Facts: A group of armed men board a vessel in international waters and later bring the stolen cargo into Manila Bay. Can they be prosecuted for Piracy in the PH?
Yes. Under People v. Tulin, piracy is a continuing offense. Even if the seizure began outside PH waters, bringing the vessel or cargo into PH territory grants PH courts jurisdiction.
Facts: A pirate is captured 200 miles off the coast of Australia. Can a PH court try him even if no PH citizens or property were involved?
Yes. Under People v. Lol-lo, piracy is hostis humani generis (a crime against mankind). Universal jurisdiction applies, allowing any state to prosecute regardless of where the act occurred.
Facts: Protesters block a major highway to demand higher wages, causing massive traffic. They are charged with Terrorism under R.A. 11479. Is this valid?
No. Under Calleja v. Executive Secretary, the SC struck down the proviso in Section 4 of the ATA, ruling that protest and dissent are protected and are not terrorism unless intended to cause death or serious harm.
Facts: A rebel leader is caught harboring a fugitive in his camp. He is charged with both Rebellion and Obstruction of Justice (P.D. 1829). Is this double charge proper?
No. Under Ponce Enrile v. Amin, the act of harboring is absorbed into the crime of Rebellion. A separate charge for Obstruction of Justice is improper.
Facts: X kills Y with an unlicensed pistol. The prosecutor files two separate cases: Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms. Is this correct?
No. Under People v. Ringor, Jr. and R.A. 10591, if an unlicensed firearm is used in another crime, the possession is an aggravating circumstance of that crime, not a separate offense.
Facts: During a search, police find a gun in X’s drawer. At trial, the arresting officer testifies that X could not present a license. Is this testimony alone sufficient to convict?
No. Under Togado v. People (2024), the prosecution must present a formal certification from the PNP-FEO (Firearms and Explosives Office) to prove the negative fact that X has no license.
Facts: Two men rob a passenger in a parked jeepney along McArthur Highway. They are charged with Highway Robbery under P.D. 532. Is this the correct charge?
No. Under People v. Puno, if the robbery was a “chance encounter,” it is simple Robbery (RPC). Highway Robbery requires the offenders to be organized for the purpose of preying on travelers.
Facts: During a buy-bust, police inventory the drugs in the presence of an Elective Official and a Media rep, but no DOJ rep. No reason was given for the DOJ’s absence. Result?
RA 10640 requires Media rep or DOJ
Acquittal. Under People v. Lim, the “Three-Witness Rule” (DOJ, Media, Elective Official) is mandatory. Any absence must be justified in the initial sworn statement of the officers.
Facts: Police bring a drug suspect to the station to do the “marking” because it was raining and a crowd was forming at the scene. Is this a violation of R.A. 9165?
Not necessarily. Under Nisperos v. People (2022), marking should ideally be at the scene, but moving is allowed if the integrity of the evidence is preserved and the reason is documented.
Facts: X is caught with a small amount of drugs. He wants to plea bargain to a lower penalty, but the law (R.A. 9165) says it’s prohibited. Can the judge allow it?
Yes. Under Estipona v. Lobrigo, the ban on plea bargaining in drug cases was declared unconstitutional. Plea bargaining is now allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
Facts: A Mayor signs a voucher for a “ghost project.” He claims he relied on the technical reports and signatures of his staff. Is he liable for Graft?
No. Under the Arias Doctrine, heads of offices can rely in good faith on the signatures of subordinates unless there is a clear reason for suspicion or a red flag.
Facts: Several officials are charged with Plunder for stealing P60 Million. The Information does not state who among them was the “Main Plunderer.” Is the Information valid?
No. Under Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, the Information must identify the “Main Plunderer” who amassed the ill-gotten wealth. Failure to do so is a ground for dismissal.
Facts: A public officer takes a P5,000 “facilitation fee” to speed up a permit. He argues the government lost no money, so there is no Graft. Is he correct?
No. Under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, giving “unwarranted benefits” to a private party is sufficient for a conviction, even if no actual “undue injury” to the government is proven.
Facts: A hospital refuses to treat a gunshot victim because he cannot pay the P20,000 deposit. The victim dies. Can the hospital administrator be held liable?
Yes. Under R.A. 10932, it is unlawful to refuse basic emergency care in serious cases based on the inability to pay a deposit or advance.
Facts: A person creates a fake Facebook profile using a celebrity’s name and photos to solicit donations. What cybercrime is committed?
Computer-related Identity Theft under R.A. 10175, Sec. 4(b)(3), because it involves the intentional acquisition and use of identifying information of another without right.
Facts: An official is charged with Plunder. Can he be granted bail as a matter of right if the evidence is strong?
No. Under Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, while Plunder is typically non-bailable, bail may be granted based on humanitarian grounds (e.g., advanced age or health), but it remains a discretionary matter.
Facts: A private individual conspires with a public officer to commit graft. Can the private individual be charged under R.A. 3019?
Yes. Under People v. Go, private individuals can be held liable under R.A. 3019 if they acted in conspiracy with a public official.
Facts: A public officer is caught with an unexplained increase in wealth that is disproportionate to his salary. What is the presumption?
Ill-gotten wealth. Under R.A. 3019 and related laws (Morfe v. Mutuc), there is a legal presumption that wealth clearly exceeding legitimate income was acquired through illegal means.
Facts: A judge is caught engaging in cockfighting (gambling). Can he be held liable under P.D. 1602?
Yes. Under Bustillo v. People, the law against illegal gambling (P.D. 1602 and R.A. 9287) applies to everyone, and public officers face higher administrative and criminal scrutiny.
Facts: A group of people are caught playing “tong-its” on a sidewalk during a wake. Is this always a crime?
Yes. Under Cruz v. People, unauthorized gambling in public places (even during wakes, unless specifically permitted by local ordinance or PAGCOR) is a violation of P.D. 1602.
Facts: A public officer is charged with Plunder. Does the prosecution need to prove every single act of the “series or combination” beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes. Under Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the “series or combination” must be proven, though it is the pattern of criminal acts that defines Plunder, not just isolated thefts.
Facts: A hospital refuses a patient in labor because the maternity ward is full. Is this a violation of R.A. 10932?
No. R.A. 10932 focuses on refusal based on financial capacity (deposits). If the refusal is due to actual lack of medical facilities, it is not a violation of this specific penal law.
Facts: An officer is charged with Graft for a contract that was actually beneficial to the government but violated bidding rules. Result?
Conviction possible. Under Braza v. Sandiganbayan, Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 can still be violated if “unwarranted benefits” were given, even if the government did not suffer actual monetary loss.
Facts: A student is caught with a small amount of drugs. He claims he was not “selling” but just “delivering” it for a friend. Penalty?
Same as Sale. Under R.A. 9165 Sec. 5, “delivery” of dangerous drugs carries the same penalty as sale, regardless of whether money changed hands.
