters — only that it must be the latter who does the
explaining, which makes it even more insidious.
 Another Unconstitutional Provision

Section 25. Designation of Terrorist Individual,

Groups of Persons, Organizations or Associations. — x x x
• Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational
jurisdictions may be adopted by the [Anti-Terrorism Council
(ATC) after determination that the proposed designee meets the
criteria for designation of UNSCR No. 1373.
 Under this second mode of designation, unbridled discretion is given to the
ATC in granting requests for own determination. Likewise, there appears to be no
sufficient standard that should be observed in granting or denying such requests. The
ATC is left to make its own determination based loosely on "the criteria for
designation of UNSCR No. 1373," without any further sufficient parameters for its
guidance. This may therefore lead to a quid pro quo designation with the requesting
jurisdiction at the expense of the designation based on its rights of a prospective
designee.

The second mode of designation fails to pass strict scrutiny and overbreadth and
hence, is unconstitutional.
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery (PD 532)
Definition of Terms (Sec. 2)

Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but

not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each
of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth,
breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-
bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
 Definition of Terms (Sec. 2)

Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for

transport of passengers and cargo from one
place to another through Philippine Waters.
It shall include all kinds and types of vessels
or boats used in fishing.
 Definition of Terms (Sec. 2)

Philippine Highway. — It shall refer to any road,

street, passage, highway and bridges or other parts
thereof, or railway or railroad within the
Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or
locomotives or trains for the movement or
circulation of persons or transportation of goods,
articles, or property or both.
 Definition of Terms (Sec. 2)
Piracy. — Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things,
committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine
waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be
considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter
provided.
 Definition of Terms (Sec. 2)

Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The seizure of

any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful
purposes, or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things or other
unlawful means, committed by any person on any
Philippine Highway.
Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or
abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage
(Sec. 4)
Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway
robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or
other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such
pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or
brigandage, shall be considered as an ACCOMPLICE of the principal offenders and be
punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.

It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this
Section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
CASES
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August
30, 2001
Hiong was charged with Piracy under PD No. 532.
He contended that he, as a member of the complement
of the vessel, can no longer be convicted of piracy in
Philippine waters under P.D. No. 532 because R.A. No.
7659 which amended Article 122 of the Revised Penal
Code, has impliedly superseded P.D. No. 532.
 People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709,
August 30, 2001
• Article 122 of the RPC, before its amendment: piracy must be committed on the
high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger
thereof.
• R.A. No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994), the coverage of the Art. 122 of the RPC
was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters."
• P.D. No. 532 (issued in 1974): piracy embraces any person including "a
passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."
Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is
covered by the law.
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August
30, 2001
SC ruling:
• R.A. No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on
piracy under P.D. No. 532.
• P.D. No. 532 merely widened the coverage of the law against
Piracy.
• Piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under P.D.
No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
 People v. Reanzares, G.R. No. 130656,
June 29, 2000
Accused Armando Reanzares and three (3) John Does
were charged for violation of PD 532 otherwise known as
the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law for
allegedly conspiring, with intent to gain and armed with
bladed weapons and a .38 caliber revolver, to rob and
carry away the wristwatch owned by Gregorio Tactacan
and P1,000.00 cash of Lilia Tactacan, and on the occasion
thereof, killed her.
 People v. Reanzares, G.R. No. 130656,
June 29, 2000
SC: The accused is guilty, but not of Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD
532. Accused is liable instead for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide under Art. 294 of the RPC.

As held in a number of cases, conviction for highway robbery requires proof

that several accused were organized for the purpose of committing it
indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that the accused and his
cohorts organized themselves to commit highway robbery. Neither is there proof
that they attempted to commit similar robberies to show the "indiscriminate"
perpetration thereof.
 People v. Reanzares, G.R. No. 130656,
June 29, 2000
SC:
The prosecution established was only a single act of robbery
against the particular persons of the Tactacan spouses. Clearly, this
single act of depredation is not what is contemplated under PD 532.

SC considered the “WHEREAS clauses” of P.D. No. 532.

Cyber-Crime Prevention Act of
2012 (RA 10175)
 VERY IMPORTANT!!
Tieng v. Judge Alaras, Tieng v. Henares, Henares v. Tieng
G.R. No. 164845, G.R. No. 181732, G.R. No. 185315, G.R. No. 185315
July 13, 2021
(Venue of Libel)

1. Whether the rules of venue and jurisdiction provided under Article

360 of the RPC apply to radio and television broadcasts;

2. Whether the RTC of Makati, Branch 62 dismissal in Civil Case No.

02-359 was in accordance with Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code; and

3. Whether under Article 360 of the RPC, venue of the civil action is
also jurisdictional.
The third paragraph of Article 360 of the RPC, as amended by
R.A. 4363, pertinently provides:

Article 360.Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided,
However, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province
where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of
Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a
private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, Further, That the
civil action shall be filed in the same court share the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, Furthermore, That the
court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts
x x x. (Emphasis supplied underscoring supplied)
 Restatement of the Provision
(citing Macasaet Case)
Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance (CFI) of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published.

If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.

If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the
offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the
offense.
The rules of venue and jurisdiction provided under Article 360
of the RPC apply to radio and television broadcasts.

• It is the contention of respondents that the alleged libel, having arisen from a radio
broadcast, is triable by a municipal court, for in a later portion of Article 360 the phrase
"by similar means," is not repeated thus leading them to conclude that it is only where
there is "defamation in writing" that there is conferment of exclusive jurisdiction in a court
of first instance. Such an argument does not carry weight. It loses sight of the basic
purpose of the act, namely, to prevent inconvenience or even harassment to those
unfortunate enough to be accused of libel, if any municipal court where there was
publication could be chosen by the complainant as the venue. Since a radio broadcast may
be spread far and wide, much more so than in cases of newspaper publications, it is not
difficult to imagine how deplorable the effect would be for one indicted for such an
offense even if he could rely on a sound and valid offense. (citing Bocobo Case)
• We may thus summarize that in libel through radio and
television broadcasts, the private offended may file the
criminal or civil action in the RTC of the province or city of:
• 1) the radio or television station where the broadcast
of the libelous statement originated; or
• 2) his actual residence at the time the radio or
televised broadcast was made.
• Either of these facts must be alleged in the Information
so that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
The second proviso of Article 360 requires joint hearing
of the civil and criminal actions for libel in the court
which first acquired jurisdiction over either action.

• Unlike in criminal cases, venue is generally not jurisdictional in personal civil

actions. Thus, under Section 2 of Rule 4, personal actions may be commenced
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. One
exception is when the law provides otherwise. It is well-settled that Article 360
requires that only one court handles both the criminal and civil actions for libel.
If the two actions are filed at different times, they must be consolidated in the
court which first acquires jurisdiction over either one. This has been understood
to mean that only one judge tries both the civil and criminal actions.
Under Article 360 of the RPC, venue for the civil action of libel is jurisdictional;
therefore, it cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel and must be properly laid
for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction

R.A. 4363 is peculiar in that, by amending Article 360 of the RPC, it grants exclusive
jurisdiction to the RTC of particular geographical locations. The harms sought to be prevented by
R.A. 4363 are just as real for the defendant in a civil case as they are for the accused in the criminal
action. The "out-of-town libel suits" that prompted the amendment of Article 360 may come in
either criminal or civil form. It is because of this that Article 360 requires the "x x x civil action for
damages in cases of written defamations x x x be filed simultaneously or separately with the court
of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or
where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the offense x x x." Clearly,
Congress has deemed venue to be jurisdictional even in the civil action. It is only the RTC of the
locality where the libel was first published or where the defendant resided at the time it was
published that the civil action may be instituted — and nowhere else, not even the other locations
normally available to a plaintiff under Section 2 of Rule 4.
 Cybercrime Offenses

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity

and availability of computer data and systems:

(b) Computer-related Offenses:

(c) Content-related Offenses:

 Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems:

1) Illegal Access —access to the whole or any part of a

computer system without right.
2) Illegal Interception — interception made by technical
means without right of any non-public transmission of
computer data to, from, or within a computer system
including electromagnetic emissions from a computer
system carrying such computer data.
(3) Data Interference — intentional or reckless alteration,
damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data,
electronic document, or electronic data message,
without right, including the introduction or transmission
of viruses.

(4) System Interference — intentional alteration or

reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of
a computer or computer network by inputting,
transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering
or suppressing computer data or program, electronic
document, or electronic data message, without right or
authority, including the introduction or transmission of
viruses.
(5) Misuse of Devices
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution,
or otherwise making available, without right, of:

 (aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or

adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the
offenses under this Act; or

 (bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by

which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable
of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose
of committing any of the offenses under this Act.

(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5 (i) (aa) or

(bb) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this section.
(6)Cyber-squatting. — The acquisition of a domain name over the
internet, in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and
deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain
name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing

trademark registered with the appropriate government
agency at the time of the domain name registration;

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person

other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property

interests in it.
 Computer-related Offenses
(1) Computer-related Forgery. —
• (i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data
without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it
be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were
authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly
readable and intelligible; or
• (ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the
product of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the
purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
(2) Computer-related Fraud. - The
unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion
of computer data or program or
interference in the functioning of a
computer system, causing damage thereby
with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no
damage has yet been caused, the penalty
imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. —
The intentional acquisition, use, misuse,
transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of
identifying information belonging to another,
whether natural or juridical, without right:
Provided, That if no damage has yet been
caused, the penalty imposable shall be one
(1) degree lower.
 Content-related Offenses
(1) . Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or
operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual
organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or
consideration

(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts

defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree
higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The
transmission of commercial electronic communication
with the use of computer system which seek to
advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are
prohibited unless:
• (i) There is prior affirmative consent from
the recipient; or
• (ii) The primary intent of the
communication is for service and/or
administrative announcements from the sender
to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(iii)The following conditions are present:

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a

simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject
receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out)
from the same source;

(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not

purposely disguise the source of the electronic message;
and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not

purposely include misleading information in any part of the
message in order to induce the recipients to read the
message.
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or
prohibited acts of libel as defined in
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed through a computer
system or any other similar means which
may be devised in the future.
SECTION 5. Other Offenses. — The following
acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a)Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of

Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully abets or
aids in the commission of any of the offenses
enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

(b)Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. —

Any person who willfully attempts to commit any
of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be
held liable.
NOTE: QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE!!!
• All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if
committed by, through and with the use of
information and communications technologies shall
be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be
one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
as the case may be.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable
acts enumerated in Section 4 (c) (2) of this Act
shall be punished with the penalties as
enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the "Anti-
Child Pornography Act of 2009": Provided, That
the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree
higher than that provided for in Republic Act No.
9775, if committed through a computer system.
Goodluck and We wish you the best!
THE END