Criminal Law

1. Penalties

Art. 64
Rules for the Application of Penalties, which contain three periods
Rules:
1. No aggravating and not mitigating- medium period
2. Only mitigating- minimum period
3. Only aggravating maximum period
4. Where there are aggravating and mitigating the court shall offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating penalty next lower, in the period
applicable, according to the number and nature of the circumstances
6. If there are three mitigating circumstances but two aggravating circumstances, the rule
is not applicable. The effect is to fix the period at the minimum only.
7. No penalty greater than the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law shall be
imposed, no matter how many aggravating circumstances are present.
8. The court can determine the extent of the penalty within the limits of each period,
according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produces by the crime.

Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances are not considered in the imposition of

penalty:
1. When penalty is single and indivisible (except privileged mitigating)
2. In felonies through negligence
3. When penalty is only a fine imposed by an ordinance
4. When the penalties are prescribed by special laws

Art. 65
Rules in cases of penalty not composed of three periods

The courts shall apply the rules in the preceding articles by:
1. Dividing into three (3) equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed; and
2. Forming one period of each of the three portions

Illustration:

1. Prision Mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years)

2. Subtract the minimum (disregard the 1 day from the maximum)

12 years
- 6 years
6 years

3. Divide the difference by 3

6 years / 3 = 2 years
 4. Use the minimum 6 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as the minimum of the
minimum period. Add 2 years to the minimum (disregard the 1 day ) to get the
maximum of the minimum period

6 years + 2 years = 8 years

So, the maximum of the minimum period is 8 years. The range of the minimum
period is 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.

5. Use the maximum of the minimum period as the minimum of the medium period, and
add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum of the minimum period, thus

8 years and 1 day (minimum of the medium period)

Add 2 years to the minimum of the medium period (disregard the 1 day) to get the
maximum of the medium period.

8 years + 2 years = 10 years

So, the maximum of the medium period is 10 years. The range of the medium period
is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.

6. Use the maximum of the medium period as the minimum of the maximum period, and
add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum of the medium period, thus

10 years and 1 day ( minimum of the maximum period )

Add 2 years to the minimum of the maximum period (disregard 1 day) to get the
maximum of the maximum period.

10 years + 2 years = 12 years

So, the maximum of the maximum period is 12 years. The range of the maximum
period is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years.

Trust Receipts Law PD 115

Trust Receipt a written or printed document signed by the entrustee in favor of the
entruster containing the terms and conditions substantially complying with the provisions of
Trust Receipts Law, whereby the bank as entruster releases the goods to the possession of the
entrustee but retains ownership thereof while the entrustee may sell the goods and apply the
proceeds for the full payment of his liability to the bank.

No agency relationship is established when the entrustee executes trust receipt

Violations of TR Law
TRL is violated whenever the entrustee or the person in whose favor the TRs were
issued fails to:
1. Return the goods covered by the TRs
 2. Return the proceeds of the sale of the said goods

TRL punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or
goods to the prejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner
Malum Prohibitum
Violation of TR arrangement is not the sole basis for incurring liability under Art. 315
(1) RPC Estafa

Liability for Failure to Return the Goods or the Proceeds:

1. Criminal Liability for estafa under Sec. 13 of PD 115 in relation to Art. 315 (1) of the
RPC
2. Liable for damages under Art. 33 of the New Civil Code

Failure of the entrustee to turn owner the proceeds of the sale of goods, covered by
TR to the entruster or to return said goods if they were not disposed of in accordance
with the terms of the TR shall be punished as estafa under Art. 315 (1) of the RPC
without need of proving intent to defraud.
Loss of goods, documents or title, pending the disposition, irrespective of whether or
not it was due to the fault or negligence of the entrustee, shall not extinguish his
obligation to the entruster for the value thereof.

Elements of Estafa under RPC in Relation with PD 115:

1. Receipt of the subject goods in trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to
remit the proceeds thereof to (the trustor), or to return the goods if not sold
2. Misappropriation or conversion of the goods and/ or the proceeds of the sale
3. Performance of such acts with abuse of confidence to the damage and prejudice of
trustor bank
4. Demand was made on them by the trustor bank for the remittance of the proceeds or
the return of the unsold goods

Effect of Compliance:
1. Before criminal charge- no criminal liability
2. After charge, before conviction extinguishment of criminal liability

PD 115 expressly allows the bank to take possession of the goods covered by the trust
receipts. Thus, even though the bank took possession of the goods covered by the trust
receipts, the entrustees remained liable for the entire amount of the loans covered by
the trust receipts.
The breach of obligation under trust receipt agreement is separate and distinct from
any criminal liability for misuse and/ or misappropriation of goods, documents or
instruments released under trust receipts, the civil action may proceed independently
of the criminal proceedings instituted against petitioners regardless of the result of the
latter.
Entrutees breach of trust, however, subjects him to criminal and civil liability for
estafa
The person signing the trust receipt for the corporation is not solidarily liable with the
entrustee-corporation for the civil liability arising from the criminal offense.
 CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this
Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.
RTC shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act, including
any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission.
Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or
committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the
country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical
person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.

ANTI- ALIAS LAW RA 6085

General Rule:
No person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at
birth in the office of the local civil registry or with which he was baptized for the first time,
or, in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry;
or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court.

Exception:
A person is allowed to use a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio
or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a
normally accepted practice.
Instances when a second name can be used:
1. As a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment
purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted
practice.
2. When the use of the second name or alias is judicially authorized and duly recorded in
the proper local civil registry.
3. The use of fictitious name or a different name belonging to a single instance without
any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name in addition to his
real name from that day forth.

The repeated use of an alias within a single a single day cannot be deemed habitual as
it does not amount to customary practice or use.
The rule on libel- that mere communication to a third person is publicity does not
apply in violations of RA 6085. The required publicity in the use of alias is more than
a mere communication to a third person. The use of alias, to be considered public,
must be made openly, or in an open manner or place, or to cause it to be generally
known. The intent to publicly use the alias must be manifest.
No person having been baptized with a name different from that which he was
registered at birth in the local civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the
bureau of immigration upon entry or any person who obtained judicial authority to
use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym shall represent himself in any public or private
transaction or shall sign or execute any public or private document without stating or
affixing his real or original name and all names or aliases or pseudonym he is or may
have been authorized to use.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

PP vs Martin Simon Y Sunga

Facts:
Accused Martin Simon y Sunga was charged with a violation of Section 4, Art. II of
RA 6425, as amended. On or about October 22, 1988, in Guagua, Pampanga, he sold four tea
bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command poseur-buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00,
which tea bags, when subjected to laboratory examination, were found positive for marijuana.
Trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant for a violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of
RA 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a
fine of twenty thousand pesos and to pay the costs.
Issue:
Whether or not ISLAW is applicable in the present case.
Held:
Yes, since drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant has committed any act
which would put him within the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does not
involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided, of course, that the penalty as ultimately resolved
will exceed one year of imprisonment. The more important aspect, however, is how the ISLAW
shall be ascertained.
It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an
offense under RPC, state that if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
term prescribed by the same. We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably refers
to an offense under special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without
reference to the RPC, as discussed in the preceding illustrations, such that it may be said that
the offense is punished under that law.
There can be no sensible debate that the aforequoted rule on indeterminate sentence for
offenses under special laws was necessary because of the nature of the former type of penalties
under said laws which were not included or contemplated in the scale of penalties in Article 71
of the Code, hence there could be no minimum, within the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense, as is the rule for felonies therein.
RA 6425, as now amended by RA 7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under
RPC in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for
purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, we have applied the provisions of the
amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional and Art.64 of the Code to
impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law,
is now in effect punished by and under RPC. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, we
must apply the first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that in imposing a prision
sentence for an offense punished by the RPC, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view
of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
the Code for the offense.
Thus, with regard to the phrase in Section 2 thereof excepting from its coverage
persons convicted of offenses, punished with death penalty or life imprisonment, we have
held that what is considered is the penalty actually imposed and not the penalty imposable
under the law, and that reclusion perpetua is likewise embraced therein although what the law
states is life imprisonment. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence in this case shall be
the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense.