More FAQ’s on Criminal Law

What is deceit in estafa cases?

Basically, the two essential requisites of fraud or deceit and damage or injury must be established by sufficient and competent evidence in order that the crime of estafa may be established.  Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact (whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed) which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

What is the objective of probation?

Probation is not a right of an accused but a mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the state, which may be granted to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense for which he was convicted. The primary objective in granting probation is the reformation of the probationer. Courts must be meticulous enough toensure that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the accused be served by the grant of probation.

What should a court consider before granting probation?

Probation is a just privilege the grant of which is discretionary upon the court. Before granting probation, the court must consider the potentiality of the offender to reform, together with the demands of justice and public interest, along with other relevant circumstances.The courts are not to limit the basis of their decision to the report or recommendation of the probation officer, which is at best only persuasive.

What is the liability of those who participate in the crime of robbery with homicide?

When the conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was conclusively shown by the concerted acts of the accused and homicide was committed as a consequence thereof, all those who participated are liable as principals in the robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they attempted to prevent the killing. The question as to who actually robbed or who actually killed is of no moment since all of them would be held accountable for the crime of robbery with homicide.

How is the testimony of a rape victim, as to who abused her, treated by a court?

The testimony of the complainant on how she was forcibly taken from her home and brought to a deserted hut, about half a kilometer away, and then raped twice, is credible and there is nothing unusual or improbable in it. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who abused her is credible where she had no motive to testify falsely against the accused.  The rule is that no Filipino girl would publicly admit that she had been ravished unless this is the truth for her natural instinct is to protect her honor and future.

Is the credibility of a rape victim affected by the inconsistencies in her testimony?

The Supreme Court has ruled that “it is an accepted rule that the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony more especially if she is testifying on minor matters. In fact, such inconsistencies are to be expected if a witness is unrehearsed and testifies spontaneously. In the case of People vs. Gozum (135 SCRA 295), it was held that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a complainant, a 16-year old girl not accustomed to a public trial, do not affect her credibility.

How must the crime of rape be proved to overcome presumption of innocence?

Rape is an accusation easy to make, hard to prove but harder to defend by the accused, though innocent. The evidence for the prosecution must be clear and convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Rape is an offense to which, as is often the case, only two people can testify, thus requiring the most conscientious effort on the part of the arbiter to weigh and appraise the conflicting testimonies. If a reasonable doubt exists, the verdict must be one of acquittal.

To prove the crime of rape, is it necessary to prove that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted?

It has been held in one case that for rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted.  It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.  The intimidation must be judged in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule.

Can denial prevail over positive identification?

A defense of mere denial, can not prevail over positive identification. The credibility of witnesses is left to the sound discretion of the judge and in accepting one testimony and rejecting another, he can not be overturned by the appellate tribunal unless he has seriously abused his discretion.

Is there any criminal liability when drug pushing is committed by the accused in a public place?

Drug-pushing when done on a small level belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any place. After the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a few minutes. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same. Hence, the Court has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in a billiard hall (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; in front of a store; along a street at 1:45 p.m. (People v. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985), and in front of a house (People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988).

Is the use of force or violence essential to convict the accused in a rape case?

It need not be over-emphasized that force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When applied, it need not be too overpowering or irresistible. What is essential is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose for which the offender had in mind or to bring about the desired result. In fact, even the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape.

What kind of evidence is needed in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide?

It is settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is imperative that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. In the absence of such proof, that killing of the victim would only be simple homicide or murder, depending on the absence or presence of qualifying circumstances.

Can alibi and denial overcome positive identification?

In the face of the clear and positive testimony of the prosecution witness regarding the participation of the accused in the crime, the accused’s alibi dwindles into nothingness. The positive identification of the accused by the witness as the perpetrator of the crime cannot be overcome by the mere denial of the accused. Such positive identification of the accused that he killed the victim establishes the guilt of the accused beyond moral certainty.

What is the nature and the requisites of a valid self-defense?

The validity of self-defense is premised on the impossibility on the part of the State to at all times prevent aggression upon its people.  Founded in the human instinct to protect, repel and save one’s person from impending danger or peril, the right of self-defense justifies measures taken by one who is attacked and placed in a situation where he either has to forfeit his life or has to take the life of his assailant.  Nevertheless, the application of this justifying circumstance, in this context, requires a clear showing 1) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self defense; 2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and 3) that there be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim’s aggression.

What are the essential requisites of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code?

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred “by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” Based on the doctrine that “el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado” (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused), the essential requisites of Article 4 are: (a) that an intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.

What is proximate legal cause?

Proximate legal cause is defined as “that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.

What are the requisites needed to appreciate evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance?

The requisites necessary to appreciate evident premeditation are: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (c) the lapse of sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

What is conspiracy and what are its elements?

The second paragraph of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy, as follows:

“A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”

The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon.

What are the requisites of and what is the burden of the accused in proving self defense?

To prove self-defense, the accused must show with clear and convincing evidence, that: [1] he is not the unlawful aggressor; [2] there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and [3] he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it was incumbent upon him, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.  He cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, “for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.”

What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?

In instigation, the instigator practically induces the will be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal, while entrapment is defined as the employment of means and ways for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breaker. It is sanctioned and permissible. Under the first instance, no crime has been committed, and to induce one to commit it makes of the instigator a co-criminal. Under the last instance, the crime has already been committed and all that is done is to entrap and capture the law breaker.

Is a sudden attack on the victim considered treachery?

A sudden attack by the assailant constitutes treachery only if such mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. But suddenness of an attack does not by itself prove the existence of treachery. There must also be proof that the accused consciously adopted the mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.

Is an accused entitled to be represented by counsel during identification in a police line-up?

The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process.  This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up. (People vs. Amestuzo, et.al, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001)

Is the credibility of a rape victim affected by her inability and delay in reporting the crime?

No. The Supreme Court has reiterated in a long line of cases that the long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape are not always  an indication of false accusation. A considerable lapse of time before a private complainant reports the sexual abuses should not detract from the fact that the sexual abuses were indeed perpetrated by an accused. Threats and intimidation, coupled with the natural reluctance of Filipina women to report sexual attacks due to shame and fear of the stigma these would carry, can effectively stymie the tongue of a rape victim for a considerable time, especially one of tender years.

What is quasi-recidivism?

Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the maximum of the penalty for the new offense. It makes no difference, for the purpose of the effect of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, whether the crime for which an accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged, falls under the said Code or under special law. Quasi-recidivism is punished with more severity than recidivism proper because the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, as any other aggravating circumstance, may be offset by a mitigating circumstance present in the commission of the crime, whereas, in a case of quasi-recidivism the maximum degree of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed should always be imposed irrespective of the presence of any mitigating circumstance.