SANDOVAL LAST MINUTE TIPS 1

CRIMINAL LAW 2016 I WILL PASS THE BAR!

Q: WHAT IS AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE?

A: It is a sentence with a minimum term and a maximum term which the court is mandated to
impose for the benefit of a guilty person who is not disqualified therefore, when the maximum
imprisonment exceeds 1 year.

Q: What is the purpose of the indeterminate sentence law?

A: The purpose of the indeterminate sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment because it
is proven to be more destructive than constructive to offenders.

Q: How is the indeterminate sentence imposed?

A: In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the RPC or special penal laws, the
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, which has a maximum and a
minimum term based on the penalty actually imposed.

Note: The term minimum refers to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a
minimum to be eligible for parole. The term maximum refers to the maximum limit of the duration
that the convict may be held in jail. For special laws, it is anything within the inclusive range of
prescribed penalty. Courts are given discretion in the imposition of the indeterminate penalty.

Q: What are the rules in imposing a penalty under the indeterminate sentence law?
A: When penalty is imposed by RPC:
1. The Maximum Term is that which in view of the attending circumstances could be
properly imposed under the RPC 2. The Minimum Term is within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC

Note: Prescribed penalty is what the penalty is without looking at the circumstances. As opposed
to imposed penalty which takes into account the circumstances.

Q: X was convicted of a complex crime of direct assault with homicide aggravated by the
commission of the crime in a place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties. The penalty for direct assault is prision correccional in its medium and maximum period.
What is the correct indeterminate penalty (2012 Bar Question)

A: 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years & 4 months of reclusion temporal as

maximum

Note: In determining penalties for a complex crime, the graver penalty shall be considered thus
direct assault is there to confuse the examiner. What should be considered is the penalty for
homicide since it is more grave. The maximum should not exceed what is prescribed by the
penalty. The minimum should be a period less than what is prescribed as a minimum for the
penalty.
When penalty is imposed by Special Penal Law:
1. The Maximum Term must not exceed the maximum term fixed by said law. 2. The Minimum
Term must not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
Q: X was convicted of a complex crime of direct assault with homicide aggravated by the
commission of the crime in a place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties. The penalty for direct assault is prision correccional in its medium and maximum period.
What is the correct indeterminate penalty? (2012 Bar Question)
A: 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years & 4 months of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
Explanation: 17 years and 4 months is the commencement of the duration of the maximum period
of reclusion temporal while 10 years is part of prision mayor, the penalty next lower in degree to
reclusion temporal.
COVERAGE

Q: When does indeterminate sentence apply?

A: Indeterminate sentence applies mandatorily to violations of both the RPC and special laws
where imprisonment would exceed one (1) year, and where the penalty is divisible. (Sec.1)

Q: Who are disqualified from availing the benefits of the indeterminate sentence law?
A: The Indeterminate sentence law shall not apply to persons:
. Convicted of:
An offense punishable with death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
Misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage
Piracy
. Who are habitual delinquents
. Who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
. Granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term
(condition) thereto
. Whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
. Sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension only; Any person convicted of a crime
but the penalty imposed upon him does not involve imprisonment
. Who are already serving final judgment upon the approval of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
(Sec. 2)
Note: Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua, if
after considering the attendant circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or
less, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.
PROBATION LAW
PD 968 RA No. 10707 (AS AMENDED)
July 24, 1976 JULY 27, 2015
SECTION 4. GRANT OF PROBATION. SEC. 4. GRANT OF PROBATION.

CRIMINAL LAW 2016 I WILL PASS THE BAR!
Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the
court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant and upon application at
any time of said defendant, suspend the
execution of said sentence and place the
defendant on probation for such period and
upon such terms and conditions as it may deem
best.
Probation may be granted whether the
sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a
fine only. An application for probation shall be
filed with the trial court, with notice to the
appellate court if an appeal has been taken
from the sentence of conviction. The filing of
the application shall be deemed a waver of the
right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a
pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not
be appealable.
SEC 9. DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS
The benefits of this Decree shall not be
extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security
SANDOVAL LAST MINUTE TIPS 3
Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the
trial court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant for a probationable
penalty and upon application by said defendant
within the period for perfecting an appeal,
suspend the execution of the sentence and
place the defendant on probation for such
period and upon such terms and conditions as
it may deem best. No application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of
conviction imposing a non-probationable
penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such
judgment is modified through the imposition of
a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be
allowed to apply for probation based on the
modified decision before such decision
becomes final. The application for probation
based on the modified decision shall be filed in
the trial court where the judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty was
rendered, or in the trial court where such case
has since been re-raffled. In a case involving
several defendants where some have taken
further appeal, the other defendants may apply
for probation by submitting a written application
and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the
judgment of conviction.
The trial court shall, upon receipt of the
application filed, suspend the execution of the
sentence imposed in the judgment.
This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose
the benefit of probation should he seek a
review of the modified decision which already
imposes a probationable penalty.
Probation may be granted whether the
sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a
fine only. The filing of the application shall be
deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall
not be appealable.
SEC. 9. DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS.
The benefits of this Decree shall not be
extended to those:
a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
b. convicted of any crime against the national
of the State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred Pesos;
(d) who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the
time the substantive provisions of this Decree
became applicable pursuant to Section 33
hereof.
SEC 16. TERMINATION OF PROBATION
After the period of probation and upon
consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the
court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the
terms and conditions of his probation and
thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall
operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or
suspend as a result of his conviction and to fully
discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to
the offense for which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall
each be furnished with a copy of such order.
SEC 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Provincial
and City Probation Officers.
Provincial or City Probation Officers shall have
the authority within their territorial jurisdiction to
administer oaths and acknowledgments and to
take depositions in connection with their duties
and functions under this Decree. They shall
also have, with respect to probationers under
their care, the powers of police officer.
SEC 27. FIELD ASSISTANTS,
SUBORDINATE PERSONNEL, PROVINCIAL
OR CITY PROBATION OFFICERS shall be
assisted by such field assistants and
subordinate personnel as may be necessary to
enable them to carry out their duties effectively.
SECTION 28. PROBATION AIDES
security;
c. who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six (6) months and
one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
d. who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree; and
e. who are already serving sentence at the
time the substantive provisions of this Decree
became applicable pursuant to Section 33
hereof.
SEC. 16. TERMINATION OF PROBATION
After the period of probation and upon
consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the
court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the
terms and conditions of his probation and
thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall
operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or
suspended as a result of his conviction and to
totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the
offense for which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall
each be furnished with a copy of such order.
SEC. 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Regional,
Provincial and City Probation Officers.
Regional, Provincial or City Probation Officers
shall have the authority within their territorial
jurisdiction to administer oaths and
acknowledgments and to take depositions in
connection with their duties and functions under
this Decree. They shall also have, with respect
to probationers under their care, the powers of
a police officer. They shall be considered as
persons in authority.
SEC. 27. FIELD ASSISTANTS,
SUBORDINATE PERSONNEL. Regional,
Provincial or City Probation Officers shall be
assisted by such field assistants and
subordinate personnel as may be necessary to
enable them to carry out their duties
effectively.
SEC. 28. VOLUNTEER PROBATION
ASSISTANTS (VPAS)
 SANDOVAL LAST MINUTE TIPS 5
CRIMINAL LAW 2016 I WILL PASS THE BAR!

To assist the Provincial or City Probation
Officers in the supervision of probationers, the
Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of
good repute and probity to act as probation
aides.
Probation Aides shall not receive any regular
compensation for services except for
reasonable travel allowance. They shall hold
office for such period as may be determined by
the Probation Administrator. Their qualifications
and maximum case loads shall be provided in
the rules promulgated pursuant to this Decree.
To assist the Chief Probation and Parole
Officers in the supervised treatment program of
the probationers, the Probation Administrator
may appoint citizens of good repute and
probity, who have the willingness, aptitude, and
capability to act as VPAs.
VPAs shall not receive any regular
compensation except for reasonable
transportation and meal allowances, as may be
determined by the Probation Administrator, for
services rendered as VPAs.
They shall hold office for a two (2)-year term
which may be renewed or recalled anytime for
a just cause. Their functions, qualifications,
continuance in office and maximum case loads
shall be further prescribed under the
implementing rules and regulations of this Act.

There shall be a reasonable number of VPAs

in every regional, provincial, and city probation
office. In order to strengthen the functional
relationship of VPAs and the Probation
Administrator, the latter shall encourage and
support the former to organize themselves in
the national, regional, provincial, and city levels
for effective utilization, coordination, and
sustainability of the volunteer program.

COLINARES VS. PEOPLE

Q: Arnel Colinares was found guilty of frustrated homicide by the RTC. On appeal, CA affirmed.
On petition for review, SC ruled that he was only guilty of attempted homicide, which penalty is
probationable. Is Colinares now entitled to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the
lower court, even after he has perfected his appeal to a previous conviction (frustrated homicide)
which was not probationable?

A: Yes. What is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right and imposed on Arnel the correct
penalty of two years and four months maximum, he would have had the right to apply for
probation. Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for
probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. While it is true that probation
is a mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the right to such privilege; he certainly does not
have. What he has is the right to apply for that privilege. If the Court allows him to apply for
probation because of the lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether or not to
grant him the privilege of probation, taking into account the full circumstances of his case
(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011).
1. People v. Muoz
1987 Constitution does not expressly declare the abolition of the death penalty. It merely says
that the death penalty shall not be imposed and if already imposed, shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua;

PD 46 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 211 AND 212 (PNP DELA ROSA CASE)

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales earlier ordered a probe on Dela Rosa for possible violation
of Presidential Decree 46, which makes it punishable for public officials and employees to receive
gifts on any occasion, and Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees over alleged travel perks.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 46

MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES TO

RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE PERSONS TO GIVE, GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION,
INCLUDING CHRISTMAS

do hereby make it punishable for any public official or employee, whether of the national or local
governments, to receive, directly or indirectly, and for private persons to give, or offer to give, any
gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas, when such gift, present
or other valuable thing is given by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the
same is for past favor or favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better
treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his
official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainments
in honor of the official or employee or his immediate relatives.

For violation of this Decree, the penalty of imprisonment for not less than one (1)
year nor more than five (5) years and perpetual disqualification from public office shall be
imposed. The official or employee concerned shall likewise be subject to administrative
disciplinary action and, if found guilty, shall be meted out the penalty of suspension or
removal, depending on the seriousness of the offense.

Q: What is the nature of conditional pardon?

A: When delivered and accepted, it is considered a contract between the sovereign power of the
executive and the convict that the former will release the latter upon compliance with the
condition.

Q: What is the obligation incurred by a person granted with conditional pardon?

A: He shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein,
otherwise, his noncompliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of
the pardon and the provisions of Art. 159 on violation of conditional pardon shall be applied to
him. (Art. 95)
 SANDOVAL LAST MINUTE TIPS 7
CRIMINAL LAW 2016 I WILL PASS THE BAR!

Q: What is the difference between conditional pardon and parole?

CONDITIONAL PARDON

CONDITIONAL PARDON

It may be given at any time after final judgment by the Chief Executive.

PAROLE:
It may be given after the prisoner has served the minimum penalty by the Board of Pardons and
Parole under the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

CONDITIONAL PARDON:
For violation of the conditional pardon, the convict may be rearrested or reincarcerated by the
Chief Executive or may be prosecuted under Art. 159 of the Code.

PAROLE:

For violation of the parole, the convict cannot be prosecuted under Art. 159. He can be rearrested
and reincarcerated to serve the unserved portion of his original penalty.

Note: The mere commission, not conviction by the court, of any crime is sufficient to warrant the
parolees arrest and reincarceration

Q: What is battered woman syndrome (BWS)?

A: Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and

behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse (Section 3 (c)).

The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has 3
phases:

. Tension building phase

. Acute battering incident

3. Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent)

phase

Q: Can BWS be used as a defense?

A: Yes. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self- defense under the RPC (Sec. 26).

In laymans terms, if an abused woman kills or inflicts physical injuries on her abusive husband or
live-in partner, and the trial court determines that she is suffering from Battered Woman
Syndrome, the court will declare her not guilty (People v. Genosa, ibid.).

The law now allows the battered woman syndrome as a valid defense in the crime of parricide
independent of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26)

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists (Sec. 26).

Q: Who can avail of BWS as a defense?

A:

. Wife;

. Former wife;

. Against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship; or Note:
The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, exist even without a sexual
intercourse taking place between those involved.

. With whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode

BRIBERY (DIRECT, INDIRECT, QUALIFIED) AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Q: Compare direct bribery and

indirect bribery.

QUALIFIED BRIBERY ARTICLE 211-A

Q: What are the elements of qualified bribery?

A:
 SANDOVAL LAST MINUTE TIPS 9
CRIMINAL LAW 2016 I WILL PASS THE BAR!

. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement

. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death

. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift or
present

Note: The crime involved in qualified bribery is a heinous crime. The public officer need not
receive a gift or present because a mere offer or promise is sufficient.

CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARTICLE 212

Q: What are the elements of this crime?

A:

1. Offender makes offers or promise or gives gifts or presents to a public officer

2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery

Q: When the public officer refuses to be corrupted, what crime is committed?

A: Attempted corruption of public official only.

Q: Suppose the public official actually accepted a consideration and allowed himself to be
corrupted, what is the crime committed?

A: The corruptor becomes liable for consummated corruption of public official. The public officer
also becomes equally liable for consummated bribery.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE (PEOPLE V. GANO; G.R. NO. 134373. FEBRUARY 28, 2001)

It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of
the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph
10) providing for analogous circumstances.

It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of
the robbery) would result in an anomalous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of
the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple
rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of
the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
 This case is singular in its barbarity and nauseating in the manner with which the accused,
bolo in hand, butchered his preys. Notwithstanding the viciousness with which he perpetrated the
offense, we are constrained to apply the principle laid down in People v. Regala, and accordingly,
the two (2) other killings contrary to the ruling of the trial court, should not be appreciated as
aggravating circumstances.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF THEFT (PEOPLE V. JACINTO, G.R. 162540, JULY 13, 2009)

Interestingly, in the recent case of Gemma T. Jacinto vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
162540, July 13, 2009, the Supreme Court found an accused guilty of an impossible crime and
sentenced her to six (6) months of arrresto mayor.
Here, the accused was a collector for a company called Mega Foam Intl Inc. (Mega Foam) and
received a PhP10,000 check as payment from a Mega Foam customer. However, instead of
turning over the check to Mega Foam, the accused took the check and had it deposited into her
brother-in-laws bank account. It turns out the the check was not funded.

Both the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the accused was guilty of qualified
theft. The Supreme Court modified the judgment and ruled that the accused was guilty of an
impossible crime. According to the Supreme Court:

. . . the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the
accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law
provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of the thing
stolen.

In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the
same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question arises
on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced.

The Court must resolve the issue in the negative.

Intod v. Court of Appeals is highly instructive and applicable to the present case. In Intod, the
accused, intending to kill a person, peppered the latters bedroom with bullets, but since the
intended victim was not home at the time, no harm came to him. The trial court and the CA held
Intod guilty of attempted murder. But upon review by this Court, he was adjudged guilty only of an
impossible crime as defined and penalized in paragraph 2, Article 4, in relation to Article 59, both
of the Revised Penal Code, because of the factual impossibility of producing the crime. . .
. . . the requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense
against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its
accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual. The aspect of the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the intended crime under
Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code was further explained by the Court in Intod in this wise . . .

In Intod, the Court went on to give an example of an offense that involved factual impossibility,
i.e., a man puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latters wallet,
but gets nothing since the pocket is empty.
Herein petitioners case is closely akin to the above example of factual impossibility given in
Intod. In this case, petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft,
which is a crime against property. Petitioners evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of
unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly
 SANDOVAL LAST MINUTE TIPS 11
CRIMINAL LAW 2016 I WILL PASS THE BAR!

enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance
of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime
from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely
worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash
to replace the value of said dishonored check.