Sweethearts Hector and Rubi are both adventurous and daring lovers. In one of their escapades, Hector and Rubi agreed to record their coitus with a mobile phone. After a year, Rubi broke up with Hector and found a new boyfriend. Hector got extremely jealous and circulated their sex videos. Rubi filed a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. At the trial, Hector argued that he is not criminally liable because Rubi consented to the taking of the sex videos. Is Hector criminally liable for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 despite Rubi’s consent to the recording of the videos? Explain.
Yes, Hector is criminally liable for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 despite Rubi’s initial consent to the recording of the videos. Here’s why:
Under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act, consent to record or take a photo or video of a sexual act is different from consent to copy, sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast it. The law specifies that for acts of copying, selling, and publishing, the consent must be written. Publishing or broadcasting photo or video coverage of a person performing a sexual act through the internet or other devices without the person’s consent is a prohibited act under Section 4 of RA 9995.
While Rubi consented to the recording, the act of Hector circulating the video a year later, after their breakup and without Rubi’s separate written consent to publish it, constitutes a violation. Even though the act was initially consensual and recorded privately, Rubi likely had a reasonable expectation that the private video would not be circulated publicly without her consent after their relationship ended. Hector’s act of circulating the video betrayed this expectation.
In summary, Rubi’s initial consent to the recording does not absolve Hector of liability for violating RA 9995 because he subsequently circulated the video without her consent to do so, which is a distinct and prohibited act under the law.
AAA executed a sworn complaint-affidavit at the police station narrating how a certain Carson sexually abused her on September 11, 2024, thus: Q: What is your name and age? A: I am AAA, 17 years old. Q: What is your complaint all about? A: On September 11, 2024, I was sexually abused by Carson, the live-in partner of my mother, in our house in Quezon City. Q: How did Carson sexually abuse you? 1: Carson entered my room, pointed a knife at my side, and threatened to kill me. Thereafter, Carson undressed me and inserted his penis into my vagina. Carson warned me not to tell anyone what happened and that he would take responsibility should I get pregnant. Based on these narrations, prepare the information charging the appropriate crime that Carson committed. Omit the caption and certification.
INFORMATION
That on or about the 11th day of September, 2024, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, CARSON, being the live-in partner of the mother of AAA, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, who was then a seventeen (17)-year-old minor, against her will and without her consent, by means of force and intimidation, to wit: the said accused entered the room of AAA, pointed a knife at her side, threatened to kill her, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina, and thereafter warned her not to tell anyone what happened;
Contrary to law.
PO3 Wyatt personally witnessed how Lucas mauled and threatened to kill his neighbor. PO3 Wyatt introduced himself as police officer but Lucas ran away. PO3 Wyatt chased Lucas and grabbed his right arm. Lucas punched PO3 Wyatt on the chest to free himself. Lucas then entered his house and slammed the gate shut which caught PO3 Wyatt’s left hand resulting in slight abrasions. Lucas then surrendered to the authorities.
The prosecution charged Lucas with direct assault because he intentionally used force and injured PO3 Wyatt while performing his duties as a police officer. Lucas countered that he was merely evading arrest without intention to defy the authority of PO3 Wyatt. What crime did Lucas commit, if any? Explain.
Lucas committed resistance and disobedience to persons in authority or their agent, but not direct assault.
In a factually similar scenario in Balsamo v. People, where the accused punched a police officer and slammed a gate, causing slight injuries, the court found that the force used was not dangerous, grave, or severe enough to constitute direct assault. The act was seen more as an attempt to evade arrest.
While Lucas resisted a lawful arrest and used force against a police officer, the relatively minor injury and the context of evading arrest suggest that he more likely committed resistance and disobedience rather than direct assault, which typically involves a more serious defiance of authority or infliction of more significant harm.
Levi engaged the escort services of Leo for PHP 50,000.00. Levi and Leo then checked in at the hotel and had sex. Afterwards, Levi paid Leo PHP 10,000.00. Leo felt shortchanged when he received an amount smaller than what was promised. At that instance, Leo grabbed a knife from the kitchen and repeatedly stabbed Levi. Thereafter, Leo rummaged through the belongings of Levi and took his wallet, cellphone, and watch. Leo was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The trial court explained that the killing was by reason of or on occasion of robbery. Is the judgment of conviction correct as to the crime committed? Explain.
The judgment is not correct, as the original intent is not robbery.
In robbery with homicide, the original intent of the offender must be the taking of personal property belonging to another with force, threat, or intimidation. The killing must then be committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The killing may happen before, during, or after the robbery.
Here, Leo’s original intent was not to rob Levi but to kill him because he felt shortchanged. The killing was not “by reason” of robbery but because of feeling deceived. The taking only happened after the homicide. Hence, the crime is not the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Alvin and Dennis together with a John Doe, who remained unidentified and at large, were charged with the crime of rape. The information reads: “Alvin, Dennis, and John Doe, through force, violence, and intimidation, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA and took turns raping her, by inserting their penises into the vagina of AAA, to her damage and prejudice.” At the trial, the prosecution established that the rapes were committed in the following order, first by Alvin, second by Dennis, third by John Doe, and fourth by Alvin again. The trial court convicted Alvin and Dennis of three counts of rape to the exclusion of the rape that John Doe committed. Is the judgment of conviction correct as to the number of rapes? Explain.
The judgment is incorrect.
In conspiracy, the act of one perpetrator is the act of all. Moreover, a person can be held responsible for the acts of co-conspirators in rape, even if they are unidentified or at large.
Here, there are four acts of rape: Two acts by Alvin (first and last), one act by Dennis, and one by John Doe. All three are liable for the four acts of rape. This is not a case of continuous crime because there are different perpetrators and Alvin’s second rape is made after the other two had taken turns. Hence, all four acts of rape arose from four criminal impulses of rape, not one, showing greater perversity. The trial court should not have excluded John Doe as courts can still pass judgment to unidentified persons so long as they are charged in the Information.
Thus, the conviction is incorrect as there are four counts of rape.
Franco and Amber are in an illicit relationship. Amber informed Franco that she is seven months pregnant and showed her baby bump. Franco got furious and planned to abort the fetus to conceal his infidelity. Franco instructed Xian to use drugs on Amber that will induce labor and make sure that she suffers a miscarriage. Xian secretly administered drugs on Amber who then experienced abdominal cramping and contractions. Amber was brought to the hospital and delivered a baby girl. However, the baby died after three days because of multiple organ failure secondary to induced abortion. Absent any conspiracy, discuss the respective participation and criminal liability of Franco and Xian for the death of the baby. Explain.
Franco must be held liable as a principal by inducement because he gave instructions to Xian to commit the crime. He intended miscarriage but he is still liable for parricide because criminal liability still attaches though the resulting crime, parricide, is different from what was intended.
Xian must be held liable as a principal by direct participation in the crime of parricide because he took part in the execution of the crime, that is, administering abortifacient drugs to Amber.
To make the criminal liability more meaningful, the crime must be defined. The crime is not abortion because a fetus with an intra-uterine life of more than 6 months is considered viable. Meaning it can survive outside the womb. Abortion is the killing of a fetus inside the womb or a non-viable fetus outside the womb. Here, the fetus is more than 6 months and has survived outside the womb for three days. Second, the crime is not infanticide as the child is not less than three days old. The crime is parricide because the victim is the child of the offender than is at least three days old.
Get the complete set below:
Criminal Law Bar Exam Q&As
“Criminal Law Suggested Answers” presents bar exam questions in Philippine Criminal Law with detailed explanations and legal reasoning. It covers a wide range of topics, including crimes against persons and property, special penal laws, complex crimes, and criminal procedure, providing a practical guide for understanding key legal concepts and their application.
English