The common misconception about the affidavit of desistance is that it can bar someone from pursuing a criminal case. In theory, it serves as a waiver of one's right to pursue civil indemnity. If the complaint is made after the institution of a criminal action, the affidavit cannot justify the complaint's dismissal. 

Two Kinds of Desistance Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code

1. Factual Desistance-this type of desistance refers to the actual desistance of the actor, made after the crime's attempted stage. In this case, the actor is still considered criminally liable for the attempt. 

2. Legal Desistance-The desistance, in law, obviates criminal liability unless preparatory or over act has already been committed in themselves constitute a felony other than what the actor intended. 

II. Application of Article 6: 

Only to intentional felonies by positive acts but not to: (i). Felonies by omission (ii) Culpable felonies and (iii) Violations of special laws, unless the special law provides for an attempted or frustrated stage. Examples of the exception are The Dangerous Drugs Law which penalizes an attempt to violate some of its provisions, and The Human Security Act of 2007

III. The attempted stage:

"the accused commences the commission of a felonious act directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance”

 A).(1). The attempt which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a connection to a particular, concrete offense, that which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to the its realization and commission (2) The act must not be equivocal but indicates a clear intention to commit a particular and specific felony. Thus the act of a notorious criminal in following a woman can not be the attempted stage of any felony.  

B). Overt or external act is some physical deed or activity, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to is complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

C). Examples:

1.  The accused pressed a chemically -soaked cloth on the mouth of the woman to induce her to sleep, while he lay on top of her and pressed his body to her. The act is not the overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen into rape.  They constitute unjust vexation. ( Note: it would be attempted rape if he tried to undress the victim or touch her private parts) ( Balleros vs. People, Feb, 22, 2006)

2. One found inside a house but no article was found on him, is liable for trespass and not for attempted theft or robbery even if he is a notorious robber

3. One found removing the glass window panes or making a hole in the wall is not liable for attempted robbery but for attempted trespass

D) The accused has not yet passed the subjective phase or that phase encompassed from the time an act is executed which begins the commission of the crime until the time of the performance of the last act necessary to produce the crime, but where the accused has still control over his actions and their results. 

E).The accused was not able to continue performing the acts to produce the crime. He was prevented by external forces and not because he himself chose not to continue. Such as when his weap0n was snatched, or his intended victim managed to escape, or he was overpowered or arrested.

F). If the accused voluntarily desisted i.e he himself decided not to continue with his criminal purpose, then he is not liable.

1. Reason: This is an absolutory cause by way of reward to those who, having set one foot on the verge of crimes, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness.  .

2. The reason for the desistance is immaterial

3. Exceptions: when the accused is liable despite his desistance

a). when the act performed prior to the desistance already constituted the attempted stage of the intended felony. For example: the accused, with intent to kill, shot at the victim but missed after which he “desisted”, his acts already constituted attempted homicide

b). When the acts performed already gave rise to the intended felony. The decision not to continue is not a legal but factual desistance. As in the case of a thief who returned what he stole.

c). When the acts performed constitute a separate offense. Pointing a gun at another and threatening to kill, and then desisting gives rise to grave threats.

The aim to enact death penal bill into a law still has a long way to go. People have mixed opinions and reactions regarding death penalty. Reviving death penalty will impose more serious punishment to those who trade, sell, transport and distribute dangerous drugs regardless of purity and quantity. If a person is caught possessing at least 10 grams of any dangerous drugs or 500 grams of marijuana, these criminal offenses will be punishable by death. If foreigners bring in illegal drugs into the country, they too will be executed regardless of the quantity and purity of substance. 

Lawmakers would also like to push through with the inclusion of non-drug related crimes such as murder, kidnapping and rape. For rape cases, the penalty will depend on how and when it happened. Aside from drug trade, corruption is also prevalent especially among government officials. They too are not spared because if found guilty of committing plunder amounting to P50 million or more, the crime will be punished with death. 

Proposed Crimes To Be Punished By Death

1. Treason

2. Qualified Piracy

3. Qualified Bribery

4. Parricide

5. Murder

6. Infanticide

7. Rape (Depends on when and hot it was committed)

8. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

9. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

10.Destructive Arson

11.Plunder

12.Importation of Dangerous Drugs

13.Sale, Trading, Administration, Distribution of Dangerous Drugs

14.Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where drugs are used

15.Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs

16.Possession of Dangerous Drugs (of certain quantities)

17.Cultivation of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs

18.Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs

19.Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence

20.Carnapping

 

          Source: House Committee On Justice

Have you ever been threatened by someone that have caused fear or mental disturbance? To some, it is just a form of pressuring someone to give in to the demands of the person imposing threats. Whether light or grave threats, both criminal offenses have penalties under Article 282 and 285.  

A. Grave Threats under Article 282 - the act threatened to be done is a crime e.g. to kill, to burn or destroy property, to box or to inflict injuries 

1. Conditional: the accused makes a demand so that he will not do what he threatened, such as a demand for money or another condition which may not be unlawful. E.g. “I will stone your car if you will fail me”.

2 Unconditional- there is simply a declaration to do wrong or harm amounting to a crime. E.g.: “I am tired of looking at your face. I might as well kill you”

3. But if the threat was made in the heat of anger and the accused did not persist, it is Light Threats. E.g: In a heated quarrel the accused uttered:  “ Uubusin ko kayong magpapamilya” but did not do anything more. If he however gets a weapon and moves towards his opponent, the crime is grave threats.

B. Light Threats which may either be:

1. Where the act to be done does not amount to a crime, but it disturbs another. This may be subject to a condition or not. (Article 283)    Examples:

(a). “I will fail you if you will not be introduce me to your sister”

(bi). “ I will report your absences to your father if you do not let me copy your answers”

(c).  “I will tell your boyfriend about your dating other men”                    

2. Other Light Threats (Article 285)

a). Threatening another with a weapon, or drawing such weapon in a quarrel

b). Orally threatening another with a wrong which may amount to a crime but he accused did not persist in the idea involved in the threat 

III. If there is an intimidation and threat to inflict an injury is coupled with a  demand for money, when is it threats and when is it robbery?

1.     In threats the harm/injury is still to be inflicted in the future (future harm) whereas in robbery the harm is to be inflicted right then and there, or that it is actual and immediate  ( immediate harm)

2.     In threats, the harm maybe committed upon the person or honor of the victim or that to his family, or to his property whereas in robbery the harm is to be inflicted does not include the honor of the victim

3.     In threats the doing of the harm may be communicated through an intermediary where as in robbery the doing of the harm is always communicated directly and personally to the victim

4.     In threat gain is not immediate whereas in robbery the gain is immediate.        

IV. Threats as constituting blackmailing- when the doing of a wrong which does not constitute a crime ( Light threat) is subject to a demand for money or other valuable considerations. Examples: 

1.     “ I will report your cheating to the Dean unless you take charge of my back rentals”

2.      “I will inform your best friend that you are dating her boy friend. However, If you let me have your bracelet, then I will not say anything”.

      NOTE; there are two forms of blackmailing. The second is under the law on libel

V. Threats maybe made in any form: orally or in writing or by deeds and actions; personally or through an intermediary, or via modern facilities of communications, such as by texting or E-mail. The crime is consummated once the threat is made known to the person threatened. 

VI. Threats are absorbed when they are made in connection with another crime, or are used as the means to commit another crime. Thus the threat to kill is absorbed in armed robbery, as the threat to injure is absorbed in rape.

VII. Bond for Good Behavior: this is the amount of money to be deposited by the accused charged with threats to ensure that he shall not molest the person threatened. If he refuses to put up the Bond for Good behavior, he shall be sentenced to destierro. This is separate and different from the bond which the accused is require to put up in order not to be detained pending trial.

Children are known for their wide-eyed innocence. People who have already journeyed into adulthood often wish to go back to their childhood years because of children's carefree spirit. This is why when kids commit a crime, many people will pin the blame on parents because they are supposed to mold and guide children. 

However, if a child grows in a cruel society where basic rights such as the right to education is denied, children may wake up to harsh reality. Their world crumbles down before it is even built. The proliferation of drugs no longer comes as a surprise in the country and children who become criminally liable are no longer new to taking illegal drugs. 

Since many crimes are committed by children as young as 9 years, a law has been proposed to put a lid on this problem. This means that the minimum age of criminal responsibility will be reduced from 15 to 9. Republic Act No. 9344 states that 15 is the minimum age of criminal responsibility. 

Republic Act No. 9344

Sec. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - 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.

Sec. 7. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.

Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court may file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.

If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.

In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law.

A warrant of arrest has to meet the requisites according to the law to be considered valid. It should also be issued by a competent authority, who will also direct the arrest of an individual. The person arrested will be bound to answer for the offense committed. This rule can be found under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The arresting officer must execute a warrant of arrest within 10 days from receipt. It should also be noted that the officer is required to make a report to the judge who issued a warrant and state the reason why the accused has not been arrested within 10 days after the expiration. 

When it comes to the validity of the warrant of arrest, it will be considered valid unless recalled or served. 

Section 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within 30 days from the filing of the complaint or information.

(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by the prosecutor. The procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section. (As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.)

Lawful Warrantless Arrest

Even without a warrant of arrest, a peace officer can still arrest the accused if the following conditions are met:

(a) When a person is in hot pursuit;

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

(c) 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

(d) 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.

When you enter into an agreement, it means there is a meeting of minds which involves fulfilling the obligation to render service or give something. The law considers this agreement as a contract. However, there can be some confusions on the validity of a contract especially if it lacks notarization. Does this mean a contract becomes invalid if it was not notarized? 

It is important to note that a contract can be considered legally binding if it has been made with the consent of contracting parties. The elements of consent, cause and subject must also be present and with that said, contracts can either be verbal or written. 

Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:

(1) Consent of the contracting parties;

(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;

(3) Cause of the obligation which is established. 

Notarization converts the contract into a public document hence, the following should appear in a public document under Article 1358 of the Civil Code. 

Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;

(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal partnership of gains;

(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person;

(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document.

All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by Articles, 1403, No. 2 and 1405. 

Even if it is a private contract, the contracts where the amount involved is more than five hundred pesos must be written with the exception of chattels, sales of goods and other things in action as they are governed by Articles 1403, no. 2 and 1405. A contract need not be notarized if it only involves a movable property. This means that a contract is still enforceable and valid if it has been proven that the requirement is indispensable and absolute. 

What could be worse than filming an 18-month-old baby and selling the sex video for up to $10,000 to both American and European buyers? No words can ever describe the monstrosity and evil machinations of Peter Scully and his minions. One of the worst videos, called Daisy's Destruction shows an 18-month-old baby girl tied upside down by her feet. The baby was sexually assaulted and bashed by two of Scully's Pinay girlfriends. The video brought tears to the investigators in the Philippines as it was just beyond acceptable. It is even unsettling when the tortured girl screams and cries because of what seemed to be an endless torture inflicted upon her. Chief presecutor Jaime Umpa told the court that if he had a choice, it would be death for Scully. If death penalty will not be served to Scully, another option is to reintroduce serving 100 years in jail.

News Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/32704194/philippines-considering-bringing-back-death-penalty-for-accused-australian-pedophile/#page1

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)

One of the most controversial cases that is currently undergoing further investigation is the case of two arrested suspects for illegal drug possession who were killed by Pasay City cops. The suspects for the possession of illegal drugs were Renato Bertes and Jaypee Bertes, residents of Ignacio Street in Pasay City. According to the investigation, only one handcuff was used for restraining two drug suspects. Things went out of hand upon their return to the detention cell. When PO2 Alipio Balo was removing the handcuff, Renato attempted to grab the gun. Balo was able to take control of the gun and shot Renato while PO1 Michael Tomas shot Jaypee.

Murder charges were filed against two policemen involved in the killing of the drug suspects. Although the investigation held on August 22, covered other cases of extra judicial killing, the case of the two policemen were the first to undergo scrutiny. Senior Supt. Nolasco Bathan was in the hot seat as Senator Leila de Lima, chair of justice and human rights committee asked for the basis of filing the murder case. Bathan was not able to give a clear answer, leading De Lima to probe more. Bathan said that the murder charges were filed because someone got killed. De Lima wanted to know why file murder charges instead of homicide. What is the difference between homicide and murder?

Premeditation

Premeditation refers to the action of planning something beforehand. This means that the killer has already made a decision to kill or thought about killing another person. This may require meticulous planning to make the killing appear to be an accident.

"Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal."

The Philippines is full of potentials and promises that continue to attract locals and tourists alike. You need not go to far places just to have a relaxing break as the country's sights, sounds and tastes will surely captivate you. Some tourists who used to consider the country as a holiday destination, have now considered it as a perfect base for retirement. Unfortunately, the beauty of the Philippines has been marred by terrorism. The Philippines has been infested by Abu Sayyaf, the most violent jihadist group in the country. They have committed numerous crimes against security and the most recent was the capture of Malaysian and Indonesian workers, a Filipina and Western tourists, two of whom have already been beheaded when the Canadian government refused to pay the ransom the group demanded. The government has zero tolerance on this barbaric act hence, working hard to put an end to terrorism in the country. The Human Security Act of 2007 aims to protect people's lives, liberty and property against any act of terrorism.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372

"AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. This Act shall henceforth be known as the Human Security Act of 2007.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.

In the implementation of the policy stated above, the State shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the constitution.

The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, comprising political, economic, diplomatic, military, and legal means duly taking into account the root causes of terrorism without acknowledging these as justifications for terrorist and/or criminal activities. Such measures shall include conflict management and post-conflict peace-building, addressing the roots of conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development.

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of constitutionally recognized powers of the executive branch of the government. It is to be understood, however, that the exercise of the constitutionally recognized powers of the executive department of the government shall not prejudice respect for human rights which shall be absolute and protected at all times.

SEC. 3. Terrorism. Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3. Article 134-a (Coup d Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
4. Article 248 (Murder);
5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction,

or under

1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same."

There are instances when we demand for money or another condition, but when these demands are not fulfilled, there is a tendency for the person who made a demand to pose a threat out of frustration. To some, it may just be a way of reminding the person to fulfil the demands, but if such threats have already disturbed the peace of mind of an individual, even if the person who made the demand intended no harm, this can still be considered as a crime against security. Threats and coercion have a broad spectrum, but one thing is for sure, a declaration to harm a person in the throes of anger can still be considered as a form of threat.  

“Article 282. Grave threats. - Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
Article 283. Light threats. - Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.

Article 284. Bond for good behavior. - In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

Article 285. Other light threats. - The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.

2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code.

3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.

Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.

If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Article 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.

Article 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens.) - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.”

Although we try to leave a peaceful and trouble-free life as much as possible, there are times when we reach our boiling point causing us to explode at the slightest provocation. When you go overboard and cross lines, it is easy to use self-defense as an excuse for losing your temper. However, there is a law that corresponds to such violations. Whether it is a simple argument or suppressed anger and hate between parties, there is a consequence for the person who has inflicted physical pain to another person.

We may already be familiar with serious physical injuries, but how serious is serious? Is there supporting and tangible evidence that must be presented in order to support such claims? Article 262 to 266 tackles issues that physical injuries encompass.

PHYSICAL INJURIES

"Art. 262. Mutilation. — The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, or some essential organ of reproduction.

Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.

Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:

1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;

2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured 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, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was therefor habitually engaged;

3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have 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 of the work in which he as habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days;

4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.

If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.

Art. 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. — The penalties established by the next preceding article shall be applicable in the respective case to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious, physical injury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity.

Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to kill or offend the injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.

Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such person.

Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.

2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.

3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.”

It is no secret that policemen have been involved in a series of crimes and while there are cops who continue to exude exemplary behaviour, bad still outnumbers the good. Due to the growing number of policemen involved in crimes, their tainted reputation no longer comes as a surprise. Some cops will take these in their stride, but an ordinary citizen will consider these issues a cause for alarm. Another reason for disappointment is the death of Adora Lazatin, found floating in the Pasig River on April 8, 2016, Friday. The perpetrators were nabbed for the victim’s kidnap-slay, and three of them are policemen.

PO1 Mark Jay de los Santos, Inspector Eljie Jacobe and PO1 Edmon Gonzales were arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) over the weekend.  According to NBI, the perpetrators have withdrawn at least P200,000 from the victim’s savings account. Before Lazatin’s disappearance, Ryan, her son informed him that she was going to meet a prospective buyer and the prospect turned out to be PO1 Mark Jay de los Santos. Lazatin and De los Santos agreed to meet at a mall. Ryan reported his mother missing when she failed to answer text messages.  Aside from kidnapping with homicide, the five suspects are also facing charges for violating the access devices regulation law. 

“Sec. 10. Penalties. — Any person committing any of the acts constituting access device fraud enumerated in the immediately preceding Sec. shall be punished with:

(a) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is greater and imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and not more than ten (10) years, in the case of an offense under Sec. 9 (b)-(e), and (g)-(p) which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Sec. 9;

(b) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, and imprisonment for not less than ten (10) years and for not more than twelve (12) years, in the case of an offense under Sec. 9 (a), and (f) of the foregoing Sec., which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Sec. 9; and

(c) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, or imprisonment for not less than twelve (12) years and not more than twenty (20) years, or both, in the case of any offense under Sec. 9, which occurs after a conviction for another offense under said subSec., or an attempt to commit the same. “

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.

Fraternities, sororities and other organizations in and out of the campus consider hazing as an initiation rite. Whoever survives becomes a full-fledged member of an organization. Unfortunately, hazing has affected the lives of neophytes and their families due to the numerous cases of death. The bill, if enacted into a law will impose stiffer penalties against all kinds of hazing activities. Fraternities and sororities will also be closely monitored to ensure that this unacceptable initiation rite will be prevented from taking place. The Department of Justice (DOJ) supports House Bill 5760 and shares the same intention of putting a stop of fraternity violence, which is prevalent in the campus.

If this house bill will be enacted into a law, Republic Act No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law will be repealed. The bill will also provide restriction of community-based fraternities and the penal provisions will be more rigid. If the members and officers of the organization have been found guilty of committing a crime of hazing, they will pay a fine of P1 million and serve a sentence of 12 to 20 years in prison.  Members and officers who are under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol will pay a fine of P2 million. Life imprisonment will also be imposed upon them. There will be greater penalties if the hazing rite resulted in the death, mutilation, rape of any individual. There are several proposals related to the regulation of hazing and other forms of initiation rites. Two of which have been proposed by Senator Tito Sotto and Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

Here’s the summary of the current anti hazing law (R.A. 8049:

“Section 1. Hazing, as used in this Act, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. 

The term "organization" shall include any club or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training and Citizen's Army Training. The physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police as approved ny the Secretary of National Defense and the National Police Commission duly recommended by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police shall not be considered as hazing for the purposes of this Act. 

Sec. 2. No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation. The written notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and shall further contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. 

Sec. 3. The head of the school or organization or their representatives must assign at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization, as the case may be, to be present during the initiation. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant.”

Anti-pana law is one of the strangest laws that still exist up to this day. Perhaps, this law came to existence due to the number of “pana” incidents. This is still considered a deadly weapon and can be as dangerous as firearms. Now, there are people who use pana or arrow for livelihood and in this case, all they need to do is to secure a permit from the mayor in his city.

This law was made during the 1960s and this is referred to as the Republic Act No. 3553, or an Act to Prohibit the Possession of Deadly Arrow.

“Section 1. Any person who possesses a deadly arrow or "pana" without permit from a city, municipal, or municipal district mayor, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than six months. The phrase "deadly arrow or 'pana'" as used in this Act means any arrow or dart that when shot from a blow or slingshot can cause injury or death of a person.

Section 2. Any city, municipal or municipal district mayor may issue a permit to any individual to possess a deadly arrow or "pana" if such is to be used to earn a livelihood for such individual.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 21, 1963”

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.

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.

The alarming increase of bullet planting scam cases is indeed an unsettling news knowing the fact that anyone can be caught carrying bullets in their bags. A plethora of speculations have been heard but the truth remains in the dark. It is just another blame game that almost everyone can play at. While authorities are investigating on this matter, people just cannot help putting the blame on anyone who has access to their luggage. Anyone can be a suspect: the guards, taxi drivers, airport security personnel and porters. 

While the case remains unsolved, the livelihood of those who are working in and around the airport is also at risk. Passengers are also creating their own safety measures to avoid falling prey to the bullet planting scheme. Without a doubt, the luggage wrapping services at NAIA are becoming a lucrative business considering the fact that many passengers have become more vigilant.

Passengers who are caught carrying live bullets or ammunition in their bags violate Republic Act No. 10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, which states that “It is the policy of the State to maintain peace and order and protect the people against violence. The State also recognizes the right of its qualified citizens to self-defense through, when it is the reasonable means to repel the unlawful aggression under the circumstances, the use of firearms. Towards this end, the State shall provide for a comprehensive law regulating the ownership, possession, carrying, manufacture, dealing in and importation of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof, in order to provide legal support to law enforcement agencies in their campaign against crime, stop the proliferation of illegal firearms or weapons and the illegal manufacture of firearms or weapons, ammunition and parts thereof.”

The bullet planting cases in 2015 has a total of 1394 and still counting. While there are some passengers who admit to carrying live bullets in their bags due to superstition, others are completely clueless how the bullets got in their bags.  There are lingering questions that remain unanswered and this issue will continue to be a guessing game for everyone unless the people who are responsible for this bullet planting scheme is incarcerated. 

There are political figures who have already offered legal aid to the victims. If abuse of power and extortion are the reasons for the prevalence of bullet planting, the passengers must also consider safety measures for their protection. 

In the event an official claims to find a bullet in a passenger's bag, the passenger has the right to delay immediate opening of the bag, summon presence of the official’s supervisor and obtain lawyer’s presence or third party witnesses.  Keep in mind that no officer can force you to be a witness against yourself. If you are coerced into admitting ownership of the planted bullet, you have the right to remain silent. Any admission without the presence of a lawyer is considered inadmissible in court. If you are required to pay in exchange of your freedom, simply refer to Section 9 of the Republic Act No. 3019 or Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.”