SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAWS

•CRIMINAL OR PENAL LAWS are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain
acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of
their nature, and provide for their punishment.  
•Properly speaking, a statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense
committed against the State which, under the Constitution, the Executive has the
power to pardon. In common use, however, this sense has been enlarged to include
within the term “penal statures” all statutes which command or prohibit certain
acts, and establish penalties for their violation, and even those which, without
expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty upon their commission.  
•The capacity to prosecute and punish crimes is an attribute of the State’s
police power. It inheres in the “the sovereign power instinctively charged by
the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend
the interests of the community, the individual and social rights and the
liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his or her rights.”  

• A crime is “an offense against the state.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

•Criminal laws are of GENERAL application in the Philippines. Criminal law like any other law is binding on
all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory as provided in Article 14 of the New Civil Code.  
•Exceptions:  
•1. Treaty Stipulations  
•Ex. RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement.  
•2. Laws of preferential application.  
• Ex. Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no member of the House of Representatives
of the Senate shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee thereof.
•3. Art. XI, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.  
• 4. Principle of Public International Law.  
•Ex. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state  
•Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident, charges d’affaires.  
•Note: Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign
nations cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to the
ambassadors and ministers unless there is a specific treaty or executive
agreement that gives them specific immunity.  
•Warships and embassies are considered as extensions of sovereignty of the
foreign country.  
•TERRTITORIAL in application. This means that Philippine penal statutes are enforceable only within tis
territory.
•Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:
•1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
•2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
•3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
•4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or  
•5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.  
•Felonies that public officer and employees may commit in the exercise of their functions:  
•Ex: Direct Bribery, Indirect Bribery, Qualified Bribery, etc.  
•Crimes against National Security:  
•Ex: Treason, Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, Espionage, Inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisals, etc.  
•Crimes against the law of nations:  
•Ex: Piracy, Genocide, etc.  
•Penal laws are to be enforced PROSPECTIVELY. Our criminal law system, as
reflected in Article 21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code, adheres to the
principle that a person could not be made liable for an act that was not
punishable at the time of its commission. Penal statutes may only be given
retroactive application if they are favorable to the accused who is not a
habitual delinquent. However, of the new law specifically provides that it
could not be applied retroactively even in favorable to the accused it cannot
be applied retroactively.  
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA CRIMES  
 

•Crimes considered mala in se are those where the acts are inherently
immoral. Criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements
of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.
•Crimes considered mala prohibita are those which become crimes because it
is made so by law. It is the commission of the prohibited act, and not its
character or effect that determines whether or not the law has been violated.
Malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial.
•THE PRO REO DOCTRINE  
•One of the fundamental principles on applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all
doubts in favor of the accused. The doctrine is corollary to the constitutional presumption of
innocence and the burden of the prosecution to prove an accused’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.  
• 
•THE RULE OF LENITY  
•The rules applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute,
one is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.  
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS ACT OF 2002

DENIAL, FRAME-UP, ALIBI WEAK DEFENSES

•The defense evidence must likewise be so regarded without being hobbled by the presumption of regularity.
From the perspective of the defense, we cannot but note that the evidence for the defense is not strong as
Cayas merely claimed that she was framed, and implied that the plastic sachets confiscated from her were
planted. In this jurisdiction, the defense of denial and frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor
for it can be easily concocted and is a common defense ploy in drug cases. These weaknesses, however, do
not add any strength nor can they help the prosecution's case because the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own weight. In the first place, if the prosecution cannot establish Cayas' guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the need for her to adduce evidence on her behalf, in fact, never arises. Thus, we go back
to the conclusion that Cayas should be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. ( PEOPLE vs. MARITESS CAYAS, G.R. No. 206888, July 4, 2016)
NECESSITY OF PRESENTING IN EVIDENCE THE CORPUS DELICTI

•The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as
follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The
prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in
evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal
drugs. (PEOPLE VS. VIVIAN BULOTANO, G.R. No. 190177, June 11, 2014)
IN GENERAL, PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

•Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
•Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. 
•Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort.
•Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. 
•Section 8. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
•Section 9. Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
•Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
•Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
•Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
•Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
•Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
•Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.
•Section 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof.
•Section 17. Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of Transactions on Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
•Section 18. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs.
• Section 19. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs. 
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

• Well-settled in jurisprudence is the principle that in all prosecutions for violation of R.A.
9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that
the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug as evidence. The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for
conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus
delicti of the crimes.[18] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[19] Corpus
delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has
been actually committed.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY

•In dangerous drugs cases, it is essential in establishing the corpus delicti that the

procedure provided in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is followed. The said section provides:
•SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
•(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
•(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
• (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done
under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24)
hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.]
•Furthermore, Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR) filled in the details as to where the physical
inventory and photographing of the seized items that had to be done
immediately after seizure could be done: i.e., at the place of seizure, at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, thus:
•(a)The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
the search warrant [was] served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
•Section 21 plainly requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph the same immediately after seizure and confiscation in the
presence of the accused, with (1) an elected public official, (2) a representative of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and (3) a representative of the media, all of whom shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
•In buy-bust situations, or warrantless arrests, the physical inventory and photographing is
allowed to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable. But even in these alternative places, such inventory
and photographing are still required to be done in the presence of the accused and the
aforementioned witnesses.
•To the mind of the Court, the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means
that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be
made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable
can the inventory and photographing then be done as soon as the apprehending team
reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.
There can be no other meaning to the plain import of this requirement. By the same token,
however, this also means that the required witnesses should already be physically present at
the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust
team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put,
the apprehending team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.
•In other words, while the physical inventory and photographing are allowed to
be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures," this does not dispense with the requirement of having all the required
witnesses to be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension.
The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest — or at the time of the drugs'
"seizure and confiscation" — that the presence of the three witnesses is most
needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that
would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.
• Recent jurisprudence is clear that the procedure enshrined in Section 21 of
R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a
simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the
conviction of illegal drug suspects. For indeed, however noble the purpose or
necessary the exigencies of our campaign against illegal drugs may be, it is still
a governmental action that must always be executed within the boundaries of
law. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. WELITO SERAD Y RAVILLES, G.R. No.
224894. October 10, 2018)
THE CRIME IS CONSUMMATED BY THE DELIVERY OF GOODS

•Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the
operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the
dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered
consummated by the delivery of the goods. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
SUSAN M. TAMAÑO AND JAFFY B. GULMATICO, G.R. No. 208643. December
05, 2016)
FOUR LINKS OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY

•Verily, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti and an
unbroken chain of custody. The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links
that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
(DANILO DE VILLA Y GUINTO, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 224039, September
11, 2019)
OBJECTIVE TEST

•"Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and finally for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 66

• To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must establish the following links, namely:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; Third,
the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 67
•The "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding
the conduct of buy-bust operation provides that it is the duty of the prosecution to
present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation—from the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of
the illegal subject of sale.68 The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer
to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal
drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are
not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. 69 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE
CLARA, G.R. No. 195528, July 24, 2013)
PRESENCE OF THREE WITNESSES MUST BE SECURED

•The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but
more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the
presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of
seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and
integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the
presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up
as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy­bust operation and inventory of
the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTOPHER ILAGAN Y BAÑA ALIAS "WENG", G.R. No.
227021, December 05, 2018)
SECTION 21 DOES NOT IPSO FACTO RENDER THE
SEIZURE AND CUSTODY OVER THE ITEMS VOID
•The Court, however, has clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible; and, the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 does not ipso
facto render the seizure and custody over the items void. However, this is with the caveat that the
prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. It has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court that the prosecution has the positive
duty to explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. Without any justifiable explanation,
which must be proven as a fact, the evidence of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the acquittal of
the accused should follow on the ground that his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable
doubt. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NELSON FLORES, G.R. No. 220464, June 10, 2019)
MARKING OF THE SEIZED DRUGS

•Chain of custody is defined as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition.
•Marking the seized drugs or other related items immediately after being seized from the
accused is a crucial step to establish chain of custody.
• "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the items seized to identify it as the subject matter of the
prohibited sale. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link and is vital
to be immediately undertaken because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
thus preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES VS. MARDAN AMERI, G.R. No. 203293, November 14, 2016)
FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY MARKED THE SEIZED

•Jurisprudence has already decreed that the failure of the police officers to
make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the shabu at the place
of arrest do not automatically render it inadmissible in evidence or impair the
integrity of the chain of its custody. Of particular significance to the present
case is the following discussion of the Court on Section 21(1) of Republic Act
No. 9165 in People v. Resurreccion:

• Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will
not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
•The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165does not necessarily
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
•As we held in People v. Cortez, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
Cognizant of this fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 on the
handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs provides as follows:
•"SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:
•(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items x x x."
•Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoro’s failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure
creates a reasonable doubt as to the drug’s identity. People v. Sanchez, however, explains that RA 9165 does not
specify a time frame for "immediate marking," or where said marking should be done:
•"What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of
the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the
place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly
ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence –should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation."
•To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be made in the
presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Thus, in
People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the
presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013)
TESTIMONY OF THE POSEUR-BUYER NOT INDISPENSIBLE

•Appellant’s insistence that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution
fails to impress. "The relevant information acquired by the [‘poseur-buyer’] was equally known
to the police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial.They all took part in the
planning and implementation of the [buy-bust] operation, and all were direct witnesses to the
actual sale of the [shabu, the appellant’s] arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from
[her] x x x of the marked money x x x. The testimony of the [poseur-buyer] was not therefore
indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at
best." His testimony can therefore be dispensed with since the illicit transaction was actually
witnessed and adequately proved by the prosecution witnesses. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
VS. MARISSA MARCELO, G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014)
SHEER RELIANCE ON THE SOLE TESTIMONY OF AN ALLEGED
POSEUR-BUYER IS NOT SUFFICIENT

• In accordance with these principles, the Court has held that, considering the
gravity of the penalty for the offense charged, courts should be careful in
receiving and weighing the probative value of the testimony of an alleged
poseur-buyer especially when it is not corroborated by any of his teammates
in the alleged buy-bust operation. Sheer reliance on the lone testimony of an
alleged poseur-buyer in convicting the accused does not satisfy the quantum
of evidence required in criminal cases, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• In the instant case, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of its three witnesses, i.e., SPO1 Ursal, Jr., PO2
Capangpangan, and SPO1 Cerna.

A closer look at the testimonies of SPO1 Ursal, Jr. and PO2 Capangpangan reveal that they did not actually see firsthand
the alleged sale of illegal drugs between accused-appellant Ordiz and the alleged poseur-buyer, SPO1 Cerna, as they
were positioned at some considerable distance away from the area where SPO1 Cerna purportedly transacted with
accused-appellant Ordiz.

In fact, the RTC itself made the observation that the testimonies of SPO1 Ursal, Jr., and PO2 Capangpangan are unclear,
holding in its Decision that "[t]he declaration of SPO1 Narciso Ursal, Jr. and PO2 Raniel Capangpangan are not
clear whether they actually saw the transaction or simply rushed up to arrest the accused after a pre-arranged signal
was given"
• Hence, with the testimonies of SPO1 Ursal, Jr. and PO2 Capangpangan being unreliable in establishing the
elements of illegal sale, the RTC itself held that the prosecution's theory rested mainly on the testimony of
SPO1 Cerna, the supposed poseur-buyer.

Making a critical observation on the testimony of SPO1 Cerna, the RTC itself noted that when SPO1 Cerna
was directly examined by the prosecution, "[i]t does appear that the details of the transaction are not
clearly presented thru such testimony."20  And while the RTC found that SPO1 Cerna was eventually able to
expound more on the supposed transaction on cross-examination, it must be emphasized that such
testimony on the specific details of the drug transaction was left uncorroborated by the other witnesses'
testimonies.
• Simply stated, the prosecution's case hinged mostly on the uncorroborated
testimony of the supposed poseur-buyer, whose testimony on direct
examination was found by the RTC to be unclear and lacking in details. To
reiterate, sheer reliance on the sole testimony of an alleged poseur-buyer fails
to satisfy the quantum of evidence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

For this reason alone, as there is reasonable doubt as to the elements of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, accused-appellant Ordiz's acquittal is warranted.
• According to Charles de Montesquieu, in his treatise The Spirit of the Laws, there is no greater
tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.

The Court believes that the menace of illegal drugs must be curtailed with resoluteness and
determination. Our Constitution declares that the maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. Nevertheless, the authorities'
perpetration of violations of the constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of
innocence in the name of peace and order cannot be accepted.
• By sacrificing the sacred and indelible rights to due process and presumption of innocence for
the sheer sake of convenience and expediency, the very maintenance of peace and order
sought after is rendered wholly nugatory. By thrashing basic constitutional rights as a means to
curtail the proliferation of illegal drugs, instead of protecting the general welfare, oppositely,
the general welfare is viciously assaulted. This cannot be so in our constitutional order.

It is in this light that the Court restores the long-deserved liberty of accused-appellant Ordiz.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. ORLANDO RAMOS ORDIZ, G.R. No. 206767, September 11,
2019)
FAILURE TO PRESENT THE BUY-BUST MONEY

•Failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause.
It is not indispensable in drug cases since it is merely corroborative evidence,
and the absence thereof does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and
the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law
nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-
bust operation. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RONALDO BAYAN, G.R. No.
200987, August 20, 2014)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION

•To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the

following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the drug. 11 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA, G.R. No.
227398, March 22, 2017)
SECTION 5, SECTION 11 OF RA NO. 9165 AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

• The essential elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs

• Accused-appellant Sarabia was charged with the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs,
defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of RA 9165.
• In order to convict a person charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165, the prosecution is required to prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[14]
• On the other hand, illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 has the
following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited
or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.[15]
Strict compliance of the chain of custody rule in illegal drugs cases
• In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving the
aforesaid elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In
drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.
• Therefore, considering that the very corpus delicti is the drug specimen itself,
establishing the integrity of the specimen is imperative. Hence, compliance with the
chain of custody rule is crucial in establishing accused-appellant Sarabia's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
•The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would include
testimony on every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which
it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses
would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. [

• As applied in illegal drugs cases, chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court until their destruction.
•In particular, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the
seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
•The chain of custody rule is crucial, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with
the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.

• Simply stated, if the chain of custody is broken, the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti are put in serious doubt. Consequently, the accused will perforce be acquitted. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
VS. DENNIS SARABIA, G.R. No. 243190. August 28, 2019)
ACTUAL POSSESSION AND CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION

•Jurisprudence holds that possession, under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when
the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On
the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is found. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. EUTIQUIO BAER, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019)
CRIMINAL INTENT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR THE CRIME OF
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS

•In People v. Tira,46 the Court explained the concept of possession of illegal drugs, to wit:
•x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element.
However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists
when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to
exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control
and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
•Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-
exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by
direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the
prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the
drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge
by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises
dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the
dangerous drugs [are] in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or
within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.47 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied) (ROWENA SANTOS Y COMPRADO AND RYAN SANTOS Y COMPRADO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 242656, August 14, 2019)
STRICT ADHERENCE TO SECTION 21

•Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs

seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or
alteration of evidence. (MICHAEL CASILAG Y ARCEO v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 213523, March 18, 2021)
ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

•Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. - A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to
be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a
penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first
offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging
from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand
pesos (PhP50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00); Provided, That this
Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her
possession such quantity or dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in
which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. (Emphasis supplied)
•While Section 15 penalizes a person apprehended or arrested for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 and who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, a conviction presupposes the prior
conduct of an initial screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test both yielding positive results for illegal
drug use. In this regard, Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 provides, in part:
•Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic
laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the
quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug
testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two
(2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug
used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by
accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used
for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
•Meanwhile, Section 38 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
•Section 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. - Subject to Section 15 of this
Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening
laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer has
reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of physical signs or symptoms
or other visible or outward manifestation, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the
results of the screening laboratory examination or test shall be challenged within fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the result through a confirmatory test conducted in any accredited analytical laboratory equipment with a gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment or some such modern and accepted method, if confirmed the
same shall be prima facie evidence that such person has used dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for the
prosecution for other violations of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That a positive screening laboratory test
must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
•From the foregoing, two distinct drug tests are required: a screening test and
a confirmatory test. A positive screening test must be confirmed for it to be
valid in a court of law. The evidence for the prosecution, however, shows the
conduct of only one test.
•PSI Malong conducted the examination on the urine sample taken from
Lopez after his apprehension. His testimony in this regard is reproduced below
in full:
•PROS. JOCOM:
•Q: In the urine sample that you examined, you indicated in your report that the same gave positive result to the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and negative for THC metabolites. [N]ow, tell us, how did you arrive
at such conclusion or findings that the result was positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride?
•A: I arrive to this finding, sir, because I conducted the screening test and confirmatory test of the urine specimen,
sir.
•Q: Okay, when you said you conducted confirmatory test, what did you mean by that?
•A: The urine sample was subjected to TLC, sir, wherein the urine sample was extracted and then, compared with
the standard methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir.
•Q: And what was the result or the color if there was any change in the color that you subject that for test (sic) that
you could say that there was the presence of methamphetamine?
•A: On the TLC plate, sir, we would be able to see that the spot develop of (sic) the same location, sir,
meaning they have the same chemical characteristics with the standard methamphetamine
hydrochloride, sir.
•Q: After conducting the confirmatory test, what did you do with the sample, the urine?
•A: It was placed on (sic) the refrigerator, sir. I sealed it and placed on the refrigerator.
•Q: Until now, it is with your office?
•A: It was already discarded, sir.
•While PSI Malong mentions the conduct of a "screening test and a confirmatory test" on the urine
sample, his testimony on the actual test conducted on the sample as well as the chemical laboratory
report presented in court show otherwise.
•The test conducted on the urine specimen of the accused-appellant was a Thin Layer Chromatography or TLC - a
screening test. A screening test is statutorily defined as "[a] rapid test performed to establish potential/presumptive
positive result".82 It refers to the immunoassay test to eliminate a "negative" specimen, i.e., one without the
presence of dangerous drugs, from further consideration and to identify the presumptively positive specimen that
requires confirmatory test.83 Under existing regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board, the TLC is a screening test
that is subject to further confirmatory examinations if it yields a positive result.84
•When the urine sample recovered from Lopez yielded a positive result, the specimen should have been subjected
to a second test - the confirmatory test. R.A. No. 9165 describes the confirmatory test as "[a]n 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."85 It is the second or further analytical procedure to more accurately
determine the presence of dangerous drugs in the specimen.86 The records are silent on any reference to a second,
more specific, examination on the urine sample.
•Considering that Chemistry Report No. DTC-081-201487 merely contains the
results of the screening test conducted, the same cannot be valid before any
court of law absent the required confirmatory test report. Without the
requisite confirmatory test, the accused-appellant cannot be held criminally
liable for illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, R.A. No. 9165. An
acquittal for this charge follows as a necessary consequence. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES VS. PETER LOPEZ Y CANLAS, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENT, APPARATUS
AND OTHER PARAPHERNALIA

•The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and

other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of RA No. 9165 are:
(1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such
possession is not authorized by law.
•In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the aluminum foil, tube, and lighters
found in the petitioner's house were fit or intended for introducing any dangerous drug into the
body. The prosecution did not bother to show that there were traces of shabu on any of these
alleged drug paraphernalia. In fact, it appears that the only evidence that the prosecution
offered to prove this charge is the existence of the seized items by themselves.
•For the prosecution's failure to prove that the items seized were intended to be used as drug
paraphernalia, the petitioner must also be acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of RA No.
9165. Indeed, we cannot convict the petitioner for possession of drug paraphernalia when it was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt that these items were used or intended to be used as drug
paraphernalia. (LUIS DERILO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016)
ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

•In illegal transportation of prohibited drugs, the essential element is the

movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. 27 As explained by the
Court in People v. Asislo:28

• The essential element of the charge of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs

is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. As defined in
the case of People v. Mariacos, "transport" means "to carry or convey from one
place to another."
•There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the
circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of
transportation itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act.
The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of
transporting was committed.29cralawlawlibrary

• Yet, even in the absence of actual conveyance, an attempt to transport prohibited drugs
is meted the same penalty prescribed for the commission thereof under Section 26 of
R.A. 9165. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELIZABETH NYAMBURA RUNANA AND MA.
GRACE LACSON Y NAVARRO, G.R. No. 229055, July 15, 2020)
EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS OF A DEN, DIVE OR RESORT

•Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes the act of knowingly visiting a drug den:
•Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand
pesos (₱l00,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:
•(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as such; and
•(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is aware of the
nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.

• Before a person may be convicted under the foregoing provision, it must be shown that he or she knew
that the place visited was a drug den, and still visited the place despite this knowledge. (MEDEL
CORONEL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 214536, March 13, 2017)
ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW

• (e) Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than
muscular power using the public highways, except road rollers, trolley cars,
street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts,
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways; vehicles which
run only on rails or tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds
used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of
wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor
vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power ratirating;
•It is to be noted, however, that while the anti-carnapping law penalizes the
unlawful taking of motor vehicles, it excepts from its coverage certain vehicles
such as roadrollers, trolleys, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers,
amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles which run
only on rails and tracks, and tractors, trailers and tractor engines of all kinds
and used exclusively for agricultural purposes. By implication, the theft or
robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered by Article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended and the provisions on robbery, respectively. (PEOPLE
VS. BUSTINERA, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)
ELEMENTS

•Thus, the elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under R.A. No. 6539, as
amended are the following:
•1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
•2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
•3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things; and
•4) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. (PEOPLE VS JEFFREY
MACARANAS, G.R. No. 226846, June 21, 2017)
PRESUMPTION

•"Unlawful taking" or apoderamiento is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. It is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.28 Section 3 (j), Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court provides the presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act
is the taker and the doer of the whole act.
•The presumption that a person found in possession of the personal effects belonging to the person robbed and killed is
considered the author of the aggression, the death of the person, as well as the robbery committed, has been invariably limited
to cases where such possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of
independent evidence inconsistent thereto.29 The said principle may be applied in this case as the concept of unlawful taking in
theft, robbery and carnapping being the same.30 Here, Donio failed to produce the vehicle's papers at the checkpoint. He
impersonated the victim before the police officers when his identity was asked, and left under the guise of getting the said
documents. It was also established that he and the others were strangers to Rodrigo. Donio's unexplained possession, coupled
with the circumstances proven in the trial, therefore, raises the presumption that he was one of the perpetrators responsible for
the unlawful taking of the vehicle and Raul's death.
•Intent to gain or animus lucrandi, which is an internal act, is presumed from the
unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important
consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary
benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or
expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was
taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.31 Donio's intent to gain from the
carnapped tricycle was proven as he and his companions were using it as means of
transportation when they were confronted by the Concepcion police officers. (PEOPLE
VS ENRILE DONIO, G.R. No. 212815, March 1, 2017)
CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE

•Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the penalty of
life imprisonment was changed to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the
phrase "in the commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of thecommissionof the carnapping or on
the occasion thereof" This third amendment clarifies the law's intent to make the offense a special complex
crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons. Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act, the
prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim,
and more importantly, it must show that the original criminal design of the culprit was carnapping and that
the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof"
Consequently, where the elements of carnapping are not proved, the provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act
would cease to be applicable and the homicide or murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised
Penal Code. (PEOPLE VS JEFFREY MACARANAS, G.R. No. 226846, June 21, 2017)
PD 1602 ANTI-ILLEGAL GAMBLING ACT AS AMENDED BY 9287

•Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to promote a just and dynamic social order
that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through
policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all. It is likewise the policy of the State that the promotion of social justice shall
include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
•Hence, the State hereby condemns the existence of illegal gambling activities such as illegal numbers
games as this has become an influential factor in an individual's disregard for the value of dignified work,
perseverance and thrift since instant monetary gains from it are being equated to success, thereby
becoming a widespread social menace and a source of corruption.
•Towards this end, the State shall therefore adopt more stringent measures to stop and eradicate the
existence of illegal numbers games in any part of the country.
•Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
•a) Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal gambling activity which uses numbers or
combinations thereof as factors in giving out jackpots.
•b) Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that involves the combination of thirty-seven (37) numbers
against thirty-seven (37) numbers from number one (1) to thirty seven (37) or the combination of
thirty-eight (38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local lottery where bets are placed
and accepted per combination, and its variants.
•c) Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from the results
of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion or any result thereof based on any fictitious
Jai Alai game consisting of ten (10) players pitted against one another, and its variants.
•d) Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from the last two (2) numbers of
the first prize of the winning Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the weekly draw of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and its variants.
•e) Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants thereof). - Any person who places bets for himself/herself or in
behalf of another person, or any person, other than the personnel or staff of any illegal numbers game operation.
•f) Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game Operation. - Any person, who acts in the interest of the maintainer,
manager or operator, such as, but not limited to, an accountant, cashier, checker, guard, runner, table manager,
usher, watcher, or any other personnel performing such similar functions in a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or
any other place where an illegal numbers game is operated or conducted.
•g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador" or variants thereof). - Any person who collects, solicits or
produces bets in behalf of his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling
paraphernalia.
•h) Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor ("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any
person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent.
•i) Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person who maintains, manages or
operates any illegal number game in a specific area from whom the coordinator,
controller or supervisor, and collector or agent take orders.
•j) Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who finances the operations of any illegal
numbers game.
•k) Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends or provides protection, or receives
benefits in any manner in the operation of any illegal numbers game.
•Sec. 4. Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia or Materials. - The possession of any gambling paraphernalia and other
materials used in the illegal numbers game operation shall be deemed prima facie evidence of any offense covered by this Act.
•Sec. 5. Liability of Government Employees and/or Public Officials. - a) If the collector, agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor,
maintainer, manager, operator, financier or capitalist of any illegal numbers game is a government employee and/or public
official, whether elected or appointed shall suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from Three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office.
•In addition to the penalty provided in the immediately preceding section, the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification
from public office shall be imposed upon any local government official who, having knowledge of the existence of the
operation of any illegal numbers game in his/her jurisdiction, fails to abate or to take action, or tolerates the same in
connection therewith.
•b) In the case of failure to apprehend perpetrators of any illegal numbers game, any law enforcer shall suffer an
administrative penalty of suspension or dismissal, as the case may be, to be imposed by the appropriate authority.
•Sec. 11. Informer's Reward. - Any person who, having knowledge or information of any
offense committed under this Act and who shall disclose the same which may lead to the
arrest and final conviction of the offender, may be rewarded a certain percentage of the
cash money or articles of value confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government, which
shall be determined through a policy guideline promulgated by the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in coordination with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and
the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
•The DILG, the NAPOLCOM and the DOJ shall provide for a system of rewards and
incentives for law enforcement officers and for local government official for the effective
implementation of this Act.
RA NO. 10591 COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
REGULATION ACT

• Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

• (l) Firearm refers to any handheld or portable weapon, whether a small arm
or light weapon, that expels or is designed to expel a bullet, shot, slug,
missile or any projectile, which is discharged by means of expansive force of
gases from burning gunpowder or other form of combustion or any similar
instrument or implement. For purposes of this Act, the barrel, frame or
receiver is considered a firearm.
•Section 10. Firearms That May Be Registered. – Only small arms may be registered by
licensed citizens or licensed juridical entities for ownership, possession and concealed
carry. A light weapon shall be lawfully acquired or possessed exclusively by the AFP, the
PNP and other law enforcement agencies authorized by the President in the
performance of their duties: Provided, That private individuals who already have
licenses to possess Class-A light weapons upon the effectivity of this Act shall not be
deprived of the privilege to continue possessing the same and renewing the licenses
therefor, for the sole reason that these firearms are Class "A" light weapons, and shall
be required to comply with other applicable provisions of this Act.
•Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
•xxx
•(dd) Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use
or that which is generally considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired from the
hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic bursts of discharge, such as:
•(1) Handgun which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand, which includes:
•(i) A pistol which is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or
permanently aligned with the bore which may be self-loading; and
•(ii) Revolver which is a hand-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder
containing chambers for individual cartridges.
•(2) Rifle which is a shoulder firearm or designed to be fired from the shoulder
that can discharge a bullet through a rifled barrel by different actions of
loading, which may be classified as lever, bolt, or self-loading; and
•(3) Shotgun which is a weapon designed, made and intended to fire a
number of ball shots or a single projectile through a smooth bore by the
action or energy from burning gunpowder.
IS A JUDGE JUSTIFIED IN CARRYING AN M-16 ARMALITE?

•There is sufficient evidence to hold Judge Dagala accountable for gross misconduct in
connection with the September 29 incident, as recounted in the anonymous complaint.
The OCA identified Judge Dagala as the man brandishing an M-16 armalite rifle in the
video footage. In his comment and manifestation, however, Judge Dagala failed to deny or
refute the allegation. We emphasize that Judge Dagala was given sufficient notice of this
allegation against him because the anonymous letter-complaint was included in the OCA's
Indorsement. Although Judge Dagala was informed of the existence of the accusation and
ought to have understood the implications, he made no efforts to refute the claims against
him. We thus rule that there is substantial evidence before us to prove that Judge Dagala
brandished a high-powered firearm during an altercation in Siargao.
•This finding of fact has various consequences. A certification issued by the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office
also disclosed that Judge Dagala is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Even assuming
that he is licensed to own, possess, or carry firearms, he can only carry those classified by law as small arms
pursuant to RA 10591 which provides that only small arms may be registered by licensed citizens or juridical
entities for ownership, possession, and concealed carry. Small arms refer to firearms intended to be, or primarily
designed for, individual use or that which is generally considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired from
the hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic bursts or discharge. An M-16 armalite rifle does
not fall within this definition. Being a light weapon, only the Armed Forces of the Philippines, PNP, and other
law enforcement agencies authorized by the President in the performance of their duties can lawfully acquire
or possess an M-16 armalite rifle. It baffles us how Judge Dagala came to possess such a high-powered weapon.
Worse, he had the audacity to brandish it in front of the police and other civilians. (ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT
VS PRESIDING JUDGE EXEQUIL L. DAGALA, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)
•Section 40. Failure to Notify Lost or Stolen Firearm or Light Weapon. – A fine of
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any licensed firearm
holder who fails to report to the FEO of the PNP that the subject firearm has been
lost or stolen within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of discovery.

• Likewise, a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person holding a valid firearm license who changes residence or office address
other than that indicated in the license card and fails within a period of thirty (30)
days from said transfer to notify the FEO of the PNP of such change of address.
IS THE PERMIT/LICENSE OR AUTHORITY TO POSSESS FIREARMS
TRANSFERABLE?

•The permit/license or authority to possess firearm contemplated by P.D. No.

1866 and its Implementing Rules is one which is issued to the applicant taking
into account his qualifications. Contrary to petitioner's contention, therefore,
the possession of firearms is unlike the registration of motor vehicles. A
permit/license or authority to possess firearms is not transferable to the
purchaser of the firearm. ( PEDRITO PASTRANO VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. No. 104504 October 31, 1997)
•Section 41. Illegal Transfer/Registration of Firearms. – It shall be unlawful to transfer possession of any
firearm to any person who has not yet obtained or secured the necessary license or permit thereof.
•The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall violate the provision of
the preceding paragraph. In addition, he/she shall be disqualified to apply for a license to possess other
firearms and all his/her existing firearms licenses whether for purposes of commerce or possession, shall
be revoked. If government-issued firearms, ammunition or major parts of firearms or light weapons are
unlawfully disposed, sold or transferred by any law enforcement agent or public officer to private
individuals, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.
•Any public officer or employee or any person who shall facilitate the registration of a firearm through
fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or submission of falsified documents shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional.
•Section 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. – The
unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:
•(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;
•(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if three (3)
or more small arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired or possessed by any
person;
•(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light weapon;
•(d) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall, unlawfully
acquire or possess a Class-B light weapon;
•(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section
shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or
combination of the following conditions:
•(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
•(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as
thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
•(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
•(4) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and
•(5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.
•(f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or
possess a major part of a small arm;
•(g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or
possess ammunition for a small arm or Class-A light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same
person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the former violation shall be absorbed by the
latter;
•(h) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or
possess a major part of a Class-A light weapon;
•(i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or
possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged
with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-A light weapon, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
•(j) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon
any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-B
light weapon; and
•(k) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a
Class-B light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the
same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-B
light weapon, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter.
•Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
•xxx
•(q) Imitation firearm refers to a replica of a firearm, or other device that is so
substantially similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm
as to lead a reasonable person to believe that such imitation firearm is a real
firearm.
•Section 35. Use of an Imitation Firearm. – An imitation firearm used in the
commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm as defined in this Act
and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance
with this Act: Provided, That injuries caused on the occasion of the conduct of
competitions, sports, games, or any recreation activities involving imitation
firearms shall not be punishable under this Act.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PART OF A FIREARM

•The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and, (2) the
fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it. The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an
essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the
law requires is merely possession, which includes not only actual physical
possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to
one’s control and management. (JACABAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. No. 184355, March
23, 2015)
WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVED

•The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the

accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as
possession itself is not prohibited by law.21 To establish the corpus delicti, the
prosecution has the burden of proving that the firearm exists and that the
accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license
or permit to possess or carry the same. (SAYCO VS PEOPLE, G.R. No. 159703,
March 3, 2008)
ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION

•Illegal possession of timber is an offense covered by special law and is malum

prohibitum. Thus, criminal intent is not an essential element of the offense.
However, the prosecution must prove intent to possess or animus possidendi.
•Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the object of the crime is in
the immediate physical control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive
possession exists when the object of the crime is under the dominion and control
of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the
place where it is found. (IDANAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016)
INTENT TO POSSESS MUST BE PROVED

• 
•Animus possidendi (INTENT TO POSSESS) is a state of mind which may be
determined on a case to case basis, taking into consideration the prior and
coetaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. What
exists in the realm of thought is often disclosed in the range of action. (DELA
CRUZ VS PEOPLE, G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016)
USE OF LOOSE FIREARMS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE,
NOT A SEPARATE CRIME
•Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.
•In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No.
1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal
possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder.59 It is
clear from the foregoing that where murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not
qualified illegal possession but, murder. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as
a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was
committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a
special aggravating circumstance.60 The intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of
firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a single offense.
(G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES (P.D. NO. 1866 AS
AMENDED BY RA NO. 9516)

•The elements of both offenses are as follows: (1) existence of the firearm,
ammunition or explosive; (2) ownership or possession of the firearm,
ammunition or explosive; and (3) lack of license to own or possess. (SALUDAY
VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 215305, APRIL 3, 2018)
•"Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or
Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary Device. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully manufacture,
assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, import or possess any explosive or incendiary
device, with knowledge of its existence and its explosive or incendiary character,
where the explosive or incendiary device is capable of producing destructive effect
on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not
limited to, hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb', 'molotov cocktail
bomb', 'fire bomb', and other similar explosive and incendiary devices.
•"Provided, That mere possession of any explosive or incendiary device shall be prima facie evidence that the
person had knowledge of the existence and the explosive or incendiary character of the device.
•"Provided, however, That a temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or transient possession or control of any
explosive or incendiary device, without the knowledge of its existence or its explosive or incendiary character,
shall not be a violation of this Section.
•"Provided, Further, That the temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or transient possession or control of any
explosive or incendiary device for the sole purpose of surrendering it to the proper authorities shall not be a
violation of this Section.
•"Provided, finally, That in addition to the instances provided in the two (2) immediately preceeding paragraphs,
the court may determine the absence of the intent to possess, otherwise referred to as 'animus possidendi", in
accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case and the application of other pertinent laws, among
other things, Articles 11 and 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."
FORRESTRY CODE/ILLEGAL LOGGING (PD 705)

•Section 4. Creation of, and merger of all forestry agencies into, the Bureau of Forest Development. For the purpose of implementing the
provisions of this Code, the Bureau of Forestry, the Reforestation Administration, the Southern Cebu Reforestation Development Project,
and the Parks and Wildlife Office, including applicable appropriations, records, equipment, property and such personnel as may be
necessary, are hereby merged into a single agency to be known as the Bureau of Forest Development, hereinafter referred to as the Bureau.
•Section 5. Jurisdiction of Bureau. The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and authority over all forest land, grazing lands, and all forest
reservations including watershed reservations presently administered by other government agencies or instrumentalities.
•It shall be responsible for the protection, development, management, regeneration, and reforestation of forest lands; the regulation and
supervision of the operation of licensees, lessees and permittees for the taking or use of forest products therefrom or the occupancy or use
thereof; the implementation of multiple use and sustained yield management in forest lands; the protection, development and preservation
of national parks, marine parks, game refuges and wildlife; the implementation of measures and programs to prevent kaingin and managed
occupancy of forest and grazing lands; in collaboration with other bureaus, the effective, efficient and economic classification of lands of the
public domain; and the enforcement of forestry, reforestation, parks, game and wildlife laws, rules, and regulations.
•The Bureau shall regulate the establishment and operation of sawmills, veneer and plywood mills and other wood processing plants and
conduct studies of domestic and world markets of forest products.
CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

•Section 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. Any person
who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or
timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any authority under
a license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished
under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That in the case of partnership,
association or corporation, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting shall be liable,
and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further
proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
•The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or forest
products to cut, gathered, collected or removed, and the machinery, equipment, implements and
tools used therein, and the forfeiture of his improvements in the area.
•The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement, lease, license or
permit and perpetual disqualification from acquiring any such privilege shall
be imposed upon any licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the
licensed or leased area of another, without prejudice to whatever civil action
the latter may bring against the offender.
•Section 69. Unlawful occupation or destruction of forest lands. Any person who enters and occupies or possesses,
or makes kaingin for his own private use or for others any forest land without authority under a license agreement,
lease, license or permit, or in any manner destroys such forest land or part thereof, or causes any damage to the
timber stand and other products and forest growths found therein, or who assists, aids or abets any other person
to do so, or sets a fire, or negligently permits a fire to be set in any forest land shall, upon conviction, be fined in an
amount of not less than five hundred pesos (P500.00) nor more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and
imprisoned for not less than six (6) months nor more than two (2) years for each such offense, and be liable to the
payment of ten (10) times the rental fees and other charges which would have been accrued had the occupation
and use of the land been authorized under a license agreement, lease, license or permit: Provided, That in the case
of an offender found guilty of making kaingin, the penalty shall be imprisoned for not less than two (2) nor more
than (4) years and a fine equal to eight (8) times the regular forest charges due on the forest products destroyed,
without prejudice to the payment of the full cost of restoration of the occupied area as determined by the Bureau.
•The Court shall further order the eviction of the offender from the land and the
forfeiture to the Government of all improvements made and all vehicles, domestic
animals and equipment of any kind used in the commission of the offense. If not
suitable for use by the Bureau, said vehicles shall be sold at public auction, the
proceeds of which shall accrue to the Development Fund of the Bureau.
•In case the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to
the above penalties, be deemed automatically dismissed from office and
permanently disqualified from holding any elective or appointive position.
•Section 71. Illegal occupation of national parks system and recreation areas and vandalism therein. Any person who
shall, without permit, occupy for any length of time any portion of the national parks system or shall, in any manner,
cut, destroy, damage or remove timber or any species of vegetation or forest cover and other natural resources found
therein, or shall mutilate, deface or destroy objects of natural beauty or of scenic value within areas in the national
parks system, shall be fined not less than two hundred (P200.00) pesos or more than five hundred (P500.00) pesos
exclusive of the value of the thing damaged; Provided, That if the area requires rehabilitation or restoration as
determined by the Director, the offender shall also be required to restore or compensate for the restoration of the
damage; Provided, Further, That any person who, without proper permit shall hunt, capture or kill any kind of bird, fish
or wild animal life within any area in the national parks system shall be subject to the same penalty; Provided, Finally,
That the Court shall order eviction of the offender from the land and the forfeiture in favor of the Government of all
timber or any species of vegetation and other natural resources collected or removed, and any construction or
improvement made thereon by the offender. If the offender is an association or corporation, the president or manager
shall be directly responsible and liable for the act of his employees or laborers.
•In the event that an official of a city or municipal government is primarily
responsible for detecting and convicting the violator of the provisions of this
Section, fifty per centum (50%) of the fine collected shall accrue to such
municipality or city for the development of local parks.
•Section 72. Destruction of wildlife resources. Any person violating the provisions of Section
55 of this Code, or the regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be fined not less than one
hundred (P100.00) pesos for each such violation and in addition shall be denied a permit for
a period of three (3) years from the date of the violation.
•Section 73. Survey by unauthorized person. Imprisonment for not less than two (2) nor
more than four (4) years, in addition to the confiscation of the implements used in the
violation of this section including the cancellation of the license, if any, shall be imposed
upon any person who shall, without permit to survey from the Director, enter any forest
lands, whether covered by a license agreement, lease, license, or permit, or not, and
conduct or undertake a survey for whatever purpose.
•Section 74. Misclassification and survey by government official or
employee. Any public officer or employee who knowingly surveys, classifies, or
recommends the release of forest lands as alienable and disposable lands
contrary to the criteria and standards established in this Code, or the rules and
regulations promulgated hereunder, shall, after an appropriate administrative
proceeding, be dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-employment, and
upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction, suffer an imprisonment of
not less than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one thousand, (P1,000.00)
pesos. The survey, classification or release of forest lands shall be null and void.
•Section 77. Unlawful possession of implements and devices used by forest officers. Imprisonment for a period of not less
than (2) nor more than four (4) years and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), nor more than ten
thousand (P10,000.00) pesos in addition to the confiscation of such implements and devices, and the automatic cancellation
of the license agreement, lease, license or permit, if the offender is a holder thereof, shall be imposed upon any person who
shall, without authority from the Director or his authorized representative, make, manufacture, or has in his possession any
government marking, hatchet or other marking implement, or any marker, poster, or other devices officially used by officers
of the Bureau for the marking or identification of timber or other products, or any duplicate, counterfeit, or imitation thereof,
or make or apply a government mark on timber or any other forest products by means of any authentic or counterfeit device,
or alter, deface, or remove government marks or signs, from trees, logs, stumps, firewoods or other forest products, or
destroy, deface, remove or disfigure any such mark, sign, poster or warning notices set by the Bureau to designate the
boundaries of cutting areas, municipal or city forest or pasture, classified timber land, forest reserve, and areas under the
national park system or to make any false mark or imitation of any mark or sign herein indicated; Provided, That if the
offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officers and directors thereof shall be liable.
•Section 79. Sale of wood products. No person shall sell or offer for sale any log, lumber, plywood or other manufactured
wood products in the international or domestic market unless he complies with grading rules and established or to be
established by the Government.
•Failure to adhere to the established grading rules and standards, or any act of falsification of the volume of logs, lumber,
or other forest products shall be a sufficient cause for the suspension of the export, sawmill, or other license or permit
authorizing the manufacture or sale of such products for a period of not less than two (2) years.
•A duly accredited representative of the Bureau shall certify to the compliance by the licensees with grading rules.
•Every dealer in lumber and other building material covered by this Code shall issue an invoice for each sale of such
material and such invoice shall state that the kind, standard and size of material sold to each purchaser in exactly the
same as described in the invoice. Any violation of this Section shall be sufficient ground for the suspension of the dealer's
license for a period of not less than two (2) years and, in addition thereto, the dealer shall be punished for each such
offense by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos (P200.00) or the total value of the invoice, whichever is greater.
•Section 80. Arrest; Institution of criminal actions. A forest officer or employee of the Bureau shall arrest even
without warrant any person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of the offenses defined in this
Chapter. He shall also seize and confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and equipment used in committing
the offense, and the forest products cut, gathered or taken by the offender in the process of committing the offense.
The arresting forest officer or employee shall thereafter deliver within six (6) hours from the time of arrest and
seizure, the offender and the confiscated forest products, tools and equipment to, and file the proper complaint with,
the appropriate official designated by law to conduct preliminary investigations and file informations in court.
•If the arrest and seizure are made in the forests, far from the authorities designated by law to conduct preliminary
investigations, the delivery to, and filing of the complaint with, the latter shall be done within a reasonable time
sufficient for ordinary travel from the place of arrest to the place of delivery. The seized products, materials and
equipment shall be immediately disposed of in accordance with forestry administrative orders promulgated by the
Department Head.
•The Department Head may deputize any member or unit of the Philippine Constabulary, police agency,
barangay or barrio official, or any qualified person to protect the forest and exercise the power or
authority provided for in the preceding paragraph.
•Reports and complaints regarding the commission of any of the offenses defined in this Chapter, not
committed in the presence of any forest officer or employee, or any of the deputized officers or
officials, shall immediately be investigated by the forest officer assigned in the area where the offense
was allegedly committed, who shall thereupon receive the evidence supporting the report or
complaint.
•If there is prima facie evidence to support the complaint or report, the investigating forest officer shall
file the necessary complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct a preliminary
investigation of criminal cases and file an information in Court.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE (RA NO. 8293)

•TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
•It is the tendency of the allegedly infringing mark to be confused with the registered
trademark that is the gravamen of the offense of infringement of a registered trademark.
The acquittal of the accused should follow if the allegedly infringing mark is not likely to
cause confusion. Thereby, the evidence of the State does not satisfy the quantum of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.

• The elements of the offense of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property

Code are, therefore, the following:
• 
1. The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual Property Office;
2. The trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied, or colorably imitated by the infringer;
3. The infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods,
business or services; or the infringing mark is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles
or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services;
4. The use or application of the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers
or others as to the goods or services themselves or as to the source or origin of such goods or services or the
identity of such business; and
5. The use or application of the infringing mark is without the consent of the trademark owner or the assignee
thereof.14
•
As can be seen, the likelihood of confusion is the gravamen of the offense of
trademark infringement.15  There are two tests to determine likelihood of
confusion, namely: the dominancy test, and the holistic test. The contrasting
concept of these tests was explained in Societes Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Dy,
Jr., thus:
•x x x. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the main, prevalent or
essential features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion.
Infringement takes place when the competing   trademark contains the essential
features of another.  Imitation or an effort to imitate is unnecessary.  The question
is whether the use of the marks is likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers.

The holistic test considers the entirety of the marks, including labels and
packaging, in determining confusing similarity.  The focus is not only on the
predominant words but also on the other features appearing on the labels. 16
•As to what test should be applied in a trademark infringement case, we said
in McDonald’s Corporation v. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation17 that:
•In trademark cases, particularly in ascertaining whether one trademark is
confusingly similar to another, no set rules can be deduced because each case
must be decided on its merits.  In such cases, even more than in any other
litigation, precedent must be studied in the light of the facts of the particular
case.  That is the reason why in trademark cases, jurisprudential precedents
should be applied only to a case if they are specifically in point.
•Diaz used the trademark “LS JEANS TAILORING” for the jeans he produced and sold in his
tailoring shops. His trademark was visually and aurally different from the trademark “LEVI
STRAUSS & CO” appearing on the patch of original jeans under the trademark LEVI’S 501.
The word “LS” could not be confused as a derivative from “LEVI STRAUSS” by virtue of the
“LS” being connected to the word “TAILORING”, thereby openly suggesting that the jeans
bearing the trademark “LS JEANS TAILORING” came or were bought from the tailoring
shops of Diaz, not from the malls or boutiques selling original LEVI’S 501 jeans to the
consuming public.
•There were other remarkable differences between the two trademarks that the
consuming public would easily perceive. Diaz aptly noted such differences, as follows:
•The prosecution also alleged that the accused copied the “two horse design” of the
petitioner-private complainant but the evidence will show that there was no such design
in the seized jeans. Instead, what is shown is “buffalo design.” Again, a horse and a
buffalo are two different animals which an ordinary customer can easily distinguish. x x x.
•The prosecution further alleged that the red tab was copied by the accused. However,
evidence will show that the red tab used by the private complainant indicates the word
“LEVI’S” while that of the accused indicates the letters “LSJT” which means LS JEANS
TAILORING. Again, even an ordinary customer can distinguish the word LEVI’S from the
letters LSJT.
•x x x x
•In terms of classes of customers and channels of trade, the jeans products of the private
complainant and the accused cater to different classes of customers and flow through the different
channels of trade. The customers of the private complainant are mall goers belonging to class A and
B market group – while that of the accused are those who belong to class D and E market who can
only afford Php 300 for a pair of made-to-order pants.20 x x x.
•Moreover, based on the certificate issued by the Intellectual Property Office, “LS JEANS TAILORING”
was a registered trademark of Diaz. He had registered his trademark prior to the filing of the present
cases.21 The Intellectual Property Office would certainly not have allowed the registration had Diaz’s
trademark been confusingly similar with the registered trademark for LEVI’S 501 jeans.
•Given the foregoing, it should be plain that there was no likelihood of confusion between the
trademarks involved. Thereby, the evidence of guilt did not satisfy the quantum of proof required for a
criminal conviction, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. According to Section 2, Rule 133 of the
Rules of Court, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Consequently, Diaz should be acquitted of
the charges.
•WHEREFORE, the Court ACQUITS petitioner VICTORIO P. DIAZ of the crimes of infringement of
trademark charged in Criminal Case No. 00-0318 and Criminal Case No. 00-0319 for failure of the State
to establish his guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
•(DIAZ VS PEOPLE, G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013)
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

•Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 49 specifically defined copyright as an exclusive right in the following manner:
•Section 5. Copyright shall consist in the exclusive right;
•(A) To print, reprint, publish, copy, distribute, multiply, sell, and make photographs, photo-engravings, and pictorial
illustrations of the works;
•(B) To make any translation or other version or extracts or arrangements or adaptations thereof; to dramatize it if
it be a non-dramatic work; to convert it into a non-dramatic work if it be a drama; to complete or execute if it be a
model or design;
•(C) To exhibit, perform, represent, produce, or reproduce, the work in any manner or by any method whatever for
profit or otherwise; it not reproduced in copies for sale, to sell any manuscript or any record whatsoever thereof;
•(D) To make any other use or disposition of the work consistent with the laws of the land.
•Accordingly, the commission of any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 49 without the copyright owner's consent constituted
actionable copyright infringement. In Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,12
the Court has emphatically declared:
•Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied
by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of
copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the
doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything
the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.
•The "gravamen of copyright infringement," according to NBI-Microsoft Corporation v. Hwang:13
•is not merely the unauthorized manufacturing of intellectual works but rather the unauthorized performance of any of the acts
covered by Section 5. Hence, any person who performs any of the acts under Section 5 without obtaining the copyright owners prior
consent renders himself civilly and criminally liable for copyright infringement.
•xxx
• Presidential Decree No. 49 thereby already acknowledged the existence of computer programs as works or creations protected by
copyright.22 To hold, as the CA incorrectly did, that the legislative intent was to require that the computer programs be first
photographed, photo-engraved, or pictorially illustrated as a condition for the commission of copyright infringement invites
ridicule. Such interpretation of Section 5(a) of Presidential Decree No. 49 defied logic and common sense because it focused on
terms like "copy," "multiply," and "sell," but blatantly ignored terms like "photographs," "photo-engravings," and "pictorial
illustrations." Had the CA taken the latter words into proper account, it would have quickly seen the absurdity of its interpretation.
•The mere sale of the illicit copies of the software programs was enough by itself to show
the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. There was no need for the
petitioner to still prove who copied, replicated or reproduced the software programs.
Indeed, the public prosecutor and the DOJ gravely abused their discretion in dismissing
the petitioner's charge for copyright infringement against the respondents for lack of
evidence. There was grave abuse of discretion because the public prosecutor and the DOJ
acted whimsically or arbitrarily in disregarding the settled jurisprudential rules on finding
the existence of probable cause to charge the offender in court. Accordingly, the CA erred
in upholding the dismissal by the DOJ of the petitioner's petition for review. We reverse.
(MICROSOFT CORPORATION VS MANANSALA, G.R. No. 166391, October 21, 2015)
•ABS-CBN VS GOZON G.R. No. 195956 March 11, 2015
•The main issue in this case is whether there is probable cause to charge
respondents with infringement under Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise
known as the Intellectual Property Code. The resolution of this issue requires
clarification of the concept of "copyrightable material" in relation to material
that is rebroadcast live as a news story. We are also asked to rule on whether
criminal prosecution for infringement of copyrightable material, such as live
rebroadcast, can be negated by good faith.
•The Intellectual Property Code is clear about the rights afforded to authors of various kinds of
work. Under the Code, “works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of
their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.” These include
“[a]udiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making audio­visual recordings.” Contrary to the old copyright
law, the Intellectual Property Code does not require registration of the work to fully recover in an
infringement suit. Nevertheless, both copyright laws provide that copyright for a work is acquired
by an intellectual creator from the moment of creation. It is true that under Section 175 of the
Intellectual Property Code, “news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character
of mere items of press information” are considered unprotected subject matter.
•Broadcasting organizations are entitled to several rights and to the protection of these
rights under the Intellectual Property Code. Respondents’ argument that the subject news
footage is not copyrightable is erroneous. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision,
correctly recognized the existence of ABS-CBN’s copyright over the news footage: Surely,
private respondent has a copyright of its news coverage. Seemingly, for airing said video
feed, petitioner GMA is liable under the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code, which
was enacted purposely to protect copyright owners from infringement. News as expressed
in a video footage is entitled to copyright protection. Broadcasting organizations have not
only copyright on but also neighboring rights over their broadcasts. Copyrightability of a
work is different from fair use of a work for purposes of news reporting.
•This court defined fair use as “a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable
manner without the consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or ideas rather
than their expression.” Fair use is an exception to the copyright owner’s monopoly of the use of
the work to avoid stifling “the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.”
•Determining fair use requires application of the four-factor test. Section 185 of the Intellectual
Property Code lists four (4) factors to determine if there was fair use of a copyrighted work: a.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or
is for nonprofit educational purposes; b. The nature of the copyrighted work; c. The amount
and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and d. The
effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
•Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum. The
Intellectual Property Code is a special law. Copyright is a statutory creation: Copyright,
in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new or independent
right granted by the statute, and not simply a preexisting right regulated by the statute.
Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may be
obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on
terms and conditions specified in the statute. The general rule is that acts punished
under a special law are malum prohibitum. “An act which is declared malum
prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial.”
•Implicit in the concept of mala in se is that of mens rea.” Mens rea is defined as “the nonphysical element which,
combined with the act of the accused, makes up the crime charged. Most frequently it is the criminal intent, or the
guilty mind[.]” Crimes mala in se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act had criminal intent to do so,
while crimes mala prohibita do not require knowledge or criminal intent: In the case of mala in se it is necessary, to
constitute a punishable offense, for the person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act and to have a
criminal intent; in the case of mala prohibita, unless such words as “knowingly” and “willfully” are contained in the
statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary. In other words, a person morally quite innocent and with
every intention of being a law-abiding citizen becomes a criminal, and liable to criminal penalties, if he does an act
prohibited by these statutes.
•Unlike other jurisdictions that require intent for a criminal prosecution of copyright infringement, the Philippines
does not statutorily support good faith as a defense. Other jurisdictions provide in their intellectual property codes or
relevant laws that mens rea, whether express or implied, is an element of criminal copyright infringement.
•In the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Code, as amended, provides for the prosecution of criminal actions for the following
violations of intellectual property rights: Repetition of Infringement of Patent (Section 84); Utility Model (Section 108); Industrial
Design (Section 119); Trademark Infringement (Section 155 in relation to Section 170); Unfair Competition (Section 168 in
relation to Section 170); False Designations of Origin, False Description or Representation (Section 169.1 in relation to Section
170); infringement of copyright, moral rights, performers’ rights, producers’ rights, and broadcasting rights (Sections 177, 193,
203, 208 and 211 in relation to Section 217); and other violations of intellectual property rights as may be defined by law. The
Intellectual Property Code requires strict liability for copyright infringement whether for a civil action or a criminal prosecution;
it does not require mens rea or culpa.
•Contrary to respondents’ assertion, this court in Habana, et al. v. Robles, 310 SCRA 511 (1999), reiterating the ruling in Columbia
Pictures v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 144 (1996), ruled that lack of knowledge of infringement is not a valid defense. Habana
and Columbia Pictures may have different factual scenarios from this case, but their rulings on copyright infringement are
analogous. In Habana, petitioners were the authors and copyright owners of English textbooks and workbooks. The case was
anchored on the protection of literary and artistic creations such as books. In Columbia Pictures, video tapes of copyrighted films
were the subject of the copyright infringement suit.
•We look at the purpose of copyright in relation to criminal prosecutions requiring willfulness: Most importantly, in defining
the contours of what it means to willfully infringe copyright for purposes of criminal liability, the courts should remember the
ultimate aim of copyright. Copyright is not primarily about providing the strongest possible protection for copyright owners
so that they have the highest possible incentive to create more works. The control given to copyright owners is only a means
to an end: the promotion of knowledge and learning. Achieving that underlying goal of copyright law also requires access to
copyrighted works and it requires permitting certain kinds of uses of copyrighted works without the permission of the
copyright owner. While a particular defendant may appear to be deserving of criminal sanctions, the standard for
determining willfulness should be set with reference to the larger goals of copyright embodied in the Constitution and the
history of copyright in this country. In addition, “[t]he essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in
order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private
domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright,
or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the
owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.”
•Corporations have separate and distinct personalities from their officers or directors. This court
has ruled that corporate officers and/or agents may be held individually liable for a crime
committed under the Intellectual Property Code: Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or
directors, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may
themselves be individually held answerable for the crime. . . . The existence of the corporate
entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally
caused the corporation to commit a crime. Thus, petitioners cannot hide behind the cloak of the
separate corporate personality of the corporation to escape criminal liability. A corporate officer
cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual, present and efficient actor.
However, the criminal liability of a corporation’s officers or employees stems from their active
participation in the commission of the wrongful act.
•An accused’s participation in criminal acts involving violations of intellectual property rights is the subject of
allegation and proof. The showing that the accused did the acts or contributed in a meaningful way in the
commission of the infringements is certainly different from the argument of lack of intent or good faith.
Active participation requires a showing of overt physical acts or intention to commit such acts. Intent or good
faith, on the other hand, are inferences from acts proven to have been or not been committed.
•Mere membership in the Board or being President per se does not mean knowledge, approval, and
participation in the act alleged as criminal. There must be a showing of active participation, not simply a
constructive one. Under principles of criminal law, the principals of a crime are those “who take a direct part
in the execution of the act; [t]hose who directly force or induce others to commit it; [or] [t]hose who
cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.” There is conspiracy “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”
•In its current form, the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum and
prescribes a strict liability for copyright infringement. Good faith, lack of
knowledge of the copyright, or lack of intent to infringe is not a defense
against copyright infringement. Copyright, however, is subject to the rules of
fair use and will be judged on a case-to-case basis. Finding probable cause
includes a determination of the defendant’s active participation, particularly
when the corporate veil is pierced in cases involving a corporation’s criminal
liability.
UNFAIR COMPETITION

•The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are: (1) confusing
similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the
public and defraud a competitor. Unfair competition is always a question of
fact. At this point, it bears to stress that findings of fact of the highly technical
agency — the IPO — which has the expertise in this field, should have been
given great weight by the Court of Appeals.
•Relative to the issue on confusion of marks and trade names, jurisprudence has noted two types of confusion, viz.: (1)
confusion of goods (product confusion), where the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase one
product in the belief that he was purchasing the other; and (2) confusion of business (source or origin confusion),
where, although the goods of the parties are different, the product, the mark of which registration is applied for by one
party, is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the registrant of an earlier product; and the public
would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the two
parties, though inexistent. Thus, while there is confusion of goods when the products are competing, confusion of
business exists when the products are noncompeting but related enough to produce confusion of affiliation. This case
falls under the second type of confusion. Although we see a noticeable difference on how the trade name of
respondent is being used in its products as compared to the trademark of petitioner, there could likely be confusion as
to the origin of the products. Thus, a consumer might conclude that PAPER ONE products are manufactured by or are
products of Paperone, Inc. Additionally, although respondent claims that its products are not the same as petitioner’s,
the goods of the parties are obviously related as they are both kinds of paper products.
•The BLA Director aptly ruled that “[t]o permit respondent to continue using the same or
identical Paperone in its corporate name although not [used] as label for its paper products,
but the same line of business, that of manufacturing goods such as PAPER PRODUCTS,
therefore their co­existence would result in confusion as to source of goods and diversion of
sales to [r]espondent knowing that purchasers are getting products from [petitioner] APRIL
with the use of the corporate name Paper One, Inc. or Paperone, Inc. by herein
[r]espondent.” The matter of prior right over PAPERONE, again, is a matter of factual
determination; therefore, we give credence to the findings of the IPO, who has the expertise
in this matter, being supported by substantial evidence. The Court has consistently
recognized the specialized functions of the administrative agencies — in this case, the IPO.
•The element of intent to deceive and to defraud may be inferred from the similarity of
the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public. Contrary to the ruling of the
CA, actual fraudulent intent need not be shown. Factual circumstances were established
showing that respondent adopted PAPERONE in its trade name even with the prior
knowledge of the existence of PAPER ONE as a trademark of petitioner. As in all other
cases of colorable imitations, the unanswered riddle is why, of the millions of terms and
combinations of letters available, respondent had to choose those so closely similar to
another’s trademark if there was no intent to take advantage of the goodwill generated by
the other mark. (Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, Ltd. vs. Paperone, Inc., 889
SCRA 49, G.R. Nos. 213365-66. December 10, 2018)
•PETRON CORPORATION VS. YAO, G.R. No. 243328, MARCH 18, 2021
•Unfair competition is characterized as a continuing offense because of the
very nature of the crime. Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293, known as the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, describes the acts constituting
the crime of unfair competition, to wit:
• SECTION 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. - 168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the
public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark
is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected
in the same manner as other property rights.

168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods
manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or
who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an
action therefor.

168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against unfair competition, the following shall be
deemed guilty of unfair competition:
•(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or
dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the
devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to
believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or
who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his
legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods
with a like purpose;
•From jurisprudence, unfair competition has been defined as the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off
upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable
effect of deceiving the public.14 Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative devices on
the general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers into buying his merchandise under the
impression that they are buying that of his competitors. 15 Thus, the main element of unfair competition is passing off
and one way of committing the crime is by sale.
ANTI-FENCING PD NO. 1612

•Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as follows:

•(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object
or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
•(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership
or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.
ELEMENTS OF ANTI-FENCING LAW

•The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed; (b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew or should have known that
the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and (d) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.
[25]
 Notably, Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of Fencing
from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
the property. (CAHULOGAN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018)
ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM (R.A. NO. 9995)

•Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State values the dignity and privacy of
every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Toward this
end, the State shall penalize acts that would destroy the honor, dignity and
integrity of a person.
•Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term:
•(a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or
persons.
•(b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast.
•(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast.
•(d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without
the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the
act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or
recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device
without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video
coverage of same was given by such person's.
•(e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast of an individual.
•(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy" means believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being
concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured;
or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private
area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether
that person is in a public or private place
•Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any
person:
•(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing
sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a
person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or
female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances
in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
•(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or
video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
•(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording
of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
•(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual
act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar
means or device.
•The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to
record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person
who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein.
• Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written
order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of
the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to
be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.
• Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any
person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
THE PHILIPPINE FISHERIES CODE OF 1998

• SEC. 86. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in other Unauthorized Fisheries Activities. - No person shall exploit, occupy, produce,
breed, culture, capture or gather fish, fry or fingerlings of any fishery species or fishery products, or engage in any fishery activity
in Philippine waters without a license, lease or permit. Discovery of any person in an area where he has no permit or registration
papers for a fishing vessel shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the person and/or vessel is engaged in unauthorized
fishing: Provided, That fishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for commercial, occupation or livelihood
purposes may be allowed. It shall be unlawful for any commercial fishing vessel to fish in bays and in such other fishery
management areas which may herein-after be declared as over-exploited. Any commercial fishing boat captain or the three (3)
highest officers of the boat who commit any of the above prohibited acts upon conviction shall be punished by a fine equivalent to
the value of catch or Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) whichever is higher, and imprisonment of six (6) months, confiscation of
catch and fishing gears, and automatic revocation of license. It shall be unlawful for any person not listed in the registry of
municipal fisherfolk to engage in any commercial fishing activity in municipal waters. Any municipal fisherfolk who commits
such violation shall be punished by confiscation of catch and a fine of Five hundred pesos (P500.00).
• SEC. 87. Poaching in Philippine Waters.- It shall be unlawful for any foreign person,
corporation or entity to fish or operate any fishing vessel in Philippine waters. The entry
of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters shall constitute a prima facie evidence
that the vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters. Violation of the above shall be
punished by a fine of One Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollar (US$100,000.00), in addition to
the confiscation of its catch, fishing equipment and fishing vessel: Provided, that the
Department is empowered to impose an administrative fine of not less than Fifty
Thousand U.S. Dollar (US$50,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Thousand U.S.
Dollar (US$200,000.00) or its equivalent in the Philippine Currency.
• SEC. 88. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity. - (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to catch,
take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered, fish or any fishery species in Philippine waters with the use of electricity, explosives,
noxious or poisonous substance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious
fish or fishery species: Provided, that the Department, subject to such safeguards and conditions deemed necessary and endorsement from the
concerned LGUs may allow, for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the use of electricity, poisonous or noxious substances to
catch, take or gather fish or fishery species: Provide, further, that the use of poisonous or noxious substances to eradicate predators in
fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific practices and without causing adverse environmental impact in neighboring waters and
grounds shall not be construed as illegal fishing. It will likewise be unlawful for any person, corporation or entity to possess, deal in, sell or in
any manner dispose of, any fish or fishery species which have been illegally caught, taken or gathered. The discovery of dynamite, other
explosives and chemical compounds which contain combustible elements, or noxious or poisonous substances, or equipment or device for
electro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in the possession of any fisherfolk, operator, fishing boat official or fishworker shall constitute a prima
facie evidence, that the same was used for fishing in violation of this Code. The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with
the use of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that the fisherfolk, operator, boat
official or fishworker is fishing with the use thereof.
• (2) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal
fishing shall be punishable by imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years.
• (3) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing
shall be punishable by imprisonment ranging from five (5) years to ten (10) years without prejudice to the
filing of separate criminal cases when the use of the same result to physical injury or loss of human life.
• (4) Dealing in, selling, or in any manner disposing of, for profit, illegally caught/gathered fisheries
species shall be punished by imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years.
• (5) In all cases enumerated above, the explosives, noxious or poisonous substances and/or electrical
devices, as well as the fishing vessels, fishing equipment and catch shall be forfeited.
• SEC. 89. Use of Fine Mesh Net. - It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing using nets with mesh smaller than
that with which may be fixed by the Department: Provided, that the prohibition on the use of fine mesh net
shall not apply to the gathering of fry, glass eels, elvers, tabios, and alamang and such species which by their
nature are small but already mature to be identified in the implementing rules and regulations by the
Department. Violation of the above shall subject the offender to a fine from Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or imprisonment from six (6) months to two (2) years or both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court: Provided, that if the offense is committed by a commercial
fishing vessel, the boat captain and the master fisherman shall also be subject to the penalties herein: Provided,
further, that the owner/operator of the commercial fishing vessel who violates this provision shall be subjected
to the same penalties provided herein: Provided, finally, that the Department is hereby empowered to impose
upon the offender an administrative fine and/or cancel his permit or license or both.
• SEC. 90. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and Other Fishery Management
Areas. - It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing municipal waters and in all bays as well as other
fishery management areas using active fishing gears as defined in this Code. Violators of the above
prohibitions shall suffer the following penalties: (1) The boat captain and master fisherman of the
vessels who participated in the violation shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years
to six (6) years; (2) The owner/operator of the vessel shall be fined from Two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the discretion of the court. If the
owner/operator is a corporation, the penalty shall be imposed on the chief executive officer of the
Corporation. If the owner/operator is a partnership the penalty shall be imposed on the managing
partner. (3) The catch shall be confiscated and forfeited.
• SEC. 91. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation. - It shall be unlawful for any person
or corporation to gather, possess, sell or export ordinary precious and semi-precious
corals, whether raw or processed form, except for scientific or research purposes.
Violations of this provision shall be punished by imprisonment from six (6) months to two
(2) years and a fine from Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, and
forfeiture of the subject corals, including the vessel and its proper disposition. The
confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea or donated to schools and museums
for educational or scientific purposes or disposed through other means.
• SEC. 92. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat. - It shall be unlawful
for any person, natural or juridical, to fish with gear method that destroy coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life
habitat as may be determined by the Department. “Muro-Ami” and any of its variation, and such similar gear and methods that
require diving, other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other habitat to entrap, gather or catch fish and other
fishery species are also prohibited. The operator, boat captain, master fisherman, and recruiter or organizer of fishworkers who
violate this provision shall suffer a penalty of two (2) years to ten (10) years imprisonment and a fine of not less than One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion
of the court. The catch and gear used shall be confiscated. It shall likewise be unlawful for any person or corporation to gather, sell
or export white sand, silica, pebbles and any other substances which make up any marine habitat. The person or corporation who
violates this provision shall suffer a penalty of two (2) years to ten (10) years imprisonment and a fine of not less than One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment, at the
discretion of the court. The substance taken from its marine habitat shall be confiscated.
• SEC. 93. Illegal Use of Superlights. - It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing with the use of superlights in
municipal waters or in violation of the rules and regulations which may be promulgated by the Department on the
use of superlights outside municipal waters. Violations of this provision shall be punished by imprisonment from
six (6) months to two (2) years or a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) per superlight, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the courts. The superlight, fishing gears and vessel shall be confiscated.
• SEC. 94. Conversion of Mangroves. - It shall be unlawful for any person to convert mangroves into fishponds or
for any other purposes. Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine of Eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00): Provided, That if
the area requires rehabilitation or restoration as determined by the court, the offender should also be required to
restore or compensate for the restoration of the damage.
• SEC. 95. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season. - It shall be unlawful to fish in
overfished area and during closed season. Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished
by imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and/or fine of Six thousand pesos
(P6,000.00) and by forfeiture of the catch and cancellation of fishing permit or license.
• SEC. 96. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries. - It shall be unlawful to fish in fishery
areas declared by the Department as fishery reserves, refuge and sanctuaries. Violation of the
provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years and/or
fine of Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and by forfeiture of
the catch and the cancellation of fishing permit or license.
• SEC. 97. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species. - It shall be unlawful to fish or take rare,
threatened or endangered species as listed in the CITES and as determined by the Department. Violation of the provision
of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of twelve (12) years to twenty (20) years and/or a fine of One hundred
and twenty thousand pesos (P120,000.00) and forfeiture of the catch, and the cancellation of fishing permit.
• SEC. 98. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners. - It shall be unlawful for any person to catch, gather, capture or
possess mature milkfish or “sabalo” and such other breeders or spawners of other fishery species as may be determined
by the Department: Provided, that catching of sabalo and other breeders/spawners for local breeding purposes or scientific
or research purposes may be allowed subject to guidelines to be promulgated by the Department. Violation of the
provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years and/or a
fine of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) and forfeiture of the catch, and fishing equipment used and revocation of
license.
• SEC. 99. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry. - Exportation of breeders, spawners, eggs or fry as
prohibited in this Code shall be punished by imprisonment of eight (8) years, confiscation of the same or a
fine equivalent to double the value of the same, and revocation of the fishing and/or export license/permit.
• SEC. 100. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species. - Any importation or exportation of fish or
fisheries species in violation of this Code shall be punished by eight years or imprisonment, a fine of Eighty
Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) and destruction of live fishery species or forfeiture of non-live fishery species
in favor of the department for its proper disposition: Provided, that violator of this provision shall be banned
from being members or stock holders of companies currently engaged in fisheries or companies to be created
in the future, the guidelines for which shall be promulgated by the Department.
• SEC. 101. Violation of Catch Ceilings. - It shall be unlawful for any person to fish in violation of
catch ceilings as determined by the Department. Violation of the provision of this section shall be
punished by imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and/or a fine of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and forfeiture of the catch, and fishing equipment used and
revocation of license.
• SEC. 102. Aquatic Pollution. - Aquatic pollution, as defined in this Code shall be unlawful.
Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine of Eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00) plus an additional
fine of Eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00) per day until such violation ceases and the fines paid.
• SEC. 103. Other Violations. - The following fisheries activities shall also be considered as a violation of this Code:
• a. Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards. - The owner and captain of a commercial fishing vessel
engaged in fishing who, upon demand by proper authorities, fails to exhibit or show proof of compliance with the
safety standards provided in this Code, shall be immediately prevented from continuing with his fishing activity and
escorted to the nearest port or landing point. The license to operate the commercial fishing vessel shall be suspended
until the safety standard has been complied with.
• b. Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds, Fish Pens and Fish Cages. - The FLA of the holder who fails
to render a yearly report shall be immediately canceled: Provided, That if the offender be the owner of the fishpond,
fish pen or fish cage, he shall be subjected to the following penalties: (1) first offense, a fine of Five hundred pesos
(P500.00) per unreported hectare; (2) subsequent offenses, a fine of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per unreported
hectare
• c. Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fishes. - It shall be unlawful for any person to take, sell,
transfer, or have in possession for any purpose any shell fish which is sexually mature or below
the minimum size or above the maximum quantities prescribed for the particular species.
• d. Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or Bay. - It shall
be unlawful for any person who causes obstruction to navigation or flow of ebb of tide.
• e. Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps, Fish Pens and Fish Cages. - It shall be
unlawful to construct and operate fish corrals/traps, fish pens and fish cages without a
license/permit
• SEC. 104. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew. -
The owner/operator of a commercial fishing vessel employing unlicensed fisherfolk or fishworker shall be
fined Five hundred pesos (P500.00) each for every month that the same has been employed and/or One
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for every month for each unlicensed crew member who has been employed.
• SEC. 105. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths. - Obstruction of any defined migration paths of
anadromous, catadromous and other migratory species, in areas including, but not limited to river mouths and
estuaries within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs shall be punished by imprisonment of
seven (7) years to twelve (12) years or a fine from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court, and cancellation of
permit/license, if any, and dismantling of obstruction shall be at his own expense and confiscation of same.
• SEC. 106. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer. - The boat
owner, master or operator or any person acting on his behalf of any fishing
vessel who evades, obstructs or hinder any fishery law enforcement officer of
the Department to perform his duty, shall be fined Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00). In addition, the registration, permit and/or license of the vessel
including the license of the master fisherman shall be canceled.
ANTI-MONEY LAUDERING ACT

•Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity

are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources.
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

•Section 1. Unlawful Activities.

•Unlawful activities refer to any act or omission, or series or combination thereof,
involving or having direct relation, to the following:
•(a) “Kidnapping for Ransom” under Article 267 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the
Revised Penal Code, as amended;
•(b) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”;
•(c) Section 3 paragraphs b, c, e, g, h and i of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”;
•(d) “Plunder” under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended;
•(e) “Robbery” and “Extortion” under Articles 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the
•Revised Penal Code, as amended;
•(f) “Jueteng” and “Masiao” punished as illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No.
1602;
•(g) “Piracy on the High Seas” under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
PresidentialDecree No. 532:
• (h) “Qualified Theft” under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
•(i) “Swindling” under Article 315 and “Other Forms of Swindling” under Article 316 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended:
•(j) “Smuggling” under Republic Act No. 455, and Republic Act No. 1937, as amended, otherwise known
as the “Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines”;
•(k) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the “Electronic Commerce Act of 2000”;
•(l) “Hijacking” and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235, otherwise known as the “AntiHijacking
Law”; “Destructive Arson”; and “Murder”, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
•(m) “Terrorism” and “Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism”, as defined and penalized under Sections 3 and 4
of Republic Act No. 9372;
•(n) “Financing of Terrorism” under Section 4 and offenses punishable under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of
Republic Act No. 10168, otherwise known as the “Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of
2012”;
•(o) “Bribery” under Articles 210, 211 and 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and “Corruption
of Public Officers” under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
•(p) “Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions” under Articles 213, 214, 215 and 216 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended;
•(q) “Malversation of Public Funds and Property” under Articles 217 and 222 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended;
•(r) “Forgeries” and “Counterfeiting” under Articles 163, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 176 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended;
•(s) Violations of Sections 4 to 6 of Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the “AntiTrafficking
in Persons Act of 2003, as amended”;
•(t) Violations of Sections 78 to 79 of Chapter IV of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known
as the “Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended”;
•(u) Violations of Sections 86 to 106 of Chapter IV of Republic Act No. 8550, otherwise known as
the “Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998”;
•(v) Violations of Sections 101 to 107, and 110 of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the
“Philippine Mining Act of 1995”;
•(w) Violations of Section 27(c), (e), (f), (g) and (i) of Republic Act No. 9147, otherwise known as
the “Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act”;
•(x) Violations of Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 9072, otherwise known as the “National
Caves and Cave Resources Management Protection Act”;
•(y) Violation of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the “Anti-Carnapping Act of
2002, as amended”;
•(z) Violation of Sections 1, 3, and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, otherwise
known as the decree “Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives”;
•(aa) Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the “Anti-Fencing Law”;
•(bb) Violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995, as amended”;
•(cc) Violation of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, as amended”;
•(dd) Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9995, otherwise known as the “Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009”;
•(ee) Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9775, otherwise known as the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009”;
•(ff) Violations of Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 (c), (d) and (e), 11, 12 and 14 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the “Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination”;
•(gg) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the “Securities Regulation
Code of 2000”;
•(hh) Felonies or offenses of a nature similar to the aforementioned unlawful activities that are punishable under the penal
laws of other countries. (2018 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the AMLA, IRR OF RA 9160 [November 22, 2018])
COVERED PERSONS

•Section 1. Covered Persons.

•The following are the covered persons under the AMLA:
•(a) The following financial institutions:
•(1) Persons supervised and/or regulated by BSP, including their subsidiaries and affiliates, which are also
covered persons, supervised and/or regulated by the BSP such as:
•(a) Banks;
•(b) Quasi-banks;
•(c) Trust entities
•(d) Pawnshops;
•(e) Non-stock savings and loan associations;
•(f) Other Non-bank financial institutions which under special laws are subject to BSP supervision and/or regulation;
•(g) Electronic money issuers; and
•(h) Foreign exchange dealers, money changers, and remittance and transfer companies.
•(2) Persons supervised or regulated by IC, such as:
•(a) Insurance companies;
•(b) Pre-need companies;
•(c) Insurance agents;
•(d) Insurance brokers;
•(e) Professional reinsurers;
•(f) Reinsurance brokers;
•(g) Holding companies;
•(h) Holding company systems;
•(i) Mutual benefit associations; and
•(j) All other persons and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the IC.
•(3) Persons supervised or regulated by SEC, such as:
•(a) Securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses, and other similarpersons managing securities or
rendering services, such as investment agents,advisors, or consultants;
•(b) mutual funds or open-end investment companies, close-end investmentcompanies or issuers, and other similar
entities; and
•(c) other entities, administering or otherwise dealing in commodities, or financialderivatives based thereon, valuable
objects, cash substitutes, and other similar monetary instruments or properties, supervised or regulated by the SEC.
• (b) The following DNFBPs:
•(1) Jewelry dealers.
•(2) Dealers in precious metals, and dealers in precious stones.
•(3) Company service providers, which, as a business, provide any of the following services to third parties:
•(a) acting as a formation agent of juridical persons;
•(b) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a director or corporate secretary of a company, a
partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to other juridical persons;
•(c) providing a registered office; business address or accommodation, correspondence or administrative
address for a company, a partnership or any other juridical person or legal arrangement; and
•(d) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for another person.
•(4) Persons, including lawyers, accountants and other professionals, who provide any of the following services:
•(a) Managing of client money, securities or other assets;
•(b) Management of bank, savings, securities or other assets;
•(c) Organization of contributions for the creation, operation or management of companies; and
•(d) Creation, operation or management of juridical persons or arrangements, and buying and selling business
entities.
•(5) Casinos, including internet-based casinos and ship-based casinos, with respect to their casino cash
transactions related to their gaming operations.
•The “Casino Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10927” shall govern the implementation
of the AMLA with regard to casinos, unless, otherwise indicated therein by the AMLC and the AGAs.
COVERED AND SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS

•Covered transactions refer to a transaction in cash or other equivalent

monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of P500,000.00 within
one (1) banking day.
•For casinos, a single casino cash transaction involving an amount in excess of
five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) or its equivalent in any other currency.(Sec
2 R.A. No. 10927)
SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS

•Regardless of amount, suspicious transactions are those where any of the

following is present:
•a. No underlying economic, trade or legal justification;
•b. Client not properly identified; numbered accounts are allowed provided
client is identified;
•c. Transaction is not commensurate with financial capability of the client;
•d. Transaction is so structure that it cannot be reported to the AMLC;
•e. Transaction which deviates from usual profile of the client;
•f. Relates to unlawful activity as defined by law; and
•g. Analogous transactions.
FREEZE ORDER

•To begin with, a freeze order is not dependent on a separate criminal charge, much less does it
depend on a conviction.49 Based on Section 1050 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, there are only
two requisites for the issuance of a freeze order: (1) the application ex-parte by the AMLC and (2)
the determination of probable cause by the CA.51 In resolving the issue of whether probable
cause exists, the CA's statutorily-guided determination's focus is not on the probable commission
of an unlawful activity (or money laundering) that the OMB has already determined to exist, but
on whether the bank accounts, assets, or other monetary instruments sought to be frozen are in
any way related to any of the illegal activities enumerated under R.A. No. 9160, as amended.
Otherwise stated, probable cause refers to the sufficiency of the relation between an unlawful
activity and the property or monetary instrument which is the focal point of Section 10 of R.A. No.
9160, as amended.
•A freeze order is an extraordinary and interim relief issued by the CA to prevent the
dissipation, removal, or disposal of properties that are suspected to be the proceeds
of, or related to, unlawful activities as defined in Section 3 (i) of RA No. 9160, as
amended. The primary objective of a freeze order is to temporarily preserve
monetary instruments or property that are in any way related to an unlawful activity
or money laundering, by preventing the owner from utilizing them during the
duration of the freeze order. The relief is pre-emptive in character, meant to prevent
the owner from disposing his property and thwarting the State's effort in building its
case and eventually filing civil forfeiture proceedings and /or prosecuting the owner.
•Our examination of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended,
from the point of view of the freeze order that it authorizes, shows that the
law is silent on the maximum period of time that the freeze order can be
extended by the CA. The final sentence of Section 10 of the Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001 provides, "[t]he freeze order shall be for a period of
twenty (20) days unless extended by the court." In contrast, Section 55 of the
Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases qualifies the grant of extension "for a period not
exceeding six months" "for good cause" shown.
•The silence of the law, however, does not in any way affect the Court's own power under
the Constitution to 'promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights ... and procedure in all courts.' Pursuant to this power, the Court issued
A.M. No. 05-11-04SC, limiting the effectivity of an extended freeze order to six months - to
otherwise leave the grant of the extension to the sole discretion of the CA, which may
extend a freeze order indefinitely or to an unreasonable amount of time - carries serious
implications on an individual's substantive right to due process. This right demands that no
person be denied his right to property or be subjected to any governmental action that
amounts to a denial. The right to due process, under these terms, requires a limitation or at
least an inquiry on whether sufficient justification for the governmental action.
•x x x [T]he CA, via its September 20, 2005 resolution, extended the freeze order over the Ligots' various
bank accounts and personal properties until after all the appropriate proceedings and/or investigations
being conducted are terminated. By its very terms, the CA resolution effectively bars the Ligots from using
any of the property covered by the freeze order until after an eventual civil forfeiture proceeding is
concluded in their favor and after they shall have been adjudged not guilty of the crimes they are
suspected of committing. These periods of extension are way beyond the intent and purposes of a freeze
order which is intended solely as an interim relief; the civil and criminal trial courts can very well handle
the disposition of properties related to a forfeiture case or to a crime charged and need not rely on the
interim relief that the appellate court issued as a guarantee against loss of property while the government
is preparing its full case. The term of the CA's extension, too, borders on inflicting a punishment to the
Ligots, in violation of their constitutionally protected right to be presumed innocent, because the
unreasonable denial of their property comes before final conviction.
•In more concrete terms, the freeze order over the Ligots' properties has been
in effect since 2005, while the civil forfeiture case - per the Republic's
manifestation - was filed only in 2011 and the forfeiture case under RA No.
1379 - per the petitioners' manifestation - was filed only in 2012. This means
that the Ligots have not been able to access the properties subject of the
freeze order for six years or so simply on the basis of the existence of probable
cause to issue a freeze order, which was intended mainly as an interim
preemptive remedy.
•As correctly noted by the petitioners, a freeze order is meant to have a temporary effect; it was
never intended to supplant or replace the actual forfeiture cases where the provisional remedy -
which means, the remedy is an adjunct of or an incident to the main action - of asking for the
issuance of an asset preservation order from the court where the petition is filed is precisely
available. For emphasis, a freeze order is both a preservatory and preemptive remedy.
•To stress, the evils caused by the law's silence on the freeze order's period of effectivity compelled
this Court to issue the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases. Specifically, the Court fixed the maximum
allowable extension on the freeze order's effectivity at six months. In doing so, the Court sought to
balance the State's interest in going after suspected money launderers with an individual's
constitutionally ­protected right not to be deprived of his property without due process of law, as
well as to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
•Thus, as a rule, the effectivity of a freeze order may be extended by the CA for a period not
exceeding six months. Before or upon the lapse of this period, ideally, the Republic should have
already filed a case for civil forfeiture against the property owner with the proper courts and
accordingly secure an asset preservation order or it should have filed the necessary information.
Otherwise, the property owner should already be able to fully enjoy his property without any legal
process affecting it. However, should it become completely necessary for the Republic to further
extend the duration of the freeze order, it should file the necessary motion before the expiration of
the six-month period and explain the reason or reasons for its failure to file an appropriate case
and justify the period of extension sought. The freeze order should remain effective prior to the
resolution by the CA, which is hereby directed to resolve this kind of motion for extension with
reasonable dispatch.54 (Citations omitted, emphasis and underscoring ours)
•From the foregoing, the lifting of the subsisting Freeze Order against the
monetary instruments and properties of petitioner is in order, more so in view
of the fact that a petition for forfeiture (Civil Case No. 0197) - where petitioner
is named as one of the respondents - has already been filed by the Republic
before the Sandiganbayan sometime in September 2005. (YAMBAO VS.
REPUBLIC, G.R. No. 171054, January 26, 2021)
•