Estafa, also known as swindling or fraud, is a criminal offense in the Philippines that involves the deceitful or fraudulent act of inducing someone to part with money, property, or any valuable thing under false pretenses. It is essential to understand the penalties associated with estafa to comprehend the gravity of the offense and the consequences faced by those found guilty. In this blog, we will delve into the specific penalties outlined under the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) for committing estafa in the Philippines, considering various circumstances and amounts involved.

Estafa Through Misappropriation or Conversion (Article 315, Paragraph 1(b))

Misappropriation or conversion forms one of the primary elements of estafa. This section focuses on the penalties imposed based on the value of fraudulently obtained property.

The penalties are as follows:

• If the amount involved is above 22,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, the penalty is prison correccional in its maximum period to prison mayor in its minimum period.
• If the amount exceeds 22,000 pesos, the penalty increases by one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but should not exceed 20 years.

Illustrative examples of cases falling under this category will highlight the practical application of these penalties.

Estafa Through False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts (Article 315, Paragraph 2(a))

False pretenses or fraudulent acts form another crucial aspect of estafa. Here, we explore the penalties based on the value of the fraudulently obtained property.

The penalties are as follows:

• If the amount involved does not exceed 6,000 pesos, the penalty is arresto mayor.
• If the amount exceeds 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos, the penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
• If the amount exceeds 12,000 pesos, the penalty increases by one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but should not exceed 20 years.

To provide a clearer understanding, we present real-life examples of cases falling under this category.

Discretion of the Court and Mitigating Factors

While the penalties mentioned above serve as general guidelines, it's crucial to acknowledge the court's authority to impose an appropriate penalty within the prescribed ranges. The court takes into consideration specific circumstances, aggravating or mitigating factors, and the offender's criminal record to determine the penalty. This section emphasizes the importance of judicial discretion and fairness in the legal system.

Aggravating Factors Syndicates and Large-scale Estafa

Estafa cases involving syndicates or large-scale fraud deserve special attention due to their potential impact on society. This section defines syndicates in the context of estafa cases and explores the consequences faced by those involved in such organized criminal activities. Additionally, we shed light on the severe penalties, including life imprisonment and even the death penalty, for large-scale estafa offenses. Notable cases will be highlighted to illustrate the gravity of these crimes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding the penalties for committing estafa in the Philippines is vital to grasp the severity of the offense and its consequences. The penalties outlined under the Revised Penal Code vary depending on the amount involved and the circumstances surrounding the offense. However, it is important to remember that the court has discretion in imposing the appropriate penalty, considering specific factors and the offender's criminal record. Syndicates and large-scale estafa pose an even greater threat, leading to more severe penalties. By promoting awareness, ethical practices, and stricter measures against estafa, we can strive towards a society that values integrity and safeguards against

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.

When a person is arrested, posting bail is the usual way to get out. Bail is a bond that compels a person to appear in court once they are ordered to do so. In the event the defendant fails to show up, the court may keep the bail and issue a warrant of arrest to the defendant. Not everyone is entitled to post bail. Here are the conditions or requirements of the bail:

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. 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)

Capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment is non-bailable. 

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)

On October 4, 1961, back in the day when the Pangilinan Law was not yet in existence, the legal age for men and women were 16 and 14 respectively. The new generation may no longer be familiar with Marcial "Baby" Ama. However, earlier generations can recognize this notorious person, who ironically, gain folk hero status when his biography was turned into a movie in 1976.  Baby Ama was a minor executed via electric chair. He was nicknamed "Baby" because of his youthful good looks. The nickname may sound innocuous, but Marcial Perez (Baby Ama) did not fit the definition. 

Perez was imprisoned due to stealing money. It was said that he stole money to help a friend. When Perez was incarcerated, life became much harder for him. Aside from being the subject of abuse and ridicule, his wife also committed suicide due to being sexually abused by a prison guard. This is when Perez became fiercer than he was. Aside from being a hitman inside the Bilibid prison he was also the leader of a notorious gang, Sige-Sige Gang. 

He earned his notoriety when he spearheaded the biggest riot in Bilibid Prison. It was considered to be the deadliest as well with 9 inmates killed  and one of them beheaded. Perez was found guilty of stabbing a man to death. Hence, he was sentenced to death by electric chair. 

Under Section 6 of the Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, "A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws."

The bill lowering age of criminal responsibility from 15 years old to 9 has not received a positive response from lawmakers. Even 55% of Filipinos according to a survey conducted by Pulse Asia on May 5, 2017 are not in favor of the bill reducing the age of criminal liability. Although the age of criminal responsibility remains subjective, the fact cannot be denied that there are still minors who do not even undergo any type of due process, guilty or not guilty. That said, one cannot simply dismiss untimely death by random execution as collateral damage or worse, another "isolated case".  Once an epitome of notoriety, Baby Ama is now a case study. His behavior used to make people cringe, but in the era of war pigs, violence is the new normal. 

Last week, bar exam results filled the news and social media. Many celebrated for the hardwork has finally paid off. Indeed, the preparation for the bar exam starts on day one in law school. 

Being keen on Philippine law is a must as you will be required to familiarize yourself with Civil law, Criminal Law, Labor law, etc. While you need to undergo a tedious process to become a lawyer, there are people who prefer to take a shortcut. 

Some of you might be scratching your head, wondering if there really is a shorter route to becoming a lawyer. Well, there is, but it can land you in jail just like what happened to Noel Maracuelo, who is a ship captain by profession. 

Maracuelo was arrested for introducing himself as a lawyer to Kirby Magdadaro. The latter was tricked into believing that Maracuelo was indeed a law practitioner. Magdadaro has a pending real estate case in Liloan Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed and when Magdadaro sought for legal opinion from another lawyer, it was discovered that the pleadings were marred by errors. 

NBI investigation was conducted as Magdadaro already paid an amount of P30,000. Investigators found out that Maracuelo was not listed in the roll of attorneys. It was also discovered that the attorney's identification number was owned by another lawyer. Marcuelo was arrested during an entrapment operation. 

Maracuelo is criminally liable for violating the Revised Penal Code including falsification of document and estafa. 

Pardon and amnesty are two legal terms that bring confusion to those who are not familiar with the specific terms that encompass Philippine law. When it comes to the actions and proceedings relating to amnesty and pardon, there are some factors that must be taken into consideration hence, the distinction. By definition as defined under Section 1 of Proclamation No. 724:

Section 1. Grant of Amnesty. – Amnesty is hereby granted to all persons who shall apply therefor and who have or may have committed crimes, on or before June 1, 1995, in pursuit of their political beliefs, whether punishable under the Revised Penal Code or special laws, including but not limited to the following: rebellion or insurrection; coup d’etat; conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection, or coup d’etat; disloyalty of public officers or employees; inciting to rebellion or insurrection; sedition; conspiracy to commit sedition; inciting to sedition; illegal assembly; illegal association; direct assault; indirect assault; resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such person; tumults and other disturbances of public order; unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances; alarms and scandals; illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection; and violations of Articles 59 (desertion), 62 (absence without leave), 67 (mutiny or sedition), 68 (failure to suppress mutiny or sedition), 94 (various crimes), 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman), and 97 (general article) of the Articles of War; Provided, That the amnesty shall not cover crimes against chastity and other crimes for personal ends.

On the other hand, pardon is defined under the provisions of Act No. 4103 as:

SEC. 1. Policy Objectives - Under the provisions of Act No. 4103, as amended, otherwise known as the "Indeterminate Sentence Law", which was approved on December 5, 1933, it is the function of the Board of Pardons and Parole to uplift and redeem valuable human material to economic usefulness and to prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty by way of parole or through executive clemency. Towards this end, the Board undertakes the following:

1. Looks into the physical, mental and moral records of prisoners who are eligible for parole or any form of executive clemency and determines the proper time of release of such prisoners on parole; 

2. Assists in the full rehabilitation of individuals on parole or those under conditional pardon with parole conditions, by way of parole supervision; and, 

3. Recommends to the President of the Philippines the grant of any form of executive clemency to prisoners other than those entitled to parole.

How do you define actual or compensatory damages? One situation in which actual damages are awarded is when the defendant has inflicted injury upon the plaintiff. Actual damages or compensatory damages refer to the money paid to the plaintiff to cover for the damages caused by the defendant. Other types of damages also exist and these include property damage, lost wages, medical care and many others.

Actual or Compensatory Damages

ARTICLE 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

ARTICLE 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106)

ARTICLE 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a)

ARTICLE 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

ARTICLE 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.

ARTICLE 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

ARTICLE 2205. Damages may be recovered:

(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury;

(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.

ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:

(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;

(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;

(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.

ARTICLE 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.

ARTICLE 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. 

Carnapping is one of the crimes in the Philippines that the government is still trying to combat considering the fact that there are still many unsolved criminal cases that need extra attention. Law enforcers have now implemented stricter rules with the new anti-carnapping act 2016. Republic Act No. 10883 or the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 aims to implement harsher rules and penalties. 

Approved by former president Benigno S. Aquino III on July 17, 2016, this law will be keen on identifying violators of the law. 

Setion 3. Carnapping; Penalties.- Carnapping is the taking, with the intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. 

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than twenty (20) years and one (1) day but not more than thirty (30) years, when the carnapping is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty (40) years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed when the owner, driver, or occupant of teh carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping.

Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of carnapping shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.  

Section 4. Concealment of Carnapping - Any person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6) years up to twelve (12) years and a fine equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved in the violation; Provided, that if the person violation any provision of this Act is a juridical person, the penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its president, secretary, and/or members of the board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may have directly participated in the violation. 

Any public official or employee who directly commits unlawful acts defined in this Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be permanently disqualified from holding public office. 

Everyone riveted to the TV screen while waiting for extra judicial killings witness, Edgar Matobato to spill the beans. The plot thickens as the truth unfolds (or so we thought). Everyone one in the senate took turns of throwing questions to determine Matobato's credibility. Of course, those who are glued to their TV screen were just waiting for the witness to open a can of worms. There is currently a web of controversies rippling around war on drugs, and it is no secret that some members of the senate are also doing their own investigation. The investigation involves digging deeper into the proliferation of Extra Judicial Killings under the Duterte regime.

Matobato reiterated everything he knew about the extra judicial killings in vivid details. However, it appeared that the more he opened his mouth, the more he got himself into trouble. People who watched the senate hearing took to social media to express their disappointment, dismay and a bit of appreciation for Matobato's chutzpah. Yes, there were mixed reactions about the issue, but most of which are negative. 

Due to the series of inconsistencies on Matobato's statement, Senator Panfilo Lacson could not help but question the alleged Davao Death Squad member's credibility. The question is, are there necessary steps that supposed witnesses have to take to determine their credibility?

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

1. Qualification of Witnesses

Section 20.    Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)

Section 21.    Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)

Section 22.    Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)

Section 23.    Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. (20a)

Section 24.    Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;

(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)

Crimes come in many forms these days. This is why people take necessary security measures to increase the level of protection and decrease the possibility of crimes. Unfortunately, vigilance may not be enough if culprits have a way of committing a crime without getting caught. A few weeks ago, a robbery-homicide case in Laguna has left fear to many especially to homeowners who are often left alone with their kids. In a country where alarm systems and other security devices are not yet considered a necessity, the only weapon a homeowner can arm himself with is vigilance.

In the Laguna robber-homicide case, the victim has taken some necessary precautions to protect herself and her one-year-old child from harm. An exchange of text messages with her spouse is proof that she followed best practices in letting a stranger inside her house. Unfortunately, the cunning suspects had better plans, and those were something that the victims were unprepared for.

While the information about the supposed suspect was obtained by the spouse, a shocking revelation just turned the spouse’s world upside down. During the earlier investigation, it was revealed, through the victim’s text message, that David Dela Cruz was the primary suspect of the heinous crime. It was all over the news and a hefty reward awaits those who can give leads to the suspect’s whereabouts. A few days later, a senior specialist from a telecom company named Christopher Oliveros said he was the person on the Identification card of the suspect.

Colleagues have attested that the specialist was in a different location when the incident happened. As the story unfolds, the truth becomes more and more alarming because Oliveros himself was a victim of identity theft. The picture shown on the ID card was stolen from his Facebook account.  Although the suspects have documents to show, those were fake documents. The job order taken from the victims’ residence was merely fabricated. The suspects were captured by a nearby CCTV in the area, and further investigations will be conducted to solve the puzzle. With this robbery-homicide case, vigilance may not be enough to stay protected against unscrupulous criminals.

The crimes related to identity theft are covered under the Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and the Republic Act 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act. The robbery-homicide suspects are still out in the streets. It may take weeks or months to consider this crime solved, but one thing is for sure, there are still predators, waiting for another victim to fall into their evil schemes. With the craftiness of these identity thieves, one could only hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Have you already come across one law that allows a person to file charges to annoying people? This law, aside from being tongue-in-cheek, is rather ambiguous as it lacks specific definition. Unlike other laws that prohibit a person to do this and that, unjust vexation seems to send mixed signals that only bring confusion to people. It is considered a catch-all provision, because it has no specific meaning that will clearly provide laymen a deeper and better understanding of the law.

For instance, if you find your neighbour annoying and what he/she does violates this law, he will be “punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.” There are various cases in which this ambiguous law has been applied, but its lack of specific definition will make one wonder whether they are already crossing the lines or not. For instance, a person can be convicted of unjust vexation for simply interrupting or disturbing a ceremony of a religious character.

This law can be found in Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code:

" Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.

Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both."

A raid was conducted on December 21, 2015 on New Bilibid Prison’s maximum security compound. This is already the ninth raid conducted at the Bilibid Prison, but the premise never fails to provide more surprises. While being incarcerated can be very depressing as prisoners are deprived of the freedom that only the outside world offers, discovering two swimming pools and a hidden lounge within New Bilibid Prison’s premise will make you think otherwise. However, the luxurious lifestyle and lavish spending are only experienced by prisoners who have vast amounts of cash.

The raid is a blunt reminder that something needs to be done and while these prisoners continue to enjoy unlimited supply of contraband, people just cannot help but wonder where justice really went or if such really existed. Who wouldn’t be surprised to discover huge quantities of illegal drugs, firearms electronic gadgets, air conditioners, flat-screen TV and other facilities that can provide convenience? The kind of lifestyle that some of these prisoners continue to enjoy is tantamount to staying in a luxurious hotel and other types of accommodation.  How can these be possible when the persons who were appointed to impose discipline are not doing their job? High-profile inmates continue to enjoy luxurious lifestyles while the rest turn green with envy.

The Bureau of Corrections also confiscated hamsters and aquarium fish. According to Rainier Cruz, director of Bureau of Corrections, the BuCor employees are the ones who file requests for the appliances and this is the reason why some of the televisions, freezers and refrigerators bore BuCor equipment stickers.  The New Bilibid Prison violates a vast range of laws including Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The definition of this Act can be found in Section 3.

(a) Administer. – Any act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.

(b) Board. - Refers to the Dangerous Drugs Board under Section 77, Article IX of this Act.

(c) Centers. - Any of the treatment and rehabilitation centers for drug dependents referred to in Section 34, Article VIII of this Act.

(d) Chemical Diversion. – The sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug, and shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling or concealment of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use of permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.

(e) Clandestine Laboratory. – Any facility used for the illegal manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical.

(f) Confirmatory Test. – An analytical test using a device, tool or equipment with a different chemical or physical principle that is more specific which will validate and confirm the result of the screening test.

(g) Controlled Delivery. – The investigative technique of allowing an unlawful or suspect consignment of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, equipment or paraphernalia, or property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from any offense, to pass into, through or out of the country under the supervision of an authorized officer, with a view to gathering evidence to identify any person involved in any dangerous drugs related offense, or to facilitate prosecution of that offense.

(h) Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the attached annex, which is an integral part of this Act.

(i) Cultivate or Culture. – Any act of knowingly planting, growing, raising, or permitting the planting, growing or raising of any plant which is the source of a dangerous drug.

(j) Dangerous Drugs. – Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the attached annex which is an integral part of this Act.

(k) Deliver. – Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.

(l) Den, Dive or Resort. – A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form.

(m) Dispense. – Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or without the use of prescription.

(n) Drug Dependence. – As based on the World Health Organization definition, it is a cluster of physiological, behavioral and cognitive phenomena of variable intensity, in which the use of psychoactive drug takes on a high priority thereby involving, among others, a strong desire or a sense of compulsion to take the substance and the difficulties in controlling substance-taking behavior in terms of its onset, termination, or levels of use.

(o) Drug Syndicate. – Any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under this Act.

(p) Employee of Den, Dive or Resort. – The caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout, and other persons working in the den, dive or resort, employed by the maintainer, owner and/or operator where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, distributed, sold or used, with or without compensation, in connection with the operation thereof.

(q) Financier. – Any person who pays for, raises or supplies money for, or underwrites any of the illegal activities prescribed under this Act.

(r) Illegal Trafficking. – The illegal cultivation, culture, delivery, administration, dispensation, manufacture, sale, trading, transportation, distribution, importation, exportation and possession of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical.

(s) Instrument. – Any thing that is used in or intended to be used in any manner in the commission of illegal drug trafficking or related offenses.

(t) Laboratory Equipment. – The paraphernalia, apparatus, materials or appliances when used, intended for use or designed for use in the manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, such as reaction vessel, preparative/purifying equipment, fermentors, separatory funnel, flask, heating mantle, gas generator, or their substitute.

(u) Manufacture. – The production, preparation, compounding or processing of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include any packaging or repackaging of such substances, design or configuration of its form, or labeling or relabeling of its container; except that such terms do not include the preparation, compounding, packaging or labeling of a drug or other substances by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to his/her administration or dispensation of such drug or substance in the course of his/her professional practice including research, teaching and chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that are not intended for sale or for any other purpose.

The extra-judicial killings are one of the reasons why human rights violations in the country continue to increase. Perpetrators continue to roam the streets as killings go unpunished.  Although the Philippines does not have a large-scale armed conflict, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) considers the Philippines as one of the countries with the worst offenders. Until now, the perpetrators have not paid for the crime they committed. Based on 2015 Global Impunity Index, the Philippines has the highest impunity rates. Human rights groups and advocates also put the blame on the present administration for the lack of urgency in addressing this concern.

Extrajudicial killings have been so rampant that it becomes an ordinary yet sickening scenario. Some of the killings are said to be politically motivated, but one thing is for sure, the victims’ cries for justice continue to fall on deaf ears. A perfect example of sluggish justice system in the country is the trial of the retired Army Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan. 

He currently faces kidnapping and illegal detention charges. The two missing farmers and University of the Philippines students Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno were suspected to be members of the New People’s Army, a communist group. General Palparan’s trial is still ongoing and the two students are still missing. There are still other cases of extrajudicial killings, in which justice has not been served. The family members of the victims of Maguindanao massacre and Lumad killings continue to seek elusive justice. These human rights violations continue to bring fear since they day the country has been placed under Martial Law courtesy of Marcos regime. 

Human rights violation is defined in Section 3 of the Republic Act No, 10368:

“(b) Human rights violation refers to any act or omission committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State, but shall not be limited to the following:

(1) Any search, arrest and/or detention without a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest issued by a civilian court of law, including any warrantless arrest or detention carried out pursuant to the declaration of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos as well as any arrest., detention or deprivation of liberty carried out during the covered period on the basis of an “Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO)”, a “Presidential Commitment Order {PCO)” or a “Preventive Detention Action (PDA)” and such other similar executive issuances as defined by decrees of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, or in any manner that the arrest, detention or deprivation, of liberty was effected;

(2) The infliction by a person acting in an official capacity and/or an agent of the State of physical injury, torture, killing, or violation of other human rights, of any person exercising civil or political rights, including but not limited to the freedom of speech, assembly or organization; and/or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even if such violation took place during or in the course of what the authorities at the time deemed an illegal assembly or demonstration: Provided, That torture in any form or under any circumstance shall be considered a human rights violation;

(3) Any enforced or involuntary disappearance caused upon a person who was arrested, detained or abducted against one’s will or otherwise deprived of one’s liberty, as defined in Republic Act No. 10350 {{1}}, otherwise known as the “Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012”

(4) Any force or intimidation causing the involuntary exile of a person from the Philippines;

(5) Any act of force, intimidation or deceit causing unjust or illegal takeover of a business, confiscation of property, detention of owner/s and or their families, deprivation of livelihood of a person by agents of the State, including those caused by Ferdinand E. Marcos, his spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by consanguinity or affinity, as well as those persons considered as among their close relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates under Executive Order No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution;

(6) Any act or series of acts causing, committing and/or conducting the following:

(i) Kidnapping or otherwise exploiting children of persons suspected of committing acts against the Marcos regime;

(ii) Committing sexual offenses against human rights victims who are detained and/or in the course of conducting military and/or police operations; and

(iii) Other violations and/or abuses similar or analogous to the above, including those recognized by international law.”

In a country where Catholics made up the majority of the population, the priests and other religious leaders often become a moral compass and the proverbial principle: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is tailored to what the priests project.  However, a moral compass can still spin wildly and be out of control. While Padre Damaso is deemed a figment of Jose Rizal’s imagination, any news of sexual abuse involving priests will sure remind you of this fictional character’s omnipresence.  

A few weeks ago, sexual abuse cases involving priests have surfaced and they were made more interesting when 2016 presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte claimed he was also sexually abused. The sexual abuse cases are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Aside from Duterte, a former student breaks his silence after 30 years and he said he was sexually abused from 1984 to 1987. Without a doubt, the alleged victim dropped a bombshell. 

The country embraces religious diversity as it is also home to various religious sectors, but Roman Catholics are the most vocal when it comes to issues they consider to be a violation of their so-called moral standards. They are against RH bill, abortion and god-knows-what-else. Unfortunately, discovering Jesuits involved in sexual abuse scandal is indeed a living mockery and avid followers just keep a stiff upper lip while the issue is still being investigated. While this case does not put you into situation where you will be damned if you do and you will still be damned if you don't, the society has the right to know the truth. In the past, cases of sexual abuse have never been put on record, but there are already reported cases in 2002 according to Wikipedia. The Society of Jesus in the Philippines has yet to conduct an investigation on the abuses. 

If proven guilty, the Jesuits involved in sexual abuse scandal commit a violation of Republic Act 7610 or better known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. 

“Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;

(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means;

(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;

(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or

(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment.”

Filipinos are known for being family-oriented and this dominant quality is probably one of the reasons a law that exempts family who commit theft, swindling and malicious mischief from criminal liability exists. While it is a dead give-away that Filipinos value their family more than anyone or anything else, can this law be a good reason to promote solidarity in spite of criminal liability of a loved one?

Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, "No criminal liability, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:

1.Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

2.The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and

3.Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime."

However, there are still some exceptions to the rule. A family will not be criminally liable for the aforementioned crimes, but the person will still be subject to civil liability. A complex crime will also be treated as one and will be subject to a single criminal prosecution. The exception only applies to a complex crime and not a crime of simple estafa. As mentioned under Article 332 the law only applies to the felonies of theft, malicious mischief and swindling. However, if the crimes that are included in Article 332 are perpetrated with another crime such as estafa, extension will not be applied.  A person still has a criminal liability regardless of his relationship to the offended party. 

The provision’s coverage is only for estafa, simple theft and malicious mischief. This means complex crimes are not covered by such provisions. In one case involving an accused who did not only commit simple estafa but estafa through falsification of public document, the offense’s real nature was identified by the facts presented. As a result, the accused was not given the ability to avail himself of the absolutory cause that is only provided under the exempting law. The law still brings confusion when it comes to exception and if promoting solidarity and harmony is the only reason to deter the offended party from pursuing criminal charges, then it is no longer surprising this law has been considered strange and absurd.