Corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is the body,
foundation or substance of a crime. It refers to the
fact of the commission of the crime, not to the
physical body of the deceased. Because corpus
delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence,
it is not necessary for the prosecution to present
direct evidence to prove the corpus delicti.
Nevertheless, the prosecution must present the
following elements: (a) that a certain result or fact
has been established, i.e., that a man has died; and
(b) that some person is criminally responsible for it
(People v. Penaflor, G.R. No. 206296, August 12,
2015, 766 SCRA 427, 441).
As the body of the victim could not be found, the
accused claimed that the corpus delicti of the
crime with which he was charged was not proven.
Is the corpus delicti proven despite the nonpresentation of the kidnap victim during trial.
Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the
crime which may be proved by the testimony of
the witnesses who saw it. The corpus delicti in the
crime of kidnapping for ransom is the fact that an
individual has been in any manner deprived of his
liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person. To prove the
corpus delicti, it is sufficient for the prosecution to
be able to show that (1) a certain fact has been
proven — say, a person has died or a building has
been burned; and (2) a particular person is
criminally responsible for the act (People v.
SP01 Catalino Gonzales, G.R. No. 192233, February
17, 2016).
In the case of People v. Bacares, G.R. No. 243024,
June 23, 2020, the accused raised the argument
that the prosecution's failure to present as
evidence the shirt that he was wearing and prove
that the same was indeed stained with blood, as
testified to by the witnesses, and the weapon
used to kill the victim is fatal to the case.
However, the Supreme Court dispelled the
argument. According to the Supreme Court,
“Corpus delicti is the body, foundation or
substance of a crime. It refers to the fact of the
commission of the crime, not to the physical body
of the deceased. Because corpus delictimay be
proven by circumstantial evidence, it is not
necessary for the prosecution to present direct
evidence to prove the corpus delicti. Nevertheless,
the prosecution must present the following
elements: (a) that a certain result or fact has been
established, i.e., that a man has died; and (b) that
some person is criminally responsible for it. In this
case, the prosecution was able to prove the death
of the victim and that the circumstances presented
proved that appellant caused such death. (People
v. Bacares, G.R. No. 243024, June 23, 2020, Peralta,
CJ)
Under paragraph 2 of Article 19, the reason for
concealing or destroying the body of the crime or
its effects or instruments must be to prevent its
discovery. If the crime was already discovered
when the effects or instruments of the crime were
concealed or destroyed, the accused could no
longer be held criminally liable as an accessory.
(see Padiernos v. People, G.R. No. 18111, August
17, 2015, 766 SCRA 614 where the Supreme Court
found the accused liable for obstruction of justice
under Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829 instead.
Complex crimes
Accused’s right to bail subsists in spite of the
possibility of being imposed with capital
punishment as proper maximum penalty for the
graver crime in a complex crime. Article 48 of the
RPC on complex crimes does not change the
nature of the constituent offenses; it only requires
the imposition of the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law. When committed
through falsification of official/public documents,
the RPC does not intend to classify malversation as
a capital offense. Otherwise, the complex crime of
Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of
Official/Public Documents involving an amount
that exceeds P22,000.00 should have been
expressly included in Republic Act No. 7659. If truly
a non-bailable offense, the law should have already
considered it as a special complex crime like
robbery with
rape, robbery with homicide, rape with homicide,
and kidnapping with murder or homicide, which
have prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua
(People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 216007-09, December
8, 2015, 776 SCRA 672, 692-693).
Accused knocked on the house of the victims and
asked whether she could use their telephone. After
a while, she was joined by the other accused. She
then excused herself for the comfort room. When
she came back, she sat in the sofa. Thereafter, the
other accused poked a gun on the victim’s neck.
Their other companions proceeded to the kitchen
and herded the maids, the victim’s niece and
cousin inside the bodega. Accused and her
companions were able to take away valuables in
the total amount of P2,701,000.00. What crime was
committed? Complex crime of robbery in inhabited
house and robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons (Fransdilla v. People, G.R.
No. 197562, April 20, 2015, 756 SCRA 164; this
clarifies the ruling in People v. Sebastian and
Pangilinan, 85 SCRA 601, where the Supreme Court
held that where robbery, though committed in an
inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation,
this factor “supplies the controlling qualification,”
so that the law to apply is article 294 and not article
299 of the Revised Penal Code, and thus the crime
committed is robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons. Under the present ruling,
the crime committed is a complex crime under
Article 48 of the RPC, and not a simple crime of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons).
Special complex crimes
Complex crimes vis-à-vis composite crimes.
Composite crime is truly distinct and different
from a complex or compound crime. (a) In a
composite crime, the composition of the offenses
is fixed by law, but in a complex or compound
crime, the
combination of the offenses is not specified but
generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or
one offense being the necessary means to
commit the other; (b) In a composite crime, the
penalty for the specified combination of crimes is
specific, but in a complex or compound crime the
penalty is that corresponding to the most serious
offense, to be imposed in the maximum period;
(c) A light felony that accompanies the
commission of a complex or compound crime
may be made the subject of a separate
information, but a light felony that accompanies a
composite crime is absorbed (People v. Esugon,
G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015).
Accused brought away the baby without her
parents’ consent and then, abused her. What crime
was committed? Kidnapping with rape. In a
prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the
accused to deprive the victim of the latter's liberty,
in any manner, needs to be established by
indubitable proof. And in this case, the actual
taking of the baby without the consent of her
parents is clear proof of his intent to deprive the
baby of her liberty. It has been established that the
accused committed kidnapping and on the
occasion thereof, he raped the victim (see People
v. Magno, G.R. No. 206972, December 2, 2015, 776
SCRA 35). Remember: Emphatically, the last
paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. No. 7659, states that when the
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed. This provision gives rise to a special
complex crime. Notably, however, no matter how
many rapes had been committed in the special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the
resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape.
This is because these composite acts are regarded
as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No.
7659 punishes these acts with only one single
penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the
seriousness of rape because no matter how many
times the victim was raped, like in the present case,
there is only one crime committed the special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape (People v.
Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011;
People v. Elizalde, G.R. No. 210434, December 5,
2016).
Art. 128 Violation of Domicile
- Committed by a public officer or
employee
Three Acts punishable:
1. By entering any dwelling against the will of
the owner thereof; or
2. By searching paper or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of
such owner;
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after
having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required to
leave the same.
Elements common to Three Acts:
a. That the offender is a public officer;
b. That he is not authorized by judicial order
to enter the dwelling and/or to make a
search therein or other effects.
Note:
If the offender who enters the dwelling
against the will of the owner thereof is a
private individual, the crime committed is
trespass to dwelling (Art. 280).
Not being authorized by judicial order
means no search warrant.
Art. 142. Inciting to Sedition
“Scurrilous” means low, vulgar, mean or foul.
Art. 152 Persons in Authority and Agents of
Persons in Authority
A person in authority is one directly vested with
jurisdiction (power and authority to govern and
execute the laws).
The following are persons in authority:
1. The municipal mayor
2. Division superintendent of schools
3. Public and private school teachers
4. Teacher-nurse
5. President of sanitary division
6. Provincial fiscal
7. Justice of the Peace
8. Municipal Councilor
9. Barrio captain and barangay chairman.
Art. 168 Illegal Possession and use of False treasury
or bank notes and other instruments of credit
Elements:
1. That any treasury or bank note or certificate
or other obligation and security payable to
bearer, or any instrument payable to order
or other document of credit not payable to
bearer is forged or falsified by another
person.
2. That the offender knows that any of those
instruments is forged or falsified.
3. That he performs any of these actsa. Using any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
b. Possessing with intent to use any of
such forged or falsified instruments.
Art. 176 Manufacturing and possession of
instruments or implements for falsificationActs punished:
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines
any stamp, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implementation for
counterfeiting of falsification.
2. Possessing with intent to use the
instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification made in or
introduced into the Philippines by another
person.
Perjury (Art. 183). The provision punishes false
testimony in other cases and perjury in other
cases. Perjury has four elements: (a) statement or
affidavit upon a material matter made under oath;
(b) before a competent officer authorized to
receive and administer such oath; (c) wilful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood by the
offender; and (d) that the sworn statement
containing falsity is required by law (People v.
Bautista, (C.A.) 40 O.G. 2491; see Padilla, 1965 Ed.,
p. 332).
Two ways of committing perjury: (1) By falsely
testifying under oath (not in judicial proceeding;
and (2) By making a false affidavit.
An oath is any form of attestation by which a
person signifies that he is bound in conscience to
perform an act faithfully and truthfully. It involves
the idea of calling on God to witness what is
averred as truth and it is supposed to be
accompanied with an invocation of His
vengeance, or renunciation of His favor in the
event of falsehood (39 Am. Jur. 494).
The prosecution must additionally prove which of
the two statements is false and must show the
statement to be false by evidence other than the
contradictory statement. The rationale for
requiring evidence other than a contradictory
statement is explained thus: x x x Proof that
accused has given contradictory testimony under
oath at a different time will not be sufficient to
establish the falsity of his testimony charged as
perjury, for this would leave simply one oath of the
defendant as against another, and it would not
appear that the testimony charged was false rather
than the testimony contradictory thereof. The two
statements will simply neutralize each other; there
must be some corroboration of the contradictory
testimony. Such corroboration, however, may be
furnished by evidence aliunde tending to show
perjury independently of the declarations of
testimony of the accused (Masangkay v. People,
G.R. No. 164443, June 18, 2010; U.S. v. Capistrano,
40 Phil. 902).
Executing a false Complaint-Affidavit is perjury.
The elements of perjury under Article 183 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) are (a) that the accused
made a statement under oath or executed an
affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the
statement or affidavit was made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath; (c) that in the statement or
affidavit, the accused made a willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) that
the sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is required by law or made for a legal
purpose. The first element of the crime of Perjury
was sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The
term "material matter" under the first element
pertains to the main fact subject of the inquiry, or
any circumstance which tends to prove that fact,
or any fact or circumstance which tends to
corroborate or strengthen the testimony related
to the subject of the inquiry, or which legitimately
affects the credence of any witness who testified.
Saulo executed a Complaint-Affidavit charging
Alberto with Qualified Theft. The allegations in the
subject Complaint-Affidavit have the material
effect or tendency to influence the Prosecutor in
the determination of the existence of probable
cause for the filing of information before the
court of justice. Saulo asserted therein, among
others, that Alberto surreptitiously and unlawfully
took five (5) checks drawn against Khumbmela's
account and thereafter illegally filled them up to
defraud the company. (Saulo v. People, G.R. No.
242900, June 08, 2020, Reyes, J. Jr., J.)
Rule on venue clarified: Under the circumstances,
Article 183 of the RPC is indeed the applicable
provision; thus, jurisdiction and venue should be
determined on the basis of this article which
penalizes one who "make[s] an affidavit, upon any
material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in cases in which
the law so requires." The constitutive act of the
offense is the making of an affidavit; thus, the
criminal act is consummated when the statement
containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before
a duly authorized person. Based on these
considerations, we hold that our ruling in Sy Tiong
is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the
guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of
perjury committed through the making of a false
affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed
at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his
or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the
elements of the crime of perjury are executed.
When the crime is committed through false
testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the
testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as
supplement to the actual testimony made in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a
written sworn statement is submitted, venue may
either be at the place where the sworn statement is
submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking
of the oath and the submission are both material
ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases,
determination of venue shall be based on the acts
alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the
crime committed (Union Bank of the Philippines
and Tomas Desi v. People, G.R. No. 192565,
February 28, 2012, Brion, J.)
Offering false testimony in evidence (Art. 184). The
offense known as subornation of perjury punishes
willful and deliberate offer of evidence the false
testimony in any judicial or official proceeding.
The elements of subornation of perjury are the
following: (1) The offender offered in evidence a
false witness or false testimony; (2) He knew the
witness or the testimony was false; and (3) The
offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.
Art. 187 Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys
Elements:
1. That the offender imports, sells or
disposes of those articles or merchandise.
2. That the stamps, brands or marks of those
articles fail to indicate the actual fineness
or quality of said metals or alloys.
3. That the offender knows that the stamps,
brands, or marks fail to indicate the actual
fineness or quality of the metals or alloys.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
1. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5) (1) any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions. (2) any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any controlled
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a
broker in such transactions.
2. Qualified sale of prohibited drugs
a. If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
delivery, distribution or transportation of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical transpires within one hundred
(100) meters from the school, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed in every case.
b. For drug pushers who use minors or mentally
incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and
messengers, or in any other capacity directly
connected to the dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemical trade,
the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every
case.
c. If the victim of the offense is a minor or a
mentally incapacitated individual, or should a
dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and
essential chemical involved in any offense herein
provided be the proximate cause of death of a
victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for
under this Section shall be imposed.
3. Elements of sale of illegal drug. The elements of
the sale of illegal drugs are
a. the identities of the buyer and seller,
b. the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and
c. the existence of the corpus delicti. (People v.
Peralta, 613 SCRA 763, GR 173472, February 26,
2010).
4. Elements of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs. For a successful prosecution for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must be established:
a. the accused is in possession of an item or object
identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug;
b. such possession is not authorized by law; and
c. the accused freely and consciously possessed
said drug (see People v. Rafols, G.R. No. 214440,
June 15, 2016).
5. Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15).
6. The law mandates that the conduct of physical
inventory and photograph of the seized items must
be in the presence of (1) the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
(2) with an elected public official and (3) a
representative of the National Prosecution Service
or the media who shall sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof (People v.
Cornel, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018; People v.
Mola, G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018).
7. It is essential that the identity of the prohibited
drugs and/or drug paraphernalia be established
beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the
prohibited drug and/or drug paraphernalia form
an integral part of the corpus delicti of the
crime/s. The prosecution has to show an
unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous
drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Thus, in order
to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity
of the dangerous drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia on account of switching, "planting,"
or contamination of evidence, the prosecution
must be able to account for each link of the chain
from the moment of seizure up to presentation in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti (People v.
Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 7, 2018, J. PerlasBernabe).
8. Chain of custody. The links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation are as follows:
1. the seizure and marking, if practicable, of
the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
2. the turnover of the illegal drug seized to
the investigating officer;
3. the turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
4. the turnover and submission of the illegal
drug from the forensic chemist to the court
(People v. Enad, G.R. No. 205764, February,
3, 2016).
9. The failure of the apprehending team to strictly
comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto
render the seizure and custody over the items as
void and invalid, provided that the prosecution
satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable
ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved (People v. Cabrellios, G.R. No.
229826, July 30, 2018)
Exceptions to Chain of Custody:
People vs. Feliciano (2010): what is imperative is
“the preservation of the integrity of the evidentiary
value of the seized items as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused”.
People vs. Denoman (2009): The last par. of Sec. 21
(a) Art. II of RA 9165 provides a saving mechanism
to ensure that not every case of non-compliance
will irretrievably prejudice the prosecution’s case.
To warrant application of this saving mechanism,
however, the prosecution must recognize and
explain the lapse or lapses in the prescribed
procedures. The prosecution must likewise
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
People v. Tomawis
• 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, the IRR allows
that the inventory and photographing could be
done as soon as the buy- bust team reaches the
nearest police station or the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team.
• By the same token, however, this also means
that the three (3) 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 buy-bust team
has enough time and opportunity to bring with
them said witnesses.
• The buy-bust team also failed to take
photographs of the seized drugs. The only photo,
submitted as Exhibit "O" for the prosecution, was a
black and white photocopy of pictures of Tomawis
and barangay councilors Burce and Gaffud at the
barangay hall. The law requires photographs of the
seized drug itself and not of the accused and the
witnesses.
• There are unexplained gaps in the custody of the
seized drugs.
• It is unclear as to who held custody of the seized
drugs from the place of arrest in Starman,
Alabang to Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City and from
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City to the PDEA office.
• It was not clarified as to how and when the
seized drugs were returned to IO1 Alejandro after
the inventory was conducted by IO1 Alfonso.
• There was also no testimony as to who received
the seized drugs from IO1 Alejandro at the
laboratory, and to whom they were given after the
testing was conducted.
Art. 228 Opening of Closed Documents
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That any closed papers, documents, or
objects are entrusted to his custody.
3. That he opens or permits to be opened
said closed papers, documents or objects.
4. That he does not the proper authority.
Art. 249 Homicide
Homicide is the unlawful killing of any person,
which is neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide.
Elements:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any
justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill,
which is presumed;
4. That the killing was not attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances of murder, or
that of parricide or infanticide.
Art. 271 Inducing a Minor to Abandon his Home
Elements:
1. That the minor is living in the home of his
parents or guardian or the person
entrusted with his custody;
2. That the offender induces said minor to
abandon his home.
Art. 287 Light Coercion
Elements:
1. That the offender must be a creditor.
2. That he seizes anything belonging to his
debtor.
3. That the seizure of the thing be
accomplished by means of violence or a
display of material force producing
intimidation.
4. That the purpose of the offender is to apply
the same to the payment of the debt.
Art. 295 Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley
When robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons qualified?
If any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4,
and 5 of Article 294 is committed1. In an uninhabited place, or
2. By a band, or
3. By attacking a moving train, street car,
motor vehicle, or airship, or
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments
in a train, or in any manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise thereof in
the respective conveyances, or
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of
firearms, the offender shall be punished by
the maximum periods of the proper
penalties in Art. 294.
Art. 315 Swindling (Estafa)
Estafa by postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of obligation
Elements:
1. That the offender postdated a check, or
issued a check in payment of an
obligation;
2. That such postdating or issuing a check
was done when the offender had no funds
in the bank, or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check.
The check must be genuine, and not falsified.
People vs. XXX (2018)
• The Supreme Court reiterated the following
rules in this case:
1. The age of the victim is taken into
consideration in designating or
charging the offense, and in determining the
imposable penalty.
2. If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
nomenclature of the crime should be "Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610." Pursuant to the second proviso in Section
5(b), of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
• The Supreme Court reiterated the following
rules in this case:
3. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or
more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18)
years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older
but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or
protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition, the crime
should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the
imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
AAA vs. BBB (2018)
Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the case
may be filed where the crime or any of its elements
was committed at the option of the complainant.
• While the psychological violence as the means
employed by the perpetrator is certainly an
indispensable element of the offense, equally
essential also is the element of mental or
emotional anguish which is personal to the
complainant.
• The resulting mental or emotional anguish is
analogous to the indispensable element of
damage in a prosecution for estafa.
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No.
9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of
violence against women and their children may
manifest as transitory or continuing crimes;
meaning that some acts material and essential
thereto and requisite in their consummation occur
in one municipality or territory, while some occur
in another.
• In such cases, the court wherein any of the
crime's essential and material acts have been
committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it
being understood that the first court taking
cognizance of the same excludes the other.
Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used
garments, more particularly known as “ukay-ukay”.
Among the items found by the police in a raid of
her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie
Feraudblazers. Arlene was charged with “Fencing”.
Will the case prosper?
No, the case filed against Arlene for Fencing will
not prosper.
Under the Anti-Fencing Law, one of the elements
of Fencing is that a crime of robbery or theft has
been committed.
Here, there was no showing that robbery or theft
was committed insofar as brand-new Louie
Feraudblazers were concerned.
Therefore, the case of Fencing filed against Arlene
will not prosper.
O. Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act 10175)
1. Acts punishable
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity
and availability of computer data and systems:
Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any
part of a computer system without right.
Illegal Interception. – The interception made by
technical means without right of any non- public
transmission of computer data to, from, or within
a computer system including electromagnetic
emissions from a computer system carrying such
computer data.
Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless
alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
computer data, electronic document, or electronic
data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.
System Interference. — The intentional alteration
or reckless hindering or interference with the
functioning of a computer or computer network
by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting,
deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer
data or program, electronic document, or
electronic data message, without right or
authority, including the introduction or
transmission of viruses.
Misuse of Devices.
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement,
importation, distribution, or otherwise making
available, without right, of:
(aa) A device, including a computer program,
designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar
data by which the whole or any part of a computer
system is capable of being accessed with intent
that it be used for the purpose of committing any
of the offenses under this Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in
paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use
said devices for the purpose of committing any of
the offenses under this section.