A 3019; Section 3(e); proof of the extent of damage is not essential The

third element of the offense – that the act of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused – was established here. Proof of the extent of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible. Danilo O. Garcia and Joven SD. Brizuela v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197204, March 26, 2014.

Liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Plameras v. People, September 4,

2013. The following elements must concur to be liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019:

1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

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

3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.

2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 (R.A. 9165) – Review of the concept of chain of custody as it relates to the evidence and eventual prosecution of the case (Sec. 21); no mitigating and aggravating

circumstances will be appreciated under law because mere possession or any other act under the law is considered mala prohibita but knowledge

must be established by the prosecution that the offender freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority (animus possidendi).

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule. There are links that must be

established in the chain of custody in a buybust situation, namely: “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.” In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y Balverde, et al, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.

Exception to the chain of custody rule: People v. Romeo Ong et. al., July 3,

2013. Prosecution should establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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.

Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link—immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the

presence of the accused and others—namely, that (a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of drugs; elements. With regard to

the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said

drug. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. In a successful

prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Place. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y Balverde, et al, G.R. No. 190621. February 10, 2014.

Dangerous Drugs Act; “transport” defined. “Transport” as used under the

Dangerous Drugs Act means “to carry or convey from one place to another.” The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be

accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge. People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014 Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust operations; distinction between entrapment and instigation. A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as

a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is

enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. In entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is

accompanied to the target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security is disregarded. People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements. To establish

the crime of illegal sale of shabu as defined and punished under section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In short, the Prosecution must show that the transaction or sale actually took place, and present in court the thing sold as evidence of the corpus

delicti. People of the Philippines v. Arnold Tapere y Polpol, G.R. No. 178065, February 20, 2013

3. Anti-violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 2562) – Nature of violence is not limited to physical but may cover economic and psychological acts. Review S.C. ruling in People v. Genosa on battered woman syndrome which consists of three phases: tension-building phase; acute battering incident and tranquil, loving or non-violent phase. Battered woman syndrome is a valid defense that will exonerate a woman from killing her spouse/partner.

Dabalos v. RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, January 7, 2013. The Court will not read into Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 a provision that would render it toothless in the pursuit of the declared policy of the State to protect women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm, namely: 1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offenders wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably, while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship.

4. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22): elements of the crime; an offender can be charged both with estafa for each party offended and violation of B.P.22 for each count of checks dishonored covered by the prohibition (ex. A

pyramiding scam committed by Zebra was uncovered which victimized 200 vendors for which 6 posted dated checks were issued to each vendor to pay interest on their capital investment. Zebra shall be held on 200 counts of estafa under the RPC and as many counts of violation of B.P. for each check dishonored upon presentment.); relate situation with definition of continued crime or delito continuado.

Liability under B.P. 22. San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013. To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22

Estafa; syndicated estafa; elements. The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the

Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the

misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. Rafael H.

Galvez and Katherine L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v. Gilbert, et al./Gilbert Guy, et al v. Asia Untied Bank ,G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No.

187979/G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013

Effect of Acquittal on Civil Liability. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, November 11, 2013.If acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, will not relieve the accused of the corresponding civil liability.

5. Anti- Fencing Law: Being a crime considered as malum prohibitum, mere possession of a stolen good gives rise to prima facie presumption of

violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. A question involving sale of Ukay-ukay items might be asked.

Elements of Fencing. Ong v. People, April 10, 2013. The essential elements of

the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) 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; and (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.hanr

6. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294): elements of the crime; differentiate criminal intent from intent to possess; how will a person be treated if found to have possessed an illegal firearm in a COMELEC check point, will he be charged for violation of the Omnibus Election Law or for illegal possession of firearm, or both; review concept of absorption in criminal law and when it will and will not apply.

7. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001: define suspicious transactions, covered transactions, covered institution, and covered persons; knowledge of the culprit’s identity is not essential; effect of freeze order (only the Court of Appeals may issue this order)

8. Anti-Hazing Law: definition of hazing; requisites under Sec. 2 of the law; liability of persons under Sec.4 of the law – who may held principals and accomplices; Read the Lenny Villa case and latest decision penned by Justice Mendoza on the fraternity rumble inside the U.P. campus resulting to death of a U.P. student. See the dissenting opinion of Justice Peralta.

VI. Other possible matters which may be taken up in Criminal Law 1. On prescription of a crime: The reckoning date of crime if not known right after its commission may be computed from the date of discovery. Example: If a crime was committed 10 years from its commission on October 17, 1993 was only reported by an eyewitness on October 17, 2003 and the culprit was arrested only on October 17, 2013, prescription will be counted only from October 17, 2003 and not from October 17, 1993.

2. On criminal liability: If Tiger borrowed a gun from Lion to kill Kangaroo but Tiger did not use Lion’s gun but he instead stabbed

Kangaroo. Will Tiger have any criminal liability? If Tiger agreed with the plan of Lion, he can be held liable as an accomplice.

3. Kidnapping: If A, B and C stopped at gunpoint a van carrying a well- known artist with her driver and personal assistant inside the van and announced “Kidnap ito”. They forcibly took over the van, hit the driver’s head and left him along the road but they took the personal assistant with them. They ordered the artist to call up her talent manager to ask for a ransom of P5M. What crimes were committed by A, B and C –

(a) As to the artist – kidnapping and serious illegal detention (b) As to the personal assistant – serious illegal detention

(c) as to the driver- grave coercion and depending on injuries sustained, serious or less serious physical injuries