-1-

CRIMINAL LAW 2 NOTES

ATTY. VILLA-IGNACIOS LECTURES
(These are unedited notes that are in no way comprehensive, so please use them with caution)

Article 246 Parricide

When there is a mistake in the identity of the victim in which case Art. 49 will be applied, which is
the penalty prescribed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that
intended
When the spouse or daughter under 18 years of age and living with her parents is killed under
exceptional circumstances covered under Art. 247
When the offender killed any of his relatives mentioned in the definition of the crime of parricide
through negligence or reckless imprudence under Art. 365
Is the killing of a step-father, adopted child or father parricide? NO
If the child is less than 3 days old the crime is not parricide but infanticide
If the spouse the one killed, the accused must be married to him or her, otherwise the killing is
homicide or murder
The private relation of the offender with the victim shall aggravate or mitigate the crime as against
the accused to whom they are attendant
Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
The article will not apply to the Chavit case
Accused must be legally married and will not apply to common-law relationship
Does not define a crime but provides for a singular mitigating circumstance for the crimes of
parricide, homicide and serious physical injuries committed under exceptional circumstances
If only slight or less serious physical injuries were committed --> Art. 247 operates as an absolutory
cause to exculpate the accused from criminal liability
People v. Quedan (Sept. 2, 2002) --> by invoking Art. 247, the offender waives his right to the
constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of proving the following the
elements of Art. 247
People v. Abarca - though quite a length of time, about an hour, had passed between the time the
accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the
latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuations entitled to the
benefit of Art. 247
Article 248 Murder
Killing of any person not parricide or infanticide, attendant with the enumerated circumstances
All the qualifying circumstances enumerated are also aggravating circumstances except outraging or
scoffing at the victim's person or corpse
Treachery will absorb --> abuse of superior strength and in aid of armed men
In consideration of a prize, reward or promise --> two offenders --> principal by inducement,
principal by direct participation
When is the killer not liable for murder qualified by premeditation even if he premeditated prior to
the commission of the crime?
o When the person killed is different from the intended victim
o When the offender is liable for parricide
o When the victim is a child less than 3 days old --> infanticide
o When the killing of the victim is by means of poison. Because evident premeditation is
absorbed in killing through the use of poison

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-2-

Is there a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence?

o No. In homicide there is intent to kill or malice, because frustrated homicide presupposes
intent to kill or malice whereas reckless imprudence is voluntary but without malice or intent
to kill

Article 249 - Death Caused in Tumultuous Affair

People v. Olimbada (September 2002) --> one that takes place between several persons who engage
in a tumultuous manner where a person is injured or killed
Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide
Committing suicide is not a crime, but the one who assisted the other is criminally liable, if to the
extent that he did the killing the person assisting is liable for homicide
Mercy killing or euthanasia not a defense
Giving suggestions as to manner --> positive and direct cooperation amounting to giving assistance
to suicide
Mere passive attitude does not constitute to Art. 253
Article 155 v. Article 254 v. Attempted or frustrated homicide
Article 155 - merely discharges firearm within a town or public place which produces alarm or
danger with no intent to kill
Article 254 - discharges firearm against or on a certain person without intent to kill but with the
intention to frighten the offended party
Attempted or frustrated - with intent to kill the offended party
Infanticide
If the infant is less than 3 days of age --> crime is infanticide
Penalty --> parricide if committed by parents of other legitimate ascendants; murder if committed
by any third person
If the child was born dead but the offender is unaware of such fact and he tried to kill the child he
will be liable for the impossible crime of infanticide
Art. 255 provides for a special mitigating circumstance when the purpose for committing the crime
by the mother and maternal grandparents was for the purpose of concealing the dishonor of the
mother
Treachery is inherent
Art. 256 to 258 Intentional Abortion
Is there a crime of abortion through imprudence?
o Yes. Abortion through imprudence may be committed as for instance a driver of an
automobile through reckless imprudence bumped a pregnant woman who suffered an
abortion --> abortion through reckless imprudence, cannot be intentional abortion not
intended, not unintentional abortion because the victim was not intentionally exerted the
violence
Is there an impossible crime of abortion?
o Yes. If the woman is not pregnant but the offender believes that she is pregnant because of
her bulging abdomen and he used violence to cause an abortion this is an impossible crime
where the act performed would have been abortion which is a crime against persons where it
not for the inherent impossibility of committing it.
Abortion may be committed by a third person (256), woman and her parents (258), physician (259)

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-3-

Knowledge of women's parents essential in intentional abortion, such knowledge not necessary in
unintentional abortion --> may be committed by violence through reckless imprudence
People v. Salufrania (March 30, 1988) --> court convicted offender of parricide with unintentional
abortion; controlling decision with respect to the question may abortion be complexed with
homicide
o Here the accused was convicted of parricide with unintentional abortion
Unintentional abortion can be committed only through corporal or physical violence, even if
violence is committed through reckless imprudence.
o Exception: Physicians can commit unintentional abortion under Art. 259 --> taking advantage
of scientific knowledge and skill unless committed through negligence in which case Art. 365
or criminal negligence will apply
o If to save the mother --> justified and not punishable under Art. 11 (4) --> state of necessity
What are the usual problems asked ?
o Where the accused threatens a woman and because of fright woman had an abortion -->
crime only threats, no unintended abortion without violence
o If grave threats were resorted to precisely to cause abortion through fear and shock -->
complex crime of grave threats and intentional abortion but if only light threats were
employed, they will be separate crimes
o If a woman took abortives or abortives were administered to her to cause abortion when in
fact she is not really pregnant. What crime is committed? --> Impossible crime o f abortion.
But if woman actually pregnant, but abortion was prevented by medical intervention, the
crime is frustrated abortion
o What crime is committed if the wife suffered an abortion due to an injurious drug
administered by her husband through mistake? --> no crime was committed, the injuries
suffered will not amount ot physical or corporal violence required for unintentional abortion
under Art. 257, nor will it fall under art. 264 as the provision specifically pertains to knowingly
administering injurious substance without intent to kill

Article 260 Duel

Duel not a merely an agreement to fight but
Penalty for death in a duel: same as that for homicide, but if the duel takes place the crime of
challenging to a duel in Art. 261 is already present
Mutilation
R.A. 7610 --> victim is a minor, mutilation and serious physical injuries inflicted shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua
Mutilation --> intentionally depriving victim of reproductive organs, rendering it useless; but if act is
unintentional offender is liable for serious physical injuries resulting in impotence under Art. 263
par. 1
Intentionally chopping off a part of the victim's body is also mutilation
Cruelty inherent in mutilation, if the victim dies then it is murder qualified by cruelty
Wounding, assaulting or administering injurious substance without intent to kill
Severity of injuries and offender's liability except for mutilation is determined by duration of victim's
incapacity
Blindness in Art. 263 (1) --> total blindness and not only a loss of an eye or partial loss of vision in
both eyes
Total loss of hearing Art. 263 (2) --> if auditory defect only in one ear, punishable under Art. 263 (3)
Take note of periods for incapacity

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-4-

Art. 263 (3) --> must be exposed to view and cannot be healed by nature

Article 264
It is committed by knowingly administering injurious substance or beverages but there is no intent
to kill, otherwise it is frustrated murder with a qualifying circumstance of use of poison
Slapping another without impaling incapacity or medication is slight physical injuries but if the
purpose or result is to humiliate the victim the offense is slander by deed under art. 356
Chapter 3: R.A. 8385 --> Anti-Rape Act
Date of enactment and effectivity
New law expanded definition of rape
Rape classified into two: sexual intercourse, sexual assault (new, broaden the concept of rape)
Sexual assault --> may be committed by any person (through the use of the penis or any object)
Husband can be held liable for rape as expressly implied in par. 2 of Art. 266-C --> must have the
right of consortium, legal separation --> no right of consortium
R.A. 7610 vs. Sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and rape involving minors
o People v. Jalosjos (Nov. 16, 2001) --> R.A. 7610 in fact provides that if the child is below 12
years old, the accused must be prosecuted under Art. 266-A of the RPC, conversely if the child
is above 12 but below 18, then the accused must be prosecuted under R.A. 7610 for the socalled child abuse offense.
o August 20, 2008 - Consensual Sexual Intercourse with a minor (People v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. 171863)
The offender was then 22 years old, when he had carnal knowledge of a 14 year old girl.
The information or the charge sheet alleges the rape of a minor victim. The offender
was charged with violation of Sec. 5, R.A. 7610 (why? Because it is a consensual sexual
intercourse - hardly within the ambit of rape in the RPC)
The offender was convicted, but on appeal was acquitted, holding that even if
respondent was charged under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7610, the same would have been
acquitted as the element under Sec. 5 of the R.A. 7610 was not alleged in the
information
Malto v. People: contrary ruling
Absence the allegation in the charge sheet of coercion under R.A. 7610, respondent
would have to be acquitted.
o The SC in Ortega v. People (G.R. No 151085, JUSTICE NACHURA)
14 year old accused raped 8 year old (1998) In 1999 the lower court convicted him. The
CA affirmed the decision. While on appeal in the SC, the juvenile justice and welfare and
system act was promulgated. Age of criminal liability raised to 18. Does the new law
apply to the accused?

YES. Even with the specific provision of the applicability and effectivity of the new
law, the accused is entitled to the beneficial effects of the law. Civil Damages liable; Moral Damages - liable
If accused convicted of political crime of rebellion and escapes (liable for Art. 156), but subsequently
the state declared amnesty. Is the accused still liable for evasion of sentence?
o Art. 59 - extinction of criminal liability --> amnesty one of the causes of total extinction of
criminal liability
o The amnesty however only pertains to the rebellion and not to evasion of service of sentence,
the court therefore won't be deprived of jurisdiction; unless the amnesty includes the
forgiveness of all other offenses arising from the act of rebellion

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-5-

In Bigamy, the parties cannot on their own declare the prior or previous marriage as void ab initio or
voidable --> must be made through a judicial declaration of nullity. Hence, even if prior marriage is
void, if without judicial declaration, still liable for bigamy.
o However, in one case the court ruled that if the marriage was only signed and was never
solemnized before a solemnizing officer, there is no marriage and no liability for bigamy
Penalties for RAPE:
o Art. 266-B Aggravating Circumstances added, presence of any one if duly alleged and proved
will warrant the single indivisible penalty of death in any offense committed under Art. 266-A
(par. 1) not under par. 2
o Penalty when victim is demented --> reclusion perpetua (crime is simple rape without
knowledge of affliction)
o When offender knew of the mental disability or emotional disorder of the victim --> death
Effect of pardon under 266-C
Pardon of the legal husband
For sweetheart defense to be sustained, the accused must prove and establish that the victim and
accused were lovers and the victim consented to the alleged sexual relations
What are the rules with respect to paragraph 1 Art. 266-A?
o In People v. Dalisay (408 SCRA 357) --> the court reiterated the well settled rule that full
penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, proof of entrance and slight
penetration is sufficient; slightest and manifest touching of the labia and the penis; nor is it
material that the man did not ejaculate or no traces of spermatozoa were found
o People v. Ogag --> force and intimidation must be sufficient, not result in death or physical
injuries
If victim's father, no resistance or sufficient resistance is required (People v. Gerardo)\
Rape results in victim's insanity --> reclusion perpetua to death
Special complex crimes limited to: attempted or consummated rape with homicide (reclusion
perpetua to death)
o Rape with homicide is a special complex crime --> penalty is death
o Rape is attempted and homicide is committed --> reclusion perpetua
o Rape is committed, homicide is not consummated --> not a special complex crime
o Rape is committed, homicide is not --> not a special complex crime
o Attempted or frustrated homicide not a necessary means to commit rape, not a complex or
compound crime

Crimes against personal security and liberty

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
o It is kidnapping and serious illegal detention if committed under any of the circumstances in
Art. 267
o What is the technical difference between kidnapping and serious illegal detention
o Kidnapping --> carrying away of a person from a place to another
o Detention --> does not require the taking away of the person from one place to another, may
be detained in his own home; crime is committed by a private individual
o If public officer --> arbitrary detention, may be liable for illegal detention if public officer
acting in private and not official capacity
o R.A. 7659 --> consequences of when the victim is killed, dies, raped or subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts --> special complex crime, kidnapping/illegal detention with homicide,
murder, rape or physical injuries
o U.S. v. Ancheta --> ruling abandoned

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-6-

People v. Ramos (Oct. 12, 1998) --> accused kidnapped female victim for ransom and
killed her (special complex crime --> kidnapping with ransom --> sentenced to death)
o Illegal detention of wife by husband? Is it possible?
YES. If such restrain is unjustified and unlawful, in the means adapted as his spousal
rights does not extend to illegal restraint of those who are mentally sound and
physically fit
In Art. 270 --> Kidnapping and failure to return a minor --> its textual substance is limited only to
failure to return a minor by the person entrusted with his custody; but prior to its amendment there
used to be paragraphs in Art. 270, the second paragraph pertaining to kidnapping.
Art. 272 --> term kidnapped used, 387 SCRA 342 --> court held that what was actually being
punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian to
restore the minor to his parents of his guardians and that the word deliberate as used in Art. 270
must imply more than mere negligence, premeditated, head strong, foolishly daring, intentionally or
maliciously wrong
Art. 271 --> inducing minor to leave his home --> must be committed with criminal intent --> engage
in dangerous things, accompany a beggar or vagrant --> offense is exploitation of minor
Art. 272 --> enslavement --> if purpose of enslaving first paragraph should govern if for profit or
prostitution the second paragraph will apply
Art. 274 --> the victim debtor is required to work as a servant or worker in a farm as farm laborer, if
the victim is forced to work in other capacities but for the same purpose the creditor will be liable
for coercion
Art. 275 --> abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of his own victim --> shall fail to
render assistance to a person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place, wounded or dying --> if
person dies, without person rendering assistance will he be liable under Art. 275? Art. 275 refers to
a deliberate abandonment of a person found in an uninhabited place --> liable for homicide
pursuant to Art. 4 par. 1 (person committing a felony although the wrongful act done was different
from that which was not intended) --> graver offense
Sec. 10(e) R.A. 7610 amended penalties under Art. 248-249, 262, 337, 339, 340 and 341
Art. 280 - Qualified trespass to dwelling
Art. 281 - Other forms of trespass
o SC in a recent case ruled that the respondent in entering the dwelling of another to close the
overflowing faucet is not trespass to dwelling even if there is another faucet that can be
closed --> when he entered the dwelling there is no malice or criminal intent, it was done to
protect his unit from possible damage
Violation of domicile by public officer v. Trespass to dwelling
o Violation of domicile committed by three different ways (enters, searches papers, refuses to
leave)
o Trespass committed on ly in one way, entry into the dwelling against the express or implied
prohibition of the occupant
Door ajar/unlocked occupant asleep
Door tied with a string
Late night, entry made through opening not intended for that purpose, occupants
sleeping
o Expressly prohibited by the master of the house, servant girl allows boyfriend to enter --> YES,
both will be liable for trespass to dwelling (indispensable cooperation)
o If entrance effected by violence --> used by offender at any time (before, during or
immediately after) --> there is trespass even if the door was open at the time, occupant not in
position to prevent entry

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-7-

Word violence --> both against persons and force upon things --> loosening a door bar with
the use of a bolo or screwdriver, cutting the string keeping the door shut are acts of violence
notwithstanding People v. Abling

Threats and Coercion

If the act threatened is a crime it will always be grave threats under 282
If subject to a condition par. 1, if not par. 2
Threat made in the heat of anger, and the offender did not persist --> light threats
Error: shall orally threat another with some harm not constituting a crime --> word NOT should be
deleted (People v. Untalan) --> always a light threat
The bond referred to shall only be required in grave threats and light threats and merely
conditioned upon the accused
No bond in threats under Art. 285 and other light threats
Threats v. Coercion
o Not immediately consummated --> grave threats
o Correspondingly achieved --> grave coercion
o Harm in the future --> threats
o Harm is immediate and impending in a present confrontation --> threats
o Directed towards the victim's honor, property, person or victim's family --> threats
o On the person of the victim --> coercion
Grave coercion
o Preventing another by means of violence, threats, intimidation from something not
prohibited by law
o Compelling another
Unjust vexation --> any other coercion, no crime of attempted or frustrated unjust vexation, as
being a light felony not being a crime against person or property, only punishable when
consummated
288 and 289
o Superseded or impliedly repealed by the labor code and other related labor laws
o Any acts of violence or compulsion mentioned therein are punishable under the RPC
In
290 regardless of whether or not contents are revealed the accused is liable, but the penalty

depends on whether or not he makes that revelation

Parents, guardians in custody of minor are excluded
Spouses are also excluded because of the theoretic identity of their interests
Revealing secrets by abuse of office by managers, officers or servants
o If required by law --> no liability
o Damage is not necessary
Other prohibited acts of revelation by a lawyer who reveals his clients secrets and revelation of
secrets of a private individual by a public officer
o Prejudice is an element of the crime
Robbery
Robbery with violence or intimidation and robbery by use of force upon things
Robbery and theft have three similar elements:
o Intent to gain or animus lucrandi
o Unlawful taking/transportation
Robbery: violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things
Theft: stealth or strategy

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-8-

Personal property as subject

People v. Reyes (March 26, 2003; 399 SCRA 538)
o Principle that in robbery intent to gain is presumed form the unlawful taking of personal
property belonging to another and that the person divested of personal property need not be
the owner thereof
o A defense and claim of ownership in good faith by the offender even if the claim is untenable
destroys the element of animus lucrandi or intent to gain conversely where the claim of
ownership is patently a mere ploy or was made in bad faith, animus lucrandi exists
o Mere intent to gain is sufficient even if no actual gain resulted, as with temporary disturbance
of property rights is generally sufficient in crime against property
Unlawful taking sufficient if object was taken and held by offender in a manner to dispose of it as
intended, even if possession is merely transitory or temporary
Subject matter being any personal property the rule is that as long as it does not belong to the
accused, it is immaterial if said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor or even from a
thief of the property
The test for purposes of the RPC to declare the property as personalty in crimes of robbery in theft
is whether or not the object is susceptible of appropriation or transportation or transfer from one
place to another without altering its nature or presence
Mode of commission:
o Violence against or intimidation of persons
o Use of force upon things
The moment there is violence or intimidation the unlawful taking is robbery which should be
present form the commencement of the felony
In robbery through force upon things it will be robbery is force described under Art. 299
What is the rule when robbery is committed with violence or intimidation or force upon things is
likewise employed (two modes present in one instance of robbery)
o Crime categorized under the first mode
If an owner shall forcibly take the personalty from its lawful possessor what crime is committed?
o The crime would be estafa since the owner cannot commit robbery of his own property or
theft even if he uses violence or intimidation
Large cattle: Anti-cattle rustling law
o G.R. 140932, Feb. 28, 2001
Art. 294 (Penalties of robbery with violence, etc.)
o Apply only when robbery takes place without entering an inhabited house, under the
circumstances under 299
o Punished as a single crime and has become known as special complex crimes, in Art. 294 the
robbery and homicide must be consummated
o Homicide used in its generic sense and includes any kind of killing whether parricide or
murder or where several persons are killed (name: robbery with homicide)
o Relationship if it was parricide, cruelty or treachery if it was murder will only become an
aggravating circumstances and not murder
o Rules
People v. Mangulubnan: committed when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide should have been committed, one of the accused fired gun at the
ceiling without idea that person hiding therein. Homicide produced on the occasion of
the robbery was by reason or as a result of the robbery in as much as it is only the result
without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, poses or modes of persons
intervening in the crime to be taken into consideration
o

KIT ENRIQUEZ

-9-

Must have intention to take personalty belonging to another with intent to gain
If after commission of robbery, the intention of the offender must either to defend the
possession, do away with the witness, make way for escape
Person killed --> any person, that would cover one or more of the robbers themselves
or innocent bystanders or responding police officers
Robbery with rape
o Rape must be consummated for the special complex crime under Art. 294 and 297 to apply
o In People v. Cariaga: robbery with attempted rape not under Art. 48 as complex crime or 294
as they are distinct crimes
o Offender before committing rape must have intention to take personal property belonging
another with intent to gain and the robbery is accompanied by rape
o Homicide and rape committed --> crime is robbery with homicide with rape as an aggravating
circumstance
o Multiple homicide or rape in the course of or by reason of robbery, these additional homicide
or rape not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite a resultant anomalous
situation as when robbery with rape is on equal footing as robbery with multiple rape
Enumeration for aggravating circumstances is exclusive
People v. Sultan (April 27, 200) --> it can neither increase the penalty nor be prosecuted
separately, they are to be disregarded as if such crimes were not committed and the
victims did not exist (penalty the same, maximum penalty, not further aggravate
liability)

Anomalous situation --> described as in so far as the court is concerned additional
homicide not committed victims never existed
Robbery with mutilation or serious physical injuries
o On occasion of robbery
o Must be those described in Art. 263
o Becoming insane, impotent or blind, use of speech, power to hear, smell or lost an eye, foot,
arm or leg or use of such member or has become incapacited for work which he was before
engaged
Robbery unnecessary violence or intimidaiton
o Inflicted physical injuries in par. 3 and 4 of Art. 263
o Injuries inflicted on person not responsible for the commission of the robbery
Simple robbery (intimidation only)
o Injuries not contemplated in par. 1 to 4 only involve simple or slight physical injuries,
absorbed in robbery
Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide is also a special complex crime with only one
penalty
Unless the killing deserves a penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in its maximum possible if
killing is parricide, murder or infanticide (reclusion perpetua to death)
o Physical injuries without intent to kill and victim did not die, injuries absorbed in attempted or
frustrated robbery committed
o Serious physical injuries not fall under Art. 284 nor under Art. 297, Art. 48 then should apply,
single act constitute two or more grave or less grave felonies, offense necessary means to
commit the other (penalty for most serious crime)
Art. 298 --> violence against or intimidation of persons
o Can be committed by any person
Use of force upon things
o Robbery in an uninhabited place

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 10 -

10

Robbery in an inhabited place

Use of force must have been for the purpose of entry or to enable the offender to enter the
building
o Term force refers to both physical and constructive force
Physical: breaking of any wall
Constructive: Through an opening not intended as ingress or egress, fictitious name,
picklocks, public officer
Art. 299 any armed persons but only for the purpose of determining penalty if used to intimidate
(Art. 294 or 297)
Ships or vessels; distinguish from piracy
Robbery
Genuine keys stolen from owner also considered as false keys
o Possession of false keys no penalty or punishment unless together with picklocks and similar
tools
o
o

Theft
Laurel v. Abrogar (Feb. 27, 2006) -- intangible properties are proper subjects of theft because they
may be taken, carried away or appropriated
They should not be equated with service provided to the public, property but not subject of theft
The taking personal property of another with intent to gain but without violence
o Offender does not always take the thing from another, he may have received the thing from
another, but if he acquires only the material possession of the things and appropriates it is
liable for theft and not for estafa
Estafa or Swindling
Two basic and indispensable elements:
o Abuse of confidence or deceit as the means of committing the crime
o Damage or intent to cause damage capable of pecuniary estimation as basis of penalty
Estafa by abuse of confidence
Estafa by means of deceit
Person injured need not be the owner of the goods (People v. Salazar)
Reimbursement or restitution of the sums swindled does not extinguish criminal liability
Estafa has features similar to that of theft
o US v. Vera: flawed, if offender received by offender, appropriation may still be considered
theft
o Juridical possession of object transferred in estafa --> theft only physical possession is
transferred
o When is there juridical possession?
When would there only be civil liability?
Diaz v. People (August 26, 2008) --> the private complainant gave accused the amount
of P200k in trust to be lent to other people but there is also an agreement that the
same must be returned to the complainant at any time upon demand. Failure to
account upon demand is already estafa
If material possession, juridical possession and ownership are also transferred default in return -->
give rise only to a civil liability (take away ownership: criminal responsibility of liability)
Money paid by students: not estafa, only civil liability
There must be a formal demand
o Exception: (People v. Villegas)

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 11 -

11

When the offender's obligation subject to a period

Accused cannot be located despite due diligence
Motor Vehicle, personal use, leased to another: crime is estafa (in juridical possession of the
vehicle), but if it is a passenger jeep rented out and later sold by the accused, qualified theft
(reversed People v. Bonifacio in People v. Isaac) --> public utility vehicle cannot be rented out for
private purposes, contract void --> only material possession and not juridical --> misappropriation or
conversion not estafa but qualified theft
Rules constituted by partners in a partnership
o If a property was contributed for a specific partnership purpose and the accused partner
converted the same for his own benefit: estafa
o Contributed for general partnership purpose, no estafa without prior liquidation of
partnership assets
Rules of acts of sales commission agent
o Such retention or deduction has been authorized no criminal liability
o Detention for the protection against a possible civil controversy --> no estafa --. Pending
mutual accounting between the parties; principal failed to pay agents accrued commission of
larger amount
o Retention not authorized nor for protection of civil dispute there is liability for estafa
By taking undue advantage of signature in blank and by writing any document above such signature
in blank
o If paper with signature in blank delivered but not filled up in accordance with instruction:
Crime is estafa but may constitute as falsification too, falsification is absorbed
o If not delivered: crime is falsification, cannot be estafa (Art. 171 par. 3) as there is no abuse of
confidence
o If signature secured by fraud (estafa by inducement through deceit to sign a document)
o Par. 1 C different from Art. 316 (person executing any fictitious or simulated contract, in the
latter case person who executed the fictitious contract is himself the one who signed the
same)
By false pre-tense or deceit (par. 2 and 3 or Art. 315)
o Where the accused obtained money from the offended party on a promise that he would
work for the approval of certain application but did not succeed--> contract of service
o But is the accused had no intention to perform services --> estafa (People v. Wilson Yi)
o Accused commits crime of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, his act of causing
damage under the false pre-tense that he has been licensed to engage in recruitment and
placement activities for which he was paid by the victim will make him liable for estafa -->
may be convicted for both illegal recruitment (malum prohibitum) and estafa (malum in se)
Post-dating a check or Issuance of check in favor of an obligation when the offender had no funds in
the bank or has insufficient funds (par. 2 d)
o Also known as estafa through bouncing checks
Distinguished from B.P. 22 which is malum prohibitum v. Malum inse)
Elements of deceit and damage in estafa not required in violation of BP 22
BP 22 classified as crime against public interest; estafa classified as crime against
property
In BP 22 the drawer is liable even if the check is issued in payment of a pre-existing
obligation which is not the rule in the case of estafa

The issuance by the offender of the check must be prior to or simultaneously with
the transaction, otherwise if the check is issued in payment for pre-existing legal
obligation no estafa is committed

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 12 -

12

Par. 2d amended by R.A. 4885 eliminated element of the offense that the
offender had:
Knowledge of lack of or insufficiency of funds; instead a prima facie
evidence of deceit is now established if drawer fails to deposit amount
necessary to cover the check within 3 days from notice of its dishonor
Under the RPC if the check was issued by the debtor only for security of the
creditor as in the nature of a promissory note and not to be encashed: no
estafa is committed, deceit would be absent --> but not so in BP 22, even if
only for security or guaranty still within the ambit of BP 22
Estafa through bouncing checks committed against an indorsee (original
payee)
If the payee is aware of the drawer's deceit the payee and the drawer
are co-principals in the offense committed against the indorsee (par.
2 A); if in collusion with the drawer then estafa under par. 2 d will
apply. By virtue of P.D. 818 which increased the penalty of estafa
through bouncing check --> additional 1 year for every one year
exceeding 22,000 --> not exceed 30 years (penalty will now be
reclusion perpetua; 20 years and 1 day to 40 years) (People v. Isleta)
*Check: Recuerdo v. People Jjune 27, 2006) --> reimbursement or restitution shall not
extinguished liability, not affected by compromise of complainant and accused --> good faith
is a valid defense in estafa by post-dating a check --> debtor arranged a payment scheme with
the creditor and to repay the value of the check
Article 315 is the principal law on swindling and estafa, two basic and indispensable elements:
abuse of confidence or deceit as the means of committing the crime, damage or intent to cause
damage capable of pecuniary estimation as the basis of the penalty
Two classifications: estafa by means of deceit and abuse of confidence
If the offender does not deny receiving such goods, but denies their value or quality, that will only
hold him civilly liable
No intention to defraud --> malicious mischief
Committed by public Officer --> offense under Art. 226

Other kinds of Swindling -Art. 361

No. 1
o Disposal of real property --> property actually exists but does not belong to offender; if it does
not exist it will be estafa (falsely pretending to possess property)
o Mere intent to cause damage is not sufficient --> there must be actual damage
No. 2
o People v. Escueta --> misrepresented that property is free from encumbrance
o If duly recorded in the Resgistry of Deeds, constructive notice --> not applicable to estafa by
means of deceit (Aug. 28, 1985 case)
Art. 317 - Swindling a Minor
Age of the minor discussed in Reyes has already been settled by the Family Code setting the age of
majority to 18 years of age
Art. 318 - Other deceits
Any kind of deceit resorted to by the offender to prejudice the victim
Catch all provision in the Code

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 13 -

13

Examples:
o A offered to serve as a domestic servant but left after he received advance wages
o Showing one lot to an interested buyer but thereafter sold him a different lot
o In interpreting dreams for profit if the fortune teller would also deceive the victim saying he
had supernatural powers it will be estafa under par. 2A (pretending to possess power)

Arson
Art. 320 restored by PD 1744, later amended RA 7659
Sec. 6 PD 1613 --> prima facie evidence of arson
If by reason or on occasion of arson death occurs the crime of homicide is absorbed
Attempted Arson
Frustrated Arson
Consummated Arson
A person attempting to burn collected some rocks, soaked in gasoline and placed them in the
building, when he was about to light a match he was chased by a person -- attempted; if rags are lit
--> frustrated; and if a building is burned
People v. Malugan (1704470, Sept. 20, 2006) --> where both burning and death occurred
o Main objective is burning of the building and death occurs --> crime is arson, homicide
absorbed
o Main objective to kill and fire is resorted to accomplish --> murder only
o Main objective is to kill, and offender kills victim, fire resorted to, to cover up killing --> two
crimes: homicide or murder and arson
Malicious Mischief
Cannot be committed through reckless imprudence
There is simple malicious mischief and qualified or special malicious mischief where offender shall
in addition be liable for other consequences of his criminal act
If damaged property also appropriated --> crime is theft; after having damaged the property of
another shall remove or make use of the same --> punishable under Art. 308
Crimes against chastity/private crimes
Crimes which cannot be prosecuted de officio because of the requirement that the prosecution
thereof should be by a sworn written complaint by the offended party --> procedural requirement -> condition sine qua non --> jurisdictional)
People v. Morigo (may be used also in the crime of concubinage)
There are two crimes against chastity which can be prosecuted de officio:
o Corruption of Minors
o White Slave Trade
o State can proceed with the prosecution regardless of whether a sworn written complaint has
been executed by the victim
Crime cannot be prosecuted de officio (not a crime against chastity)
o Violation of Art. 360 (last paragraph) --> libel by imputation of a crime such as adultery or
concubinage and other offenses enumerated under the provision
o GR: libel can be prosecuted de officio (the last paragraph an exception)
Adultery is committed by a married woman who should have sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband, the man knowing her to be married
o People v. Zapata --> each sexual intercourse constitute a crime of adultery should be
rationalized as adulterous acts on different occasions

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 14 -

14

Consent and Pardon of adulterous acts

The present doctrinal rule is that consent applies to future acts while pardon refers to
past acts
Importance of distinction

The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that consent is valid and will
exculpate liability even if granted only to the offending spouse but pardon to
absolve must be granted to both offenders
o Last paragraph: special extenuating or mitigating circumstance (People v. Alberto --> wife was
given two degrees lower and another degree lower because it was proved that she acted in
the honest belief and in good faith that her husband was dead --> VI: cannot satisfy the
doctrine, wife acted in a mistake of fact; the court should have acquitted her instead as there
was no criminal intent)
o Even if marriage subsequently declared void or voidable --> prosecution will prosper
o Can there be a separate crime of adultery and bigamy?
o Can there be adultery and concubinage (Del Prado v. Dela Fuente)
o Concubinage in three ways:
Mistress in conjugal dwelling
Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman other than
the wife
Co-habiting
o Married man brought to the conjugal dwelling a girl and introduced the same to his wife as a
relative who would be staying in the house while looking for a work. Without wife's
knowledge man and girl would have carnal knowledge. Would Art. 334 or concubinage in the
first mode apply to that situation?
Will not apply, not introduced as a concubine but as a relative
The law requires that the girl be brought it to the conjugal dwelling in that status, as a
mistress
o Under the second mode, proof of actual sexual intercourse is not required so long as it can be
resonably concurred that such occurred
o Co-habiting in another place, requires both accused actually live together as husband and wife
o A married man, would every now and then, would go to an apartment to have liaison with his
girlfriend
Under the third mode cohabiting in any other place requires that both accused actually
live together as husband and wife, occasional visit or transient visit does not amount to
co-habitation (habituality only required in the first and third modes of commission of
the crimes)
Acts of lasciviousness
o Lewd design --> always consummated
o Offense is committed against either sex in Art. 336 except in Art. 339
In Art. 337 the penalty for the commission or corruption of minors, white slave trade has been
raised one degree if victim is under 12 years of age
Simple seduction --> deceit
Qualified --> abuse of authority; physical virginity as it is understood in medical science is not
required, what is required is only legal virginity --> the idea of abduction of virtuous woman or good
reputation
o Abuse of authority by person in public authority --> guardian, teacher, person entrusted with
the victim, priest, relationship of brother, not by adoption
o

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 15 -

15

Promise of marriage is principal inducement for seduction --> but if fraudulent machination to
seduce girl would that not constitute as Rape? VI: YES
Corruption of Minors and white slave trade
o CM --> minors must be used, either sex, must not necessarily for profit, single act, WST -->
minority may not be involved, females, for profit, generally committed habitually
o White Slave Trade may be with or without the consent of the woman --> while slavery for the
purpose of immoral traffic is committed against her will

Abduction
Art. 342 - forcible abduction
Art. 343 - consented abduction
There must be lewd designs, for some appreciable period of time (permanence not necessary)
After intercourse of the victim is not required in abduction
Lewd design is sufficient to make the offender liable
Prosecution of Adultery etc
Last paragraph, epitaph --> rape is still there, but since the crime of rape has been transported from
private crimes to crimes against persons the same should be deemed deleted from the text of Art.
344
Concubinage and adultery can be prosecuted only by the offended spouse --> even if incapacitated
In complaint filed by offended spouse, even if minor is valid (under the old law --> when minor can
still marry)
Subsequent marriage between the offended party and the accused shall delete the liability and the
penalty together with the co-principals and accomplices except in adultery and concubinage or
marriage invalid, in bad faith, to escape criminal liability or responsibility
Simulation of birth etc.
Purpose: to effect or attain the civil status of another
Simulation of birth --> to prove that she is not sterile
But to extort money --> estafa
Girlfriend says that she is pregnant without taking the child of another, and asks for money from the
boyfriend (without money) --> other deceits (Art. 318) --> if man actually believed the girl, if not
there may be estafa (read commentaries)
Bigamy
There are three kinds of illegal marriage provided for in Chapter 2 of Illegal marriages:
o Bigamy - Art. 349
o Marriage contrary to marriage law
o Premature marriage
Bigamy --> essential first marriage valid, second marriage valid had it not been for the existence of
the first marriage
o Conflicting decisions were laid to rest by the family code (Aug. 3, 1988) adopted doctrines in
Vda. De consanguera
While the second marriage should be presumed null and void ab initio there was still a
need for a judicial declaration nullity of second marriage
Art. 14 --> absolute nullity for previous marriage may be invoked only by final judgment
declaring previous marriage void

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 16 -

16

August 2008 (Morigo decision) -- > if the alleged marriage consisted only of signing the
marriage contract --> parties did not go through the solemnization, there is no first
marriage to speak of
The rules in adultery and bigamy are different
o Adultery may be committed even if marriage is void
o Bigamy cannot be committed when first marriage is void
o In this particular situation a problem can be crafted: If a man and a woman gets married to
respective spouses, contract marriage with each other and have sexual relations thereafter.
What will their liability be?
Woman --> Adultery and bigamy, if first marriage null and void not liable for bigamy and
only adultery
Man --> Bigamy and adultery if he knew the status of the woman as married as well, if
without knowledge bigamy only

Knowledge of the marriage of the woman is essential for concubinage, if his first
marriage is null and void ab initio and he did not know the woman is married -->
the man has no liability
May a married man be liable for bigamy and concubinage?
o If he marries and subsequently cohabits with the second wife (US v. Diaz, reiterated in US v.
Cabrera, People v. Schnekenburger)
Prescriptive period for bigamy: does not commence from the commission thereof but from the time
of its discovery by the complainant spouse. But if subsequent marriage was solemnized in a church
and registered --> there is present constructive notice --> shouldn't prescriptive period begin to run
on the date of registry of the subsequent marriage? The rule on constructive notice is not
applicable, while it may be considered that the bigamous marriage was celebrated publicly and
registered the said rule cannot apply, bigamous marriage entered into in secrecy to the offended
spouse and in a place where offender known as not a marriage person
While in Art. 350, marriage against provisions of law --> full knowledge that legal requirements not
complied with
Art. 351 premature marriage
o Premature marriage --> widow contracted marriage within period of 301 days within the
death of the first spouse --> obsolete (to avoid issue of doubtful paternity)
o Supposing girl contracts 2nd marriage and has the child tested for DNA and the child is that of
the deceased spouse, would the woman be liable for contracting premature marriage?
o When is the period set aside?
o If without marriage license --> also liable under Art. 350 and 351
o People v. Masinsin --> purpose of Art. 351 to avoid cases of doubtful paternity, woman not
liable if she has already delivered, conclusive proof that she is not pregnant by the previous
spouse because he was permanently sterile; distinguished from impotency

Art. 353 -> Libel

Complainant as to the last phrase --> blacken memory of one who is dead --> heirs or the estate can
take action against one who cause dishonor to memory of person dead
Oral defamation v. Slander v. Libel --> means of commission
Two types of qualified privileged communication
In 355 libel by means of writing or similar means --> take note that television programs have not
been included in the enumeration of how libel could be committed
o If made through TV program --> People v. Casten --> court ruled that libel can also be
committed in television programs or broadcasts although the same has not been included in

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 17 -

17

the enumeration of the means of committing the crime of libel --> not mentioned because
not yet in existence but included as any "similar means" (Villa-Ignacio: what of the rule on
constructing the law in favor of the accused?) --> follow jurisprudence
Libel should be distinguished from slander under Art. 358
Oral defamation -- which would be simple or great slander
Prescriptive period of slander --> grave, oral defamation and slander by deed (6 months); simple
slander (2 months or 60 days)
The word PUTA --> not an imputation of prostitution
o The court in the case of Reyes --> Merely an expression of disgust or displeasure and not by
itself an oral defamation
o But what if with dirty finger --> if merely to annoy or irritate --> unjust vexation, if to
embarrass and humiliate, put victim in dishonour --> slander
Art. 359 --> intent to humiliate offended party, if intent not duly proven --> may be matreatment by
deed (Art. 266)
Offender took hold of the teacher's hair and started shaking the school teacher's head --> what
crime was committed?
o Depend on the intent --> act of hitting the teacher to dishonor the teacher --> slander
o If to hurt --> physical injury
o Art. 148 (direct assault) --> if committed in the performance of her duty, or by reason of
performance of duty --> would constitute direct assault (after amendment of RPC on who are
persons in authority)
Art. 360 -- last paragraph
o Sworn written complaint is required, whether imputation committed orally or in writing
o What if the imputation would involve the crime of rape, can that be prosecuted by the State
even without a sworn written statement?
YES --> crime no longer a crime against chastity not a private crime anymore,
reclassified as a crime against person, state notwithstanding absence of sworn written
statement can prosecute (Villa-Ignacio: exercise in futility --> no witness to be
presented)
Is 363 or incriminating innocent persons equivalent to malicious prosecution?
o What is malicious prosecution? Should it be under Art. 363 or 364?
Not in the RPC, a civil law concept --> closest in the RPC is perjury or false testimony in a
judicial proceeding
In Strebel --> no crime of malicious prosecution as the same is a civil concept in Art. 2208 par. 3
Feb. 28, 1962 case

Criminal Negligence
Rule in designation of the offense involving criminal negligence and resulting in physical injuries or
homicide or damage to property?
o Which is being punished? The resulting offense of the manner of commission of the offense?
Should be reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, simple negligence causing
damages to property
Is abandonment a commission or an ommission?
o An act of commission --> shall abandon --> committing a felony
o If abandonment of one's own victim --> an ommission
Nevermind Title 15

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 18 -

18

SOME PROBLEMS ASKED IN CLASS:

Article 246 - Parricide
1. A an illegitimate son of B killed the legitimate son of B. Is he guilty of parricide?
No because in the case of ascendants such as grandparents, their relationship with the killer must
be legitimate. The same is true with the other descendants (grandchildren or great grandchildren)
2.

A had been married to B in China before he came to the Philippines, here A married X. In a quarrel
A killed X. Is A liable for parricide?
No. The marriage of A with X being bigamous, his relationship with X is illegitimate. To constitute
parricide the person killed must be a legitimate spouse of the offender. A will be liable for
homicide instead

3.

A is married to B, A planned to kill B. A hired C a stranger to kill B with a pistol furnished by D, the
brother of A. C the hired killer shot to death B. What crime was committed by A, C and D.
A is liable for parricde
C for murder
D for
Article 247

1. A surprised his wife and her paramour. But the paramour was able to run away, the husband
chased the paramour. Unable to catch up with the paramour the husband returned to the wife
who he found at the stairs of the house. The husband killed the wife. May the husband be given the
benefit of Art. 247?
Yes. In the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter --> interpreted differently
2. Where the husband kills a woman in flagrante meaning in the act of sexual intercourse with
another man, in the mistaken belief that she was his wife. May the husband be given the benefit of
Art. 247?
No. But the husband will be excused from liability because of mistake of fact, provided all the
requisites or elements for claiming so are present
3. A killed B because the latter provoked the former during an earthquake and eruption of a volcano.
Is A liable for murder?
No. There is no showing that the accused took advantage of the eruption of the volcano and
earthquake and more importantly he was provoked. The fact that he killed the victim during an
earthquake is not the determining circumstance but the provocation
4. A killed B in an uninhabited place and at night time purposely sought by A to facilitate the
commission of the crime. Is A liable for murder?
No because uninhabited place and night time are not qualifying circumstances in murder.
Other Articles
1. A without intent to kill fired his gun at B, but only slight physical injuries were committed

KIT ENRIQUEZ

- 19 -

19

Illegal discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries. No intent to kill. Although the two crimes
were the result of one single act, a slight physical injuries cannot form a complex crime with illegal
discharge of firearm
2. A suffered abortion by natural cause. Fetus in human form, above 6 months. While the fetus was
still alive, it was buried by the servant as instructed by the mother. Would the mother and the
servant be liable criminally?
No because the fetus in view of its age which is only 6 months did not have its own life
independent of that of the mother. A fetus under these conditions had necessarily to succumb a
few moments after its expulsion from the maternal womb. The crime of infanticide not
committed, in this crime the infant must be able to subsist outside the maternal womb and less
than 3 days old. No abortion because the expulsion was through natural cause --> no intent to
commit abortion
3. A, a stranger poisoned a pregnant woman to kill her. As a consequence, she died and the fetus in
her womb also died. What crime was committed?
Murder, because A killed the woman by means of poison. Poison is a qualifying circumstance of
murder. It cannot be a complex crime of murder with intentional abortion because the abortion
was not intended. The crime cannot also be complexed with unintentional abortion because there
was no violence used.
4. May an owner of a house commit trespass to dwelling in his own house?
YES. Lessor-lessee relationship
5. Accused without intent to kill, entered the dwelling. Owner raises alarm of intrusion and is killed.
What is the liability of the person entering the dwelling?
Separate charges of trespass to dwelling and homicide
6. If with intent to kill --> Homicide aggravated by dwelling

KIT ENRIQUEZ