NB: Closed book policy shall be observed during class.

Only handwritten notes will

be allowed.

I. General Principles of Criminal Law

A. Nature and definition
People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 29 September 2000, 341 SCRA
493
Ient v. Tullett Prebon, G.R. No. 189158, 11 January 2017
B. Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. General (Art. 2, RPC)
2. Territorial (Art.2, RPC)
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001, 364 SCRA
10
3. Prospective (Article 21 and 22, RPC)
a. Effects of repeal
C. Sources of Criminal Law
1. Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws

Ordinance and resolution, distinguished: An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the
sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent
character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently a third reading is
necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian
members.

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Original action for expropriation before the Pasig RTC.

FACTS

 October 13, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong City (MANDA) issued Resolution
No. 396, S-1994 authorizing then MAYOR Benjamin ABALOS to institute expropriation
proceedings over the property of Alberto SUGUITAN.



power of eminent domain is necessary prior to the filing by the latter of the complaint with the
proper court, and not only after the court has determined the amount of just compensation to
which the defendant is entitled.
NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN LGC & LGC-IRR

 Manda: A resolution is enough under the LGC-IRR. Art. 36 (a), Rule VI provides that if the LGU fails to
acquire a private property for public use, purpose, or welfare through purchase, it may expropriate said
property through a resolution of the sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation
proceedings.
 SC: This has been settled in Mun. of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty: “§ 19 of RA 7160, the law itself, surely
prevails over said rule which merely seeks to implement it. It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law
is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation. Besides,
 what the discrepancy seems to indicate is a mere oversight in the wording of the implementing rules, since
Art. 32, Rule VI thereof, also requires that, in exercising the power of eminent domain, the chief executive
of the LGU must act pursuant to an ordinance.”
SC remains aware of the constitutional policy of promoting local autonomy, but judicial sanction cannot be granted
to a LGU's exercise of its delegated power of eminent domain in contravention

CASE 7. GERARDO VILLASENOR and RODEL DE MESA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and

Special Prosecutor LOUELLA OCO-PESQUERRA

Facts:

In the wee hours of Aug 18, 2001, the Quezon City Manor Hotel went ablaze resulting to
the death of 74 people and injuries to others.

Petitioners Villasenor and De Mesa, are facing criminal charges of multiple homicide
through reckless imprudence and violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Policies
Act). Aside from that, being public officials, they were also charged administratively with gross
negligence, gross misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. The
cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan.

In line with the administrative case, the petitioners were preventively suspended for 6 mos.

During the pendency of the criminal case, respondent prosecutor Oco-Pesquerra filed a
motion for suspension.

Petitioners opposed the motion, contending that they had already been suspended for 6
mos relative to the administrative case. They argued that any preventive suspension in the
criminal case would be absorbed by the 6-month preventive suspension in the admin case.

Respondent court granted the prosecution’s motion and ordered the preventive
suspension of petitioners for 90 days.

Issue: WON the preventive suspension in line with the criminal case considered as penalty?

Ruling: No

RULING:
  Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is acquitted of the
ten counts for insufficiency of evidence but is ordered to pay P500,000 to the private respondent, with
12% interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment.

RATIO:
1. NO. The court did not err in not granting retroactive effect to R.A. 7691.

A penal law, is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also
defines crime, treats of its nature and provides for its punishment. R.A. No. 7691 does not prohibit certain acts or
provides penalties for its violation; neither does it treat of the nature of crimes and its punishment. Consequently,
R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not apply in the present case.

R.A. No. 7691 which took effect on June 15, 1994, amended B.P. Blg. 129, and vested on the Metropolitan, Municipal
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts jurisdiction to try cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than six (6)
years. Since R.A. No. 7691 vests jurisdiction on courts, it is apparent that said law is substantive.

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. R.A. No. 7691 was not yet in force at the time
of the commencement of the cases in the trial court. It took effect only during the pendency of the appeal before
the Court of Appeals. There is therefore no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 7691 should be retroactively
applied to this case and the same be remanded to the MTC. The Court has held that a "law vesting additional
jurisdiction in the court cannot be given retroactive effect”.

2. NO. The appellate court did not err in construing B.P. Blg. 22.

Petitioner: That because penal statutes must be strictly construed and resolved in favor of the accused, the
“insufficiency” of funds referred to in B.P. Blg. 22 must not be made to cover those accounts that are “closed” or
declared to have “no funds.” Post-dated checks, not being drawn payable on demand but rather on a fixed date,
should also be considered as ordinary and not special bills of exchange.

 Lozano v Martinez: Thrust of the Bouncing Checks law is to prohibit the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation as their effects directly affect public interest. Such intent
is reiterated in Cueme v People and in Recuerdo v People.
 Claim on “closed accounts” not being included in the coverage of the B.P. has no merit in view of
the legislative intent of the law which is to protect the interest of the community at large.
 People v Nitafan: The law does not distinguish but merely provides that any person who
makes/draws and issues any check knowing that he does not have enough funds shall be
punished.

3. YES. The notice of dishonor to the drawer is important.

Petitioner: That no notice of dishonor had been given to her as drawer of the dishonored checks, pursuant to the
requirement expressly provided in B.P. Blg. 22.

 Elements for conviction of violation of B.P. Blg. 22:

a) Accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value.
b) Accused knows at the time of issuance that he/she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit
with, the drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its presentment.
c) The check is subsequently dishonored.
  For liability to attach, it is not enough for prosecution to simply prove that the checks were
subsequently dishonored. Prosecution must also prove awareness/knowledge of the accused at
the time of issuance.
- Basis of Yu Oh’s awareness of the lack/insufficiency was a line in her Counter-Affidavit where she
declares that she told the general manager that “the actual status of the checks that the same
might not be able to cover the amount of the said checks so stated therein [sic].”
 Presumption (provided in Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22) of knowledge cannot arise if such notice of non-
payment by the bank is not sent to the maker/drawer.
Jurisprudence has shown that notice of dishonor is vital insomuch as Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22
provides

STRICTLY CONSTRUED

PENAL LAWS

1. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG v

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM SATO

ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed into the possession of another; and

3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living

together.

For purposes of the aforementioned provision, is the relationship by affinity created between the
husband and the blood relatives of his wife (as well as between the wife and the blood relatives
of her husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus ending the marriage which created
such relationship by affinity?

Does the beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru falsification?

Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate estate of her
deceased mother Manolita Gonzales, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law,
William Sato, a Japanese national.
 Mediatrix alleged that Sato, by means of deceit, defraud MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE
CARUNGCONG. The said accused induced said Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who was already
then blind and 79 years old to sign and thumbmark a special power of attorney dated November
24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter of said accused, making her believe that said
document involved only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that said document authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C.
Sato, to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of to any person or entity of her four properties all located at
Tagaytay City.

And once in possession of the proceeds of the sale of the above properties,

said accused, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to his own personal use and benefit, to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who died in 1994.

Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his mother-
in- law, was an exempting circumstance.

The prosecution disputed Sato’s motion in an opposition dated March 29, 2006.

In an order dated April 17, 2006, the trial court granted Sato’s motion and ordered the dismissal of the
criminal case.

Dissatisfied with the trial courts rulings, the intestate estate of Manolita, represented by Mediatrix, filed a
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which, however dismissed it.

CA: There is a dearth of jurisprudence and/or commentaries elaborating on the provision of Article 332 of
the Revised Penal Code. However, from the plain language of the law, it is clear that the exemption from
criminal liability for the crime of swindling (estafa) under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code applies
to private respondent Sato, as son-in-law of Manolita

Meaning of "at the time of his trial for one crime."

The phrase "at the time of his trial" should not be restrictively construed as
to mean the date of arraignment. It is employed in its general sense,
including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything
that is done in the course of the trial, from
ARTICLE/TOPIC CASE/DOCTRINE
General Principles People vs Genosa (Battered
Woman Syndrome)
Characteristics of Criminal Law
General NCC Art.14 – applicable to all
who live and sojourn the PH
Territorial Art. 2
People vs Tulin (Piracy – in high
seas)
Prospective Art 22 – exception.
effects of repeal
Constitutional Limitations White Light vs Manila (hotels)
Estrada vs Escritor (Jehovah’s
witness conjugal arrangement)
People vs Echagaray (raped
10yr old daughter – death
penalty– not excessive
People vs Ferrer
US vs Diaz Conde (usury law.
Prospectively. Not liable.)
Construction and Interpretation Pro reo doctrine
HELD/MEANING
(?) Classical Theory – basis:
free will. Presumed to have
acted with freedom, intelligence
and intent.
BWS 2 cycles of 3 phases:
1. tension-building
2. acute battering
3. tranquil, loving
-insufficient evidence on 3rd
Self-defense
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable means
3. Lack of provocation
-no unlawful aggression
1. General
2. Territorial
3. Perspective
Exceptions:
1. Treaties
2. Law of preferential app
3. Public International Law
offense while on a Philippine
ship?
piracy is an exemption to the
territoriality rule
retroactive when it favors the
accused unless habitual
delinquent
1. Due process and equal
protection
2. freedom of expression
3. freedom of religion
4. no excessive fines/ inhumane
punishments
5. non-imprisonment for
debt/poll tax
6. Bill of attainder
7. Ex-post facto laws
1. liberally in favor of the
accused

ART 1 Effectivity
ART 2 Territoriality
ART 3 Felonies
ART. 4 Criminal Liability
ART.5 Acts which should be
repressed but are not covered
by the law
ART. 8 Conspiracy
People vs Abilong (destierro.
“imprisonment”
People vs Formigones (killed his
wife. Not an imbecile)
January 1, 1932
Dolo
Culpa
People vs Guillen (tried to kill
President but killed other ppl)
He who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil
caused
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine
lege
Dura lex sed lex
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Proposal to commit a felony
2. Spanish over English text
3. Retroactive
4. Prescribed but undeserved
penalties
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent (Criminal
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence/Imprudence
In culpable felonies, the injury
caused to another should be
unintentional, it being merely the
incident of another act
performed without malice
there is no crime when there is
no law punishing it
the law may be harsh but the
law is the law
-2 or more persons aimed acts
towards the accomplishment of
an unlawful act
although independent but
actually connected
TRIC-SM
DEAR ATe
TRIC