Special Penal Laws
and at the same time constitutes estafa by issuing
A violation of a special law is necessarily included
in the commission of the crime or vice versa.
Can you consider that as a complex crime under Art.
48 of the RPC?
Sa compound crime, hindi pwede, for example, that
single act of having sexual intercourse with a child
constitutes sexual abuse under Section 5D of RA
7610 and at the same time palagay na natin nrape,
tinutukan mo ng baril nakipag-sex ka, so that is rape
under Art. 266-A of the RPC and sexual abuse under
RA 7610. So a single act reduced into two crime.
Can you consider that as a complex crime compound
under Art.48 of the RPC? In the case of PP v.
Pagadingan, Alberto vs Honorable Court of Appeals,
People v Aguy, so according to the SC, sexual abuse
is an offense punishable under special law so it
cannot be a component of a compound crime or
complex crime under Art. 48 of the RPC.
A felony is a necessary means to commit an offense
punishable under the RPC or vice versa. Can you
consider that as a complex crime proper under Art.
48? In the case of People vs. Araneta, so what is
involved is malversation under sec 2672 of the
administrative law and falsification of documents
under art. 200 of the RPC. So falsification is a
necessary means to commit malversation but
according to the SC this is not a complex crime
proper because malversation at that time is a
punishable under the special law so this is a separate
crime. But now malversation is punishable under the
rpc art 217 falsification and therefore falsification is
a necessary means to commit malversation, so it is a
complex crime proper now.
Now, kung halimbawa, ganun lang yung nangyari, a
single act producing an felony, an offense
punishable under the special law, a felony is a
necessary means of committing an offense, or vice
versa, e hindi sya complex crime, hindi sya
compound, so anong gagawin mo? So there are four
rules, the first rule is the both rule, the second rule is
either, third rule is felony and the last rule offense.
So dito muna tayo sa both rule, you can prosecute
offender of an offense punishable under the special
law and a felony under the RPC without offending
the rule on double jeopardy, kaya nga sya both eh.
Dun sa second rule, either , third rule felony, fourth
rule offense rule. Hindi pwedeng dalawa. Kasi dun
sa either rule mamimili ka lang, sa felony, felony
lang, sa offense, offense lang. So pag dinalawa mo,
that is a violation of the rule on double jeopardy. So
wala lang double jeopardy sa first rule, sa second,
third fourth rule, if you prosecute the offender under
the RPC and special law, the rule on double
jeopardy will be offended.
So dito muna tayo sa first rule, so apat yan, so
number 1 at eto tinatanong sa bar ito. Halimbawa
you issue a check and despite of knowledge that it is
unfunded so you issue that to the offended party
with the intention to defraud him so the act of
issuing the check violates the law on bouncing check
bouncing check under art 315 of the rpc. So can you
prosecute the offender on both rule? Yes because
they are not the same in character. Two it does not
violate the rule on double jeopardy because to
violate it the accused must be prosecuted for two
offenses or crimes of the same character. So in this
case, violation of bp22 is malum prohibitum and
estafa is malum in se. And deceit is an element of
estafa and not of bp 22? And addition to that section
5 of bp 22 prosecution for violation of bp22 shall be
without prejudice to any liability for any violation of
any provision of the rpc. So the intention of bp22 as
reflected in sec 5 of the said law is to allow the
prosecution of the offender not only for the violation
of bp22 but also for estafa.
So halimbawa, you issue several checks, you issue
ten checks to buy a car knowing that the checks are
not funded. So how many counts of estafa thru
issuance of bouncing checks? There is only one
count because all the ten acts of issuing checks is
committed under a single criminal impulse and that
is to defraud the complainant with respect to the
price of the car of the property involved in violation
of a single penal provision that is under art 315 of
the rpc so that is delito continuado so that is only
one case of estafa. How many counts of violation of
bp 22? In the case of Lim v. People, delito
continuado is not applicable in violation of bp 22
because the basis of applying the principle of delito
continuado is the singularity of the criminal impulse.
But bp 22 is a malum prohibitum where the
criminal intent or criminal impulse is immaterial
since criminal intent or criminal impulse is
immaterial the basis of delito continuado which is
premised on the singularity of criminal impulse,
since this is not delito continuado the accused is
liable for as many as violation of bp 22 as there are
checks issued.
So the second covered by the both rule is estafa and
illegal recruitment. For example, you recruited a
person even if you do not have a license and you
made a representation that you have connection
where in fact you are not connected so your
intention is to defraud him as a consequence to
obtain money from him. Can the offender be
prosecuted by estafa and at the same time illegal
recruitment in violation of ra 8042? Yes. Without
offending the rule on double jeopardy because estafa
is malum in se while illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum. Deceit is an element of estafa, this is not
an element of illegal recruitment. Without license is
important in illegal recruitment, but in estafa with or
without license if the offended party defrauded the
complainant that is estafa, regardless of whether the
complainant accused has license to recruit or not,
that is immaterial. In addition to that, under section 6
of RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022, under that
provision, the filing of an IR case shall be without
prejudice to the filing of other cases punishable
under existing laws, rules and regulations. So that is
section 6 of ra 8042 as amended by ra 10022.
Now tinanong sa bar 2015 or 2016 ata, so ang
tanong pwede pa bang iprosecute ang IR at estafa.
So wala naming problema, nasagot na natin yan.
Yes, pwede. Now, will your answer be the same if
there are three offended parties? So, my answer
would be different. Considering that there are 3
offended parties, the accused shall be liable as many
estafa as there are offended party because the
principle of delito continuado will not apply,
because it is the second rule in the case of Iligan.
Ang general rule kasi nyan there are as many
criminal impulse to defraud as there are persons
defrauded so considering that there are three
criminal impulse to defraud so this is not delito
continuado. Since delito continuado is not applicable
the accused shall be prosecuted for esatafa, as many
person as there are defrauded. So three counts of
estafa. But how many counts of IR. One count.
Because of the qualifying circumstance of large
scale. So if there are 3 offended parties, there is
large scale, so the crime committed is large scale or
qualified IR. So 3 counts of estafa and 1 count of
qualified IR. That is the case of People vs. Solinga.
So there are 3 offended parties. So how many counts
of estafa, three counts. How many counts of IR?
One. Qualified IR.
Now, for example there are three offended
party but there are three informations, so can the
accused be convicted of qualified IR but culminating
three offended parties in three different
informations? In the case of People v Hernandez, no,
because to do so will violate his constitutional right
to be informed of the nature, character of the crime
he is charged against with and that he will be
convicted of three counts of simple IR. So in the
case of People v Sinton Halimbawa there are six
offended parties, pwede bang to inform Sinton of
two counts of qualified IR or large scale IR? Yes.
Kapag tinanong sa bar to, because of the case of
People vs Sinton, you first discussed that this is
malum prohibitum so you will not apply the
principle of delito continuado so since the principle
of delito continuado, the accused can be prosecuted
as many IR as there are persons recruited. But
because of the qualifying circumstance of large
scale, the 3 offended parties will be considered as a
circumstance that will qualify IR so in other words,
it is a situation where the accused will be prosecuted
of two counts of qualified IR or large scale. So anim
sila so tig-tatlo hahatiiin sya. You dont have na
pagsamahin sa isang info, pwedeng hatiin yan. That
is the case of People vs Sinton. Now, if you will read
the original bill on RA 10022, this is the amended
RA 8042, yung original bill is that the filing of IR
case or conviction prosecution for IR shall be a bar
in prosecuting trafficking of persons. Because one of
the element of trafficking, RA 9208, is also
recruitment, pero nung dumating sa bicameral
conference committee, they changed the bill, binago
nila, yun nga ung nasa usection 6 of ra 8042 as
amended by ra 10022, ang nakalagay lang dun e
filing of IR case shall be without prejudice of filing
of other case punishable under the existing law, rules
and regulations. So in other words, the intention now
is that the accused shall be prosecuted for estafa, IR
and trafficiking in persons. In fact in the case of
People vs. Langley, so here recruited the victim to
be a prostitute in another country. So that is
considered trafficking in person, but considering that
wala syang license so that is IR, so he was convicted
of IR and trafficking of persons. So pwede ng
dalawa because of section 6 ra 8042 as amended.
So yung large scale is a qualifying
circumstance not only in IR but also in trafficking of
person. Large scale IR or trafficking of persons. So
pagdating sa large scale dalawa, IR at saka
trafficking in person. So jurisprudence on qualified
IR can be applied on large scale trafficking of
persons. With respect to syndicate. Number 1 IR, at
least three. Sa large scale kasi at least 3 offended
parties, pag syndicate madaming offenders, so at
least 3 recruiters, syndicate. Second, at least three
traffickers, that is syndicate. So merong syndicated
IR and syndicated trafficking in persons. Tapos
syndicated estafa, apat lima sya. Syndicated estafa
noh. Pd 968. Isa pang syndicate, organized crime
group under art 62. So syndicate iba iba, IR,
trafficking in persons, tatlo, sa syndicated estafa,
lima, organized syndicate crime group, dalawa.
Now, there is only one accused, but the
allegations in the information is that there are 3
recruiters or traffickers, and the evidence will show
that there are 3 recruiters or traffickers. Can you
appreciate the qualifying circumstance of syndicate
in IR and trafficking in persons? Yes. That is in the
case of People v Langley. So say the qualifying
circumstance in IR and trafficking in persons, what
is important is the number of accused but the
number of traffickers or recruiters alleged in the
information, proven in evidence. Kasi minsan tatlo
ung kausap mo, pero hindi mo naman nakikita yung
dalawa at hindi nagpakilala noh, so ang nakasuhan
mo lang ay isa, so it does not follow that the
qualifying circumstance of syndicate will not be
appreciated, because what it is important is not the
number of accused but the number of recruiters,
traffickers alleged in the information and proven in
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of
People v Haw, in the syndicated estafa, at least five,
pero halimbawa there are only 2 accused, can you
appreciate the circumstance of syndicate? Yes. As
long as there are five estafadors alleged in the info
and proven beyond reasonable doubt. In other
words, same in the case of People v Langley and so
in the case of People vs Haw, what is important is
not the number accused, even if the number of
accused is less than 5 but the number of estafadors
are at least 5 and the evidence will show that there
are 5 estafadors who defrauded the complainant, you
can consider the circumstance of syndicate and the
crime committed is syndicated estafa under PD 968.
 Now, dito pa tayo sa both rule. Third. Ito
tinatanong sa bar to. Can you prosecute a person
who violated ra 3019 graft and corrupt practices act
in addition to direct bribery under art 210 or inidirect
bribery 211 or malversation 217 without violating
the rule on double jeopardy? Yes, pwede po. Kasi
nasa both rule tayo, we will not be violating the rule
on double jeopardy because they are not the same in
character, violation of ra 3019 partakes of a
character of malum prohibitum, that is the case of
Estrella vs Lucena, while direct bribery, these are
malum in se and according to UPLC they are
penalized under different philosophies. Pero actually
ang pinakamagandang sagot dito yung kay Rabiscal
Jr. v SB, the SC considered the preliminary
paragraph of sec. 3 of ra3019 kasi the crimes under
sec.3, ra 3019 are found in paragraph a,b but there is
a preliminary paragraph and it states that in addition
to acts of commission committed by the public
officers under existing rules, the following
constitutes corrupt practices. So according to the SC,
in addition to the felonies committed like direct
bribery, the accused can be prosecuted for violation
of 3019 because of that preliminary statement.
Now, halimbawa, on a single occasion, an
immigration officer, her name is Miriam Santiago,
she issued a document favouring 32 aliens. So that is
an allegation that this is a violation of 3d of ra 3019
that giving unwarranted prefence benefits through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith and inexcusable
negligence. So those were 32 so how many counts of
violation of sec 3d because there are several
offended parties. As a general rule di ba in the case
of Lim v People diba according to the SC if what is
involved is malum prohibitum such as in the case of
violation of bp22, you will not apply the principle of
delito continuado because the basis of applying this
principle is the singularity of the criminal impulse
which is not material in malum prohibitum. But with
respect to sec 6d of ra 3019, in the case of Atienza v
SB, although this crime partakes the character of
malum prohibitum in the case of Estrella v Lucena,
but dolo or culpa is an element of this crime, dolo is
an element of this crime if the motive is evident bad
faith or manifest partiality and culpa is an element if
the mode is gross inexcusable negligence. Since
evident bad faith is an element of this crime, if there
is good faith, there is no dolo, if there is no criminal
intent, there is no evident bad faith. So in other
words, that is the reason why the SC said that it
partakes of malum prohibitum because it also
partakes of malum in se where good faith is a
defense. In other words, in violation of ra 3019, you
can consider the criminal impulse. Kumbaga dapat
bad faith sya, so you can apply the principle of delito
continuado, in this case is according to the SC, this
is delito continuato, this is one count because there
is one criminal impulse to give unwarranted
preference by evident partiality and manifest bad
faith. Several acts of issuing document under one
criminal impulse that is to give unwarranted benefit,
advantage preference, so this is a violation of one
single provision that is sec 6d of ra 3019. This is
delito continuado this is one count. This is the case
of Santiago v Gatchitorena.
Torture because of sec 15 ra 9745. Sa torture
kasi nakalagay dun sa torture is an independent
crime whose penalty is imposable without prejudice
to any liability for violation of any domestic or
international law. So nasa torture law, so both sya,
so pag meron maltreatement, kakasuhan mo sya ng
maltreatment in relation to torture, kung may
physical injuries, magtatatlo sya. So okay na tayo sa
both rule.
So dito na tayo sa either rule. So mamimili
ka lang. Halimbawa ung sexual crimes kasi under
the RPC and under ra 7610, nagooverlap yan
minsan. So under sec 5b of ra7610 there are two
kinds of child prostitution and sexual abuse. Yung
child prostitution madali lang yan. The victim is a
child tapos meron sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct. Tapos money ang consideration. So that is
child prostitution. So in other words, the victim is a
prostitute a child prostitute. So if the crime
committed is child prostitution, the victim is called
child exploited by prostitution. So second, sexual
abuse, so madali lang yun, the victim is a child,
sexual intercourse has been conducted, coercion,
influence of an adult, syndicate or group. So un lang,
ra 7610, so bata talaga yan, Sexual intercourse,
lascivious conduct noh, influence, coercion of an
adult or syndicate or group. So yun ung tinatawag na
sexual abuse. So if the crime committed is sexual
abuse, the victim is called child subjected to other
sexual abuse. Halimbawa in the case of People v.
Congressman Jalosjos. Isang pinaggawayan nila dun
ang ang theory ng defense is she was not under 12.
But even if she is not under law she is a sexual
worker, she is a prostitute. Even if the child
consented that is not material because what is
important she is a child exploited in prostitution. So
having sexual intercourse or the same is conduct
lascivious, the crime committed is child prostitution.
So even if the victim consented that is not material.
The consent is not recognized by law. Now, dito
naman sa sexual abuse in the case of coercion,
according to the SC coercion is either physical or
psychological, in this case this is psychological
coercion because he took advantage of his
ascendancy as a fitness instructor. In the case of
People v. Caballo, yung gf nya bago sya makipagsex
he made to convince his gf to give in to his sexual
desire he made an assurance of love, and he
promised to marry, later on di naman nya
pinakasalan, nabuntis pa nga, at sabi naman ng
babae e baka mabuntis ako, e sabi nya no
withdrawal method. These 3 circumstance,
assurance of love, promise to marry the victim and
assurance that she will not get pregnant, these 3
circumstance was considered by the SC as influence
and therefore he was convicted of sexual abuse, ang
laki ng penalty nyan, RT in its medium period.
Tutukan nyo to kasi 2016 tinanong to, complicated
ito sa totoo lang.

So ngayon pwede bang magoverlap yan sa

rape and acts of lasciviousness under rpc. Pwede
syang magoverlpa, pwedeng hindi. Halimbawa ung
Peopl v Congressman Jalosjos, magsex tayo sa
bigyan mong pera ung bata, nakipagsex ka dun, can
you consider that as rape? No. why? Because there
was no violence, no intimidation. Unless she is a
child, that is statutory rape. Pero kung nagbigay ng
pera, pogi naman ako may house naman ako, eto
1000, pumayag sya, nagsex kayo, that is self-
prostitution, that is not rape, that is not acts of
lasviousness unless the child is under 12. Alam mo
in the case of People v Abello, natutulog yung bata,
hinalikan mo sa vagina, nung nagising sya, umalis
ka na, can you consider that as child prostitution?
Hindi mo naman binigyang ng pera. Sexual abuse?
Wala naming influence? Tulog nga eh. But that is
considered as rape through sexual assault. In other
words, pwedeng hindi sya magoverlap pero ang
lesson natin yung hindi sya nagooverlap.

So according to the SC, taking advantage of

your ascendancy because you are her father even if
there is no showing of actual violence or
intimidation of force if there is taking advantage of
ascendancy as a father, that is taking