Posting bail is a fundamental legal process that allows individuals who have been arrested and charged with a crime to be released from detention temporarily. In the Philippines, the concept of bail is rooted in the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This comprehensive guide aims to provide a detailed understanding of the bail system in the Philippines, including the process, requirements, and important considerations.

What is Bail?

Bail can be defined as the temporary release of an accused person from custody upon depositing a specific amount of money or property as a guarantee that the person will appear in court for legal proceedings. The primary purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial while safeguarding their rights to liberty before being proven guilty.

In terms of eligibility, bail is generally available to any person charged with a bailable offense, which includes offenses where the penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment. However, there are certain non-bailable offenses, such as those punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) or death, where bail may not be granted.

Bail Process

1. Filing of Bail Application: The accused, or their legal representative, must file a bail application with the appropriate court. This application typically includes relevant information about the case and the accused, along with the proposed bail amount.

2. Bail Hearing: The court conducts a bail hearing to evaluate the merits of the bail application. During this hearing, the court considers various factors such as the nature of the offense, the strength of the evidence, the character of the accused, and the potential flight risk. Based on these considerations, the court determines whether to grant or deny bail.

3. Amount of Bail: If the court grants bail, it sets the amount of bail. The court aims to determine a reasonable and sufficient amount that will ensure the accused's appearance in court. The bail amount can vary depending on the seriousness of the offense, the financial capability of the accused, and other relevant factors.

4. Posting Bail: Once the bail amount is determined, the accused or a representative must post the required amount, either in cash or through property accepted as collateral. The court provides instructions on the accepted modes of payment and the necessary documents for the bail posting process.

5. Release from Detention: After the bail has been posted, the accused is released from custody pending trial. It is important to note that the release is temporary, and the accused must still appear in court for all required proceedings.

Bail Requirements

1. Bail Bond: A bail bond is a written undertaking signed by the accused and their sureties, guaranteeing the presence of the accused in court for all required proceedings. The bail bond serves as a legal contract that binds the accused to fulfill their obligations and appear in court as directed.

2. Surety: A surety is a person who provides a guarantee or assurance that the accused will appear in court as required. Sureties play a crucial role in the bail process, as they are responsible for ensuring the accused's compliance with the conditions set by the court.

3. Collateral: In some cases, the court may accept properties, such as land titles or cash deposits, as collateral in lieu of the full bail amount. Collateral serves as an additional security measure to guarantee the accused's appearance in court.

4. Valid Identification: During the bail process, both the accused and the sureties must present valid identification documents. These documents help establish the identity and credibility of the individuals involved in the bail application.

Important Considerations

1. Bail Conditions: The court may impose certain conditions upon granting bail. These conditions can include travel restrictions, reporting to a designated authority, surrendering passports, or refraining from contact with certain individuals. It is essential for the accused to fully understand and adhere to these conditions to avoid any potential violation that could lead to bail revocation.

2. Failure to Appear: If the accused fails to appear in court as required, the court may forfeit the bail bond and issue a warrant of arrest. It is of utmost importance for the accused to fulfill their obligation to appear in court, as failing to do so can have severe consequences and may lead to the loss of temporary freedom.

3. Bail Revocation: The court has the power to revoke bail if the accused violates any of the imposed conditions or if new circumstances arise during the course of the trial that warrant revocation. It is crucial for the accused to comply with the conditions set by the court and to maintain good conduct throughout the trial period.

4. Bail Reduction or Exoneration: In some cases, the court may consider reducing the bail amount if there are justifiable circumstances, such as financial hardship or changes in the accused's situation. Additionally, if the case takes an unexpected turn or new evidence emerges that weakens the prosecution's case, the court may consider exoneration from bail entirely.

Conclusion

Understanding the process of posting bail in the Philippines is crucial for individuals facing criminal charges. By familiarizing themselves with the bail system, its requirements, and important considerations, individuals can navigate the legal process more effectively while preserving their right to temporary freedom. It is highly recommended to consult with a legal professional who can provide guidance and support throughout the bail process, ensuring that all legal procedures are followed correctly and protecting the rights and interests of the accused.

Remember, posting bail is not a means to evade justice but a lawful provision that upholds the principle of innocence until proven guilty. By responsibly exercising this right, individuals can ensure their presence in court, actively participate in their legal defense and contribute to a fair and just judicial system.

The juvenile justice system in the Philippines is designed to prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders. Recognizing that young people who commit offenses should be given the opportunity to reform and become law-abiding citizens, the government has implemented the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No. 9344). This law aims to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law and promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Diversion

An Alternative Approach In the Philippines, the primary approach in dealing with children in conflict with the law is a diversion. Diversion seeks to address the underlying issues that contribute to their offending behavior without resorting to formal court proceedings. Instead, community-based interventions such as counseling, mediation, and rehabilitation programs are provided. The goal is to prevent children from entering the formal justice system and to offer them appropriate support and guidance.

Family Courts

Specialized Services When diversion is not appropriate or unsuccessful, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provides for the establishment of special youth courts, known as Family Courts. These courts follow a different set of procedures and provide specialized services for children in conflict with the law. They offer comprehensive assessments, rehabilitation programs, educational support, and vocational training to address the specific needs of young offenders.

Dispositions for Rehabilitation

In the event that a child is found guilty of an offense, the court may impose a range of dispositions or interventions aimed at their rehabilitation. These include probation, community service, counseling, education, vocational training, and other appropriate interventions. The focus is on addressing the underlying causes of the offending behavior and promoting the child's reintegration into society as a productive and law-abiding citizen.

Detention and Residential Care

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act emphasizes that detention should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. Secure and non-secure residential care facilities may be used, but efforts are made to ensure that the conditions are conducive to the child's well-being and rehabilitation. The law also mandates separate facilities for children to ensure their safety and protection.

Involvement of Family and Community

The involvement of the family and the community is crucial in the rehabilitation and reintegration process. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act recognizes the important role of the family in supporting the child's development and reintegration into society. Additionally, community-based organizations and programs are encouraged to participate in the rehabilitation process, providing additional support and opportunities for young offenders.

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System

In recent years, the Philippines has been actively working towards strengthening and improving its juvenile justice system. Efforts have been made to enhance the capacity of justice system stakeholders, develop more effective diversion programs, and provide comprehensive services for children in conflict with the law. These initiatives aim to ensure better outcomes for young offenders and increase the chances of successful rehabilitation and reintegration.

Conclusion

The juvenile justice system in the Philippines is firmly rooted in the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration. Through diversion programs, specialized Family Courts, appropriate dispositions, and the involvement of the family and community, the country is making strides in reforming young offenders and helping them become productive members of society. Ongoing efforts to strengthen and improve the system ensure that children in conflict with the law receive the support and guidance they need to lead law-abiding lives and contribute positively to their communities.

Bail secures the release of a person from jail, provided that he or she will return for court appearances or trial. In the event the suspect fails to return to court, the bail will be forfeited. It will only be returned if the suspect was able to comply with the required appearances. Regardless of whether the person is found guilty or not guilty, the bail money will be returned at the end of the trial. The laws governing bail vary from country to country. In the Philippines Rule 114 provides details on the conditions and requirements of bail.

Rule 114

Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. — All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:

(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval and remain in force at all stages of the case, unless sooner cancelled, until the promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whatever the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;

(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules;

(c) The failure if the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him r his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.

The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken recently showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached thereto. (2a)

Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on court or bail. — No person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon lawful order of the court or when he is admitted to bail as prescribed in this Rule. (n)

Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right. — All persons in custody shall: (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offenses not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule. (3a)

Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the accused to bail.

The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail bond during the period of appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman.

If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not more than twenty (20)years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:

(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his indicate the probability of flight of released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit another crime.

The appellate court may review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to the adverse party. (n)

Sec. 6. Capital offense, defined. — A capital offense, as the term is used in these Rules, is an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the application to be admitted to bail, may be punished with death. (4)

Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (n)

Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. — At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. (5a)

Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. — The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following guidelines:

(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;

(c) Penalty of the offense charged;

(d) Character and reputation of the accused;

(e) Age and health of the accused;

(f) The weight of the evidence against the accused;

(g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial;

(h) Forfeiture of other bonds;

(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and

(j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.

Excessive bail shall not be required. (6)

Crimes are not immediately penalized due to the circumstances that deter the offended party from filing criminal charges. Sometimes, it may take years for offenders or perpetrators to pay for the crime they committed. However, the law prescribes a specific time within which an offender may be prosecuted for the crimes committed. Why is it important to know the prescription period of a crime? Does a guilty person go unpunished if the commission of violation already lapses the prescription period? The offended party or the proper authorities will lose their right to prosecute the perpetrators if they do not take legal actions within the prescribed period. 

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article.

Sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 3326 otherwise known as AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN states that:

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.

Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.

Forcible abduction under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as "abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs." The penalty for this will be reclusion temporal. The elements of forcible abduction are: (a) that the person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (b) that the abduction is against her will; and, (c) that the abduction is with lewd designs. 

On 5 May 1999 the trial court rejected the defenses of accused Lito Egan and convicted him of forcible abduction with rape;[45] hence, this appeal.

The only issue before us is the calibration of the competing evidence for the prosecution and the defense - verily, our resolution would hinge on whose version is more credible, more plausible and more trustworthy considering the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime charged.

Accused-appellant Lito Egan was charged with forcible abduction with rape of twelve (12)-year old Lenie T. Camad.  Although from the records it appears that Lenie was less than twelve (12) years old as shown by her birth certificate (Exh. "B")[46] when the abduction took place on 6 January 1997 and the alleged rape was perpetrated a day after, the criminal liability of accused-appellant would nevertheless be confined only to the crime alleged in the Information.   Hence, a judgment of conviction is proper only where the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape -

Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of forcible abduction.  The elements of forcible abduction are (a) that the person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (b) that the abduction is against her will; and, (c) that the abduction is with lewd designs.   On the other hand, Art. 335 of the same Code defines the crime of rape and provides for its penalty.  The elements of rape pertinent to this case are:  (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and, (b) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.[47]

All the elements of forcible abduction were proved in this case.  The victim, who is a young girl, was taken against her will as shown by the fact that at knife-point she was dragged and taken by accused-appellant to a place far from her abode.  At her tender age, Lenie could not be expected to physically resist considering the fact that even her companion, Jessica Silona, had to run home to escape accused-appellant's wrath as he brandished a hunting knife.  Fear gripped and paralyzed Lenie into helplessness as she was manhandled by accused-appellant who was armed and twenty-four (24) years her senior.  What we held in People v. Rapisora[48] could be said in the case at bar -

Appellant would urge the Court to ignore the testimony of complainant for her alleged failure to call for help.  In People vs. Akhtar, similarly involving the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the same contention was raised.  This Court, rejecting the proposition made by the alleged offender, held that '[c]omplainant's failure to ask for help when she was abducted, or to escape from appellant's house during her detention, should not be construed as a manifestation of consent to the acts done by appellant.  For her life was on the line.  Against the armed threats and physical abuses of appellant, she had no defense.  Moreover, at a time of grave peril, to shout could literally be to court disaster.  Her silence was born out of fear for her safety, to say the least, not a sign of approval'  x x x x  This Court, in several cases, has observed that behavioral psychology would indicate that most people, confronted by unusual events, react dissimilarly to like situations.  Intimidation, more subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind of the person against whom it may be employed, and its presence is basically incapable of being tested by any hard and fast rule.  Intimidation is normally best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time and occasion of the crime.

The evidence likewise shows that the taking of the young victim against her will was done con miras deshonestas or in furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs.   The word lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous.   It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on in a wanton manner.[49] Such lewd designs were established by the prurient and lustful acts which accused-appellant displayed towards the victim after she was abducted.   This element may also be inferred from the fact that while Lenie was then a naive twelve (12)-year old, accused-appellant was thirty-six (36) years old and although unmarried was much wiser in the ways of the world than she.[50]

Given the straightforward and candid testimony of Lenie and her father Palmones as well as the absence of any motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant, the logical conclusion is that there was no improper motive on their part, and their respective testimonies as to facts proving forcible abduction are worthy of full faith and credit.[51] We generally sustain the factual findings of the trial court on account of its strategic access to circumstances decisive of the question of credibility as it saw and heard the witnesses themselves and observed  their  behavior  and  manner  of  testifying.   In the instant case, there is no reason to depart from the rule since no fact or circumstance of weight and influence proving that accused-appellant had abducted Lenie against her will and with lewd designs has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the court a quo.[52] Significantly, accused-appellant has not even challenged the unequivocal pronouncement of the trial court that the complainant testified in a spontaneous and straightforward manner which thus leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that she was telling the truth and that her declarations were positive, clear and convincing.   The best that he could do to assail the conviction was, unfortunately, to state mere speculations of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses without however substantiating by specific examples such conjecture.   We have no doubt that his studied silence on the evaluation of evidentiary matters unmistakably preserves the integrity of the decision of the trial court.

Accused-appellant would however insist that he and Lenie had been engaged under Manobo rituals to marry each other and that her companionship was willful and voluntary.  Proof of this, he said, was the alleged dowry of one (1) horse, two (2) pigs, ten (10) sacks of palay, and P2,000.00, with two (2) wild horses forthcoming, he had given her father in exchange for her hand in marriage.   In moving from one place to another to look for the horses which the old man Palmones had demanded, it was allegedly only his intention to realize his matrimonial aspiration with Lenie.

The testimony of the victim negated this contrived posture of accused-appellant which in reality is simply a variation of the sweetheart defense.  If they were, surely, Lenie would not have jeopardized their relationship by accusing him of having held her against her will and molesting her and, on top of it all, by filing a criminal charge against him.   If it had been so, Lenie could have easily told her father after the latter had successfully traced their whereabouts that nothing untoward had happened between her and the accused.   Her normal reaction would have been to cover-up for the man she supposedly loved and with whom she had a passionate affair.   But, on the contrary, Lenie lost no time in denouncing accused-appellant and exposing to her family and the authorities the disgrace that had befallen her.   If they had indeed been lovers, Lenie's father would not have shown so much concern for her welfare and safety by searching for the couple for four (4) months, desperately wanting to rescue her from captivity and seeking the intervention of the datus in resolving the matter.

Neither was accused-appellant able to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim, like love letters, notes and other symbols of affection attesting to a consensual relationship.[53] In fact, none of the persons he and Lenie supposedly lived with during the period that he was allegedly looking for two (2) wild horses could corroborate his claim of engagement under the traditions of the Manobos.  Imbing Camad was not summoned to testify and Datu Salimbag Paguyan who took the supposed couple under custody would even admit in his testimony that he knew nothing about the relationship  between them.[54] Furthermore, Exh. "2," the letter which allegedly details the matrimonial offer of accused-appellant to Lenie, is inadmissible and otherwise barren of probative value.  For one, the letter is hearsay being as it is an out-of-court statement of a person who did not testify; moreover, it was not authenticated during the trial by either its author or its recipient.  Nor is it in any manner conclusive of any wedding plans prior to the abduction of Lenie on 6 January 1997, as Exh. "2" is explicitly dated 4 February 1997 and significantly coincides with the attempts of the several datus to rescue Lenie from the hands of accused-appellant.  Indubitably, all that was done and said in the letter with reference to marrying the girl was clearly an afterthought.[55]

Verily it is evident that accused-appellant was a rejected suitor of Lenie with no hope of having her in marriage and whose persistent offers of love and marriage had been decidedly spurned.  It was in the sleepy mid-afternoon of 6 January 1997 when he took the girl by force and at that time no marriage was proved to have been offered by accused-appellant much less considered by Lenie or her elders.  The accused dragged the victim to walk with him and to proceed to unknown destinations by warning her of a present and grave danger to her life should she refuse.  In the night which followed, he forcibly embraced, kissed, and handled her against her will.  No protestation of noble intentions can obviate the conclusion that all these acts proved lewd designs.

To be sure, several acts of accused-appellant would betray his criminal intentions.   For one he offered in evidence, partly through Exh. "2" and to a degree by his testimony, the settlement which  he together with Datu Salimbag Paguyan tried to broker with the family of Lenie to suppress the criminal act he had done.  The putative agreement was for the accused to deliver a horse to Lenie's father to settle the matter amicably but the agreement did not push through.  Since this offer of compromise was sponsored by accused-appellant himself, it clearly amounts to an implied admission of guilt which remains uncontested.[56] Moreover, if he were truly engaged to marry the victim he would not have eluded arrest for one (1) year and dodged several warrants for his arrest.  The flight of accused-appellant indubitably proves an awareness of guilt and a consciousness that he had no tenable defense to the crime charged. [57]

Nonetheless even assuming that the accused and the complainant were engaged by virtue of the dowry he had offered, this fact alone would not negate the commission of forcible abduction.   An indigenous ritual of betrothal, like any other love affair, does not justify forcibly banishing the beloved against her will with the intention of molesting her.  It is likewise well-settled that the giving of money does not beget an unbridled license to subject the assumed fiancée to carnal desires.   By asserting the existence of such relationship, the accused seeks to prove that the victim willingly participated in the act.  But, as shown above, she certainly did not.  Lenie was a Manobo with whom the accused ardently fell in love but was never her lover.  The evidence clearly does not speak of consensual love but of criminal lust which could not be disguised by the so-called sweetheart defense or its variant as in the instant case.  Finally, as held in People v. Crisostomo,[58] the intention to marry may constitute unchaste designs not by itself but by the concurring circumstances which may vitiate such an intention, as in the case of abduction of a minor with the latter's consent, in which the male knows that she cannot legally consent to the marriage and yet he elopes with her.   In the case at bar, there is no denying the fact that Lenie was incapacitated to marry accused-appellant under Manobo or Christian rites since she was still a minor[59] thereby demonstrating the existence of lewd designs.

It is easy to use insanity plea as an escape from possible prosecution due to committing a criminal offense. Insanity is the best defense for an individual to avoid criminal liability. However, there are some conditions that must be taken into consideration. An insane person under Paragraph 1, Article 1 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the person is exempt from criminal liability if he or she acted during lucid interval. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the defendant's insanity. 

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

Here's a court decision that did not accept insanity defense as a valid reason to absolve the perpetrator from the crime he committed: 

When insanity is used as a defense, the burden is on the defense as the appellant has to prove that the perpetrator is insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the momen of its execution. There should be proof that the accused acted without discernment.

On November 26, 2002 at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Vicente Ringor was staying with his two-year old granddaughter, Maureen Joy Ringor, at the terrace of their house located at Villanueva, San Manuel, Isabela. Suddenly, Roger Ringor Umawid appeared and started attacking Vicente with a long bolo (panabas) without any reason. While Vicente was able to escape Umawid's blows, the latter nevertheless hit Maureen on her abdomen and back, causing her instant death. Upon seeing Maureen bloodied, Umawid walked away.

Thereafter, Umawid went to a nearby house which was only five meters away from Vicente's house where his nephew, Jeffrey Mercado, was sleeping. Awaken by the sudden noise, Jeffrey went outside only to see his uncle rushing to attack him with his panabas.

Jeffrey, along with his sister and cousin, rushed inside the house to seek for safety. However, Umawid was able to prevent Jeffrey from closing the door and the former barge into the house. Jeffrey crouched and covered his head with his arms to shield him from Umawid's impending attacks.

Umawid delivered fatal hacking blows to Jeffrey, causing the mutilation of the latter's fingers. Umawid only stopped upon seing Jeffrey, who was then pretending to be dead, leaning on the wall and blood-stained.

In court, Umawid set up the defense of insanity, but did not, however, take the witness stand to attest the same. Instead, he presented the testimonies of Dr. Arthur M. Quincina and Dr. Leonor Andres Juliana to support his claim. Dr. Quincina testifies that he evaluated Umawid's psychiatric condition in May 2002, February 2003, and on March 2003 and found that the latter was evident od psychotic symptoms. However, he could not tell with certainty whether Umawid was psychotic at the time of the commission of the crimes. On the other hand, Dr. Juliana failed to testify on Umawid's mental stare since she merely referred the latter to another doctor for further evaluation.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is exempted from criminal liablity due to insanity?

Ruling:

No. Under Article 12 of the RPC:

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liabity - The following are exempt from criminal liability:

 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance because an accused invoking the same admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The presumption is in favor of sanity, anyone who pleads the said defense bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. Considering the case, the evidence must relate to the time immediately before or during the commission of the offense/s with which one is charged. Also, to support the defense of insanity, it must be shown that the accused had no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of his or her acts.

In this case, Umawid relied solely on the defense of Dr. Quincina and Dr. Juliana to support his claim of insanity. However, Dr. Quincina only examined Umawid six months before he committed the crime and three months and four months thereafter. Her findings as she admitted did not include Umawid's mental disposition immediately before or during the commission of the crimes. Also, given that Dr. Juliana failed to testify in favor of the accused, Umawid's defense of insanity remained unsubstiantiated, hence, he was properly adjudged by the RTC and CA as criminally liable.

An individual who committed an offense was chased by a police officer. The individual attempted to go inside a house to hide from the police authorities. The officer followed and discovered drugs lying around. Can the drugs be confiscated and used as evidence? According to the plain view doctrice, the evidence can be used as the intrusion was valid. If the police officer peeks through the window of the house and sees the drugs, he can also confiscate the evidence without prejudice. However, the plain view doctrine cannot be used because there was no previous valid intrusion. 

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec 5.  Arrest without warrant, when lawful – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;  and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The Supreme Court summarizes the rule as follows:

Corolarilly, the 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.  Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. Search of evidence in “plain view;”

3. Search of a moving vehicle;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.

In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed.  Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

Pretending to be a person of authority is a serious crime punishable by law. One instance that makes you liable for a crime of usurpation of authority is when you pretend to represent a department or agency of the Philippine government. A person was once imprisoned for pretending to be a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). He was asked which division he was assigned and when the police authorities verified the veracity of the information, it was discovered that the man was not a member of PNP. Aside from usurpation of authority, rank and title, improper use of uniforms, names and insignia will hold you criminally liable as well. 

Sec. One. — Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia.

Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

Art. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution of a judgment or causing damage.

Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.

Art. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniforms or dress pertaining to an office not held by such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.

The pre-trial provides an opportunity for both the defendant and the plaintiff to air both sides. However, if the defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff is given a chance to present evidence, which will serve as the court's basis for rendering judgment. The non-appearance of the defendant without valid cause increases the likelihood that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff. It also has other serious consequences:

Section 4.  Appearance of parties. −  It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor, or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.   

Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. − The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.  A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.

Pre-trial is an essential part of the legal process because it seeks to achieve the following: 

(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;

(b) The simplification of the issues;

(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;

(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;

(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;

(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;

(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;

(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and

(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.

On September 17, another student became a hapless victim of hazing due to traumatic injuries. Horacio Castillo III joined the initiation rites by a fraternity known as the Aegis Juris, but the violent acts claimed his life. Castillo is not the only victim of hazing. There are other victims who died in the past because of this violent initiation rite. Law makers are looking into creating stiffer penalties to put a lid on this barbaric act. 

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8049 indicates the penalty that will be imposed upon a person found guilty of committing hazing or other forms of initiation rites, which can lead to physical injury or death. 

Section 4. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. The person or persons who participated in the hazing shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) if death, rape, sodomy or mutilation results there from.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall become insane, imbecile, impotent or blind.

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months and one day to 17 years and 4 months) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such member shall have become incapacitated for the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged.

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period (12 years and one day to 14 years and 8 months) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall become deformed or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety (90) days.

5. The penalty of prison mayor in its maximum period (10 years and one day to 12 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than thirty (30) days.

6. The penalty of prison mayor in its medium period (8 years and one day to 10 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of ten (10) days or more, or that the injury sustained shall require medical assistance for the same period.

7. The penalty of prison mayor in its minimum period (6 years and one day to 8 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged from one (1) to nine (9) days, or that the injury sustained shall require medical assistance for the same period.

8. The penalty of prison correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months and one day to 6 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim sustained physical injuries which do not prevent him from engaging in his habitual activity or work nor require medical attendance.

The responsible officials of the school or of the police, military or citizen's army training organization, may impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the person or the persons charged under this provision even before their conviction. The maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in any of the following instances:

(a) when the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join;

(b) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is prevented from quitting;

(c) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force, violence, threat or intimidation;

(d) when the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution; or

(e) when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the hazing.

The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.

The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators.

The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals. A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring shall be liable as principal.

The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.

This section shall apply to the president, manager, director or other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment in the manner provided herein.

Gambling becomes a form of recreation to some people, but when there is money involved, it's going to be a different story. A person who is caught committing crimes against public morals such as gambling, betting and cockfighting will be fined or even be sent to prison depending on the gravity of the crime. Here are the details of the law:

GAMBLING AND BETTING

Art. 195. What acts are punishable in gambling. — (a) The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos, and, in case of recidivism, the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred or six thousand pesos, shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person other than those referred to in subsections (b) and (c) who, in any manner shall directly, or indirectly take part in any game of monte, jueteng or any other form of lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game, dog races, or any other game of scheme the result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard; or wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are made; or in the exploitation or use of any other mechanical invention or contrivance to determine by chance the loser or winner of money or any object or representative of value.

2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the preceding subdivision to be carried on in any unhabited or uninhabited place of any building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place where gambling is carried on has the reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited gambling is frequently carried on therein, the culprit shall be punished by the penalty provided for in this article in its maximum period.

(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum degree shall be imposed upon the maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game of jueteng or any similar game.

(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall, knowingly and without lawful purpose, have in his possession and lottery list, paper or other matter containing letters, figures, signs or symbols which pertain to or are in any manner used in the game of jueteng or any similar game which has taken place or about to take place.

Art. 196. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tickets or advertisements. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court, shall be imposed upon any person who shall import into the Philippine Islands from any foreign place or port any lottery ticket or advertisement or, in connivance with the importer, shall sell or distribute the same.

Any person who shall knowingly and with intent to use them, have in his possession lottery tickets or advertisements, or shall sell or distribute the same without connivance with the importer of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor, or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, distribute or use the same in the Philippine Islands.

Art. 197. Betting in sports contests. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall bet money or any object or article of value or representative of value upon the result of any boxing or other sports contests.

Art. 198. Illegal betting on horse race. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who except during the period allowed by law, shall be on horse races. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, under the same circumstances, shall maintain or employ a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on horse races or realizing any profit therefrom.

For the purposes of this article, any race held in the same day at the same place shall be held punishable as a separate offense, and if the same be committed by any partnership, corporation or association, the president and the directors or managers thereof shall be deemed to be principals in the offense if they have consented to or knowingly tolerated its commission.

Art. 199. Illegal cockfighting. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court, shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who directly or indirectly participates in cockfights, by betting money or other valuable things, or who organizes cockfights at which bets are made, on a day other than those permitted by law.

2. Any person who directly or indirectly participates in cockfights, at a place other than a licensed cockpit.

Chat messages or text messages are often used as evidence in court. However, presenting these electronic evidences has to meet  the following requirements stipulated on Republic Act No. 8792 otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. 

RULE 3

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS   

SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. – Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. 

SEC. 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. 

SEC. 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential character of a privileged communications is not solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.  

RULE 4 

BEST EVIDENCE RULE    

SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. 

SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: 

(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or 

(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original.   

RULE 5 

AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS  

SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule. 

SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: 

(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same; 

(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or 

(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. 

SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court.      

RULE 6 

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES      

SECTION 1. Electronic signature. – An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticate din the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. 

SEC. 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. – An electronic signature may be authenticate in any of the following manner: 

(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verity the same; 

(b) By any other means provided by law; or 

(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature. 

SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions relation to electronic signature. – Upon the authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that: 

(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates; 

(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to indicate such person’s consent to the transaction embodied therein; and 

(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic signature operated without error or fault. 

SEC. 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. – Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that: 

(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct; 

(b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate; 

(c) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed; and 

(d) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein 

RULE 7 

EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS 

SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. - In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the following factors may be considered: 

(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement; 

(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified; 

(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as programming errors; 

(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system; 

(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system upon which the electronic data message or electronic document was based; or 

(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. 

SEC. 2. Integrity of an information and communication system. – In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others, the following factors: 

(a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system; 

(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it; or 

(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party tot he proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using it. 

Our country's current state only proves that anyone can fit the profile for a druggie or a criminal. You can be subject for interrogation or execution. You choose. With the recent brouhaha over CHR's meager budget, you will be confronted with a realization that no one can defend you at this point but yourself. As reality looks you straight in the eye, knowledge is the only thing that can save you from the inevitable. What does Article 3, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution otherwise known as the Bill of Rights have to say about a person under investigation? 

"the person shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice."

Now, what if you can't afford a lawyer? The state will provide you with one. Have you ever wondered why you have the right to remain silent? It's because any statement you give can be used against you in court. You also have the right to have access to lawyer at all times. These rights can only be waived in "writing and in the presence of counsel."

Your rights as an arrested person:

• Know the reason you were arrested. It should also be via an arrest warrant.
• Obtain the arresting officer's identity and authority
• Be "entitled to a trial within a reasonable time"
• Should you undergo physical examination, ensure that it is done by an independent and competent doctor of your choice

If authorities have invited you for questioning, tell them that you will first consult a lawyer, who will be the one to arrange a time, date and place for questioning. They cannot insist on taking you as this will be equivalent to an arrest. 

Note that his type of investigation is not similar to custodial investigation where you are taken into police custody for interrogation. More often than not, "custodial investigation follows warrantless arrest." 

Warrantless Arrest

Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Many crimes are committed by minors and offenders are getting younger and younger because they know all too well that they will not be held liable for the crime. Some of them can even commit a heinous crime at such a young age without any sign of remorse. The Republic Act No. 9344 states that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be 15 years old. However, the Republic Act No. 10630 seeks to amend Republic Act No. 9344. The amendment reduces criminal liability from 15 years old to 9 years old. 

Section 6. Section 20 of Republic Act No. 9344 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. – If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child, in consultation with the local social welfare and development officer, has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child’s nearest relative. The child shall be subjected to a community-based intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and development officer, unless the best interest of the child requires the referral of the child to a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ managed by LGUs or licensed and/or accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD.

"The local social welfare and development officer shall determine the appropriate programs for the child who has been released, in consultation with the child and the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following:

 

"(a) A duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization;

 

"(b) A barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC);

 

"(c) A local social welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD.

"If the child has been found by the local social welfare and development officer to be dependent, abandoned, neglected or abused by his/her parents and the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child: Provided, That if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office (LSWDO) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, otherwise known as ‘The Child and Youth Welfare Code’ and the Supreme Court rule on commitment of children: Provided, further, That the minimum age for children committed to a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ shall be twelve (12) years old."

"SEC. 20-A. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From Criminal Responsibility. – A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC).

"In accordance with existing laws, rules, procedures and guidelines, the proper petition for involuntary commitment and placement under the IJISC shall be filed by the local social welfare and development officer of the LGU where the offense was committed, or by the DSWD social worker in the local social welfare and development officer’s absence, within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the receipt of a report on the alleged commission of said child. The court, where the petition for involuntary commitment has been filed shall decide on the petition within seventy-two (72) hours from the time the said petition has been filed by the DSWD/LSWDO. The court will determine the initial period of placement of the child within the IJISC which shall not be less than one (1) year. The multi-disciplinary team of the IJISC will submit to the court a case study and progress report, to include a psychiatric evaluation report and recommend the reintegration of the child to his/her family or the extension of the placement under the IJISC. The multi-disciplinary team will also submit a report to the court on the services extended to the parents and family of the child and the compliance of the parents in the intervention program. The court will decide whether the child has successfully completed the center-based intervention program and is already prepared to be reintegrated with his/her family or if there is a need for the continuation of the center-based rehabilitation of the child. The court will determine the next period of assessment or hearing on the commitment of the child."

"SEC. 20-B. Repetition of Offenses. – A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second time or oftener: Provided, That the child was previously subjected to a community-based intervention program, shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and development officer: Provided, further, That, if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child: Provided, finally, That if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended."

Nowadays, vigilance is essential to every homeowner because a stranger can break into your house and steal your personal belongings while you are away or asleep. These robbers can even intimidate or kill you to get what they want. Robbery with homicide is a serious offense. Anyone who is guilty of committing the crime will be sentenced to life imprisonment. The penalty imposed upon the perpetrator will depend on the gravity of the crime. 

ROBBERY IN GENERAL

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

Section One. — Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons.

Art. 295. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767).

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.

4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.

5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18).

Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. — If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties.

In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band.

Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. — When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.

Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.

Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. — When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.

Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. — Any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.

Some people use technology to make lives easier and more convenient while others choose to abuse it. As social networking sites remain popular to all ages, they are also used for blackmailing victims. One of which is posting nude photos of a hapless victim and the perpetrator will only take it down if the victim will give in to their demands. Some victims will choose to nod along with whatever they are told to do for fear of humiliation. However, there are cases that you can file under Republic Act 9262. 

Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004

SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;

(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm; 

(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;

(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:

(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family;

(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support;

(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right; and 

(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties.

(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;

(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;

(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:

(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;

(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;

(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;

(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and

(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence.

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.

Recent news involving persons in authority or public officers clouded people's mind with doubts, questioning the credibility of individuals who are supposed to maintain peace and order. However, perpetrators resisting arrest and disobeying authorities are as prevalent as public officers employing force. The Revised Penal Code gives details on crimes against persons in authority. 

ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE

TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS

Art. 148. Direct assaults. — Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.

Art. 149. Indirect assaults. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article.

Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.

Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.

When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.

Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such. — In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.

A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985). 

Self-defense is such a complex term that an individual has to prove its validity. For instance, if you are not in good terms with your neighbor and the tension led to physical injury, it is difficult prove that the injury was purely to invoke self-defense. Justifying such actions will still depend on the law. For claim of self-defense to be valid, the justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code must be taken into consideration. 

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability: 

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; 

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;  

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

A person who is guilty of a drug-related crime may eventually lose hope because most cases are perceived to be non-bailable. However, the decision on whether a person can post bail will greatly depend on the crime that he has been accused of. Even the evidence of guilt will be taken into consideration. The right to bail is also guaranteed by the Constitution as a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. 

SEC. 2. Conditions of the Bail; Requirements. – All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:

[a] The undertaking shall be effective upon approval and remain in force at all stages of the case, unless sooner cancelled, until the promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whatever the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;

[b] The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules;

[c] The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and

[d] The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.

The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken recently showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached thereto. (2a)

SEC.3 No Release or Transfer Except on Order of the Court or Bail. – No person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon lawful order of the court or when he is admitted to bail as prescribed in this Rule. (n)

SEC.4 Bail, a Matter of Right. – All persons in custody shall: (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule. (3a)

SEC.5 Bail, When Discretionary. – Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the accused to bail.

The Court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail bond during the period of appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman.

If the Court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not more than twenty (20) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:

(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his indicate the probability of flight of released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit another crime.

The appellate court may review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to the adverse party. (n)

SEC. 6 Capital Offense, Defined. – A capital offense, as the term is used in these Rules, is an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the application to be admitted to bail, may be punished with death. (4)

SEC.7 Capital Offense or an Offense Punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or Life Imprisonment, Not Bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (n)

SEC.8 Burden of Proof in Bail application. – At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. (5a)

SEC. 9 Amount of Bail; Guidelines. – The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following guidelines:

[a] Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

[b] Nature and circumstances of the offense;

[c] Penalty of the offense charged;

[d] Character and reputation of the accused;

[e] Age and health of the accused;

[f] The weight of the evidence against the accused;

[g] Probability of the accused appearing in trial;

[h] Forfeiture of other bonds;

[i] The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and 

[j] The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.

Excessive bail shall not be required. (6)

What is the appropriate charge for someone who has held another person hostage? Hostage-taking is a crime against liberty. Can a hostage taker be charged with serious illegal detention or kidnapping? Here is what the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines has to say about serious illegal detention, kidnapping and slight illegal detention. 

Chapter One

CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances enumerated therein.

The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.

If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.

Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.

Section Two. — Kidnapping of minors

Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. — The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.

If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.

Art. 272. Slavery. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.

If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.

Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.