20.
Rape (Article 266-A)
Rape may be committed by a male or a female.
(See par. 2)
Elements of rape by sexual intercourse (par. 1)
1. That the offender is a MAN;
2. That the offender had carnal knowledge
of a woman;
3. That such act is accomplished under any
of the following circumstances:
a. By using force, threat or
intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise
unconscious; (dapat w/out
knowledge ang offender; otherwise,
it will be qualified) or
c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12
years of age (statutory rape) or
demented.
Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must
be entered for rape to be consummated, and not
merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the
female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of
the female organ or touching the mons pubis of
the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute
consummated rape. Absent any showing of the
slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e.,
touching either labia of the pudendum by the
penis, there can be no consummated rape; at
most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of
lasciviousness. (People v. Campuhan, G.R. No.
129433)
There can be NO crime of frustrated rape
because the slightest penetration or mere
touching of the genitals consummates the crime.
(People v. Oscar, G.R. No. L-24055)
Mons pubis the rounded eminence that becomes
hairy after puberty, and instantly visible within the
surface
Labia majora the outer lips of the female organ
composed of the outer convex surface and the inner
surface
The labias, which are required to be touched by
the penis, are by their natural situs located
beneath the mons pubis, to touch them with the
penis is to attain some degree of penetration
thus, rape is consummated. (People v.
Campuhan, supra)
A freshly broken hymen is not an essential
element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of
the victim was still intact does not rule out the
possibility of rape.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of
the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of
the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for
rape. (People v. Ortoa, G.R. No. 174484)
In rape cases, the material fact or circumstance
to be considered is the occurrence of the rape,
not the time of its commission. The date or time
the rape was committed is not an essential
ingredient as it is the carnal knowledge through
force and intimidation that is the gravamen of the
offense. It is, thus, sufficient that the date of
commission alleged is as near as possible to the
actual date. (People v. Ceredon, G.R. No.
167179)
Rape Shield Rule The character of the woman is
immaterial in rape. It is no defense that the woman is
of unchaste character, provided the illicit relations
were committed with force and violence, etc. (People
v. Baluya, G.R. No. 133005)
Penalties:
1. Whenever the rape is committed with the
use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons reclusion perpetua to death
2. When by reason or on occasion of the rape,
the victim has become insane reclusion
perpetua to death
3. When the rape is attempted and a homicide
is committed by reason or on occasion
thereof reclusion perpetua to death
(Special Complex Crime; Attempted
Rape with Homicide)
4. When by reason or on occasion of the rape,
homicide is committed death (this is a
special complex crime; Rape with
Homicide)
Qualifying circumstances (penalty is DEATH/ for par.
2, reclusion temporal):
1. When the victim is under 18 years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil
degree, or the common law spouse of the
parent of the victim; (NOTE: The statement
that the victim is the minor daughter of the
offender is not enough. It is essential that the
information must state the exact age of the
victim at the time of the commission of the
crime. [People v. Baniguid, G.R. No.
137714])
2. When the victim is under the custody of the
police or military authorities or any law
enforcement or penal institution;
3. When the rape is committed in full view of
the spouse, parent, any of the children or
other relatives within the 3rd civil degree of
consanguinity;
4. When the victim is a religious engaged in
legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender
before or at the time of the commission of
the crime;
5. When the victim is a child below 7 years old;
6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted
with HIV/AIDS or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or
disease is transmitted to the victim;
7. When committed by any member of the AFP
or para-military units thereof or the PNP or
any law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when the offender took advantage
of his position to facilitate the commission of
the crime;
8. When by reason or in the occasion of the
rape, the victim has suffered permanent
physical mutilation or disability;
 9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of
the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime;
10. When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of
the commission of the crime.
Elements of rape through sexual assault (par. 2):
1. That the offender (man or woman)
commits an act of sexual assault by any
of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into
another persons mouth or anal
orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or
object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person;
4. That act of sexual assault is
accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By using force, threat or
intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise
unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12
years of age or demented.
Rape through sexual assault is committed when
a finger is inserted in the victims vagina. (People
v. Alfonso, G.R. No. 182094)
It not necessary that the force employed against
the complaining woman in rape be so great or of
such character as could not be resisted. It is
enough that the force used is sufficient to
consummate the culprits purpose of copulating
with the offended woman. The force or violence
necessary in rape is naturally a relative term,
depending on the age, size and strength of the
parties and their relation to each other. (People v.
Savellano, 57 SCRA 320)
It is not necessary that the victim should have
resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries
in the hand of the rapist. It is enough if the
intercourse takes place against her will or if she
yields because of genuine apprehension of harm
to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does
not impose upon a rape victim the burden of
proving resistance. (People v. Sending, G.R. No.
141773-76)
Intimidation must be viewed in light of the victims
perception and judgement at the time of rape and
not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it
produces fear fear that if the victim does not
yield to the bestial demands of the accused,
something would happen to her at the moment or
thereafter, as when she is threatened with death
if she reports the incident. (People v. Tabugoca,
285 SCRA 312)
The deprivation of reason contemplated by law
does not need to be complete. Mental
abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. (People v.
Daing)
Where consent is induced by the administration
of drugs or liquor, which incites her passions but
does not deprive her of her will power, the
accused is not guilty of rape. (State v. Lung)
Rape is committed if a potion is given to the
woman and as a result of which she felt dizzy
and weak and experienced a sudden loss of
control over her person and thereafter, she was
abused. It deprived the woman of reason and will
to resist the sexual assault of the accused.
(People v. Bautista, 102 SCRA 483)
There is no crime of frustrated rape. (People v.
Orita, 184 SCRA 114-115) Only attempted and
consummated.
Facts to be proven by the prosecution in statutory
rape:
1. The age of the complainant;
2. The identity of the accused; and
3. The sexual intercourse between the accused
and the complainant. (People v. Layco, Jr.,
G.R. No. 182191)
Statutory rape is committed even if the girl under
12 years of age consented to the sexual act or
even if she be a prostitute.
The victims mental, and not only the
chronological age is considered. Thus, it is still
rape if the woman is 13 years old with a mental
capacity of a 5 year old. (People v. Manlapaz,
G.R. No. L-41819) Therefore, in determining
whether a person is 12 years of age, the
interpretation should be in accordance with either
the chronological age if he or she is not suffering
from intellectual disability, or the mental age if
intellectual disability is established. (People v.
Badilla, G.R. No. 199402)
The fact that the offended party may have been
of an unchaste character constitutes no defense
in a charge of rape, provided that the illicit
relations were committed with force and violence,
etc. (People v. Blanco, 46 Phil. 113) Rape Shield
Rule
Penalties:
1. Whenever the rape is committed with the
use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons prision mayor to reclusion
temporal
2. When by reason or on occasion of the rape,
the victim has become insane reclusion
temporal
3. When the rape is attempted and a homicide
is committed by reason or on occasion
thereof reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua
4. When by reason or on occasion of the rape,
homicide is committed reclusion perpetua
The award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto is
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.
(People v. Tao, G.R. No. 133872)
The indemnity for the victim shall be in the
increased amount of P75,000 if the crime of rape
committed effectively qualified by any of the
 circumstances under which the death penalty is
authorized by the applicable amendatory laws.

If homicide is committed by reason or on the

occasion of the rape, indemnity in the amount of
P100,000 is fully justified and properly
commensurate with the seriousness of the said
complex crime. (People v. Robles, Jr., 305 SCRA
273)

Article 266-C. The subsequent valid marriage

between the offender and the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed.

In case it is the legal husband who is the offender,

the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty; Provided, That the crime shall not
be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated
if the marriage is void ab initio.

Since rape has ceased to be a crime against

chastity, but is now a crime against person, it
now appears that marriage extinguishes that
penal action and the penalty as to the principal
and not as to the accomplices and accessories.
This principle does not apply where the multiple
rape is committed, because while marriage with
one defendant extinguishes the criminal liability,
its benefits cannot be extended to the acts of
committed by the others of which he is a co-
principal. (People v. Bernardo)

Article 266-D. Any physical overt act manifesting

resistance against the act of rape in any degree
from the offended party, or where the offended
party is so situated as to render her/him incapable
of giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished
under Art. 266-A.
 TITLE NINE
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND SECURITY
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention (Art. 267)
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in
any other manner deprives the latter of
his liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping is
illegal;
4. That in the commission of the offense,
any of the following circumstances is
present:
a. That the kidnapping or detention
shall have lasted more than three
days; (reclusion perpetua)
b. That it shall have been
committed simulating public
authority;
c. That any serious physical
injuries shall have been inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him
shall have been made;
d. That the person kidnapped or
detained shall be a (1) minor,
except when the accused is any
of the parents, (2) female or (3) a
public officer; or
e. That the purpose of the
kidnapping or detention is for
extorting ransom from the victim
or any other person. (death)
(qualified kidnapping for ransom)
When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence if the detention, or is raped, or is
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. (Serious illegal
detention or Kidnapping with murder/homicide/rape
special complex crime)
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the
course of the detention, regardless of whether
the killing was purposely sought or was merely
an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or
homicide can no longer be complexed under Art.
48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall
be punished as a special complex crime under
the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended.
(People v. Ramos, 297 SCRA 618)
There is no complex crime of illegal detention
with rape under Art. 48 of the RPC. (People v.
Lactao, 227 SCRA 463) No complex crime of
kidnapping with attempted rape under Art. 48.
(Special complex crime lang)
Where the victim was taken from one place to
another, solely for the purpose of killing him and
not for detaining him for any length of time or for
the purpose of obtaining ransom for his release,
the crime committed is murder, and not the
complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
(People v. Ong, 62 SCRA 174)
If the primary and ultimate purpose of the
accused is to kill the victim, the incidental
deprivation of the victims liberty does not
constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is
merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of the
victim. The crime committed would be either
homicide or murder. (People v. Delim, G.R. No.
142773)
Specific intent must be alleged in the information
and proved by the prosecution for a crime
requiring specific intent. (State v. Mundy, 650 NE
2d 502) Kidnapping and murder are specific
intent crimes.
ILLEGAL DETENTION ARBITRARY
DETENTION
Committed by a private Committed by a public
individual who unlawfully officer or employee who
kidnaps, detains or detains a person without
otherwise deprives a legal ground
person of liberty
Crime against liberty and Crime against the
security fundamental law of the
State
2. Slight illegal detention (Art. 268)
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in
any other manner deprives the latter of
his liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping is
illegal;
4. That the crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Art. 267.
Penalty: Reclusion temporal
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone
who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of
the crime.
If the offender shall (a) voluntarily release the
person so kidnapped or detained within three
days from the commencement of the detention,
(b) without having attained the purpose intended,
and (c) before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be
prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred
pesos. (Privileged mitigating circumstance)
But to avail of the privileged mitigating
circumstance, it must be shown by the offender
that he was in a position to prolong the detention
for more than three days and yet he released the
person detained within that time.
3. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269)
Elements:
1. That the offender (any person) arrests or
detains another person;
 2. That the purpose of the offender is to
deliver him to the proper authorities;
3. That the arrest or detention is not
authorized by law or there is no
reasonable ground therefor.
Penalty: Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500
This article punishes any person who commits
the acts defined therein. This article applies to
public officers. (People v. Malasugui, 63 Phil.
221)
If the public officer has no authority to arrest and
detain a person, or if he did not act in his official
capacity, he should be punished for unlawful
arrest under Art. 269.
Unlawful arrests by public officers should be
punished as arbitrary detention under Article 124
if the public officer has the authority to arrest and
detain a person but the arrest is without legal
ground.
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor (Art. 270)
Elements:
1. That the offender is entrusted with the
custody of a minor person;
2. That he deliberately fails to restore the
said minor to his parents or guardians.
Penalty: Reclusion perpetua
Art. 270 Art. 267
The offender is entrusted The offender is not
with the custody of the entrusted with the
minor custody of the victim
The offense as charged, kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Art. 270 of the RPC is
necessarily included in the offense proved, which
is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention of
minor under Art. 267(4) of the same code,
inasmuch as the essential ingredients of the
offense charged constitute or form part of those
constituting the offense proved.
5. Inducing a minor to abandon his
home (Art. 271)
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 such home.
Penalty: Prision correccional and a fine not exceeding
P700
If the person committing any of the crimes
covered by the preceding article (and the 2nd par. of
this Article) shall be the father or the mother of the
minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine
not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.
The inducement must be actual, committed with
criminal intent, and determined by a will to cause
damage. (People v. Paalam)
What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing
a minor to abandon his home or the home of his
guardian, and it is not necessary that the minor
actually abandons the home. (People v. Apolinar)
6. Slavery (Art. 272)
Elements:
1. That the offender purchases, sells,
kidnaps or detains a human being;
2. That the purpose of the offender is to:
a. Enslave such human being;
(prision mayor and a fine not
exceeding P10,000) or
b. To assign the offended party to
some immoral traffic
(prostitution). (qualified) (Max.
period)
7. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273)
Elements:
1. That the offender retains a minor in his
service;
2. That it is against the will of the minor;
3. That it is under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted
with the custody of such minor.
Penalty: Prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500
The existence of an indebtedness constitutes no
legal justification for holding a person and
depriving him of his freedom to live where he
wills. (Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851)
8. Services rendered under compulsion
in payment of debt (Art. 274)
Elements:
1. That the offender compels a debtor to
work for him, either as household servant
or farm labourer;
2. That it is against the debtors will;
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce
the payment of a debt.
Penalty: Arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period
9. Abandonment of persons in danger
and abandonment of ones own
victim (Art. 275)
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to
any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of dying, when he
can render such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render
assistance to another whom he has accidentally
wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child
under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said
child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail
to take him to a safe place.
Under the third way of committing the crime, it is
immaterial that the offender did not know the
child is under seven years. (Albert)
10. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276)
Elements:
1. That the offender has the custody of a
child;
2. That the child is under seven years of
age;
3. That he abandons such child;
4. That he has no intent to kill the child
when the latter is abandoned.
Penalties:
1. Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
P500
2. When the minor dies as a result from such
abandonment prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods (qualified)
3. If the life of the minor shall have been in
danger only prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods (qualified)
Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death
of the child. The ruling that the intent to kill is
presumed from the death of the victim of the
crime is applicable only to crimes against
persons, and not to crimes against security,
particularly the crime of abandoning a minor
under Art. 276.
The abandonment referred to in this article is not
the momentary leaving of the child, but the
abandonment which deprives him of the care and
protection from danger to his person. The act
must be conscious and deliberate. (People v.
Bandian, 63 Phil. 530)
11. Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody;
indifference of parents (Art. 277)
Elements of abandonment of minor by one
charged with the rearing or education of said
minor:
1. That the offender has charge of the
rearing or education of a minor;
2. That he delivers said minor to a public
institution or other person;
3. That the one who entrusted such child to
the offender has not consented to such
act; or if the one who entrusted such
child to the offender is absent, the proper
authorities have not consented to it.
ABANDONMENT IN ABANDONMENT IN
ART. 276 ART. 277
The custody of the The custody of the
offender is stated in offender is specific, that
general is, the custody for the
rearing or education of
the minor
The minor is under 7 The minor is under 18
years of age years of age
The minor is abandoned The minor is delivered to
in such a way as to a public institution or
deprive him of the care other person
and protection that his
tender years need
Penalty: Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500
Elements of indifference of parents:
1. That the offender is a parent;
2. The he neglects his children by not giving
them education;
3. That his station in life requires such
education and his financial condition
permits it.
Article 277 contemplates cases in which the
father or mother, having the means, deliberately
fails to give to their children the education which
their station in life requires and financial condition
permits. (Viada)
12. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278)
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl
under sixteen years of age to perform any
dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or
contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus
manager or engaged in a similar calling, shall
employ in exhibitions of these kinds children
under sixteen years of age who are not his
children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings
enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who
shall employ any descendant of his under twelve
years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person
entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child
under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such
child gratuitously to any person following any of
the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or
to any habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in
consideration of any price, compensation, or
promise, the penalty shall in every case be
imposed in its maximum period. (Qualified)
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted
shall also be removed from office as guardian or
curator; and in the case of the parents of the
child, they may be deprived, temporarily or
perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their
parental authority.
Neither the nature of the crime nor the
responsibility of its perpetrator is altered by the
fact that the accused was living, as a boarder, in
the same house of which the room of the
offended occupant he entered was a part. (U.S.
v. Silvano, 31 Phil. 510)

5. Any person who shall induce any child under The mere absence of consent is not enough to
sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its constitute the crime of trespass to dwelling.
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers to
follow any person engaged in any of the callings To commit trespass, the entrance by the accused
mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to should be against the presumed or express
accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar. prohibition of the occupant, and the lack of
permission should not be confused with
Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to
prohibition. (People v. De Peralta, 42 Phil. 69)
(Art. 275, par. 5) abandon his home (Art.
271)
It is a well-settled rule that whoever enters the
The purpose of the There is no such
dwelling of another at late hour of the night after
inducement to abandon is purpose
the inmates have retired and closed their doors
to follow any person
does so against their will. Under these
engaged in any of the
circumstances, an express prohibition is not
callings of being an
necessary, as it is presumed. (U.S. v. Mesina, 21
acrobat, gymnast, rope-
Phil. 615)
walker, diver, wild-animal
tamer or circus manager
The fact that the door of the room was only
or to accompany any
fastened by a string too weak and inadequate to
habitual vagrant or
hold it fast, does not alter the fact that the
beggar
offended party wished it to be understood that
The victim must be under The victim is under 18
she did not desire anyone to enter without her
16 years of age years of age
express consent. (U.S. v. Silvano, 31 Phil. 509)

The exploitation of the minor must be of such

nature as to endanger his life or safety, in order
to constitute the offense described in this article.
The imposition of the penalties
prescribed in the preceding articles,
shall not prevent the imposition upon the
same person of the penalty provided for
any other felonies defined and punished
by this Code. (Art. 279) (From article 275) Two-
tiered penalty therefore, there are no complex
crimes here
There was implied prohibition to enter the
dwelling in a case where the owner thereof had
told the defendants to wait in the open porch and
then closed the door behind his as he entered the
drawing room. (Gabriel v. People, 96 Phil. 10)
The facts or circumstances from which the
objection of the occupant may be inferred should
be in existence prior to or at the time of the entry.
Prohibition is not necessary when violence or
intimidation is employed by the offender. (U.S. v.
Abanto, 15 Phil. 223)

The law which forbids entry into the dwelling of

13. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280) another relates not only to the method by which
one may pass the threshold of the dwelling of
Elements: another, but also the conduct immediately after
entrance of one who so enters.
1. That the offender is a private person;
2. That he enters the dwelling of another;
Even supposing that the house belonged to the
3. That such entrance is against the latters
accused, that fact alone did not authorized him to
will (prohibition).
do anything with or enter the house against the
Penalties: will of the actual occupant. He could have
invoked the aid of the court for the exercise or
1. Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding protection of his proprietary rights. (People v.
P1,000 Almeda, 75 Phil. 476)
2. Prision correccional in its medium and
maximum persion and a fine not exceeding All trespassers ordinarily have intention to
P1,000 if committed by means of commit another crime, but if there is no overt act
violence or intimidation (qualified trespass of the crime intended to be committed, the crime
to dwelling) is only trespass to dwelling.

If the offender is a public officer or employee, the
offense is violation of domicile.
Dwelling place any building or structure exclusively
devoted for rest and comfort, as distinguished from
place devoted to business, offices, etc.
The culprit who entered a dwelling through the
window to steal personal property, but was
caught by the owner of the dwelling before he
could take any personal property, is guilty of
trespass to dwelling, not attempted robbery.
Where an intruder was caught in the act of
forcibly attempting to enter a dwelling, the crime
 is not attempted robbery but attempted trespass
to dwelling. (People v. Tayag, 59 Phil. 606)
If the offender intended another crime, and he
indeed committed it after trespassing into the
dwelling, the crime intended is the crime
committed and the dwelling or that the crime was
committed after an unlawful entry is only an
aggravating circumstance.
But if the offense committed after trespass to
dwelling only came to the mind of the offender
after he was being arrested by the occupants
thereof, the crime of trespass to dwelling is a
separate and distinct offense from frustrated
homicide. (Crime: Qualified Trespass to Dwelling,
Frustrated Homicide and Serious Physical
Injuries)
Cases to which the provisions of Article 280 are not
applicable:
1. To any person who shall enter another's
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the
dwelling or a third person;
2. To any person who shall enter a dwelling for
the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or Justice;
3. To anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns,
inn and other public houses, while the same
are open.
14. Other forms of trespass (Art. 281)
Elements:
honor or property, or upon that of the
latters family, of any wrong;
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime.
Penalties:
1. If there is demand for money or
imposition of any other condition, even
though not unlawful, and the purpose is
attained the penalty one degree lower of
the penalty for the crime threatened to be
committed
2. If there is demand for money or
imposition of any other condition, even
though not unlawful, and the purpose is
not attained - the penalty one degree lower
of the penalty for the crime threatened to be
committed
3. If the threat is made in writing or through
a middleman the penalty is to be imposed
in its maximum period (qualified)
4. If the threat is not subject to a condition
Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
P500 (this is the threat of the third form)
The threats of the third form are those made with
the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of
the person threatened the belief that the threats
will be carried into effect. (U.S. v. Paguirigan, 14
Phil. 453)
As the crime consists in threatening another with
some future harm, it is not necessary that the
offended party was present at the time the
threats were made. It is sufficient that the threats,
after they had been made in his absence, came
to the knowledge of the offended party.

1. That the offender enters the closed The crime of grave threats is consummated as
premises or the fenced estate of another; soon as the threat comes to the knowledge of the
2. That the entrance is made while either of person threatened. (People v. Villanueva, et al)
them is uninhabited;
3. That the prohibition to enter is manifest; If there is another crime actually committed or the
4. That the trespasser has not secured the objective of the offender is another crime, and the
permission of the owner or the caretaker threat is only a means to commit it or a mere
thereof. incident in its commission, the threat is absorbed
by the other crime. (So katong other crime lang
Penalty: Arresto menor and/or a fine not exceeding ang i-charge) Absorption doctrine no complex
P200 crime
Trespass to dwelling Other forms of trespass
When the act consists in materially taking
(Art. 280) (Art. 281)
possession or securing on the spot, the delivery
The offender must be a The offender may be any
of the money or other personal property, through
private person person
the effect of fear or fright which the imminence of
The offender enters a The offender enters
the injury produces in the mind of the person
dwelling house closed premises or
intimidated, the nature of the penal act is altered
fenced estate
and constitutes, not threats, but the crime of
The place entered is The place entered is
robbery with intimidation. (U.S. v. Osorio, 21 Phil.
inhabited uninhabited
237) Illuminating! see under robbery for more
The offender enters The offender enters distinctions
against the will of the without the permission of
occupant the owner or caretaker Robbery with violence Grave threats
The prohibition to enter is The prohibition to enter is or intimidation
express or implied manifest There is on the spot There is no on the spot
delivery of the money or delivery of the money or
other personal property other personal property
15. Grave threats (Art. 282)

Elements of grave threats:

1. That the offender threatens another with

the infliction upon the latters person,
16. Light threats (Art. 283)
Elements:
1. That the offender makes a threat to
commit a wrong;
2. That the wrong does not constitute a
crime;
3. That there is demand for money or that
other condition is imposed, even though
not unlawful.
Penalty: Arresto mayor
Grave threats (Art. 282) Light threats (Art. 283)
The wrong constitutes a The wrong does not
crime constitute a crime
Additional penalties for grave and light threats:
1. To give bail not to molest the person
threatened; or
2. If the offender fails to give bail, destierro.
17. Other light threats (Art. 285)
Acts punished here:
1. Any person who, without being included
in the provisions of the next preceding
article, shall threaten another with a
weapon or draw such weapon in a
quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger,
shall orally threaten another with some
harm constituting a crime, and who by
subsequent acts show that he did not
persist in the idea involved in his threat,
provided that the circumstances of the
offense shall not bring it within the
provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to
do another any harm not constituting a
felony.
Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if
made in the heat of anger, may be other light
threats.
18. Grave coercions (Art. 286)
Elements:
1. That the offender prevented another from
doing something not prohibited by law,
OR that he compelled another to do
something against his will, be it right or
wrong;
2. That the prevention or compulsion be
effected by violence, threats or
intimidation; and
3. That the person that restrained the will
and liberty of another had not the
authority of law or the right to do so, or,
in other words, that the restraint shall not
be made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right.
Penalty: Prision correccional and a fine not exceeding
P6,000
In the crime of grave coercion, the person
coercing must have restrained his victim from
doing something, not prohibited by law, at the
time he wanted to do it. The coercing person
must have exerted violence on his victim at the
very moment that the latter is doing or is about to
do something he wants to do. If the defendant,
however, had told the complainant not to do
something he desired to do, but the complainant
went ahead and did it, without the defendant
doing anything to prevent him, and after the
complainant had finished doing it, the defendant
exerted violence on him, the crime committed
was unjust vexation, not grave coercion. (People
v. Madrid) ??????
Coercion is consummated even if the offended
party did not accede to the purpose of the
coercion.
The force or violence must be immediate, actual
or imminent. (Mao ni kalahian nila sa Grave
threats)
If the coercion be committed in violation of the
exercise of the right of suffrage, or for the
purpose of compelling another to perform any
religious act or to prevent him from exercising
such right or from so doing such act, the penalty
next higher in degree shall be imposed.
19. Light coercions (Art. 287)
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
display of material force producing
intimidation;
4. That the purpose of the offender is to
apply the same to the payment of the
debt.
Penalty: Arresto mayor in its minimum period and a
fine equivalent to the value of the thing, nut in no case
less than P75
Grave or Light coercion without employing
violence or intimidation is unjust vexation.
arresto menor and/or a fine from 5 to 200 pesos
Unjust vexation includes any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material
harm would, however, unjustly annoy or vex an
innocent person
Kissing a girl, without performing acts of
lasciviousness, is unjust vexation.
20. Other similar coercions (Art. 288)
Elements (par. 1):
1. That the offender is any person, agent or
officer of any association or corporation;
 2. That he or such firm or corporation has 3. That the purpose is to discover the
employed laborers or employees; secrets of such another person;
3. That he forces or compels, directly or 4. That the offender is informed of the
indirectly, or knowingly permits to be contents of the papers or letter (because
forced or compelled, any of his laborers of the seizure).
or employees to purchase merchandise
or commodities of any kind from him or Penalties:
from said firm or corporation.
1. If the offender reveals the secrets prision
Penalty: Arresto mayor and/or a fine ranging from correccional in its minimum and medium
P200 to P500 periods and a fine not exceeding P500
(qualified)
Elements (par. 2): 2. If the offender did not reveal the secrets -
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500
1. That the offender pays the wages due a
laborer or employee by him by means of This article does not require that the offended
tokens or objects; party be prejudiced.
2. That the tokens or objects are other than
the legal tender currency of the The provision shall not be applicable to parents,
Philippines; guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody
3. That such employee or laborer does not of minors with respect to the papers or letters of
expressly request that he be paid by the children or minors placed under their care or
means of tokens or objects. study, nor to spouses with respect to the papers
or letters of either of them.
Penalty: Same
Art. 230 Art. 290
Inducing an employee to give up any part of his The offender who is a The offender who is a
wages by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by public officer comes to private individual comes
any other means is unlawful under Article 116 of know the secrets of any to know of the secrets of
the Labor Code, not under the RPC. private individual by another because of the
reason of his office seizure of the papers or
letter
21. Formation, maintenance and The act punished is the The act punished is the
prohibition of combination of capital revealing of secrets seizing of the papers or
without justifiable reason letters for the purpose of
or labor through violence or threats
discovering the secrets of
(Art. 289) another

Elements:

1. That the offender employs violence or

23. Revealing secrets with abuse of
threats, in such a degree as to compel or office (Art. 291)
force the laborers or employers in the
free and legal exercise of their industry or Elements:
work;
1. That the offender is a manager, employee
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain
or servant;
or prevent coalitions of capital or labor,
2. That he learns the secrets of his principal
strike of laborers or lockout of
or master in such capacity (by reason of
employers.
his employment);
Penalty: Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P300 3. That he reveals such secrets.

Penalty: Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500

The act should not constitute a more serious
offense in accordance with the provision of the
Damage is not necessary.
RPC.

Picketing in a peaceful and orderly manner is

absolutely legal. It cannot be prohibited for its is 24. Revealing of industrial secrets (Art.
part and parcel of the freedom of speech 292)
guaranteed by the Constitution. (Mortera v. CIR,
79 Phil. 345-346) Elements:

a) That the offender is a person in charge,

employee or workman of any
22. Discovering secrets through seizure manufacturing or industrial
of correspondence (Art. 290) establishment;
b) That the manufacturing or industrial
Elements: establishment has a secret of the
industry which the offender learned;
1. That the offender is a private individual or
c) That the offender reveals such secrets;
even a public officer not in the exercise of
d) That prejudice is caused to the owner.
his official function;
2. That he seizes the paper or letter of Penalty: Prision correccional in its minimum and
another; medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500
 The secrets here must be those relating to the
manufacturing processes invented by or for a
manufacturer and used only in his factory or in a
limited number of them; otherwise, as when such
processes are generally used, they will not be
secret.

Article 292 does not state the time of the

revelation of the industrial secrets. Therefore, the
employee or workman who revealed the secrets
of the industry of his employer, after he had been
dismissed or separated from the establishment,
may be held liable under this article.

If the commission of any crime

punishable under Title 8 (Crimes against
Persons) and Title 9 (Crimes against
Personal Liberty and Security) of the
Revised Penal Code is attended by any
of the acts of torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment as defined herein, the
penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum period. (Section 22, R.A. No.
9745, The Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
 TITLE TEN R.A. No. 6539 is the law applicable when the
property taken in robbery is a motor vehicle.
Penalty imprisonment for not less than 14 year
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY and 8 months and not more than 17 years and 4
months OR not less than 7 years and 4 months
1. Robbery in general (Art. 293) and not more than 30 years

Robbery the taking of personal property belonging

to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence
2. Robbery with violence against or
against, or intimidation of any person, or using force intimidation of persons (Art. 294)
upon anything
From the moment the offender gains possession
Elements: of the thing, even if the has had no opportunity to
dispose the same, the unlawful taking is
1. That there be personal property
complete. The fact that the defendant in his flight
belonging to another;
threw away the property stolen or that it fell
2. That there is unlawful taking of that
without his knowledge, does not affect the nature
property;
of the crime.
3. That the taking must be with intent to
gain;
Intimidation need not be threat of bodily harm.
4. That there is (a) violence against or
intimidation of any person (Art. 294), or
GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidation
(b) force upon anything (Arts. 299 and
must be present before the taking of personal
302).
property is complete. But see U.S. v. Samonte
and U.S. v. Blanco, Reyes, 2012 edition, pg. 661.
If real property is occupied or real right is usurped
by means of violence against or intimidation, the
ILLUSTRATION: A picked the pocket of B and
crime is usurpation under Article 312.
ran away with the latters wallet, and when B
chased and overtook him, A turned around and
Prohibitive articles may be the subject matter of
boxed the face of B, inflicting slight physical
robbery.
injuries. A committed two crimes: (1) Theft; and
(2) Slight physical injuries.
A co-owner or a partner cannot commit robbery
or theft with regard to the co-ownership or
EXCEPTION: The following special complex
partnership property.
crimes. The taking of personal property is
robbery complexed with any of those crimes
In the commission of the crime of robbery, it is
under Art. 294, even if the taking was already
not necessary that the person from whom the
complete when the violence was used by the
property is taken by means of threats and
offender.
violence shall be the owner thereof. The
possession of the property is sufficient.
Article 48, defining complex crimes, does not
apply to the crimes covered by Article 249. The
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
crimes defined in this article are special complex
personal property grave coercion if there is
crimes.
violence used.

When the offender, in taking personal property a) Robbery with homicide

belonging to another with intent to gain, employs
When by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
violence against or intimidation on any person,
the crime of homicide is committed.
the crime is robbery with violence against or
intimidation or persons, even if the robbery was
Homicide is said to have been committed by
committed in a dwelling house after the offender
reason or on occasion of robbery if it is
had entered the same through a window, or after
committed a) to facilitate the robbery or the
breaking the door or wall. The offender cannot be
escape of the culprit; b) to preserve the
held liable for robbery with force upon things
possession by the culprit of the loot; c) to prevent
under Article 299. RATIO: Robbery which is
discovery of the commission of the robbery; or d)
characterized by violence or intimidation against
to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the
the person is evidently graver than ordinary
crime. (People v. Jabiniao, Jr., G.R. No. 179499)
robbery committed by force upon things, because
where violence or intimidation against the person
Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide
is present, there is greater disturbance to the
is proof of a direct relation, an intimate
order of society and the security of the individual.
connection between the robbery and the killing,
(U.S. v. Turla, 38 Phil. 346)
whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the
Robbery with violence Robbery with force former or whether both crimes are committed at
against or intimidation upon things the same time. (People v. Werba, 431 SCRA
of persons 482)
The value of the personal The value of the of the
property taken is property taken is material A conviction for robbery with homicide requires
immaterial in the in the imposition of the certitude that the robbery was the main purpose
imposition of the penalty penalty and objective of the criminals and that the killing
was merely incidental, resulting merely by reason
 or on the occasion of the robbery. (People v.
Salazar, 277 SCRA 67)
The rule is that where the original design
comprehends robbery in a dwelling, and
homicide is perpetrated with a view to the
consummation of the robbery, the offense
committed is the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, even though homicide
precedes robbery by an appreciable time. If the
original design is not to commit robbery, but
robbery is committed after the homicide as an
afterthought and a minor incident in the homicide,
the criminal acts should be viewed as two distinct
offenses. (People v. Toleng, 91 SCRA 382)
Robbery with homicide arises only when there is
a direct relation, an intimate connection, between
the robbery and the killing, even if the killing is
prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the
robbery. (People v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67)
IMPORTANT
The term homicide is to be understood in its
generic sense as to include parricide and murder.
The juridical concept of robbery with homicide
does not limit the taking of life to one singe victim
making the slaying of human beings in excess of
that number punishable as separate,
independent offense or offenses. All the
homicides or murders are merged in the
composite, integrated whole that is robbery with
homicide so long as all the killings were
perpetrated by reason or on occasion of the
robbery. (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 2)
Where injuries were committed apart from
robbery and homicide, the crime is only robbery
with homicide, physical injuries being absorbed
by the former. (People v. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173)
Treachery cannot be considered as a qualifying
circumstance of murder, because the crime
charged is the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. The treachery which attended the
commission of the crime must be considered not
qualifying but merely as a generic aggravating
circumstance. (People v. Mantawar, 80 Phil. 817)
There is NO such crime as robbery with murder.
Robbery with homicide need not be committed
inside a building.
When the intent to commit robbery preceded the
taking of human life, it is immaterial that the
offenders had also a desire to avenge grievances
against the person killed. They are liable for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
(People v. Damaso, 86 SCRA 370)
There is robbery with homicide, even if the
person killed was an innocent bystander and not
the person robbed. (People v. Disimban, 88 Phil.
120) The law does not require that the victim of
the robbery be also the victim of the homicide.
(People v. Barut, 89 SCRA 16)
It is robbery with homicide even if the death of a
person supervened by mere accident. (People v.
Magulabnan, 99 Phil. 992)
Attempted homicide or attempted murder
committed during or on occasion of the robbery is
absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide
which is a special complex crime that remains
fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in
connection with the robbery. (People v. Cabbab,
Jr., G.R. No. 173479) presupposes that there is a
consummated homicide
Robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide is
a complex crime under Article 48.
b) Robbery with rape/intentional
mutilation/ arson
When robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation or arson. (par. 1)
The offender must have the intent to take the
personal property belonging to another with intent
to gain, and such intent must precede the rape. It
is immaterial whether the rape was committed
before, simultaneously, or after the taking of
personal property.
Article 294 which punishes robbery with rape
does not cover robbery with attempted rape.
There is no such crime as robbery with attempted
rape.
Also, the crime cannot be a complex crime of
robbery with attempted rape under Article 48,
because a robbery cannot be a necessary means
to commit attempted rape; nor attempted rape, to
commit robbery. Both crimes cannot be the result
of a single act. (People v. Cariaga)
Additional rapes committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.
(People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 119218) RATIO: It
should be noted that there is no law providing
that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be
considered as aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the RPC is exclusive as opposed to
the enumeration in Article 13 of the same code
regarding mitigating circumstances where there
is a specific paragraph providing for analogous
circumstances. It is true that the additional rapes
(or killings in the case of multiple homicides on
the occasion of robbery) would result in an
anomalous situation where from the standpoint of
the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape
would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the
legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in
favor of the offender and no person should be
brought within its terms if he is not clearly made
sol by the statute. (People v. Ragala, G.R. No.
130508)
When the accused committed robbery in a
house, killed the head of the family there and
raped his wife in the rice field to which she had
been taken, the crime is Robbery with Homicide
under paragraph 1 of Article 294, the rape to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance only.
(People v. Ganal, 85 Phil. 743)
 c) Robbery with serious physical Article 295. Qualifying circumstances applicable to
paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article 294 (the penalty is the
injuries
maximum period of the proper penalties):
When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
1. If committed in an uninhabited place;
any physical injuries resulting in insanity,
2. If committed by a band;
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted.
3. If committed by attacking a moving train,
(par. 2)
street car, motor vehicle, or airship;
When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, 4. If committed by entering the passengers
any physical injuries resulting in the loss of the compartments in a train, or in any manner
use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or taking the passengers thereof by surprise in
the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg the respective conveyances;
or the loss of the use of any such member or 5. If committed on a street, road, highway, or
incapacity for the work in which the injured alley, and the intimidation is made with the
person is theretofore habitually engaged is use of firearms.
inflicted. (par. 3)
Committed by a band when more than 3 armed
malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery
d) Robbery with unnecessary
violence or intimidation (robbery with When any of the arms used in the commission of
serious physical injuries???? The title is the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty
definitely not a special complex crime.) (par. to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be
4) the maximum period of the corresponding penalty
provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal
If the violence or intimidation employed in the liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed
commission of the robbery shall have been firearm. (Art. 296)
carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime.

When in the course of its execution, the offender 3. Attempted and frustrated robbery
shall have inflicted upon any person not committed under certain
responsible for its commission any of the circumstances (Art. 297) A special
physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 complex crime Attempted or Frustrated
of Article 263. Robbery with Homicide

If the physical injuries were inflicted after the By reason or on occasion of an attempted or
taking of the personal property had been frustrated robbery a homicide is committed,
complete, the serious physical injuries mentioned unless the homicide committed shall deserve a
should be considered as a separate offense. higher penalty under the provision of this Code.
Robbery and Serious physical injuries [This
is different from the preceding modes. As you The homicide is used in a generic sense. It
can see, the law does not say by reason.] includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide, or
even infanticide.
e) Simple robbery (par. 5)
Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Serious
The violence employed by the offender does not physical injuries is a complex crime under Article
result in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or 48.
cause any of the serious physical injuries defined
under Article 263, or if the offender employed
intimidation only. 4. Execution of deeds by means of
violence or intimidation (Art. 298) but
When the injury inflicted upon the offended party the crime is Robbery
on the occasion of robbery can be qualified only
as less serious physical injuries or slight physical Elements:
injuries, the crime is simple robbery.
1. That the offender has intent to defraud
Robbery through Threats to extort money another;
intimidation (Art. 282) 2. That the offender compels him to sign,
The intimidation is actual The intimidation is execute, or deliver any (a) public
and immediate conditional or future, that instrument, or (b) document;
is, not immediate 3. That the compulsion is by means of
The intimidation is The intimidation may be violence or intimidation.
personal through an intermediary
The intimidation id The intimidation may The provisions of Articles 294 and 297 applies
directed only to the refer to the person, honor here.
person of the victim or property of the
offended party or that of Article 298 is NOT applicable if the document is
his family void. (Cuello Calon)
The gain of the culprit is The gain of the culprit is
immediate not immediate

Robbery with violence Grave Coercion

There is intent to gain There is no intent to gain
5. Robbery by the use of force upon
things
NOTE: Elements 1 to 3 under Robbery in general
must concur with the following elements.
a) Robbery in an inhabited house
or public building or edifice
devoted to worship (Art. 299)
Elements (Subdivision A):
1. That the offender ENTERED an (a)
inhabited house, or (b) public building, or
(c) edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. That the ENTRANCE was effected by any
of the following means:
a. Through an opening not intended
for entrance or egress;
b. By BREAKING any wall, roof, or
floor or BREAKING any door or
window; (not merely forcing to
open)
c. By using false keys, picklock or
similar tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority;
3. That once inside the building, the
offender took personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain.
If the offender merely inserted his hand through
an opening in the wall or used a pole through the
window to get the clothes inside the room, while
the offender remained outside the house or
building, the crime committed is theft, not
robbery.
Where entrance is effected through a means
intended for entrance or egress, in order to
qualify the crime as robbery, there must be an
actual or smashing in opening the door.
Removing the hook or the contraption to which
the padlock is placed to lock the door, or using an
article to open the lock attached to the door knob,
is certainly not breaking contemplated by Articles
299 and 302 of the RPC. (People v. Lising)
Where the offenders intimidated the inmates then
outside the house, requiring them to produce the
key to the main door, once in possession thereof
they used it to open the door, and entered the
house where they took personal property, the
crime committed was robbery with intimidation of
person under paragraph 5 of Article 294, not
robbery with force upon things by using a false
key. (U.S. v. Cabamngan, 7 Phil. 191)
The use of false key or picklock refers to the
mode of entering the house or building and not to
the method of opening a trunk in the house or the
to the method of opening the drawer of the
cabinet. (People v. Lasam)
Elements (Subdivision B):
1. That the offender is inside an inhabited
house, public building, or edifice devoted
to religious worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he entered it;
2. That the offender takes personal property
belonging to another, with intent to gain,
under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors,
wardrobes, chests, or any other
kind of locked or sealed furniture
or receptacle; or
b. By taking such furniture or
objects away to be broken or
forced open outside the place of
robbery. (it is not necessary that it
is broken or forced open)
To commit the robbery defined in subdivision B, it
is not necessary that the offender should have
entered the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision A.
The term door refers only to doors, lids, or
opening sheets of furniture or other portable
receptacles, not to inside doors of a house or
building. (People v. Puzon, a CA ruling) NOTE:
Reyes, however, does not agree with this ruling.
He believes that the term doors refers to inside
doors of the house or building.
Penalties:
1. If armed and the value of the property
exceeds P250 reclusion temporal
2. If unarmed and the value of the property
exceeds P250 prision mayor
3. If armed and the value of the property does
not exceed P250 prision mayor
4. If unarmed and the valued of the property
does not exceed P250 prision mayor
minimum
5. In a dependency penalty next lower in
degree
Article 300. Qualifying circumstance must concur
(maximum period of the penalty):
1. The inhabited house, public building, or
edifice devoted to religious worship is
located in an UNINHABITED place; and
2. The robbery is committed by a band.
Inhabited house any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even
though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be
absent therefrom when the robbery is committed
Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building,
or edifice devoted to religious worship all interior
courts, corral, warehouses, granaries, barns,
coachhouses, stables, or other departments, or
enclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice,
having an interior entrance connected therewith and
which for part of the whole
b) Robbery in an uninhabited
place or in a private building
(Art. 302)
Elements:
1. That the offender entered an uninhabited
place or a building which was not a
dwelling house, not a public building, or
not an edifice devoted to religious
worship;
 2. That any of the following circumstances The same penalty shall be imposed upon any
was present: person who shall make such tools. If the offender
a. The entrance was effected be a locksmith, he shall suffer the penalty of
through an opening not intended prision correccional in its medium and maximum
for entrance or egress; periods.
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside
door or window was broken; False key
c. The entrance was effected
through the use of false keys; 1. Picklocks or similar tools specially adopted
picklocks or other similar tools; to the commission of robbery;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
sealed or closed furniture or 3. Any keys other than those intended by the
receptacle was broken; owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by
e. A closed or sealed receptacle the offender.
was removed, even if the same
NOTE: The possession of a person of false keys
be broken open elsewhere;
under (2) and (3) is not punishable.
3. That with intent to gain, the offender took
therefrom personal property belonging to
another.
7. Brigandage (Art. 306) a crime committed
Qualifying circumstances (applicable to Article 294, by more than three armed persons who form a
295, 297, 299, 300, and 302): band of robbers for the purpose of committing
robbery in the highway or kidnapping persons for
1. If the property taken is mail matter; or the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or
2. If the property taken is a large cattle. for any other purpose to be attained by means of
force and violence (but see P.D. No. 532)
Robbery in a store:
Brigandage Robbery in band
1. If the store is used as a dwelling of one or The purpose of the The purpose of the
more persons, the robbery committed therein offenders is any of the offenders is only to
would be considered as committed in an following: (1) to commit commit robbery not
inhabited house under Article 299. robbery in a highway; (2) necessarily in the
2. If the store was not actually occupied at the to kidnap persons for the highway.
time of robbery and was not used as a purpose of extortion or to
dwelling, since the owner lived in a obtain ransom; or (3) for
separated house, the robbery committed any other purpose to be
therein is punished under Article 302. attained by means of
3. If the store is located on the ground floor of force and violence.
the house belonging to the owner of the
The mere formation of a It is necessary to prove
house, having an interior entrance
band for any purposes that the band actually
connected therewith, it is a dependency of
mention in the law is committed robbery, as
an inhabited house and the robbery
sufficient. mere conspiracy to
committed therein is punished under the last
commit robbery is not
paragraph of Article 299.
punishable.
Art. 303. In the cases enumerated in Articles 299
and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking
of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall 8. Aiding and abetting a band of
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that brigands (Art. 307) i think this is repealed
prescribed in said articles. (Privileged Mitigating) by P.D. No. 532

The robbery must be committed without violence Elements:

against or intimidation of any person in order for
Art. 303 to apply.
6. Illegal possession of picklocks or
similar tools (Art. 304)
Elements:
1. That the offender has in his possession
picklocks or similar tools;
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are
specially adopted to the commission of
robbery;
3. That the offender does not have lawful
cause for such possession.
It is not necessary that the picklock or similar
tools are actually used to commit robbery.
1. That there is a band of brigands;
2. That the offender knows the band to be of
brigands (prima facie presumed by law);
3. That the offender does any of the
following acts:
a. He in any manner aid, abets or
protects such band of brigands;
or
b. He gives them information of the
movements of the police or other
peace officers of the
Government; or
c. He acquires or receives the
property taken by such brigands.
Penalty: Prision correccional in its medium period to
prision mayor in its minimum period
Under P.D. No. 532, the offender here shall be
considered as an accomplice.
9. Theft (Art. 308)
Elements:
1. That there be TAKING of personal
property;
2. That said property BELONGS TO
ANOTHER;
3. That the taking be done with INTENT TO
GAIN (presumed);
4. That the taking be done WITHOUT THE
CONSENT of the owner;
5. That the taking be accomplished
WITHOUT the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
Taking is complete from the moment the offender
had full possession of the thing even if he did not
have an opportunity to dispose of the same.
RATIO: The ability of the offender to freely
dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive
element of the crime of theft. It finds no support
or extension in Article 308, whether as
descriptive or operative element of theft or as the
mens rea or actus reus of the felony. It might be
argued, that the ability of the offender to freely
dispose of the property stolen delves into the
concept of taking itself, in that there could be no
true taking until the actor obtains such degree of
control over the stolen item. But even if this were
correct, the effect would be to downgrade the
crime to its attempted, and not frustrated stage,
for it would mean that not all the acts of execution
have been completed, the taking not having been
accomplished.
This is the reason the Supreme Court held in
Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, that theft
cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
attempted or consummated.
The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after
the transfer of physical possession (not juridical
possession) of the thing to the offender. The
actual transfer of possession may not always and
by itself constitute the unlawful taking, but an act
done soon thereafter by the offender which may
result in unlawful taking or asportation.
In U.S. v. De Vera, 43 Phil. 1000, the Supreme
Court found the accused guilty of the crime of
theft even the accused received from the
offended party the thing. The accused, after
receiving from the offended party a bar of gold for
purposes of having it examined by a goldsmith,
appropriated said gold bar without the consent of
the owner thereof.
Although the accused received the bar of gold
and notes from the owner thereof, her
subsequent felonious conversion of them related
back to the time she received them, so that the
bar of gold and notes are deemed to have been
unlawfully taken by the accused.
But if the accused received the thing from
another person in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under a quasi-contract or a
contract of bailment, and later misappropriated or
converted the thing to the prejudice of another,
the crime committed is not theft but estafa,
because under any of those transactions, the
juridical possession of the thing is transferred to
the offender.
A joy ride in an automobile taken without the
consent of its owner constitutes taking with
intent to gain because by using things, we
derive from them utility, satisfaction, enjoyment,
and pleasure, or what amounts to the same thing,
real gain. (People v. Fernandez)
By gain is meant not only the acquisition of a
thing useful to the purposes of life but also the
benefit which in any other sense may be derived
or expected from the act which is performed.
It is not necessary that there was real or actual
gain on the part of the offender or that he
removed the stolen animas in order to make use
of or derive some benefit from them. It is enough
that on taking them, he was then actuated by the
desire or intent to gain. (People v. Mercado, 65
Phil. 665)
The consent contemplated in this element of theft
refers to consent freely given and not to one
which may only be inferred from mere lack of
opposition on the part of the owner of the
property taken.
The law does not say without the knowledge of
the owner of the thing taken. Hence, even if the
owner knew the taking, but he did not consent to
it, the accused is still liable for theft.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property,
shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
Requisites:
a. That the offender found a lost property;
b. That the lost property belongs to another;
c. That the offender had opportunity to return or
deliver the lost property to its owner or to the
local authorities;
d. That the offender refrained from doing so.
The word lost is generic in nature, and
embraces loss by stealing or by any act of a
person other than the owner, as well as by the
act of the owner himself or through some casual
occurrence. If anything, the finder who fails
deliberately to return the thing lost may be
considered more blameworthy if the loss was by
stealing than through some other means. (People
v. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA 475)
In this kind of theft, intent to gain is inferred from
the deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to
the proper person, the finder knowing that the
property does not belong to him. (People v.
Rodrigo, supra)
The finder of a hidden treasure who
misappropriated the share pertaining to the
owner of the property is guilty of theft as regards
that share.
2. Any person who, after having maliciously
damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by him; and
Requisites:
a. That the offender maliciously damaged the
property of another;
b. That he either:
i. Removes the fruits or object of the
damage cause by him; or
ii. Makes use of fruits or object of the
damage caused by him.
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed
estate or a field where trespass is forbidden
or which belongs to another and without
consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon
the same or shall gather fruits, cereals or
other forest or farm products.
Requisites:
a. That there is an enclosed estate or a field
where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another;
b. That the offender enters the same;
c. That the offender hunts or fishes upon the
same or gathers fruits, cereals or other forest
or farm products in the estate or field; and
d. That the hunting or fishing or gathering is
without the consent of the owner.
The fishing referred to here is not in the fishpond
or fisher; otherwise, the crime would be
QUALIFIED THEFT under Article 310.
Theft is NOT a continuing offense.
10. Qualified theft (Art. 310)
a) If theft is committed by a
domestic servant;
b) If theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence;
c) If the property stolen is a
motor vehicle, mail matter, or
large cattle;
d) If the property stolen consists
of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation;
e) If the property stolen is fish
taken from a pond or fishery;
f) If the property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.
The penalties for qualified theft are next higher by
two degrees than those specified in the Article
309.
The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now
covered by the Anti-Carnapping Law, and not by
the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
The term large cattle includes horses. (U.S. v.
Mauhay, 31 Phil. 513)
11. Theft of the property of the National
Library and National Museum (Art.
311)
The penalty imposed here is arresto mayor
and/or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos. But
this is not applicable if a higher penalty should be
provided under other provisions of the RPC, in
which case, the offender shall be punished by
such higher penalty. Ex: If the crime committed
hereunder is also qualified theft, the punishment
for qualified theft shall be imposed.
12. Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property
(Art. 312)
Elements:
1. That the offender takes possession of
any REAL PROPERTY or usurps any
REAL RIGHTS in property;
2. That the real property or real rights
belong to another;
3. That violence against or intimidation of
persons is used by the offender in
occupying real property or usurping real
rights in property (violence or intimidation
is the MEANS);
4. That there is intent to gain.
If the accused were already occupying the land
belonging to another, and when the administrator
of the latter told them that the land belonged to
his principal, the accused told him that they
would kill anyone who would try to drive them
away and threatened him with their bolos and
chased him away, the accused are not liable for
usurpation of real property under Article 312.
(People v. Dimacutak)
A criminal action for usurpation of real property is
not a bar to a civil action for forcible entry. The
causes of action of the said actions are different.
(Pitargue v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5)
Penalty: A fine ranging from 50 to 100% of the gain
which the offender shall have obtained, but not less
than P75 (a two-tiered penalty)
Occupation of Real
Property or Usurpation
Theft or Robbery
of Real Rights in
Property
There is taking There is occupation or
usurpation
Involves personal Involves real property or
property real rights in property
13. Altering boundaries or landmarks
(Art. 313)
Elements:
1. That there be boundary marks or
monuments of towns, provinces, or
estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same;
2. That the offender alters said boundary
marks.
Fraudulent intent is not necessary for the crime to
exist. (Guevarra)
14. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314)
Elements:
1. That the offender is a debtor, that is, he
has obligations due and payable;
2. That he absconds with his property;
3. That there be prejudice to his creditors.
Actual prejudice, not mere intention, is required.
15. Swindling [Estafa] (Art. 315)
General Elements:
1. That the accused defrauded another (a)
by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means
of deceit; and
2. That damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
The element of damage or prejudice may consist in:
1. The offended party being deprived of his
money or property, as result of the
defraudation;
2. Disturbance in property rights; or
3. Temporary prejudice.
a) Estafa with unfaithfulness or
abuse of confidence
Elements of estafa with UNFAITHFULNESS:
1. That the offender has an onerous
obligation to deliver something of value;
a. It does not matter even if such
obligation is based on an
immoral or illegal consideration;
2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or
quality;
3. That damage or prejudice is caused to
another.
If the thing delivered had not been fully or
partially paid for when it was received by the
other party, the person making the delivery is not
liable for estafa, even if there was an alteration of
the substance, quantity, or quality of the thing
delivered as there was no damage caused.
When there is no agreement as to the quality of
the thing to be delivered, the delivery of the thing
not acceptable to the complainant is not estafa.
(People v. Bautista)
Elements of estafa with ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE:
1. That money (including check), goods, or
other personal property be received by
the offender:
a. In trust; or
b. On commission; or
c. For administration; or
d. Under any other obligation
involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same
(ex: quasi-contracts, deposit, lease,
commodatum);
(NOTE: When the money or property is received by
the offender in any of the above circumstances, he
acquires juridical possession of the thing received.)
2. That there be:
a. MISAPPROPRIATION or
CONVERSION of such money or
property by the offender; or
b. DENIAL on his part of such
receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another;
4. That there is a demand made by the
offended party to the offender.
a. This element is not necessary when
there is evidence of
misappropriation of the goods by
the defendant.
(NOTE: Liability for estafa arises even though the
obligation to make delivery of, or to return, the
money or property be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond.)
Juridical possession a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which the transferee
may set up even against the owner
An agent, unlike a servant or messenger, has
both the physical and juridical possession of the
goods received in agency, or the proceeds
thereof, which takes the place of the goods after
their sale by the agent. His duty to turn over the
proceeds of the agency depends upon his
discharge, as well as the result of the accounts
between him and the principal; and he may set
up his right of possession as against that of the
principal until the agency is terminated. (Guzman
v. CA, 99 Phil. 703)
Article 315, No. 1 (b) does not apply when the
contract between the accused and the
complainant has the effect of transferring to the
accused the ownership of the thing received.
Thus, when the contract is a loan of money, the
debtor cannot be held liable for estafa for merely
refusing to pay, or denying having contracted, the
debt. (U.S. v. Ibaez, 19 Phil. 559)
In order that novation of contract may relieve the
accused of criminal liability, the novation must
take place before the criminal liability is incurred;
criminal liability for estafa already committed is
not affected by compromise or novation of
contract, for its is a public offense which must be
prosecuted and punished by the state at its own
volition. (People v. Benitez, G.R. No. L-15923)
 When the offended party in an estafa case Estafa with abuse of
Theft
accepts a promissory note of the accused for the confidence
payment of the money already converted, the The offender acquires The offender merely
offense is not thereby obliterated. (Camus v. CA juridical possession of acquires the material or
and People, 92 Phil. 85) the thing. physical possession of
the thing.
Well-settled is the rule that payment made There is no unlawful There is unlawful taking
subsequent to the commission of estafa does not taking of a thing of a thing belonging to
alter the nature of the crime committed nor does belonging to another. another without the
it relieve the defendant from the penalty consent of the latter.
prescribed by law. (Javier v. People, 70 Phil. 550) The owner of the thing or Upon the delivery of the
property does not expect thing to the offender, the
Misappropriation using the thing for personal and the immediate return of owner expects an
private purposes the thing he delivered to immediate return of the
the offender. thing to him.
Conversion devoting the thing to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon
Estafa with abuse of
Malversation
confidence
In estafa with abuse of confidence, it is not
Funds or property are Funds or property are
necessary that the offender should gain. What is
required is that there be prejudice to another. always private usually public
The offender is a private The offender is usually a
individual or even a public officer who is
It is immaterial whether the loss was suffered by
public officer who is not accountable for public
the owner or by a third person. Considering that
accountable for public funds or property.
in view of the literal terms of the provision of
funds or property.
Article 315, par. 1(b), which says to the prejudice
of another, as well as its spirit and legal reason, The crime is committed The crime is committed
whenever damages are caused as a by misappropriating,by appropriating, taking
consequence of the appropriation or conversion, converting or denying or misappropriating or
the act constitutes estafa, even though the having received money consenting, or, through
person who suffered the damage is a third party or property. abandonment or
and not the one to whom the misappropriated or negligence, permitting
converted goods belong or to whom they are to any other person to take
be returned, for this is an incidental element the public funds or
which in no way affects the juridical nature of the property.
crime. (People v. Yu Chai Ho, 53 Phil. 874) In both, the offenders are entrusted with funds or
property.
Rules as to Partnership: Both a CONTINUING offenses.

1. GENERAL RULE: Partners are not liable for
estafa of money or property received for the
partnership.
2. EXCEPTION: But when the money or
property had been received by a partner for
a specific purpose and he later
misappropriated it, such partner is liable for
estafa.
3. GENERAL RULE: Failure of a partner to
account for the partnership funds may give
rise to a civil obligation, but not for estafa.
4. EXCEPTION: While it is true that ordinarily a
partner who misappropriates the selling price
of partnership property does not commit
estafa, as it is a debt due from a partner as
part of partnership funds, yet the
misappropriation by a partner of the share of
another partner in the profits would
constitute estafa through misappropriation.
5. A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is
liable if, after termination of the co-
ownership, he misappropriates the thing
which has become the exclusive property of
the other.
Elements of estafa by taking advantage of the
signature in blank:
1. That the paper with the signature of the
offended party be in blank;
2. That the offended party should have
delivered it to the offender;
3. That above the signature of the offended
party a document is written by the
offender without authority to do so;
4. That the document so written creates a
liability of, or causes damages, to the
offended party or any third person.
b) Estafa by means of deceit
Where the complainant was aware of the
fictitious nature of the pretense, there is no estafa
through false pretenses.
i. Estafa by means of
false pretenses or
fraudulent acts

DEMAND by the offended party to the offender is Elements:

not required by law. Nevertheless, it is necessary
1. That there be any of the following false
because failure of the offender to account, upon
pretenses or fraudulent acts:
demand, is circumstantial evidence of
a. By using fictitious name;
misappropriation.
b. By falsely pretending to possess:
i. Power;
There is no estafa through negligence.
ii. Influence;
iii. Qualifications;
 iv. Property;
v. Credit;
vi. Agency;
vii. Business; or
viii. Imaginary transactions;
c. By means of similar deceits;
d. By altering the quality, fineness,
or weight of anything pertaining
to his art or business;
e. By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee, without
prejudice to the action for
calumny which the offended
party may deem proper to bring
against the offender;
f. By postdating a check or by
issuing a check IN PAYMENT of
an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of
the check;
NOTE: The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within 3 days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or
payee or holder that said check has
been dishonoured for lack or
insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting
false pretense or fraudulent act.
g. By obtaining any food,
refreshment or accommodation
at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house,
or apartment house and the like
without paying therefor, with
intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof;
h. By obtaining credit at a hotel,
inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment
house by the use of any false
pretense;
i. By abandoning or surreptitiously
removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment
house after obtaining credit,
food, refreshment, or
accommodation therein without
paying therefor.
2. That such false pretense or fraudulent act
must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud;
3. That the offended party must have relied
on the false pretense or fraudulent act,
that is, he was induced to part with his
money or property because of the false
pretense or fraudulent act;
4. That as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
The issuance of a bouncing check in payment of
a pre-existing obligation does not constitute
estafa. RATIO: Element no. 3 is absent.
When the check is issued not in payment of the
obligation, there is no estafa.
The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or
no funds in the bank to cover the check at the
time he postdated or issued a check is sufficient
to make him liable for estafa.
Knowledge by the offender that when he
posdated or issued the check he had insufficient
or no funds in the banks is not required. He
should verify first the amount of his deposit
before postdating or issuing a check.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. Blg. 22)
Elements of the offense defined in paragraph 1 of
Section 1:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues
any check;
2. That the check is made or drawn and
issued to apply on account or for value;
3. That the person who makes or draws and
issues the check knows at the time of
issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment;
a. RULE: This element is prima
facie presumed. (Section 2)
b. EXCEPTIONS: Knowledge of
insufficiency of funds in or credit
with the drawee bank is not
presumed when:
i. The check is presented
after 90 days from the
date of the check; or
ii. The maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof
the amount due thereon,
or makes arrangements
for payment in full by the
drawee of such check
within 5 banking days
after receiving notice
that such check has not
been paid by the drawee;
or
iii. There is no proof that the
drawer received a notice
of dishonor.
4. (a) The check is subsequently dishonored
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit, or (b) would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment.
Elements of the offense defined in paragraph 2 of
Section 1:
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank when he
makes or draws and issues a check;
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount
of the check if presented within a period
of 90 days from the date appearing
thereon;
3. That the check is dishonored by the
drawee bank.
(NOTE: A written notice of dishonor is essential for
conviction under the law. [Section 3])
 The gravamen of B.P. Blg. 22 is the issuance of a 2. That the offender removed, concealed or
check, not the non-payment of an obligation. The destroyed any of them;
law has made the mere act of issuing a bum 3. That the offender had intent to defraud
check a malum prohibitum. (People v. Laggui, another.
171 SCRA 305)
If there is no intent to defraud, the act of
B.P. Blg. 22 does not make a distinction as to destroying court record will be malicious mischief.
whether the bad check is issued in payment of an
obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation. Estafa by removing,
Infidelity in the custody
(Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160) concealing or
of documents (Art. 226)
destroying documents
To apply on account payment of a pre-existing The offender is a private The offender is a public
obligation individual or a public officer who is entrusted
officer who is not with the document
For value in payment of an obligation contracted at entrusted with the
the time of the issuance of the check documents
There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud is not
If the drawer or maker is an officer of the required
corporation, the notice of dishonor to the said
corporation is not notice to the employee or
Theft and estafa may be complexed under Art.
officer who drew or issued the check for and in its
48.
behalf. (Marigumen v. People, G.R. No. 153451)

Issuing a check in payment of an obligation,

16. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316)
which is subsequently dishonored, may be
punished under the Revised Penal Code and
under B.P. Blg. 22. There is no double jeopardy.
RATIO: There is no double jeopardy if each
statute requires proof of an additional fact which
the other does not. While estafa by postdating or
issuing a check IN PAYMENT of an obligation
when the offender had no funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
Elements (par. 1):
cover the amount of the check, DECEIT and
DAMAGE are essential, while under B.P. Blg. 22
such elements are not essential. While B.P. Blg.
22 requires the drawers KNOWLEDGE of lack or
insufficiency of funds in the drawee bank at the
time of issuance of the check, estafa under the
RPC does not require such knowledge.
Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing
crime.
ii. Estafa through
fraudulent means
By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign
any document.
Elements:
1. That the offender induced the offended
party to sign a document;
2. That deceit be employed to make him
sign the document;
3. That the offended party personally signed
the document;
4. That prejudice be caused.
Elements (par. 2):
By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game.
By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole
or in part, any court record, office files, or
documents or any other papers.
Elements:
1. That there be court record, office files,
documents or any other papers;
The penalty prescribed here is arresto mayor in
its minimum and medium periods AND a fine of
not less than the value of the damage caused
and not more than three times such value. It
seems clear that Article 316 contemplates the
existence of damage as an element of the
offense. (Castillo v. People, 73 Phil. 489)
1. That the thing be immovable, such as a
parcel of land or a building;
2. That the offender who is not the owner of
said property should represent that he is
the owner thereof;
3. That the offender should have executed
an act of ownership, that is, he sells,
leases, encumbers or mortgages the real
property;
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of
the owner or a third person.
Where the accused sold non-existent land, he is
guilty of estafa by means of false pretenses, not
of other form of swindling. (U.S. v. Cara, 41 Phil.
828)
Art. 316, No. 1 of the RPC penalizes only a
person who pretends to be the owner and not
one who claims to be the owner.
Mere intent to cause damage is not sufficient.
There must be actual damage caused by the act
of the offender.
1. That the thing disposed of be real
property;
2. That the offender knew that the real
property was encumbered, whether the
encumbrance is recorded or not;
(NOTE: But in certain cases, the encumbrance
must be recorded; otherwise, it is void.)
3. That there must be express
representation by the offender that the
real property is free from encumbrance;
 4. That the act of disposing of the real
property be made to the damage of
another.
If the person to whom the real property is
disposed knew of the encumbrance, he cannot
complain, as there is neither deceit nor fraud.
Elements (par. 3):
1. That the offender is the owner of personal
property;
2. That said personal property is in the
lawful possession of another;
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from
its lawful possessor;
4. That prejudice is thereby caused to the
possessor or third person.
If the offender is not the owner of the personal
property and his purpose in taking it is to return it
to the owner, it is theft, since the abstraction was
made with the intent that another might profit
thereby. (Albert)
If the owner, after taking it without the consent of
the possessor, charged the possessor with the
value of said property, the crime committed is
theft. (U.S. v. Albao, 29 Phil. 86) RATIO:
Although the property belongs to the offender, yet
by charging the former possessor with its value,
the offender intends to take anothers money and
at the same time exhibits an intent to gain.
Paragraph 4. By executing any fictitious contract
to the prejudice of another.
The crime of estafa be executing a fictitious
contract to the prejudice of another may be
illustrated in the case of a person who simulates
a conveyance of his property to another, for the
purpose of defrauding his creditors. (Guevara) If
the contract is not simulated, the crime is
fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314). But in People v.
Tan Diong, 59 Phil. 538, it was held that it was a
violation of Art. 314 even if the consideration was
fictitious.
Paragraph 5. By accepting any compensation for
services not rendered or for labor not performed.
(There must be fraud.)
Elements (par. 6):
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond
given in a criminal or civil action;
2. That he guaranteed the fulfilment of such
obligation with his real property or
properties;
3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any
manner encumbers said real property;
4. That such sale, mortgage or
encumbrance is:
a. Without express authority from
the court; or
b. Made before the cancellation of
his bond; or
c. Made before being relieved from
the obligation contracted by him.
17. Swindling a minor (Art. 317)
Elements:
1. That the offender takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor;
2. That the induces such minor to:
a. Assume an obligation; or
b. Give release; or
c. Execute a transfer of any
property right;
3. That the consideration is some loan of
money, credit, or personal property;
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of
such minor.
Actual proof of deceit or misrepresentation is not
essential, as it is sufficient that the offender takes
advantage of the inexperience or emotions of the
minor.
18. Other deceits (Art. 318)
By defrauding or damaging another by any other
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles.
By interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by
telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity
of the public in any other similar manner, for profit or
gain
19. Removal, sale or pledge or
mortgaged property (Art. 319)
Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged
personal property (par. 1):
1. That the property is mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law;
2. That the offender (mortgagor or not) knows
that such property is so mortgaged;
3. That he removes such mortgaged
personal property to any province or city
other than the one in which it was located
at the time of the execution of the
mortgage (coupled with intent to defraud);
4. That the removal is permanent;
5. That there is no written consent of the
mortgagee or his executors,
administrators or assigns to such
removal.
It is essential that the chattel mortgage is valid
and subsisting. (People v. Vda. De Agoncillo)
A transfer of the personal property to any
province or city other than where it was located at
the time of the execution is warranted in case of
a change of residence. (People v. Mata)
If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for
collection, not foreclosure, thereby abandoning
the mortgage as basis for relief, the removal of
the property to the province other than where it
was originally located at the time of the mortgage
is not a violation of par. 1 of Article 319. (People
v. Mata)
Elements of selling or pledging personal property b) Destructive Arson (Art. 320)
already pledged (par. 2):
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall
1. That the property is already pledged (or be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
mortgaged) under the terms of the Chattel
Mortgage Law; 1. One or more buildings or edifices,
2. That the offender, who is the mortgagor consequent to one single act of burning,
of such property, sells or pledges the or as a result of simultaneous burnings,
same or any part thereof; or committed on several or different
3. That there is no consent of the mortgagee occasions;
written on the back of the mortgage and 2. Any building of public or private
noted on the record thereof in the office ownership, devoted to the public in
of the registrar of deeds. general or where people usually gather or
congregate for a definite purpose such
Damage to the mortgagee is not necessary. as, but not limited to:
a. Official government function or
Estafa by disposing of business;
Selling or pledging
encumbered property b. Private transaction;
personal property
(other form of c. Commerce;
already pledged (Art.
swindling) Art. 316, par. d. Trade workshop;
319, par. 2)
2 e. Meetings; and
Involves real property Involves personal f. Conferences
property Or merely incidental to a definite purpose
It is sufficient that the real Committed by the mere such as but not limited to:
property mortgaged be failure to obtain the a. Hotels;
sold as free, even though consent of the mortgagee b. Motels;
the vendor may have in writing, even if the c. Transient dwelling;
obtained the consent of offender should inform d. Public conveyances or stops or
the mortgagee in writing. the purchaser that the terminals;
thing sold is mortgaged. Regardless of whether the offender had
Protects the purchaser Protects the mortgagee knowledge that there are persons in said
building or edifice at the time it is set on
fire and regardless also of whether the
20. Arson the malicious destruction of property building is actually inhabited or not.
by fire 3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or conveyance, or for
a) Simple Arson (Sec. 1, P.D. No.
public use, entertainment or leisure;
1613) 4. Any building, factory, warehouse
installation, any appurtenances thereto,
Persons punished:
which are devoted to the service of public
utilities;
1. Any person who burns or sets fire to the
5. Any building the burning of which is:
property of another;
a. For the purpose of concealing or
2. Any person who sets fire to his own
destroying evidence of another
property under circumstances which
violation of law; or
expose to danger the life or property of
b. For the purpose of concealing
another.
bankruptcy or defrauding
Attempted, frustrated and consummated arson: creditors or to collect from
insurance;
1. Attempted arson A person intending to 6. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse, or
burn a wooded structure, collects some rags, military power or fireworks factory,
soaks them in gasoline and places them ordinance, storehouse, archives, or
beside the wooden wall of the building. general museum of the Government;
When he is about to light a match to set fire 7. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or
to the rags, he is discovered by another who factory of inflammable or explosive
chases him away. (wala pa niya na sindihan materials. (As amended by R.A. No. 7659)
ang rags)
2. Frustrated arson If that person is able to c) Other cases of arson (Sec. 3,
light or set fire to the rags but the fire was P.D. No. 1613)
put out before any part of the building was
burned, it is frustrated. The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion
3. Consummated arson If before the fire was perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned
put out, it had burned a part of the building. is any of the following:
Also, setting fire to the contents of the
building constitutes consummated arson, 1. Any building used as offices of the
even if no part of the building was burned. government or any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard,
oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
 4. Any plantation, farm, pasture land,
growing crop, grain field, orchard,
bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central; and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf
or warehouse.
(NOTE: Exclude those repugnant to the amendments
of R.A. No. 7659)
There is NO complex crime of arson with
homicide. Under the last paragraph of Article 320
of the RPC, if as consequence of the commission
of any of the acts penalized under this Article,
death results, the mandatory penalty of death
shall be imposed. Also, under Section 5 of P.D.
No. 1613, if by reason of or on the occasion of
arson, death results, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed. The crime of
homicide is absorbed.
Special aggravating circumstances (Sec. 4, P.D. No.
1613):
1. If committed with intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred
towards the owner or occupant of the
property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate planned or
carried out by a group of 3 or more persons.
Conspiracy to commit arson is punishable. (Sec.
7, P.D. No. 1613)
Prima facie evidence of arson (Sec. 6, P.D. No.
1613):
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than
one part of the building or establishment;
2. If substantial amount of flammable
substances or materials are stored within the
building not of the offender nor for household
use;
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other
flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers
thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed
to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the
foregoing are found in the ruins or premises
of the burned building or property;
4. If the building or property is insured for
substantially more than its actual value at the
time of the issuance of the policy;
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire
insurance policy more than two fires have
occurred in the same or other premises
owned or under the control of the offender
and/or insured;
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion
of the effects insured and stored in a building
or property had been withdrawn from the
premises except in the ordinary course of
business;
7. If a demand for money or other valuable
consideration was made before the fire in
exchange for the desistance of the offender
or for the safety of the person or property of
the victim.
21. Malicious mischief (Art. 327)
Elements:
1. That the offender DELIBERATELY caused
damage to the property of another;
2. That such act does not constitute arson
or other crimes involving destruction;
3. That the act of damaging anothers
property be committed merely for the
sake of damaging it.
(NOTE: The third element presupposes that the
offender acted due to hate, revenge, mere
pleasure of destrying or other evil motive.)
22. Special cases of Malicious mischief
[Qualified malicious mischief] (Art.
328)
1. Causing damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions;
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among
cattle;
4. Causing damage to the property of the
National Museum or National Library, or to
any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public.
In No. 1, the element of public and tumultuous
uprising is not present. That distinguishes it from
sedition.
23. Damage and obstruction of means of
communication (Art. 330)
Any person who shall damage any railway,
telegraph or telephone line shall be punished by
the penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of
cars, collision, or other accident, the penalty of
prision mayon shall be imposed, WITHOUT
prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender
for other consequences of his criminal act.
(qualifying circumstance)
The telegraph or telephone lines must pertain to
a railway system.
For the qualifying circumstance to apply, the
offender must not have intended the derailment
of cars, collision or other accident.
ILLUSTRATION: The offender caused damage to
a railway. As a result certain passengers of the
train were killed. If the offender had not intent to
kill the passengers, the crime is homicide through
damaging means of communication. If there is
intent to kill, and damaging the railways was the
means to accomplish the criminal purpose, it is
murder.
24. Destroying or damaging statues,
public monuments or paintings (Art.
331)
 Exemption from Criminal Liability
in Crimes against Property
Art. 332. Crimes where the exemption is
applicable:

1. Theft;
2. Swindling (estafa);
3. Malicious mischief.

Persons exempted from criminal liability:

1. Spouses, ascendants and

descendant, or relatives by
affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect
to the property which belonged to
the deceased spouse before the
same shall have been passed into
possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law,
if living together.

Article 332 is applicable only when the offender

and the offended party are relatives and their
relationship is any of those mentioned in said
article.

The exemption established by this article

shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the
crime.

When the crime of theft, estafa or malicious

mischief is complexed with another crime, the
absolutory cause is not applicable to the
component crime of theft, estafa or malicious
mischief.

To apply the absolutory cause under Art. 332 to

one of the component crimes of a complex crime
for the purpose of negating the existence of that
complex crime is to unduly expand the scope of
Article 332. In other words, to apply Article 332 to
the complex crime of estafa through falsification
of public document would be to mistakenly treat
the crime of estafa as a separate simple crime,
not as the component crime that it is in that
situation. (Intestate Estate of Vda. De
Carungcong v. People, G.R. 181409)
 TITLE ELEVEN The act of having sexual intercourse with the
offending spouse subsequent to adulterous
conduct is, at best, an implied pardon of said
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY adulterous conduct. (People v. Muguerza, et al.)

1. Adultery (Art. 333) Under the law, there cannot be an accomplice in

the crime of adultery, although in fact there can
Elements:
be such an accomplice. (Viada)
1. That the woman is married;
2. That she had sexual intercourse with a
man not her husband; 2. Concubinage (Art. 334)
3. That as regards the man with whom she
has sexual intercourse, he must know her Elements:
to be married.
1. That the man must be married;
(NOTE: Adultery is committed even if the
2. That he committed any of the following
marriage be subsequently declared void.)
acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the
The offended husband must still be legally
conjugal dwelling;
married to the accused wife, at the time of the
b. Having sexual intercourse under
filing of the complaint for adultery. Thus, where
scandalous circumstances with a
the offended party in an adultery case already
woman who is not his wife; or
obtained a divorce in his country before the
c. Cohabiting with her in any other
adultery proceedings are commenced, he no
place;
longer has the right to institute proceedings
3. That as regards the woman, she must
against the offenders. (Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,
know him to be married.
174 SCRA 653)

A scandal is produced when they appear

Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary
together in public and perform acts in sight of the
to sustain a conviction for adultery. In the very
community which give rise to criticism and
nature of things, it is seldom that adultery can be
general protest among the neighbors.
established by direct evidence. The legal tenet,
therefore, has been and still is that circumstantial
Why is adultery more severely punished than
and corroborative evidence such as will lead the
concubinage? Because adultery makes possible
guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man
the introduction of another mans blood into the
to the conclusion that the criminal act of adultery
family so that the offended husband may have
has been committed, will suffice to bring about a
another mans son bearing his name and
conviction for that crime. (U.S. v. Legaspi, 14
receiving support.
Phil. 38)

The crime of adultery is an instantaneous crime

which is consummated and completed at the 3. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336)
moment of the carnal union. Each sexual
Elements:
intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery.
Adultery, therefore, is not a continuing offense. 1. That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
The gist of the crime of adultery is the danger of 2. That the act of lasciviousness is
introducing spurious heirs into the family, where committed against a person of either sex;
the rights of the real heirs may be impaired and a 3. That it is done under any of the following
man may be charged with the maintenance of a circumstances:
family not his own. (U.S. v. Mata, 18 Phil. 490) a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is
If the person guilty of adultery committed the
deprived of reason or otherwise
offense while being abandoned without
unconscious;
justification by the offended spouse, the penalty
c. By means of fraudulent
next lower in degree shall be imposed.
machination or grave abuse of
authority;
Thus, abandonment could not serve her as an
d. When the offended party is under
excuse or free her from the criminal responsibility
12 years of age or is demented.
she incurred by the breach of fidelity she owed
her husband, for she had means within the law to
Acts of Lasciviousness Attempted Rape
compel him to fulfil the duties imposed upon him
There is no indication The acts of the offender
by marriage. (U.S. v. Serrano, 28 Phil. 230)
that the purpose of the indicate that his purpose
offender is lie with the is to lie with the offended
The acquittal of one of the defendants does not
offended woman. woman.
operate as a cause for acquittal of the other.
The lascivious acts are The lascivious acts are
themselves the final but the preparatory acts
The death of the offended husband after the
objective sought by the to the commission of
criminal proceedings have been instituted cannot
offender. rape.
extinguish criminal liability. But if he dies before a
complaint could be filed, the case cannot go on,
because no one can sign and filed the complaint.
 There is no attempted crime of acts of
lasciviousness. (Cuello Calon) There can also be
no frustration of acts of lasciviousness.
4. Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
a. Qualified seduction of a virgin
Elements:
1. That the offended party is a VIRGIN,
which is presumed if she is unmarried
and of good reputation;
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18
years of age; (if under 12, statutory rape)
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse
with her;
4. That there is abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship on the part of
the offender.
a. Those who abused their
authority:
i. Person in public authority;
ii. Guardian;
iii. Teacher;
iv. Person who, in any
capacity, is entrusted with
the education or custody
of the woman seduced.
b. Those who abused confidence
reposed in them:
i. Priest;
ii. House servant;
iii. Domestic.
c. Those who abused their
relationship:
i. Brother who seduced his
sister;
ii. Ascendant who seduced
his descendant.
The virginity to which the Penal Code refers is
not to be understood in so material a sense as to
exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous
woman of good reputation.
It is settled that deceit, although an essential
element of simple seduction, does not need to be
proved in a charge of qualified seduction. It is
replaced by abuse of confidence. (People v.
Fontanilla, 23 SCRA 1227)
The fact the girl gave her consent to the sexual
intercourse is no defense. Lack of consent is not
an element of the offense.
b. Qualified seduction of a sister
by her brother, or descendant
by her ascendant
Age in this case is immaterial. Virginity is also
immaterial.
5. Simple seduction (Art. 338)
Elements:
1. That the offended party is over 12 and
under 18 years of age;
2. That she must be of good reputation,
single or widow;
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse
with her;
4. That it is committed by means of deceit.
It is not essential in simple seduction that the
woman seduced be a virgin, as all that is
necessary is that she is of good reputation.
(Cuello Calon)
Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled
promise of marriage and this promise need not
immediately precede the carnal act. (People v.
Iman, 62 Phil. 92)
A promise of marriage made by a married man,
whom the woman knew to be married when she
surrendered herself, could not have induced her
to do so; and in such a case, it is clear that there
was no reliance on the promise. (U.S. v.
Sarmiento, 27 Phil. 121)
A promise of marriage made after the sexual
intercourse has taken place, or after the woman
had yielded her body to the mans illicit
embraces, cannot be held to have induced the
woman to surrender her virtue. (U.S. v.
Sarmiento, supra)
6. Acts of lasciviousness with the
consent of the offended party (Art.
339)
Elements:
1. That the offender commits acts of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That the acts are committed upon a
WOMAN who is a virgin or single or
widow of good reputation, under 18 years
of age but over 12 years, or a sister or
descendant regardless of her reputation
or age;
3. That the offender accomplishes the acts
by abuse of authority, confidence,
relationship, or deceit.
7. Corruption of minors (Art. 340)
Elements:
1. That the offender promotes or facilitates
the prostitution or the corruption of a
child below 18 years of age;
2. That it was for the purpose of satisfying
the lust of another.
Penalty:
1. Prision mayor
2. Prision mayor and temporary absolute
disqualification if the offender is a public
officer or employee
The child victim must be of good reputation, not a
prostitute or corrupted person. (Guevara)
8. White slave trade (Art. 341) 3. That the taking away of the offended
party must be with her consent after
Acts penalized as white slave trade: SOLICITATION or CAJOLERY from the
offender;
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution; 4. That the taking away of the offended
2. Profiting by prostitution; party must be with lewd designs.
3. Enlisting the services of women for the
purpose of prostitution. Penalty: Prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods

9. Abduction the taking away of a woman The taking away of the girl in consented
abduction need not be with some character of
from her house or the place where she may be
permanence. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of
for purposes of carrying her to another place with
Spain)
intent to marry or corrupt her

Complex crime: Consented abduction with rape.

a. Forcible abduction (Art. 342)

Elements:

1. That the person abducted is any woman,

regardless of her age, civil status, or
reputation;
2. That the abduction is against her will;
3. That the abduction is with lewd designs.

Penalty: Reclusion temporal

The same penalty shall be imposed in every case,

if the female abducted be under 12 years of age.

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of

victim are immaterial:

1. Acts of lasciviousness against the will or

without the consent of the offended party;
2. Qualified seduction of sister or descendant;
3. Forcible abduction.

There can only be one complex crime of forcible

abduction with rape. The crime of forcible
abduction was only necessary for the first rape.
Thus, the subsequent acts of rape can no longer
be considered as separate complex crimes of
forcible abduction with rape. They should be
detached from and considered independently of
the forcible abduction. Therefore, accused should
be convicted of one complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape and three separate acts of
rape. (People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125)

There is no complex crime of forcible abduction

with attempted rape. The attempt to rape is
absorbed by the abduction, being the element of
lewd design of the latter. (U.S. v. De Vibar, 29
Phil. 451)

Rape may absorb forcible abduction if the main

objective was to rape the victim. (People v.
Toledo, 83 Phil. 777)

Conviction of acts of lasciviousness is not a bar

to the conviction of forcible abduction.

b. Consented abduction (Art.

343)

Elements:

1. That the offended party must be a virgin;

2. That she must be over 12 and under 18
years of age;
 Provisions Relative to the the offended party. (Benga-Oras v. Evangelista,
97 Phil. 612)
Proceeding Chapters of Title
Eleven The guardian as used herein means legal, not
natural guardian; that is, guardian legally
Art. 344. Requisites for the prosecution appointed in accordance with the provision of the
law. (People v. De la Cruz, 59 Phil. 531)
of the crimes of ADULTERY and
CONCUBINAGE: The complaint contemplated herein is complaint
filed in court, not a complaint filed in the
1. The complaint must be filed by prosecutors office for preliminary investigation.
the offended spouse; The exception is when the complaint filed in the
2. The offended spouse must prosecutors office by the offended party clearly
shows intent of the offended party to charge the
include both the guilty parties if
offenders of the private crime, as when the
they are both alive; and offended party explicitly and categorically
3. He/she must not have consented charged the offenders with said crime.
or pardoned the offenders.
In case of complex crimes, where one of the
Both parties must be included in the complaint component offenses is a public crime, the
even if one of them is not guilty. It is not for the criminal prosecution may be instituted by the
offended spouse to determined the question of fiscal. The reason is that since one of the
guilt or innocence of the paramour; the question component offenses is a public crime, the latter
must be left to the court. (U.S. v. Asuncion, 22 should prevail, because public interest is always
Phil. 358) paramount to private interest. (People v. Yu, 110
Phil. 793)
Rules with regard to pardon:
Rules with regard to pardon:
1. Pardon of the offenders by the offended
party is a bar to prosecution for adultery or 1. The pardon by the offended part or other
concubinage. persons must be express.
2. The pardon may be express or implied. 2. The pardon is a bar to the prosecution for
3. The pardon must come before the institution seduction, abduction, or acts of
of the criminal action. lasciviousness.
4. Both of the offenders must be pardoned by 3. The pardon must come before the institution
the offended party if said pardon is to be of the criminal action.
effective. 4. Pardon by the parent must be accompanied
by the express pardon of the offended party,
Requisites for the prosecution of the unless she is dead or otherwise
crimes of seduction, abduction, or acts incapacitated to grant it.
5. But the pardon of the offended party who is a
of lasciviousness: minor must have the concurrence of her
parents, unless she has no parents.
1. The complaint must be filed by
the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian;
2. The offender must not have been
pardoned by the above-named
persons.

In cases of seduction, abduction, and

acts of lasciviousness, the MARRIAGE of
the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or remit
the penalty already imposed upon him.
The provisions of this paragraph shall
also be applicable to the co-principals,
accomplices, and accessories after the
fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

Article 344 was enacted out of consideration for

the offended woman and her family who might
prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than
go through with the scandal of public trial.
(Samilin v. CFI, 57 Phil. 298)

If the offended party is already of age and is in

complete possession of her mental and physical
faculties, no one else could file the complaint but
 TITLE TWELVE This crime is committed when a person
represents himself to be another and assumes
the filiation or the parental or conjugal rights of
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL such another person.
STATUS OF PERSONS
The term civil status includes ones public
1. Simulation of births, substitution of station, or the rights, capacities and incapacities
one child for another and which determine a person to a given class. It
seems that the term civil status includes ones
concealment or abandonment of a
profession.
legitimate child (Art. 347)
It is absolutely necessary in order to constitute
Acts punished:
the crime that the intent of the offender is to enjoy
the rights arising from the civil status of the
1. Simulation of birth takes place when the
person impersonated.
woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact
she is not, and on the day of the supposed
delivery, takes the child of another as her
own 3. Bigamy (Art. 349)
2. Substitution of one child for another this
Elements:
is committed when, for instance, X is born of
A and B; Y is born of C and D; and the
1. That the offender has been legally
offender, with intent to cause the loss of any
married;
trace of their filiation, exchanges X and Y
2. That the marriage has not been legally
without the knowledge of their respective
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
parents
absent, the absent spouse could not yet
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate
be presumed dead according to the Civil
child; REQUISITES:
Code;
a. The child must be legitimate;
3. That the second element or subsequent
b. The offender conceals or abandons
marriage has all the essential requisites
such child;
for validity, and would have been valid,
c. The offender has the intent to
were it not for the subsistence of the first
cause such child to lose its civil
marriage.
status

Abandonment leaving the child at a public place It is now settled that the fact that the first
where other people may find it, and causing the child marriage is void from the beginning is not a
to lose is defense in a bigamy case. Article 40 of the
Family Code states that the absolute nullity of a
Abandoning a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes
Abandoning a minor of remarriage on the basis SOLELY of a final
legitimate child (Art.
(Art. 276) judgement declaring such previous marriage
348)
The offender is any The offender must be void.
person. one who has custody of
the child. The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity
The purpose of the The purpose of the of the first marriage was immaterial because prior
offender is to cause the offender is to avoid the to the declaration of the nullity, the crime had
child to lose its civil obligation of rearing and already been consummated. (Mercado v. Tan,
status. caring for the child. G.R. No. 137110)
A crime against the civil A crime against security
status of person Under Article 41 of the Family Code, a summary
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in death of the absent spouse is required before the
violation of the duties of a profession or office, surviving spouse can remarry. Thus, one who
shall cooperate in the execution of any of the contracted a subsequent marriage before the
crimes mentioned shall suffer the penalties declaration of presumptive death of the absent
therein prescribes and also the penalty of spouse is guilty of bigamy.
temporary special disqualification.
The second spouse who knew of the first
marriage is an accomplice in the crime of bigamy.
2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348) (Viada)

Any person who shall usurp the civil status of

another. 4. Marriage contracted against
provisions of law (Art. 350)
Penalty:
Elements:
1. Prision mayor if the purpose of the
offender is to defraud the offended party or 1. That the offender contracted marriage;
his heir (qualified) 2. That he knew at the time that:
2. Prision correccional a. The requirements of the law were
not complied with; or
 b. The marriage was in disregard of
a legal impediment.

Qualifying circumstance: If either of the

contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the
other by means of violence, intimidation, or fraud.

Conviction of violation of Article 350 involves

moral turpitude. The respondent is disqualified
from being admitted to the bar. (Villasanta v.
Peralta, 101 Phil. 313)

5. Premature marriages (Art. 351)

decriminalized

6. Performance of illegal marriage

ceremony (Art. 352)

Priests or ministers of any religious denomination

or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be
punished in accordance with the provisions of he
Marriage Law.

Article 352 presupposes that the priest or

minister or civil authority is authorized to
solemnize marriages. If the accused is not
authorized to solemnize marriage and he
performs an illegal marriage ceremony, he is
liable under Article 177.
 TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
1. Defamation [or Libel] the offense of
injuring a persons character, fame or reputation
through false and malicious statements
Kinds of defamation:
1. Libel defamation by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting or theatrical or
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means
2. Slander oral defamation
In determining whether a statement is
defamatory, the words used are construed in
their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and
ordinary meaning as they would naturally be
understood by persons reading them, unless it
appears that they were used and understood in
another sense. (Novicio v. Aggabao, 463 Phil.
510)
ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION:
1. That there must be an imputation:
a. Of a crime; or
b. Of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary; or
c. Or any act, omission,
status or circumstance;
The imputation to a crime may be implied from
the acts and statements of the accused. (De
Guzman v. People, G.R. No. L-19075)
An imputation of criminal intention is not libellous
because intent to commit a crime is not a
violation of the law. (People v. Baja)
When a person, in an article, imputes upon the
person mentioned therein, lascivious and
immoral habits, that article is of a libellous nature
as it tends to discredit the person libeled in the
minds of those reading the said article. (People v.
Suarez, G.R. No. 35396)
An article signed by the accused and published in
the Philippine Herald says that the offended party
used to borrow money without intention to pay;
that he ordered the fixing of his teeth without
paying the fees for the services rendered by the
dentist, etc. contains an imputation of an act and
omission which is defamatory. (People v.
Tolentino)
Calling a person a bastard or leper within the
hearing of other persons is defamatory, because
there is an imputation of a condition or status
which tends to cause dishonor or contempt of the
offended party.
2. That the imputation must be made
publicly;
Publication the communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons
Delivering the article to the typesetter is sufficient
publication. (U.S. v. Crame, 10 Phil. 135)
Sending to the wife, a letter defamatory of her
husband, is sufficient publication. (U.S. v.
Ubnana, 1 Phil. 471)
Writing a letter to another person other than the
person defamed is sufficient to constitute
publication, for the person to whom the letter is
addressed is a third person in relation to its writer
and the person defamed. (Orfanel v. People, 30
SCRA 819)
Sending a letter in a sealed envelope through a
messenger, is not publication. (Lopez v. Delgado,
8 Phil. 26) If the letter is not sealed, there is
publication.
The communication of libelous matter to the
person defamed alone does not amount to
publication, for that cannot injure his reputation. A
mans reputation is the estimate in which others
hold him; not the good opinion which he has of
himself. (People v. Atencio)
3. That it must be malicious
(presumed);
Malice when the offender is prompted by personal
ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but
merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed
Malice in fact may be shown by proof of ill-will,
hatred or purpose to injure
Malice in law presumed from a defamatory
imputation; proof of malice is not require, because it is
presumed to exist from the defamatory imputation
RULE/PRESUMPTION: Malice in law Every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious.
The same presumption arises even if the imputation is
TRUE*, if no good intention and justifiable motive for
making it is shown.
EXCEPTIONS: Privileged Communications The
presumption of malice in law does not arise in the
following cases:
a. A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance of any
legal, moral, or social duty, addressed to an
officer or a board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter in good faith;
b. A fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, (1) of any
judicial, legislative, or other official
proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or (2) of any statement, report, or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or (3)
of any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions. (Art. 354)
(NOTE: These privileged communications are
merely conditional, not absolute. While malice in
these cases is not presumed, it may be
established by the prosecution.)
If there is no malice in law (such as in the above-
mentioned exceptions), the prosecution must
establish malice in fact to convict the accused.
(Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)
Two kinds of privileged communications:
a) Absolutely privileged communication the
defamatory statements is not actionable
even if the author acted in bad faith (e.g.,
statements made by members of Congress
in the discharge of their functions as such)
b) Conditionally privileged communication the
defamatory statements is not actionable
unless made with malice or bad faith
It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction that
statements made in the course of judicial
proceedings are absolutely privileged. This
absolute privilege remains regardless of the
defamatory tenor and the presence of malice if
the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the
cause in hand or subject of the inquiry.
(Navarette v. CA, 325 SCRA)
In determining the issue of relevancy of
statements made in judicial proceedings, courts
have adopted a liberal attitude by resolving all
doubts in favor of relevancy.
Doctrine of Fair Comment Commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and insulated
from prosecution or damage suits for defamation even
if such views are found to be inaccurate or erroneous,
unless it was made with malice, that is, with
knowledge that it was false or with disregard of
whether it was false or not. (Vasquez v. CA, 314
SCRA 460) A conditionally privileged communication
(NOTE: Pwede pud baliktad. If shown to be true, the
charge of defamation cannot prosper even if the
accused acted with malice. See below.)
*Proof of truth is not always admissible in evidence.
Proof of truth is admissible only in the following cases
(Art. 361):
1. When the act or omission imputed
constitutes a crime, whether the offended
party is a private individual or a public officer;
2. When the imputation was made against a
Government employee with respect to facts
related to the discharge of their duties,
whether or not the act or omission imputed
constitutes a crime.
(NOTE: In the case of No. 1, proof of the truth is not
enough to acquit the accused. It must also be shown
that the publication of the imputation was (1) with
good motives and (2) for justifiable ends. [Art. 361,
par. 1; see Presumption Malice in law])
(NOTE: In the case of No. 2, proof of the truth is
sufficient to acquit the accused.)
4. That the imputation must be
directed to a natural or juridical
person, or one who is dead;
It is not sufficient that the offended party
recognized himself as the person attacked or
defamed; it must be shown that at least a third
person could identify him as the object of the
libellous publication. (Kunkle v. Cablenews-
American, 42 Phil. 757)
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that he be named. It is enough if by
intrinsic reference, the allusion is apparent or if
the publication contains matters of description or
reference to facts and circumstances from which
others reading the article may know the plaintiff
was intended, or if he is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that person
knowing him could and did understand that he
was the person referred to. (Corpus v. Cuaderno,
Sr., 16 SCRA 807)
When the article is impersonal on its face and
interpretation of its language does not single out
individuals, the fourth essential requisite of the
offense of libel does not exist. (Uy Tioco v. Yang
Shu Wen, 32 Phil. 624)
5. That the imputation must tend to
cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed.
Dishonor disgrace, shame or ignominy
Discredit loss of credit or reputation
Contempt state of being despised
The persons responsible for libel (Art. 360):
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or
causes the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means;
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper magazine or serial publication
(he is liable as if he is the author thereof);
4. The owner of the printing plant which
publishes a libellous article with his consent
and all other persons who in any way
participate in or have connection with its
publication.
2. Libel by means of writings or similar
means [or simply Libel] (Art. 355)
Means of committing libel:
1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic exhibition
10. Any similar means, e.g., television program
Multiple Publication Rule A single defamatory
statement, if published several times, gives rise to as
many offenses as there are publications. (Soriano v.
IAC, 167 SCRA 222)
Penalty: Prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods OR a fine ranging P200 to P6,000,
OR both, in addition to the civil action which may be
brought by the offended party
Administrative Cir. 08-2008 Re: Guidelines in the
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the
Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases
All courts and judges concerned should take note
of the foregoing rule of preference on the matter of
the imposition of penalties for the crime of libel
bearing in mind the following principles:
1. This Administrative Circular does not remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty for
the crime of libel under Art. 355 of the RPC;
2. The judges concerned may, in the exercise
of sound discretion, and taking into
consideration the peculiar circumstances of
each case, determine whether the imposition
of a fine alone would best serve the interests
of justice or whether forbearing to impose
imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on
the social order, or otherwise be contrary to
the imperatives of justice;
3. Should only be fine imposed and the
accused be unable to pay the fine, there is
no legal obstacle to the application of the
RPC provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.
3. Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a
compensation (Art. 356)
Acts punished:
1. By threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, or his parents, spouse,
child or other members of his family;
2. By offering to prevent the publication of
such libel for compensation, or money
consideration.
Blackmail is possible here.
Blackmail any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure
4. Prohibited publication of acts
referred to in the course of official
proceedings [Gag Law] (Art. 357)
Elements:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or
manager of a newspaper daily or
magazine;
2. That he publishes facts connected with
the private life of another;
3. That such facts are offensive to the
honor, virtue and reputation of said
person.
The prohibition applies even though said
publication be made in connection with or under
the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of
any judicial or administrative proceedings
wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Penalty: Arresto mayor and/or a fine of from P200 to
P2,000
5. Slander (Art. 358) oral defamation
a. Simple slander
Penalty: Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200
b. Grave slander of a serious and
insulting nature
Penalty: Arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccionall in its minimum period
Factors to determine the gravity of oral defamation:
1. Upon the expressions used;
2. The personal relations of the accused and
the offended party;
3. Circumstances surrounding the case;
4. The social standing and the position of the
offended party.
The word puta alleged to have been uttered by
the defendant in referring to the offended party
does not necessarily connote the crime of
prostitution. (People v. Atienza, G.R. No. L-
19857)
There is oral defamation, even if other persons
and not the offended party heard the slanderous
words, because a mans reputation is the
estimate in which others hold him, not the good
opinion which he has of himself. (People v.
Clarin)
6. Slander by deed (Art. 359)
Elements:
1. That the offender performs any ACT not
included in any other crime against
honor;
2. That such act is performed in the
presence of other person or persons;
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon the offended party.
Penalty:
1. Arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period or
a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 if the
act is serious in nature (grave slander by
deed)
2. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200
if the act is not serious in nature (simple
slander by deed)
Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes
slander by deed of a serious nature or not,
depends on the social standing of the offended
party, the circumstances under which the act was
committed, the occasion, etc.
Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if
the intention of the accused is to cause shame
and humiliation.
Petitioners act of pointing a dirty finger at
complainant constitutes simple slander by deed,
it appearing from the factual milieu of the case
that the act complained of was employed by
 petitioner to express anger or displeasure at
complainant for procrastinating the approval of
his leave monetization. While it may have cast
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon
complainant, said act is not of serious nature.
(Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351)

Unjust vexation, slander by deed, and acts of

lasciviousness:

1. Unjust vexation anything that annoys or

irritates another without justification and
without any other concurring factor;
2. Slander by deed if in addition to the
irritation or annoyance, there was attendant
publicity and dishonor or contempt;
3. Acts of lasciviousness if in addition to the
irritation or annoyance, there was lewd
designs.

No criminal action for defamation which consists

in the imputation of a crime which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio (adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness)
shall be brought except at the instance of and
upon complaint expressly filed by the offended
party.

7. Incriminating an innocent person

(Art. 363)

Elements:

1. That the offender performs an act;

2. That by such act he directly incriminates
or imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime;
3. That such act does not constitute perjury.

This article is limited to acts of planting

evidence and the like, which do not in themselves
constitute false prosecutions (accusations) but
ten directly to cause false prosecutions. (People
v. Rivera, 59 Phil. 236)

Incriminating an Perjury by Making

Innocent Person False Accusation
Committed by performing The gravamen of the
an act by which the offense is the imputation
offender directly itself, falsely made,
incriminates or impute to before an officer
an innocent person the
commission of a crime
Limited to the act of Perjury is not limited to
planting evidence and the making false imputations
like, in order to
incriminate an innocent
person

Complex crime: Incriminating an innocent person

through unlawful arrest.

8. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)

Elements:

1. That the offender makes any intrigue;

2. That the intrigue has for its principal
purpose to blemish the honor or
reputation of another person.
 TITLE FOURTEEN
QUASI-OFFENSES
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Four ways of committing quasi-offenses:
1. By committing through RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE any act which, had it
been intentional, would constitute a
grave or less grave felony or light
felony;
Requisites:
1. The offender commits an ACT;
2. Such act is not intentional;
3. Such act, had it been intentional, would
constitute a:
a. Grave felony; (arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision
correccional in its medium period)
or
b. Less grave felony; (arresto mayor in
its minimum and medium periods)
or
c. Light felony (arresto menor in its
maximum period);
4. The offender commits the act through
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE; Requisites:
a. That the offender does or fails to do
an act;
b. That the doing of or the failure to do
an act is voluntary;
c. That it be without malice;
d. That material damage results;
e. That there is inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the
offender taking into consideration:
i. His employment;
ii. Degree of intelligence,
physical condition; and
iii. Other circumstances
regarding persons, time
and place.
3. By causing damage to the property of
another through RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE or SIMPLE
IMPRUDENCE or NEGLIGENCE;
Penalty: Fine ranging from an amount equal to the
value of the damage to three times such value but
which shall in no case be less than P25
4. By causing through SIMPLE
IMPRUDENCE or NEGLIGENCE some
wrong, which if done maliciously,
would constitute a LIGHT FELONY.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding P200 and censure
When the preceding penalties are not applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is
equal to or lower than those provided in Nos.
1 and 2;
a. The penalty next lower in degree
than that which should be imposed
shall be imposed by the courts.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and
with violation of the Automobile Law, the
death of a person shall be caused.
a. The defendant shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods.
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime in itself.
It is simply a way of committing a crime.
Imprudence Negligence
Indicates a deficiency of Indicates a deficiency of
action perception
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
Complex crime: Reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicide with serious physical injuries
and less serious physical injuries.

2. By committing through SIMPLE

IMPRUDENCE or NEGLIGENCE an
act which would other otherwise
constitute a grave or a less grave
felony;

Requisites:

1. The offender commits an ACT;

2. The act constitutes a (a) grave felony or (b)
less grave felony; Penalty:
a. Grave felony arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods;
b. Less grave felony arresto mayor
in its minimum period
3. The offender commits the act through
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE or NEGLIGENCE;
Requisites of simple imprudence:
a. That there is lack of precaution on
the part of the offender;
b. That the damage impending to be
caused is not immediate or the
danger is not clearly manifest.