Good morning! Umpisahan na ba natin. Sige, Okay
Pero pag
so, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code so somehow
nakita ko no nabigay na sa inyo ang mga materials.
So kapag nabasa mo yan pwede ka ng
umuwi, you will get atleast 85 on criminal law.
Promise yan Andiyan na lahat ‘yan.
Let’s start with Death Caused or Inflicted Under
Exceptional Circumstances mag
-uumpisa ako dito because Art 247 does not define a
felony. Although it is provided that the offending spouse
under Art 247 may be sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Destierro nakalagay don but it doesn’t
make Art 247 or that doesn’t mean that what is
defined under art 247 is a felony kasi alam naman
natin na ang Destierro is not a penalty. Now the offended
spouse rather Art 247 may be sentenced to Destierro to
protect him from the retaliation that would come from the
relatives of the offending spouse and the paramour. By
the way for purposes of the Revised Penal Code,
yung querida, ang tawag diyan ay concubine, yung
querido, yung lalaki, ang tawag don ay paramour.
What is okay so yung sabi ko, it is not a felony. If it
is not a felony then what is it? It is an absolutory
cause why is it a absolutory cause look under
Article 247, a person may have been killed, a
person may have suffered serious physical injures
yet the person responsible for the killing or the
infliction of serious physical injuries, di ba he could
have been charged of parricide murder or homicide
or serious physical injuries and yet hindi siya
pwedeng masintensyahan ng Reclusion Perpetua
or Reclusion Temporal as the case maybe kundi
Destierro lang which I have said is not even a
felony. So ano ba yung 247 na yan? Now basically,
eto yan, that the offending spouse may have killed
or inflicted serious physical injuries upon the offended
spouse and the paramour or concubine. Under what
circumstance? Ibig sabihin after the offending spouse have
caught them in the act committing sexual intercourse or
have killed or committed physical injuries
immediately thereafter. Although this may also be
applicable to the parents or the parent of the minor
daughter whom they would catch committing sexual
intercourse with another person. Yan ang situation
although you have to take note of the exceptions. At isa
pa, under Art. 247, sinasabi daw sabi ko daw that the
offending spouse must have surprised the offended spouse
or concubine committing sexual intercourse. Sino bang
hindi massurprise? Both parties in this case would
have been surprised actually yung surprise na ito
should relate to the offended spouse siya dapat
yung masusurprise hindi yung nahuli niya. And now
may nakikita akong nakikita sa bar ulit. Hindi na ito
yung magkapareho ah- na babae lalaki. Gasgas na
yan pero paglumabas na yan alam niyo na rin kung
papaano niyo sssagutin yan. 1. Are preparatory
acts included? Ano ba yung acts preparatory to
sexual intercourse? Halimbawa kissing. Kasama ba
ng kissing? Sabi ko nga, depende yan sa klase ng kiss.
Kung flying kiss yan at pinatay mo yung asawa mo, walang
absolutory cause yan. What about the offending
spouse had caught offended spouse kissing
another man or woman such as French do it.
French kiss, pinatay mo. May the offender in this
case be entitled to absolutory cause? Personally I
would not consider him to be entitled thereto kasi
sa tingin ko ha French kissing may not be
preparatory to sexual intercourse.
Australian na kissing na yan that is an act
preparatory to sexual intercourse pag pinatay mo
while they were in that act or immediately thereafter, sa tingin
ko entitled ka. What about if the offended spouse had
not actually caught them in the act pero anong
nakita ng offended spouse nakita niya the offended
spouse and yung babae or lalaki, as the case may
be, sleeping side by side with each other tapos
naked sila, pinatay would he still be entitled to this
absolutory cause? I would like to think that he
should still be entitled to it. For as long as he
reasonably believes and that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that they had sex. Under the
circumstances, anong ginawa nila? Bakit sila natulog ng
nakahubad? Dinisesect lang nila ang isat-isa? So, hindi
naman siguro. So, pwede pa rin yun. Yung isang
ruling, nakita niya alas-6 tapos pumunta sa bahay
ng kapit bahay humiram ng baril, pagbalik dun,
wala na si paramour, tapos 7-o’ clock nakita yung
lalaki yung paramour, pinatay. Sabi ng Supreme Court
diyan, entitled pa rin. Sabi ng Supreme Court, even if 1
hour had passed from the time the offended spouse
had discovered the act kahit na lumagpas pa riyan,
okay pa rin yan. But the rule is that according to
People vs Abarca the offended spouse may be still
entitled to absolutory cause under the circumstance if the
discovery, the escape, the pursuit or the killing would
form part of 1 continuous act but importantly, sabi
ng SC, the offended spouse, may be entitled to this
absolutory cause if the killing or the infliction of the
serious physical injuries is the proximate result of
the outrage overwhelming the accused. When he
chanced upon the offending spouse committing this
baseless act of infidelity. Pero tingin ko ito ang
lalabas sa bar: A and B are husband and wife the
husband in this case had thought that his wife was
faithful to him but unknown to be, his wife was
having an affair with Mr. C. Meron silang sexual
relationship. And that B the wife and the paramour were
always in a motel every Friday from 6-9. Yet unknown to the
wife itong si paramour everytime they are in a motel, would
set up a video cam, nasa loob sila ng kwarto. All that have
transpired in that room were recorded and kinocompile ni Mr.
C. as days went by the wife decided to call it quits and come
to realize the consequences of her actions.
Nakipagbreak siya kay Mr C. But si Mr C ayaw.
Sabi niya gaganti ako so he uploaded one of the
videos in the net. The activity na yan that was
uploaded a month after. A month later si A and B
nagdadate na ulit. Dahil mahilig mag internet si
husband dala dala niya ang kanyang ipad. Nung
nasa resto na sila binuksan ni husband ang
kanyang ipad at binuksan ang kanyang favorite
porn site. Pagbukas niya, “wait lang honey,
kamukha mo yung babae. Sabi ni honey, “hindi ako
yan kamukha ko lang.” Iniscren shot niya at
tinignan ang sex organs ng babae pagtingin niya,
“Honey ikaw ito!” Inamin ni wife. Pinalo sa ulo ni
husband yung ipad at basag yung ipad tapos he
forcefully fed his wife of the splinters. Pinakain yung
mga basag basag na parte. Eh buhay pa kinuha
niya yung charger sa bag and chinoke ni husband
si wife. So namatay si wife. He was prosecuted with
parricide. Could he successfully invoke this absolutory cause
under Art 247? Siguro off hand and sagot mo dito
would be NO, kasi nga sasabihin mo under Art 247,
the offfended spouse must have surprised the
offending spouse and the paramour committing
sexual intercourse and while in that act or
immediately thereafter, dapat patayin niya. Hindi ka
maz-zero diyan, kung 4 points yung question baka
bigyan ka ng 1 point diyan kasi alam mo yung
batas eh. But this would be my preferred answer. Kung
ako yung examiner ganito yung gusto kong sagot: that Mr A
and the husband should be entitled to this absolutory
cause, why? In the case decided by the supreme
court, it was decided that, ccite ko na rin yung
abarca ruling, this may be availed of if the killing of
the offending spouse is the proximate result of the
outrage overwhelming the accused when he
chanced upon the offending spouse committing this
baseless act of infidelity, in this case there appears
could be no other external factors that could have
impelled the offended spouse in killing his wife other than the
same feeling had he chanced upon the offending spouse
and the paramour committing sexual intercourse.
Magkapareho ba yung feeling o mararamdaman
nung lalaki kung makita niya in the act at kung
makita niya in the net? Personally mas offending sa
akin yung makikita ko sa net. Kasi kung nakita na
niya na nagssex sila siya lang nakakakita, e kung
nasa net, buong mundo makakakita na. Punta
naman tayo sa medyo madadaling provisions: Crimes
against persons. Parricide. When you talk of parricide the
offender must have killed his father or mother, or must
have killed his child and the relationship of the
offender and his child may either be legitimate or
illegitimate. He may have killed an ascendant or
descendant provided that the relationship between
the offender and this descendant or ascendant is
legitimate or may he have killed his spouse. So yan
ang parricide. Eh ano naman ang infanticide? Pag
sinabi mong infanticide, the offender must have
killed the child who is less than 3 days old or less
than 72 hours old. Now, baka tanungin halimbawa,
Ms. A, had given birth to a baby, yung batang ito ay
illegitimate, 2 days after having given birth the mother had
choked the child to death. Question of what the
mother crime would be: Parricide or Infanticide?
Infanticide yan. because under this instance di mo
kinoconsideer ang relationship to make the mother
liable but ang kinoconsider mo ditto ay ang edad
nung bata. Infanticide yan. Sabi ko nga pag may
namatay ordinarily homicide lang yan unless the
offended party or the victim is of those under Art 246 sa
parricide or unless the victim is below 3 days old,
infanticide naman yan or unless, any of the
qualifying circumstances attend or attends the
killing of the victim, in that case the offender may be held
liable for murder. But if the death of the victim resulted from
the negligence on the part of the offender then that would be
negligence resulting in homicide. Homicide has 3 stages.
Attempted, frustrated and consummated. So, may a person
be convicted of homicide even the prosecution was
not able to prove the intent to kill, the answer is
YES. Pwede yan pumasok sa preter intencionem. If
the offender is committing an intentional felony, and that the
resultant death of the victim, is he direct natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by him though the
death by the killing of the victim is not intended by the
offender, liable siya for homicide although, sabi ko nga, he
may be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intent to
commit so grave a wrong as that of committed. Another
question, may a person be held liable for attempted or
frustrated homicide if the prosecution would not be able
to prove intent to kill the answer is NO. Bonggang
bonggang NO yan. Basta’t walang intent to kill, sa
attempted and frustrated lang. Most or all the
qualifying circumstances under Art 248 except for one
are included in the enumeration of aggravating circumstance
under Art 14. Lahat yan! Pwera lang yung isa- yung
outraging or scoffing at the person of the victim or
his corpse, yun lang ang exception is attended by two or
more. But what if the killing of a person is attended by 2 or
more circumstances that qualify the killing of the person to
murder under article 248. Ilan ang pwede mong i-
appreciate to operate as a qualifying circumstance,
isa lang. Eh papaano naman yung iba, should we
disregard the others? The answer is NO. The other
circumstances would be treated as generic aggravating
circumstances unless na-absorb na just like
treachery absorbing the use of superior strength.
But do not forget that insofar as aggravating is
concerned, the prosecution has the burden of
proving the same. But the qualifying and aggravating
circumstance may not be aggravated if it is not alleged in
the information. Kaya nga dalawa ang requisites
diyan ano, before an aggravating circumstance may
be appreciated 1. It must be alleged in the information; the
reason is because the right to be informed on the
nature of accusation against the accused. 2. The
same must be proven by the prosecution.
Kailangan mapatunayan. Quantum of proof. Same
as that inproving the guilt of the accused. ANong
proof yun proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Yung mga Qualifying circumstances which is
alleged in the info to have attended the killing of a
person are the ff: 1. Treachery 2. Inconsideration of
a price, reward or promise 3. Outraging or scouffing
to the victim or its corpse. If the prsecution was
able to prove these 3 circumstance which of the 3
should operate as a qualifying circumstance? Yung
outraging. Yung treachery shld be relegated as a
generic agg circ; yung inconsideration of a price,
reward or promise, ganun dn, relegated rin as a
generic agg circ. Bakit? Kasi yung Outraging or
scouffing the victim or its corpse could not be
considered as a gen agg circ. Ganito kasimple ang
paliwanag, kasi ang outraging or scouffing the
victim or its corpse, is not included in the
enumeration of Aggravating circumstance under art
14. Isa pa na babantayan niyo in crimes against
persons, eh yung death caused in a tumultuous
affairs yung physical inj caused in a tumultuous
affray…. That would be art 251 and 252. Ang affray
ibig sabihin niyan quarrel/ fight. If the affair
preceded of the adjective tumultuous, it will be
considered a confused quarrel. In street language,
rambol. Tumutuous affray. In order that a person
may be held liable under Art 252 or art 252 aperson
must have been killed or suffered serious or less
serious physical injuries in the course or during the
tumultuous affray. There is a tumultuous affray only
if there are seeral persons not composing groups
mutually organized for the purpose of attacking or
assaulting one another. ABCDE had gone to a
videoke bar. Kumain, uminom at kumanta.
Moments later another grp of men arrived,
TUVWXYZ. Yung groupo ni A and T are strangers
with one another.
Sabi ni A “waited peram nga ng microphone”
tumugtog na ang intro ng My Way then Mr A
started singing that song. But one of the members
of 2nd group, Mr. U, was angered by the manner by
which Mr A sings the song. It was apparently the
favorite of mr u. Gali because Mr A is singing the
song to the tune of Versace on the floor. Niaapitan
si Mr A. kinonfront. Then there was a heated
argument betweent he A and U and escalated a fist
fight between the two groups and it happened that
mr T laid dead. Patay si Mr T. Question: who may
be held liable to Mr T's death? Eto ang rules: 1. If
the person who caused fatal wound had caused Mr
T could be identified then he would only be the one
liable, for what? for homicide under Art 249. And as
such he may be made to suffer the penalty
prescribed by law for homicide which is reclusion
temporal without prejudice to the app of the islaw.
Example: nobody among the mem of the 1st and
the 2nd group were identified to have caused the
fatal wounds that resulted to Mr T who may be
liable? That person who cold be iden to have inflic
serious physical injuries upon mr t. For what crime
ay that person be liable? death caused in a
tumultuous affray under art 251 of RPC and as
scuh may be sentenced to suffer prision mayor 1
degree lower ng Rec temp. Bakit? Kasi di naman
siya talaga ang pumatay actually what he did was
he merely inflicted injuries upon the victim which
may or may not have caused the death of the
victim. SO di natin naidentify wh inflicted the mortal
wound that caused death of the victim, we could
not also identify the person inflicted the per inflicted
physical injuries the who should be held liable.
Then that person who may be identified to have
employed violence upon the victim. So 1 degree ng
homicide din ng penalty so he may be liable for
death caused in a tumultuous affray.
Halimbawa etong si Mr t he was not killed yet he
sustained serious or less s physical injuries then
the person who have inflicted the injuries could not
be identified. If then it happened the person inflicted
serious or less s physical injuries could be identified
then siya lang ang liable. For what? For serious or
less serious physical injuries. Pero if the person
who inflicted serious or less physical injuries could
not be identified then who should be held liable for
the injuries Mr T could have sustained that person
could have been identified to have employed
violence upon him. In such case, that person may
be held liable for physical injuries caused in a
tumultuous affray. So if serious physical injuries
lang under art 252 1 degree lower ng serious
physical injuries kung under Art 252, less serious
ang nainflict, 1 degree lower ng less s physical inj.
Perhaps only the offender would be liable of
physical injuries in a tumutuos affray wherein the
victim would sustain less serious physical injuries
may be sentenced to suffer, Arresto Menor. Pero
kung si Mr C had incurred slight physical injuries in
a tumultuous affray who should be held liable
therefore? Nobody kung slight physical injuries
lang. Kasi ang penalty for slight physical injuries is
arresto menor, wala ng 1 dgree lower yan. Next is
suicide. Attempting to commit suicide is not a felony
an dyou know that but assisting another to commit
suicide is. Okay so halimbawa nakatanggap ka ng
text sa isang kaibigan, sabi niya “sis/bro, punta
kayo ditto sa condo” pagpunta mo don nakita mo
yung kaibigan mo nakatali yung leeg tapos ung
dulo sa istaas nakatali tapos tumungtong siya sa
stool sabi niya “pakisipa mo nga itong bangkong
ito” ikaw naman sinipa mo, ayun nabigti yung
kaibigan mo. Liable k aba for homicide, no you are
liable in assisting to commit suicide. For the first
time lumabas sa bar yan. I think in 2012. Yung
boyfriend/ girlfriend di ba, their respective parents
resented their relationship punta sila sa motel, they
decded to kill themselves di ba, una binaril nung
boyfriend si girlfriend namatay si girlfriend
pagkatapos, the girlfriend has shot himself in the
temple kaya lang nabuhay. Does the boyfriend has
criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code?
Yes he is liable of assisting another to commit
suicide under Art 253. Discharge of firearms under
art 254 is a crime against persons. 2 beses niyong
makikita yan sa RPC. Una, Alarms and scandals
when discharging a firearm. Under Art 155 and
discharge of firearms under Art 254 of PRC. Eto,
nagpaputok ng baril. Pero ano yung mga
distinctings nila as to their nature? Yung alrams
and scandals nila by discharging a firearm, the
same is a crime against public order while
discharge of firearms against 254 is a crime against
persons kaya hindi siya pwede maging recidivist.
Kung naconvict siya dati ng alarms and scandals,
by discharging a firearm tapos naconvict naman
siya ng discharge of firearms under 254 he is not a
recidivistinsofar as subsequent conviction of
discharge of firearms is concerned kasi alarams
and scandals by discharging a firearm and
discharging of firearms under 254 are not
embraced under the same title of the code, so
magkaiba sila. As to the purpose of the offender.
SO by the way papano baa ng alrams and scandals
from discharging afirearm? That the offender may
have discharge a firarm in a public place calculated
to cause alarm and danger and that alarms and
scandals by discharging a firearm is a light felony, 1
day -30 days imprisonment lang yan or a fine of not
ore that 200 pesos or both. As to the intention of
the offender, under art 155, ang intention of the
foffender is to cause alam or danger, to cause
public disturbance na hindi naman masyadong
seryoso ang disturbance. The offender discharge a
firearms in a public place and that the discturbance
he have caused in public is serious, ah hindi nay an
alarm and scandal, ano yan? Tumults and other
disturbances under153. Yung tipong nagpaputok ka
ng baril in apublic place tapos nagkaroon na ng
Magnitude 7 na lindol, ayan tumutls and other
serious disturbance. Exaggerated yan, hindi naman
lalabas sa bar ng ganyan. Dun naman sa discharge
of firearms, under Art 254, ano baa ng intensyon of
the offender? The intention of the offender in
discharge of firearms under Art or to intimidate the
254 is to scare to frighthen or to intimidate the
victim. In alarms and scandals in dischargeing a
firearm, kasi ang purpose is for public disturbance,
the gun must not aimed to another person. DI ba
kung tinutok mo yung baril mo sa isang tao, ang
purpose mob a pag pinutok mo yung baril mo eh to
cause public disturbance? Hindi di ba? Okay while
discharge of firearms under 254 the defendant
must have discharged the firearm at another, ibig
sabihin ibinaril niya sa isang tao but there must not
be intention to kill. Ang purspose lang ng offender
in discharge to firearm is to scare, to frighten and to
intimidate. Pero if mr A aimed the gun to mr b and
fired the shot, nakailag itong si mr B. Of what crime
the offender guilty? The offender is guilty of
attempted homicide or murder. Kasi ang purpose
niyan kung babarilin mo sa ulo is to scare to
frighten or to intimidate? No. Your intention is to kill
him. So IF A person is discharge to another with
intent to kill, walang discharge of firearm uneder
254, if meron ng intent to kill, that will now fall under
attempted or frustrated homice or murder as the
case may be. A saw mr B. Kaaway niya si B. while
they are 5 meters away. Mr A drew a gun, aimed
the same on the concrete pavement of the road
where mr B was standing. Nagpaputok. The bullet
hit the concrete pavement same bullet hit the fence
and then the bullet fall to mr B. the bullet had
greased his right leg that resulted to the
hospitalization of mr b for 2 days. So question what
are the crimes that should mr a be held liable? 2.
Eto obviously may discharegde of firearms under
254 kasi obviously, mr A aimed the firearm to mr B
without intent to kill but to scare, threathen, or
intimidate him, pasok na siya sa discharge of
firearms eh kaso that single act of firing that gun
had resultd to another crime as well. What other
crimes resulted therefro? Slight physical injuries.
Okay question, as to what crime or crimes may he
be held liable? Sasabihin niyo sir, discharge of
firearm lang yan and absorbed ang slight physical
injuries cause slight physical injuries is inherent in
discharge of firearms. Mali yan. Hindi inherent ang
slight physical injuries in discharge of firearms
because the crime of discharge of firearms can be
committed without necessarily inflicting ny physical
injury upon the victim. Sabihin mo sir, icomplex na
lang natin- discharge of firearms with slight physical
injuries! Mali ka diyan! Kasi you cannot complex
discharge of firearms with slight physical injury
because slight physical injury is a light felony. Ang
tamang sagot diyan, dalawang kaso discharge of
firearms and slight physical injuries. DI mo sila
pwedeng icomplex. True or false, discharge of
firearms may be complexed with less serious
physical injuries? The answernis true. Halimbawa,
as the result of the bullet, Mr B in this case was
hospitalized for 15 days. Di ba less serious yan
pwede mo silang icomplex. Kais nga yung
discharge of firearms is a less grave felongy and
that less seious hy injury is a les sgrave felony as
well. True or false? May discharge of firearms be
complexed withserious physical injuries? The
answer is trules. Pwedng icomplex pwedeng hindi.
Example Mr A disch a firearm to Mr B to intimidate.
Mr B in this case was not directly fired. SUmagi
lang sa gilid ng ulo. Tapos nagging imbecile si Mr
B. Question of what crime is mr a guilty? Serious
phy injur only. Bakit? Makikita niyo sagot sa last par
ng art 254. Ang sabi dun if the crime may have
resulted from discharge of firearm and that penalty
intended is a degree higher than that of discharge
of firearms, the criminal complaint shld be charged
against the accused and that the accused should
be convicted. SO insofar as the last par of 254 is
concerned, absorbed na and discharge of firearms
nung serious physical injuries under the first
paragraph the same rule applies if the same rules
of serious physical injuries which may have
resulted to the discharge of firearms are those
mentioned are those mentioned under 2nd par.
Pero halimbawa yung serious phy injuries yung
nagresulta, then discharge of firearms may have
been resulted to serious physical injuries of par 3
and 4. Balkit ganito ang result? Cos serious phy
injuries resulted under par 2 and 3 carry a penalty
higher than discharge of firearms. Yan ang rule! If
mas mataas ang penalty na nagresulta diyan, yung
crime na nagresulta ang icocosider. Pero bakit
paragraph 3 and par 4 pwedeng icomplex? Kasi
nga, yung paragraph 3, for discharge of firearms
under art 254 and that of serious physical injuries
under par 3 are that of the same. E papano kung A
with the intent to intimidate fired a shot to B with no
intnent to kill but for 1 reason or another he has
killed B and what crime should B will be charged?
with homiced. You may site as legal basis yung
plus paragrapg of Art 4 4. And as you may inlide as
legal basis ur article 4 par 1. Cause when Mr A
fired at Mr B, with the intention of scarig him, he is
already creating an intentional felony which is the
discharge of firearms and it is the direct natural and
logical consequence of the felony committed by him
which is the discharge of firearms. In all froms of
phys injuries there must not be intent to kill. Yung
offending religious feelings, interruption of religious
worship is crimes against the fundamental laws of
the State. Pag may intent to kill nay an, attempted
homicide nay an kapag walang injury. Halimbawa
walang intnetn to kill but the vitim has suffered a
mortal injury that did not cause its death, physical
injuries pa rin yan. What distinguishes physical inj
from attenmpted or frustrated homicide is the
presence of the intent to kill. Pag walang intent to
kill, physical injuries pag with intent to kill, attemptd
or friestrated homicide yan or murder. ANg pwede
niyong inconsider ditto ay is to distinguishing forms
of phy form the other is yung period of incapacity
for labor, period of hospitalization, period of
healing. Kpag sinabi mong slight phy injuries 1-9
days ang period of hospitalization, period of
healing. Pag sinabi mong less serious physical
injuries, 10-29 days pag sinabi mong serious
physical injuries, more than 30 days. A person may
be indicted of derious physical injuries eventhough
the person is not hospitalized nor incapacitated for
labor. So kelan ito? if the oofended party after
having been beaten or mauled become impotent,
imbecile, insane or blind. Kahit na nabulag lang di
naman nahospital, so serius physical injuries yan.
SO sabi don di ba, kahit he lost his capacity to
smell, to hear, to use one of his eyes, an arm, a
hand or a leg so serious physical injuries yang mga
yan. Okay so, deformity, ayan serious physical
injuries yan. Pag ginulpi ka’t natanggal lahat ng
ngipin mo, deformity yan, except na lang kapg milk
teeth. Kung yung buhok mo nawala, di deformity
yan magreregenerate naman yan. WHetehr or not
the deformity shld be conspicuous, e bahala na
kayo dyan. Mga permanent scars nay an, deformity
yan! So serious physical injuries. Slight phy injuries
by maltreatment. So kahit di na di nahospitalize
yan, liable pa rin for slight physical injuries. Cause
in slight phy injuries or maltreatment, a person must
have done an act against another for the purpose
of inflicting phyiscla pain to the offended party. You
pinch another may you be held liable for slight phys
injuries, kahit na anmula lang ang balat, wich would
be distinguished from slunder by deed. SInampal
mo isang tao what crime did you commit? It
depends. It depends on your intention. Kunyare
sinampal moa ng isnag tao nasa elevator, slight
physical injuries or maltreatment yan. Evidently, the
purpose will not be to inflict moral suffering or pain
to the person but to inflict physical pain upon him.
But if sinampal mo sa maraming nakakita, kunyare
sa palengke although you are inflicting physical
pain pero sinampal mo naman sa harap ng
maraming tao, your action, kasi maraming nakakita,
has caused emotional and moral suufering upon
the victim. Kahit anong bagay na makakasakit that
will induce slight physical pain to another may
constitute slight physical injuies and maltreatment.
Intentional mutilation. Iba yun sa physical injuries.
How is the crime of intentional mutilaton be
committed. Committed by cutting off a part of the
body that is essential fro reproduction or which may
or may not be essential for reproduction. Anong
pagkakaiba nito sa serious physical injuries under
the second paragraph? Yung serious physical
injuries under the second paragraph, the cutting of
a part of a body is merely unintentional. But yung
intentional mutilation, deliberate yan. SI Mr A and si
Mr B nagaway, Mr A gotten a Bolo had widely
swang the same, walang intention to kill, basta
inikot ikot tas naputol. ANong kaso diya, illegal
logging? Hindi. ANg kaso is Serious physical
Injuries. Eh si Mr A nakita niya si Mr B nagssun
bathing, nainggit siya, kumuha siya ng gunting na
pamputol ng damo, at pinutol niya ang ari, the that
would be intentional mutilation. But intentional
mutilation pa rin if you will cut off the part of the
body not necessary for reproduction, halimbawa
tenga. Read Aguirre vs Sec of Justice. Insofar as
intentional mutilation is concerned, the part of the
bidy to be cut off is essential for reproduction. Sa
lalaki okay ito, eh sa babae okay ba ito? What if
you will cut the breast of a woman will it be
considered intentional mutilation? Yes! But is the
breast of the woman essential for reproduction?
Hindi ko alam no. Tingin ko hindi. Pero liable parin.
Sa lalaki obvious. Okay example, si Mr A surgeon,
he was performing appendectomy tapos nakita niya
mga tubo tubo don mga essential for reproduction.
Qestion, is the surgeon liable of intentional
mutilation whereby the part of the victim that was
cut is essential to reproduction. Akala ko nung araw
pwede pero sabi ni Aguire, that will not constitute
intentional mutilation. SO ano ba itong Aguire vs
Sec of Justice? The victim here was a retardate.
Tapos his parents were abroad and been taken
care of by his aun and uncle. E etong retardate
nanliligaw na. Sabi ng tiyo’t tiya kung dadami ang
lahi nito e. SO inexxageratee ko na lang ng onti but
ganon yun. SO anong ginawa nila? They decided
to have this retardate to undergo vasectomy. SO
the uncle and aunt falsified the letter of consent that
was supposed to be from the parents of this guy.
Para di na dumami ang lahi. Nagfile ngayon ang
mga magulang for falsification against the uncle
and the unt and the intentional mutilation to the
surgeon. SO may probable ause daw sabi ng
prosecutor. Na-affirm ang resolution. Ang sabi
naman ng supreme court, the offender should only
be liable of the crime of falsification but not
intentional mutilation. When you talk about
intentional mutilation, it must be the external part of
the victims body di pwede yung nasa loo bang
puputulin mo. Administering an injurious substance,
264, that wuld result any of the physical injuries
under Art 263 or by taking advantage of the ones
weakness of mind. SO sabi ko nga yung
panggayuma, pagagayuma mo ang it will result to
physical injuries then he may be held liable of
Administering an injurious substance pero dapat
walang intent to kill. Kasi dapat if you are
Administering an injurious substance upon another
with intent to kill, murder yan! Qualifying
circumstance: b means of poison. Pero if physical
injuries because of Administering an injurious
substance results to less serious physical injuries
lang, naospital lang ng 10-29 days as the case may
be then what crime does the offender be held
guilty? he may not be held guilty of Administering
an injurious substance but he may held guilty for
less serious or slight physical injuries as the case
may be. Yan yung crime against Persons. Let us go
to another set of crimes. Crimes against personal
liberty and security 267-287. 267- Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal detention. It is committed by a
private individual who kidnaps, detains or otherwise
deprives the victim of his liberty under any of the ff
circumstances: (OR: kasi alternative yang mga yan)
1. That the detention had lasted for more than 3
days or if the offender has simulated public
authority or if the offender has threatened the victim
being killed or has inflicted serious phy upon him or
a victim is a female, or a public officer or a minor
except in the case of a minor, the offender must be
one of his parents. Alternative yan, Kahit ano don.
What if the private individual kidnaps and the
detention had not lasted more than 3 days, offender
has not simulated public authority or if the offender
has not threatened the victim being killed or has not
inflicted serious physical injuries upon him or a
victim is a male, or a private individual or a person
of age, then of what crime is the offenderguilty, he
is guilty of slight illegal det. In both kidnapping and
slight illegal detention, magkapareho sila ng
essence. Ano ang essence nila, under Art 267 and
268. Yun yung Deprivatuon of liberty. The primary
intention of the offender is to deprive the victim of
his liberty. I said primary, kasi somehow,
deprivation of liberty may be incidental. Mr A is a
poloce officer who was to erve an allege warrant to
Mr B. Sabi niya, “Mr B I am arresting you by virtue
of this warrant” So Mr B in this case staring
running. When Mr B reached the dead end,
nakakita siya ng bata 7y/o boy, he grapbbed the
boa ng placed a knife on his neck saying that if the
police will arrest him, he will kill the boy. Of what
crime could Mr A be guilty? Grave coercion. Bakit
di pwedeng kidnapping and serious illegal detention
but deprivation was not to deprive the liberty of Mr
A. Eh ang gusto lang naman niya is makatakas.
Okay now, pag sinabi mong slight illeg det the
offender must be private individual as distinguished
from an offender who was a public officer or
employee, pag sinabi mong private individual di an
ba pwedeng maging ang offender pblic officer or
employee who may have the authority to cause the
arrest of another kasi ang alam ng iba, if the
offender or this person, who has kidnapped
detained or dprived another rperson of his liberty is
a bpublic fficer, ang liability niyan is arbitray
detaention under Art. 124 butthat is not always the
case kasi even an offenderor a person who is a
supposedly an offender in arbitraty detention, may
be held liable for kidnapping kahit walang
kidnapping. In the case of People vs Froilan
Trestiza and People v Santillano, sabi daw dun eh
public officers or employees who may be offenders
in arbitrary detention may be held liable of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention if they
would arrest or detained and such arrest or
detention is neither in furtherance of their official
functions and it may be seen that they acted a
private capacity. Halos magkapareho yung situation
ni Santillano and Trestiza. Both are members of
PNP and both have arrested anothr and suhch
arrest are not premised in a lawful cause. So meron
deprivation of liberty. Kinasuhan sila kidnapping
and serious illeg detention sabi nila Arbitrary
detention lang. Bakit nila gusto arbitrary detention
lang kasi non bailable. Arbi det is a bailable offense
kasi Rec temporal lang ang max penalty ng
Arbitrary Detention. Pero sabi ng SC hindi eh, kahit
Public officer or employee ka liable pa rin siya ng
kidnapping. SO Ransom. Question, Ransom is an
essential requisite of Kidnapping? Trules yan.May
or may not. If false sagot mo, ang justification mo is
that, the offender may be helfd liable for kidnapping
and serious illegal detention under Art 267 even if
the purpose in detaining or kidnapping one another
is not to the intention of the victim for as long as
any of the circumstance is present. Convicted ka pa
rin if the detention would have lasted for 3 days or
simulated public authority etc. What if the offender
had deprived the victim of his liberty and the
detention had last for more than 3 days or any of
the previous circumstances mentioned are present,
for the purpose of extorting ransom, anong
manyayare sa demand for ransom na ito? That
should be considered as a qualifying circumstance,
such under the law the person guilty is ckidnapping
and purpose the ransom must be punished
withdeath. Kaso wala ng death penalty. Yung
qualifying circumstance na ransom, pacute na lang
yan. Kaya kayo kung mangingidnap siguraduhin
mong may ransom para kumite ka naman para sa
abogado mo. Pagsinabi mong True, Ransom may
be considered as an essential requisite in
kidnapping. If the offender dep another of his
liberty, the detention did not last for more than 3
days, no simulation, the offender has not
threatened the victim being killed or has not
inflicted serious phy upon him or a victim is man,
and of age. Slight Illegal detention, right? Pero kahit
wala ito, kapag meron ang demand for ransom,
Kidnapping and illegal detention na yan! Kasi ditto
na magiging essential element yung ransom. Kasi
yung demand for ransom magiging essential
requisite nay an. Kunyare the victim in kidnapping
is for example a minor, unless the offender is one
of his parents, walang crim liablitiy yan kung
tutuusin, ang magulang. Part of what? Parental
authority yan. Walng deprivation of liberty if ang
victim mo ay magulang. Pero kung kayo ladies, di
minors ah. Sabi ng tatay mo pwede kang umimik
pero dapat 1 am nakauwi ka na. Kaso dumating ka
alas 3. Kinaumagahan binubuksan mo ang pinto di
mon a mabuksan, yun pala binaliktad ng tatay mo
yung door knob, nakulong ka ngayon! PWede mo
bang kasuahan ang tatay mo ng kidnapping or
serious illegal detention? The answer is yes. Bakit
minor ka pa ba? DI k aba female? Female ka. SO
pwede mong kasuhan wag mong sasabihin na ako
nagsabi niyan. Sabihin mo yan ang interpretation
ng batas eh. Theoretically pwede talaga. SO
demand for ransom, any money. Any consideration
for the release of a person in captivity. Kahit nga di
pera yan eh, kahit pasa load lang. Sabihin andito
aank mo, kapag di mo ako pinasahan ng 300 peso
load, kidnapping yan! Kasi anything that could be
dangled by the offender in exchange of the release
of the person in captivity. Yan ang ransom. Pero
sabi ko parents ah. Generally kasi parental
authority na tinaawag. Kunyare, A and B
magasawa, may anak 2 years old. They had a
quarrel which eventually led to their separation.
Umalis na si huband, lumipat sa isbang bahay. A
week later he learned that his wife B had hit the
jackpot in the lotto, 100M. Eh yung custody ng bata
nasa nanay di ba. Pumunta si husband sa bahay
nakita niya yung yaya, wala yung nanay. He got his
son and brought it to another house, nagpadal
ngayon ng text si huband kay wife. Sabi niya,
“mahal” wala seenzone “mahal na mahal” ayun
sumagot sabi niya kung gusto mng Makita pa ang
anak natin, bigay mo sakin yung 90m ng 100m mo.
Pwede bang makasuhan ng kidnapping si father?
Yes even if he is the parent of the victim. Under this
circumstance he was no longer exercising parental
authority over the child. Pera pera na ang labanan
ditto kaya niya kinuha yan.Ganun din ang public
officer or employee. So pagusapan natin yung
Arbitrary detention. Arbitrary detention is a crime
against the fundamental laws of the state. 124-133.
So what do those crimes under that title have in
common. Una, in these crimes the offenders are
public off and employee, although private individual
may be held liable under crimes against against the
fundamental laws of the state when a private
individual will conspire to with the public officer or
employees in committing any of the crimes under
than title, OR if there’s no conspiracy, if the private
individual commit a crime of offending religious
feelings (133) yung celdran case. In Crimes against
the fundamental laws of the state, there is a
provision in the Constitution which you may have
violated. SO just like in arbitrary detention, ano ba
yung Constitution that is relevant? Bill of Rights! No
person shall be deprived of liberty without due
process of law. Arbitrary detention, kidnapping
halos pareho yan eh. Yung AD, the offender must
be a public officer or employee pero hindi lahat ng
officers liable ah. Only those who has the authority
to arrest, to cause the arrest, to order the arrest of
the person. And pangalawa, the offender must
have been arrested or detained another person and
the detention should not be for any lawful order, a
person. Tinanong na ito sa bar eh. What are those
causes under Art 124 of the revised penal code
whereby a pub officer or employee may validly
arrest another. O di ba, commission of a crime,
violent insanity, if the person is suffering a
contagious ailment. Sabi pa what are those
circumstances wherein any person may arrest
another even without a warrant? Tanong yun sa
rem law di ba, that was asked in the Bar 2009 when
Justice Bersamin was the exam in rem law and
Justice Lopez the examiner in Crim law. Tinanong
yan sa Crim. Kaya memorizing niyo yan ah Sec 5
Rule 113 RCP. If public officer or employee has
arrested a person under the circumstances of Rule
113 Sec 5, hindi siya pwedeng kasuhan ng
arbitrary detention. Ganun lang kasimple. Pag
tatanungin sa bar, if the offender guilty of arbitrary
detention, not necessary because of the fact that
he is not a public officer buth because the arrest is
premised by some lawful ground, icite mo nalang
yung sa tingin mo applicable. Delay in the delivery
of persons to proper judicial auhtoirtes (Art 125)
Under 125, the offender must be a public officer or
employee. Pero hindi lahat. Eh sino lang? Only
those who has the authority to arrest, to cause the
arrest, to order the arrest of the person. Necxt, that
the offender must have arrested another for some
lawful cause, valid ang pagkakaaresto. Oh bakit?
Valid pala eh papano magiging criminal? Hit
becomes a criminal if he delays the delivery of a
person to proper judicial authorities. Gano katagal
ang delay? For offenses punishable by light
penalties, 12 hours or after 12 hours, correctional
penalties, after 18 hours may delay na, afflictive
penalties after 36 hours may delay na, for Acts
punishable under RA 9372 Human securities or the
commonly known: Anti Terrorism Law 72 hours. SO
delivery, pag sinabi mong delivery, that should not
be construed of a physical delivery. ANo bang
ibigsabihin ng delivery? It is the filing of the info in
court. SO ibig sabihin pag isang tao naaresto mo
validly, an information must be filed in court within
12, 18, 36, or 72 hours as tha case may be. SO san
ammo iffile ang information within the apporopite
period. To the proper judicial authoirties. Sino yun.
MTC, RTC, Snadiganbayan. Court of Appeals and
Supreme Court hindi kasama. What do MTC’s,
RTC’s and Sandiganbayan have in common? All
these have Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction in
Criminal cases. Eh yung Court of Appeals, SC,
appellate lang yan. Kaya ito yung tinatawag na
delivery. But all of us know that before magkaroon
ng information to be filed in court, magkakaroon
muna ng inquest. Persons validly arrested before
charged in court must undergo Inquest. SInong
magcoconduct ng Inquest? Inquest Prosecutor.
ANong purpose ng inquest? To determine whetehr
or not there is probable cause to charge the accuse
of a crime, to charge to the filing of the information
in court. WHithin how many hours shld this inquest
be terminated? This should be inconjunction to the
periods under Art 125, Light felonyvalid yung
pagkakaaresto sayo, you have to be inquested and
the inquest must be terminatedin 12 hours para
maisampa ang info within 12 hours. Sa 18, 36, 72
ganon din. Kung murder, tapos 36 hours na wala
pang inquest, wala pang information that should be
fied in court, if u r the arresting officer anong ggwin
mo? Pakawalan mo yung accued, lest you will be
charged with the Delay in the delivery of persons to
proper judicial auhtoirtes. Inqust proceedings are
super summary in nature kasi dapat tapusin mo
yan yung 18, 36 etc. Necessarily the arrested
person may not have an ample tim to prepare and
submit an intelligent counter affidavit. He may not
have the aopportunity to present countervailing
evidence, as in wala. Would that consitue a
deprivation of rights of a person? Hindi. Kasi meron
siyang remedy. Ano? Ask for a regular preliminary
investigation. If u during the inquest would ask for a
reular preliminary investigation, aba hindi lang
naman oras ang ibibigay sa iyo, araw. To prepare
your counter affidavit. Peor may kapalit yan.
Waiver. Waiver on Art 125. For the waiver must be
valid, the person waiving must be assisted by is
lawyer of his choice. SO what is the implication of
waiver under 125? The person arrested may be
detained even beyond the period prescribed nder
Art 125 kung nakalagay diyan dapat 36 hours,
waived yan, even if you will be detained even
beyond 36 hours di mon a pwedeng habuin
arresting officer. But persons u may hav asked for a
regular prelim investigation may be entitled to bail.
Saan? Edi dun sa korte in case the case will be
filed. So, lets go to Art 269. Unlawful arrest. How is
that crime committed? Unlawful arrest may be
committed by any person who arrest or detains
another without lawful grounds ofr the purpose of
delivering the persons to proper authorities walng
judicial ah. Sino ba yung usual in conlflic ditto? Mga
security guard, sila ang usual culprit. Mr A security
guard ng isang mall then he observed Mr B acting
suspiciously, isnag oras 2 oras walang ngyare sabi
niya, Mr B punta aka nga sa security office,
shoplifter ka eh. SO later on dinala din si Mr B sa
police station. The security guard may be guilty of
unlawful arrest because he though a private
individual without any lawful cause, and that the
purpose of this individual is not to deprive his
security but to deliver him to the proper authorities.
Eto halimbawa lang ito ah. Yung kaso ni Denice
Cornejo, Cedric Lee at ni Vhong. So ito yung
version nung side nila Cedric, SI cedric
nakatanggap ng textmessage kay denice sabi niya
punt aka ditto sa condo kasi malapit ko ng kasuhan
si Vhong eh, binababoy ako eh. SO pumunta sila
ngayon don. SO they saw Vhong. Minasahe muna
ng onti tapos ginulpi. Afterwhich they went to the
police station and a complaint for Acts of
Lasciousness were filed against him. Okay tapos
kinasuhan sila ng Kidnapping and Seruous Illegal
Detention initially, bakit? Kasi sabi ng prosecution,
there was deprivation of liberty coupled with the
fact that the accused inflicted serious physical
injuries against them. SO nagfile ng petitotion for
bail, naggrant kasi according to the judge, the crime
that was proven by the prosecution during the time
they were presenting evidence is unlawful arrest.
Now, pwede ba sila maconvict for unlawful arrest?
The answer is yes but not of kidnapping and
serious illegal detetion. Kasi nga these persons had
arrested Mr Navarro wthout an lawful cause, they
merely relied on what Deniece told htem. Wala
silang personal knowledge, and probable cause to
believe that he had committed the crime. Bakit ba
hinuli? To deliver him to the proper judicial
authorities. So anong makikita niyo sa CCTV?
Evidently, makikita niyo, diba ilang minute lang ang
nakalipas, pagpasok minasahe, after 3 or 4
minutes, dinala na nila sa pulis, okay so, yung
purpose talaga when arresting him is to deliver him
to the proper authorites. Kaya ng hindi sila
macoconvict ng Kidnapping based on my opinion,
kaya lang macoconvict sila ng Unlawfl Arresrt.
Kaya lang macoconvict sila, makakalaya rin sila
kasi they don’t need to serve the sentence kasi
naserve na nila. Why? Kais they have already been
preventively detained for 8 months and the
maximum penalty for unlawful arrest is 6 months
imprisonment only. May utang pa Gobyerno sa
kanila. Now, Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor. Yang Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor, is a non bailable offense as well. Peor kung
titignan mo, the offender in Kidnapping and failure
to return a minor is not ass serious as kidnapping
and serius illegal detention. Kasi in Kidnapping and
failure to return a minor, the offender here must
have been entrusted with the custody of the minor
and what makes him a violator is if he gfails and
refuses to restore the custdy of the child to his
parents. Kaya yan Reclusion Perpetua, yun ang
sabi ng batas. ANg leadung case ditto ay People vs
Ty. SO in this case, 2 accused, physicians, mag-
asawa, they operated a clinic in Kalookan,
nagkaroon sila ng pasyente. 7 month old child
suffering from diarrhea. Sbi g doctor iconfine. 3
days later the accused had informed the mother
that the child can be dischargd. Sabi ng nanay doc
magkano po yung bill sabi ng doctor 300 pesos
sabi ni nanay ill be back in 2 days maghahanap ako
ng peroa. Iniwan yung bata pero bumalik si nanay
after 2 years. Doc andito na yung bayad ko nasan
na ang bata? O edi wala. Wala na ang bata. Cause
tha accused had given the child to a childless
couple. ANg tagal na eh, so inassume na nila na
hindi na babalikan yung bata. SO anong ginawa ng
nanay? AYun nagfile muna siya ng petition for
Habeas Corpus, dimissed! Nagfile na ng criminal
complaint si nanay ng kidnapping and failure to
return a minor. SO the prosecutor had found
probable cause to charge them of Kidnapping and
failure to return a minor. Warrant was issued and
Meanwhile thearrested. Suprisingly they were
sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua. Nakulong
sila di sila nakapagbail, sabi Recluson Perpetua.
SO after 5 years nireverse ng SC ang decision.
ANo bang sabi ng SC? The doctors in this case
may have been entrusted with the custody of a
minor but yet they may not be held liable for the
hed Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
because their failure and refusal to return the minor
was not malicious. In fact the SC had considered
goodfaith on the part of the physicians. Good faith
in a sense that after the mother leave the child to
them, they extended efforts to locate the mother of
the child. Hindi maliciously wrong. Yan lang naman
ang nagiisnag kaso ng Kidnapping and failure to
return a minor. Dun sa crimes against the
fundamental laws of the state violation of homicide.
Dn sa Art 280, mero don, qualified tesspass or
trespass to dwelling. Magkaparehas ba sila? Halos.
Binago lang yng designation ng offense. Although
synonymous naman yung violation with trespass.
Parehas yun because in both the offender may
have entered the dweilling of another against the
will of the occupant. San lang sila nagkaiba? Don
lang sa personal circumstance ng offender. In
violation of domicile which incidentally acrime
against the laws of the state, the offender is a
public officer or employee. Pero hindi lahat ng
public officer or employees ha! Sino lang? Public
officer or employees who may have the authority to
implement a search warrant. While the offenders in
qualified trespass and trespass to dwelling under
Article 280 must be aprivate individual or a public
officer or employee who has no authority to
implement a search warrant. ublic officer may have
entered the dwelling of another not against the will
of the occupant, yet, after having entered but
refused the same after having asked to do so. SO
ito yung mga acts in violation of domicile. Pag
sinabi mong “against the will of the occupant,”
owner of the dwelling that was entered into by the
offender need not be inhabited. Ibig sabihin kahit
walang tao yang bahay nay an, for as long asther
eis orohibition to enter the same which may be
expressed or implied. If nilock mo pintuan mo,
express yan if sinara mo lang di mo nilock, implied
nay an pero walng prohibition meaninga a person
who enterd the will of the occupant if it has o
prohibition of the same. Halimbawa pumunta ka ng
abroad iniwan mo yung pinto ng bahay at bintana
mong nakabukas at may pumasok against the will
of the occupant bay an? Hindi! You make take into
consideration dun sa trespass unArt 280 pareho
lang yan ah. In trespass, the offender may have
enterd th dwelling of another against the will of the
will of another kaya lang private individual siya.
Pero take note of the exceptions. Lumalabas sa bar
ang exceptions! Sabi dun, the private individual
may not be held liable for qualified resspass or
trespass to dwelling or even if he entered the
dwelling aginst the will of the occupant if he had
done so for any of the ff purposes: 1. To prevent
some harm upon himself, upon the occupant of the
house or any other 3rd person, Halimbawa si Mr A
naglalakad siya, eh may dumating na asong ul*l na
humabol sa kanya, takbo siya, eh wala na siyang
mapuntahan, napunta siya dun s abahay ng
kaaway niya. SO sinampahan siya ng trespass to
dwelling. Will the complaint proper? No. While Mr A
may have entered the dwelling against his will he
has done that so to prevernt some harm upon
himself. Or if if he had done so for purpose of
rendering some service into humanity orjustice. Di
ba yung kunyare kaaway mo kapitbahay mo nakita
mong nasusunog bahay niya, so pumasok ka,
sinabihan mo siya. The following day kinasuhan ka
ng Tresspass. Absolved kaba ng criminal liability?
Yes. Kais you have rendered some seervce to
humanity. Meron pa ngang dinagdag eh. If you
would enter a café or inn, or tavern, if they ar eopen
di ba punt aka ng starbucks sarado, trespass yan.
In 1958 there was a bar question. Distinguish
Qualified Tresspass of Tresspass to dwelling under
Art 280 from other forms of Tresspass under Art
281. SO expect the unexpected sa Bar ah. Yung
other forms of trespass may be committed by any
other persons as distinguished from qualified
trespass. And other forms of trespass, hindi bahay
ang pinapasok mo kundi closed premises or a
fenced estate. AN example of which is a
warehouse, mga bodega. In other formsoff
trespass, the prohibitions to enter the closed
premises must be manifested. It must always be
expressed. Yung ither forms of trespass dapat
uninhabited ang qualified uninhabited or inhabited.
Okay let me just clarify this. There is this
observation, sabi sa matrix the period for incapacity
for labor is 10-29 days yes that’s correct. If 10-29
yean that is less serious physical injuries. If 30 or
more, that would be interpreted as “30 or more” and
not “more than 30” in serious physical injuries.
Okay so grave threats. 3 threats yan under the
RPC. Una Grave pangalawa Light tapos yung 3
Other light threats. So when you talk of grave
threats, this may be committed by any person who
would threaten another of an infliction of a wrong
upon his person, property or honor or that of his
family or which threat constitutes a crime. S yan
yung unang form ng Grave threats. Halimbawa Mr
A tells B, “Mr B I will kill ou” sowith that fact alone,
Mr A can beheld guilty of Grave threats. He have
already tnhreaten Mr B of an infliction upon his
peron and which threat constitutes a crime. So “I
will Kill you” Anong crime yan? Himicide of Murder.
SO what if, “I will kill your dog” Killing the dog of Mr
B is a crime. Malicious Mischief. “Mr B I will upload
your sex video in the internet. That is grave threat
because the wrong threatened constitutes a crime.
What is the crime? Unjust vexation or intruiging
agains honor or violation of RA9995 yung Anti
photo voyeurism act which is unfortunatey not
covered in the coverage of the bar exams. So
maglevel up tayo ng konti, sabi ni Mr A kay Mr B,
“Mr B I will kill you if you will not deposit 1 million
pesos in my account tomorrow” or “Mr B, I will kill
you if you will not marry my neighbor’s daughter”.
Are you liable for Grave Threats? Yes. Having
threatened the victim of the infliction a wrong that
constitutes a crime that is coupled with the demand
for money or a conditioning post. So “I will kill you if
you will not deposit 1 million pesos in my account
tomorrow” or “Mr B, I will kill you if you will not
marry my neighbor’s daughter” So pangalawang
form yun, walang kondisyon pero may demand fo
money, and yung isa mnaman may kondisyon pero
walang demand for money. So yun ang highest
form of grave threats. The threats involve a
demand for money and that the offender has
attained its purpose. What if sinabi “Mr. B, if you will
not give me your cellphone no, I will kill you right
now” So is it considered Grave Threats? Kung
titgnan niyo lahat ng element present di ba?
Because Mr A has threatened Mr. B of an infliction
of a wrong to Mr B which constitutes a crime. Is it
coupled with a condition? Yes, di ba the delivery of
the cellphone. Is Mr A attained his purpose, yes
rin.To threaten the victim. But why is Mr A not liable
with Grave Threats? It is because threat in this
case forms part of a crime that is actually
committed by Mr A. What crime? RObberry with
intimidation. It may be important for you to know
RObberry with intimidation and Grave Threat
coupled with the demands of money in this regard.
Grave Threat with regards to the demand for
money, the treat to inflict some harm is not
immediate. Pero dun sa Robbery with Intimidation,
it is immediate.“Papatayin na kita eh” Another
distinction, in grave threats, the gain is not
immediate, so bukas pa eh. Bukas pa siya kiikita ng
1 million but in case of RObberry with intimidation,
the gain is immediate. SO yan ang pagkakaiba
nung 2. Another example. “Mr B, I will kidnap your
daughter if you will not deposit 1 million to my
account tomorrow. If you will not deposite, I will
kidnap and demand from you 5million pesos in
exchange for her release” Is Mr A guilty of grave
threats? Sabi sa definition, meron dun: Threatening
of another for the infliction a wrong upon his
person, property or honor. SO is that phrase mea,
crimes against person? Against property? Or
honor? The answer is No. The threat In this case
must be directed against the person, his property or
honor of another. Kasi kung crimes against person,
Against property, Or honor, the offender who may
have texted in the threat may have not be liable to
Grave Threats, kasi nga the crime or the wrong
threatened is a crime against liberty and security
which is Kidnapping. Pero baka ito lang, ganito
kasimple ang lalabas sa bar. Halimbawa Mr A had
thought of kidnapping Mrs B, a 70 year old woman
to deprive liberty and extort ransom from Mrs B’s
family. SO anong ginawa ni Mr A? Mr A had gone
to the house of Mrs B. Pagdating niya dun, patay
nap ala si Mrs B, sabihin natin inatake. So what did
he do? He brought the corpse of Mrs be to his
house and from there he send a text message to
Mr C, yung anak ni Mr B. Sabi niya, “Mrs C, your
mother is with me now and if you want to see her
alive, deposit 1 million to my account now” SO,
natakot, nagdeposit. Question of what crime or
crimes is Mr A guilty? Hindi yan kidnapping. Mrs B
not deprived of her liberty, patay na eh. That could
neither be an impossible crime, cause Mr A has
violated another rprovision of the RPC which is
Grave Threats. SO Mr A has threatened Ms. C of
the infliction of a wrong upon the person of her
mother, which threat constitutes a crime that is
coupled with the demand of his money, and has
attained its purpose. Pag ganyan, grave threats na
yan. Itong si A and B are suitors of Ms C. Itong si
Ms C feeling niya sasagutin na ni Mr B. SO what
did Mr A do? Mr sent Mr B a note nakalagay sa
sulat “ Mr b, back off !!! signed Mr. A” nilagay niya
yung note sealed kaya lang may kasamang bala sa
loob. Natanggap ni Mr B. Of what crime has Mr A
guilty? Unjust Vexation. The threat in this case is
vague. PInadalan ka ng bala anong ibig sabihin
non? Papatayin ka na ba agad? Pwede pero the
threat is vague, it is ambiguous. Pag sinabi mong
Unjust Vexation, there must be performed a
physical act which is not productive of any physical
harm but which could annoy, torment, vex, destroys
the mind of an innocent person. SIyempre naman
no makakatanggap ka ng sulat may back off” may
bala pa makakatulg ka pa ba niyan? Okay punta
tayo sa Light threats under Art 283. It is one of the
2 froms of black mailing under RPC. Yung isa eh,
under Art 356, preventing the publication of libel for
a consideration. Grave threats under Art 282 and
Light threats under Art 283 are identical insofar as
this is concerened. IN both, the offender ma have
threatened another of the infliction of a wrong upon
his person, property or honor of the victim. ANong
pagkakaiba, the threat in grave threats must
constitute a crime. The threat in light threat must
not constitute a crime. In Grave threats, the threat
may or may not be coupled with a money imposed
but in Light threat, it must be accompanied with a
demand of money or a condition imposed. Okay A
and B are neighbors. Itong si B, negosyante,
businessman. Sabi ni Mr A kay Mr B, “Mr B, I have
documents with me thatll reveal that you have not
been paying your taxes lately and that I will go to
the BIR tomorrow and inform the BIR of such” Is Mr
B can be held liable for Grave threats? The answer
is No. Did Mr B have threatened Mr a of an infliction
of a wrong upon his honor, the answer is yes, but
that threat constitute a crime? No. Yng
pagsusumbong ng krimen, it does nt constitute a
crime. Eh ano yan? Yan yung ating civic duty, di
ba? Ireport o ang krimen na ito. Next question that,
Is Mr A be guilty of light threats? The answer is No.
While he may have threatened the infliction of a
wrong upon his honor and the threat would have
constitute a crime that threat is not coupled with the
demand for money or a condition
imposed. Pero pag sinabi ni Mr. A kay Mr. B “Mr B,
irereport kita sa BIR unless you would give me
5million. Ayan liable na si Mr A of light threats na.
Dapat pag light threats e, the wrong threatened
must not constitute a crime. Now lets go to Grave
coercion. Pamimilit. Dalawang kalse yan. Now the
offender in Grave coercion through violence and
intimidation without the authority of law shall
prevent another form doing something not
prohibited by law. Yung isa naman na form, that the
offender, through violence and intimidation and
without authority of law shall compel another to do
something against his will whether it be right or
wrong. So prohibiting or preventing. Preventing
another without authority of law by use of force or
violence against another, to prevent him by doing
something that is not prohibited by law. Example,
yung mga babae ditto ayaw ng aking sytle ng
akong lecture, so nagdesisyon sila na di na sila
aattend bukas. So the ff morning, the girls position
themselves at the lobby of the hotel carrying a gun.
ANong purpose nila? To prevent the guys to
attending my class. Are they guilty of Grave
Coercion? Yes! Because through violence or
intimidation and without authority of law, you hae
prevented the guys from attending my lecture which
is not prohibited by law. Pero may basis kayo for
example bukas pinanood ko kayo ng porno para
manood kayo tapos di kayo umattend may dala
kayo sa hotel ng mga baril. Are the girls guilty of
grave coercion? No. Because they have prevented
the guys from attending tomorrows section because
I sahall be doing an illegal or immoral act. Sa bar
baka ganito lumabas. Halimbawa 100 employees,
itong mga empleyado nito want a longer language,
tipong 12-4pm tapos uwian na ng 5pm eh ayaw
shempre ng kumpaniya, 51 of the 100 employees
of the company has position themselves to the
lobby of the company armed with baseball bats,
armed with bolos and prevented the other
employees of the company from entering the
premises to report for work. Yan Grave coercion
yan. You are preventing another from doing
something that is not prohibited by law.
Pag “by compelling another to do something
against his will” that is something could be right or
wrong pero hindi mo pwedeng icompell ang isang
tao na gawin ang isang bagay which could be right
or wrong. So meron din tayong tinatawag na light
coercion. 2 klase yan. This may be committed by
any person who by violence or intimidation take the
property of the debtor. For what purpose? For the
purpose of applying this property for the payment of
indebtedness. ANg pakakaiba lang nila is yung light
coercion is a crime against personal liberty and
security yung robbery with intimidation is aa crime
against the property. Pangalawa, ano yung element
ng robbery with intimidation ang hindi present dito?
Yung intent to gain. Pangatlo, yung light coercion
under Art 287 there must be a credito-debtor
relationship between the offender and offended
party. Dun sa robbery and intimidation, walang
debtor-creditor relationship. Now unjust vexation.
Sabi ko nga ito yung krimen ng pangaasar, yan.
Pagsinabi mong unjust vexation, there must have a
physical act or conduct that may not be productive
of any physical harm or amterial harm which would
annoy, vex, irritate, torment, distress or disturb the
mind of an innocent person. Classic example:
VOyerism. Pamboboso. Unless of course the
person to be watch liked to be watch. R halimbawa,
A and B magkaaway sila. So when Mr A have seen
Mr b, talking to his girlfriend or crush, eto na si A
naglakad na parang gay. So Mr A could be held
liable of unjust vexation. Or if Mr B is a polio victim
who is with his friends at that time, So Mr A
mimicked how a polio victim walked. So pangasar
yan eh which would constitutes unjust vexation.
Kasama ditto alin, stalking di ba? Kasi if the woman
is stalking the man, ayaw naman ng woman, so the
woman in this case could be eld liable of unjust
vexation but if the man and woman in here has a
previous dating relationship, and in this case it is
the man who have continued stalking the woman
after they have ended the realionship, this man is
not guilty of unjust vexation. Ano ang kaso niya?
VAOC. Because stalking is punishable under RA
9262. Andito nay un hindi makatarungan. Kasi
kapag ang lalaki ang sumusunod sa babae, meron
silang previous sexual relationship, 6 months and 1
day to 12 years ang penalty, baliktarin natin, pag si
babae ang sumunod, wih or without previous
relationship, unjust vexation lang si babae at yung
babae amnin na lang niya. Bkit niya aaminin? Para
not more than Php 200 fine ang i-
impose sa kaniya. We’ll discuss the case of
Valleros, yung medical student. This is a 2007 case
and napakagandang kaso, I have been predicting
that the case of Valleros ay lalabas sa Bar exams.
Okay sino ba itong si Renato Valleros? Medical
Student of UST. ANg victim, si Malou Albano, anak
ng mga pulitiko sa Isabela. Both of them are
Medical Student. Nanliligaw itong si Renato
Valeros, and Malou is said to be renting a room in
one of the buildings, andun siya sa 3rd floor. 1
evening when she was sleeping, Renato Valleros
had entered the room of Malou. Pumasok sa
bintana. What is he wearing? A white shirt and a
short pants. Mr Valleros was holding a piece of
cloth that was soaked in chloroform, pag nasinghot
mo tulog ka. Nilapitan niya si Malou and pressed a
piece of cloth to Malou while pinning her down. SO
nakapatong na si Mr Valeros, he did not remove his
cloth. Nagising si Malou and she felt that a person
was on top of her and that her hand was being held
by Mr Valleros. She struggled and able to
free.ANong timamaan ng right hand niya? Ms
Albano grab and squeezed Mr Valleros sex organ.
Did Mr Valleros feel pain or pleasure? Pain. Kaya
ng tumayo at tumakbo si Valleros. Mr Valleros was
charged in court of attempted rape. Saan, RPC ng
Manila. He was convicted. He appealed to the CA,
the CA affirmed the decision. When it reached the
SC, it acquitted Mr Valeros of the charge of
Attempted Rape. Bakit? IN discussing this issue of
whether or not Mr Valleros is guilty of attempted
rape, the SC considered the first requisite of
whether or not the erson committed an attempted
felony. Sabi don, That the offender must have
commenced the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts. Did Mr Valleros commenced the
commission of a felony? SIge sabihin na natin
Rape. But will the facts that I have mentioned have
any connection or relation to the crime that was
supposed to be committed by Mr Valleros,sabi ng
SC none. Nung pumasok ba si Mr Valleros sa
bintana, could it be inferred that Mr Valleros dutring
that time has intent to rape Mr Albano? No. E yung
pagpasok ba niya with piece of cloth will
chloroform, would this signify his intention to Rape?
Hindi. Yung act ba niya of pressing the clothe to her
face and pinning Ms Albano down shows intention
of Mr Vallero to Rape? Sabi ng SC. Hindi.
Whatever the reason of Mr Vallerosin putting
Albano in deeper sleep if that is his intention Is
anybody’s guess. Meanig what if Mr Valleros has
succeed in placing Mr Albano in deeper sleeo? Are
we so sure na gagahasahin niya si Ms Albano. Sabi
ng SC wag tayo maging assuming. DI tayo sure eh.
What could have been the purpose of Mr Albano?
For all we know ang purpose niyapala is to
determine for himself if Ms Albano has the habit of
sleeping without panty. DI ba? Or if sh is wearing a
Versace underwear. We do not know. The SC did
not free Mr Valleros from Criminal Liability. Sabi ng
SC dito, Mr Valeros, Guilty ka. Ng alin? Unjust
vexation. Yun ang criminal liability. The SC has
considered the testimony of the witnesses. They
said, That duruning that evening, while Ms Albano
was recounting her ordeal, she was sobbing, she
was shedding, she was crying. Okay, the SChas
taken notice of the demeanor of Ms Albano while
testifying in court. Sabi ng SC, this is a
manifestation of a disturbed mind. Perhaps kaya
siya umiiyak was because, what if Mr Valleros has
succeeded in placing her in deeper sleep, what
would have happened next? Di ba. Kung kayo yung
nasa situation ni Ms Albano, anong iisipin niyo baka
nagahasa ako, baka napatay pa ako. On the
otherhand baka umiiyak si Ms Albano kasi baka
walang nangyare. I am so sorry Ia am being so
insensitive right now but what I am saying is, kesyo
may nangyari or wala, unjust vexation pa rin yan.
Irritation, vexation, disturbance yan upon the mind.
Another case where there is unjust vexation is yung
Yong Chu Kwan, negosyante yan Chinese. Meron
siyang establishment na pinarent infavor of the
private complainant, kaso itong private
complainant, hindi na nagbabayad ng renta so what
did the lessor do? Pinutulan niya ng electricity,
telepono, wifi. ANong kaso niyan? Unjust vexation
yun sabi ng SC. Yan yung crimes against personal
liberty at security. But let me take this opportunity to
discuss the special complex crimes in kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. in kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, there are atleast 2
complex crimes. Yung una, kidnapping with
homicide and yung kidnapping with rape. Before
Dec 1993 (RA 7659 took effect) What is RA7659?
The Law that reimpose the death penalty & the law
that introduced a number of amendment to the
RPC. SO, Before Dec 1993, if the accused had
kidnapped another for the purpose of killing of the
victim, he may be held liable for Kidnapping with
murder as a complex crime under Art 48 dati. If
before Dec 1993, the offender had kidnapped
another, only for that purpose, and had killed the
victim while the victim is in his custody. The
offender will be held guilty of 2 crimes at that time.
One is kidnapping, and Homicide or murder. Dati
yun. Dati rin, halimbawa, the offender had
kidnapped another, yun lang ang purpose niya and
that the offended party while in custody of another
had bitten by an ant and suffered allergic reaction,
question, at that time what would be the crime?
Kidnapping lang. Who may be held liable for the
death of the victim? Yung langgam lang walang
criminal liability si Mr X. Pero ngayon hindi na,
special complex crime ito, lahat ng ganitong
situation ang kaso is Kidnapping with Homicide.
Why? Cause under the law
yujng last paragraph, sabi dun, “if the victim dies
and the victim is killed” so kidnapping with homicide
yan. Yung mga bumili ng libro ko, walang
kidnapping with murder, alisin mo yung OR
MURDER “kidnapping with Homicide OR murder”
kasi walang kidnapping with homicide, homicide
should be interpreted in a generic form so as to
include all forms of killings. In kidnapping with
homide the additional killings, regardless of the
number of deaths or killings, the offender should be
only liable for special complex crime of kidnapping
with homicide and that the additional killings may
not be treated as an aggravating circumstance.
Dun naman sa Kidnapping with rape. It is also a
special complex crime, the additional rapes or acts
similar to rape like acts of lasciviousness are
deemed absorbed in Kidnapping with ape, kahit
ilang beses pa gahasain ang biktima. Okay so,
Special Complex Crime, isnag penalty lang yan.
Yung Forcible Abduction with rape under Art 48, it
was said that the additional rapses should be
treated separately. 1 count of abduction of rape and
5 counts of rape. Wag mo kalimutan ilagay yung
rason bakit separate.
“This must be so, since according to the decision of
the SC, forcible abduction or forcible abduction with
rape is the necessary means in committing the first
rape and not the subsequent rapes. Let me go to
crimes against property. ANg very familiar is yung
robbery and theft. These are almost similar. There
must be an unlawful taking with intent to gain of a
personal prop which belongs to another, in theft
without the consent of its owner, in robbery with
employment of violence against or intimidation of
the person. Dun lang nagkakaiba. Pag sinabi mong
intent to gain, that is a mental state. Who should
prove intent to gain? Actually it is always presumed
if there is unlawful taking. Although that
presumption is disputable. Pag sinabing personal
property, you may use the reference yung
enumeration under Art 415 of the Civil Code.
Pwede rin. Kaya nga lands, buildings etc, hindi mo
pwedeng sabihin na robbery. SO Real properties
may not be a subject of robbery or theft. Meron
diyan sa Art 415, par 5. Yun yung mga personal
properties that are immobilized by destination.
Those personal properties found on Real properties
and that are necessary to the business of the
owner. ANo ba yung“belonging to another” Eto
kunyare si Mr A naglalakad hawak niya ang
kanyang cellphone, then Mr B tried to snatched the
phone and tried to run away with it. Hinabol ni Mr
C. Nung naabutan, Mr C has snatched the
cellphone that was stolen by Mr B, takbo ulit si Mr
C. Eto si Mr B. Ganon ang damng snatcher mga
26. Eton a si police officer Z, nakita si Y hinabol,
hinuli at kinuha. Mr A was charged a crime of theft.
According to the SC, theft is snatching unless the
snatching with viplence and intimidation. Robbery
nay an. Could Mr A successfully invoke that the
cellphone that was caught was taken by him not by
the owner but another robber himself. No, cause
the phrase, “personal property belonging to
another” means that the personal property not
belong to the thief nor the robber.
Now, violence against or intimidation of persons for
purpuses o the Bar, importante ang Art 294. Lahat
sila Special Complex Crimes. Dun sa Par1, robbery
with homide, rbbery with rape, robbery with
intentional mutilation, rbbery with arson. Pangalawa
sa 2nd par, special complex crime with robbery and
serious physical injuries. Pero yung robbery ang
physical injuries na ito ay defined under Art 263.
Ibig sabihin nabulag, naging insane, impotent or
imbecile. Yung sa par 3, robbery with serious
physical injuries as defined under par 2 of Art 263,
tapos yung paragraph 4, ito na yung robbery wth
intimidation, meron pa ring serious physical injuries
as defined under par 2 of Art 263. SO now,
Robbery with Homicide. This is a special compex
crime again. A person/s is or ar killed by reason or
on the occasion of robbery. A B C D E agreed to
rob the house of Mr X. What crime? Robbery with
use of force. So A B C D E went to the house and
started looting the house. Nadulas si Mr A, tumama
yung gun sa concrete, pumutok, then she saw the
blood dripping from the ceiling. Pagtingin niya si X
pala don, deads na. What crime or crimes did Mr A
commit? He committed Robbery with homicide
because the person is killed on the occasion of
Robbery. Same set of facts, kaso ang pagkakaiba
lang wala na si X. After which they had decided to
divide. B ut there was an argument bet Mr A and Mr
B. Mr A stabbed Mr B. A isguilty of Robbery with
homicide. Sasabihin niyo, “sir, kahit magnanakaw
pa yung sinaksak??” Yes. What is specifically
exluded Insofar as co-robbers are concerned, are
those who may have sustain serious physical
injuries under 3rd and 4th par of Art 294.
Excempted ka lang in Robbery with Physical
Injuries if the victim is a co-robber, if the co-robber
sustained serious physical injuries only pero kapag
namatay si robber at ikaw ang pumatay you are
guikty with robbery with homicide. In robbery with
homicide the primary intention is to rob and not to
kill. The offender may have 2 purposes, to rob and
to kill and in that instance, robbery with homicide pa
rin. Basta wag lang mauuna ang intent to kill. In
robbery with homicide, homicide must be construed
in its generic sense. Walang robbery with murder,
walang robbery with homicide, walang robbery with
infanticide. Teka kain muna tayo
May nagtanong sa akin, “Papaano Sir kapag Rape
ng Transgender?” Now for example itong sa A eh
lalaki
talaga, nagpapalit, nagpaputol, nagpalagay ng
butas. SO si B akala niya babae. He had a sexual
intercourse with Him, her, or it, kasi hindi natin alam
ang gender ano. Under a circumstance under Art
266-A so what crime did Mr B commit? He is gulty
of Acts of Lasciviousness only. Hindi yan pwedeng
traditional rape kasi in the first place, lalaki pa rin si
Mr A. Hindi rin yan pwedeng sexual assault. But the
crime of rape though sexual assault can be also be
committed to a man if he would insert his sex organ
in the anal orifice of any person or any mouth of a
person. SO yung re-assignment or re-alignment,
anal orifice bay an? Can you consider it as a
mouth, mas lalong hindi. Okay tapusin na natin ang
Roberry. Sabi ko kanina Robbery with Homicide is
to be construed in its generic sense. What if the
robbery was attended with all the qualifying
circumstance of murder. Hindi parin pwede ang
robbery of murder. But this qualifying
circumstances that may have attendd the cmiission
or killing n the occasion of robbery may be treated
as generic aggravating circumstances. Most of the
qualifying circumstances under Art 248 are
aggravating circumstances. These aggravating
circumstances may be appreciated only in crimes
against person. Pero bakit sa robbery with
homicide, why should you appreciate any of the
specific agg circumstance when robber with
homicide is a crime against property. So remember
the Ancheta case. Treachery, generic lang yan.
Halimbawa, tatay or nanay of the offender on
robbery with homicide, ang kaso pa rin is robbery
with homicide and that relationship may be
appreciated as mitigating circumstance. Bakit
mitigating kasi it is a rule that relationship is always
mitigating in crimes against property. If ang nagging
biktima isa a child below 3 years old, robbery wih
homicide pa rin hidi infanticide pero may pwede
kang iconsider na generic aggravating
circumstance- treachery. Sabi nga according to
jurisprudence, treachery is presumed if the victim is
a child of tender age, to 2 days old. Yung additional
killings should not be considered as aggravating
circumstance. Not even in the purview of the last
paragraph or Art 14. Sabi ng SC Art 14 of the RPC
unlike Art 13 has no similar and analogous clause.
Additional killing in RObbery wih homicide gain is
absorbed. Now rbbery with rape. The primary
ointention must be to rob his/her personal
belongings. Kasi kung babalktarin niya yan, 2 kaso
nay an. Una yung rape, just like yung Robbery with
Homicide. Robbery with rape is a special complex
crime yung rape doon should inclide rape through
sexual assault. Robbery with rape, the additional
raes should be considered as absorbed in a
complex crime of robbery with rape. Similar acts to
the crime of rape like Acts of Lasciviousness are
absorbed. Papaano kung di naman nirape and acts
of lasciviousness lang could it be Robbery with 1
count of acts of lasciviousness? Hindi. Kasi ang
kaso diyan is Robbery under par 4 of Art 294. This
is when the offender had committed Acts of
Lasciviousness on the occasion of Robbery. 1997
nagtuturo ako, crim. I am talking with RObbery with
Homicide tapos may rape pang kasama. Yung rape
ba absorbed with rbbery in Homicide? No that
should be treated as an aggravating circumstance.
SO 1997 ganyan tinuturo ko, nung 2000 may
bagong kaso. People vs Fabon March 2000. In this
case SC held that if a rape accompanies, robbery
with homicide and rape should be treated as an
aggravating circumstance, yan ang sabi but only
about 2months ago, studyante ko pa nagsabi. Sbai
niya, “sir may nabasa akong kaso sabi na ang rape
should not be considered as an aggravating
circumstance kasi nga di ba sabi ng SC in ateast 2
cases, absorbed yan” sabi ko binobola niya ako
kasi 2 decades na ako nagtuturo, wala pa akong
nababasa na ganyang kaso. But I became curious
baka tama naman siya. Naggoogle ako. Meron
ngang case. I came across 2 cases. People vs
Albert De Leon parang 591 SCRA yan. Wherein the
SC cited an earlier ruling, a 2004 ruling People vs
De Jesus 429 SCRA. See for yourself. It may be
implied in those decisions that the crime of rape in
robbery with homicide is deemed absorbed.
Babasahin ko na lang. Part of the decision reads “
In robbery with homicide, it is immaterial that the
death supervened by mere acts etc,” tapos
nakalagay ditto, “or that the victim of homicide is
other than the victim of robbery, or that two or
persons ar killed or that aside from homicide, rape
or intentional mutilation or usurpation of authority is
committed” “…likewise immaterial is the fact that
the victim of the homicide is one of the robbers, the
felony would still be robbery with homicide, once
homicide is committed on the occasion of robbery,
the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All
the felonies committed on the occasion of robbery
are integrated into one indivisible penalty of robbery
with homicide” before that binangit ang mga
felonies na pwedeng maabsorb in the crime of
robbery of homicide and one of which is rape. SO
what now, pag lumabas yan sa bar examination
paano mo sasagutin? I need to be candid. Hindi ko
alam. Kasi for all we know what the examiner
knows in the ruling in Fabon. Alam mo iniisip ko
sana wag na lang ito lumabas sa bar. Hindi ko alam
kung ano ang isasagot e. Pano kung di nabasa ito
ni examiner, edi tapos na. ako 20years na, tapos
ngayon ko lang nabasa. So chances are baka hindi
rin nabasa ng examiner. Kung ako tatanungin,
SIguro isagot niyo yung hindi siya aggravating
circumstance at ilagay niyo don yung decision SC
kasama nag GR number. Imemorize niyo. Pati
date. People vs Albert De Leon, People vs De
Jesus. So special complex crime rin ang robbery
with intentional mutilation, ganoon din ang robbery
with Arson. Robbery with Intentional mutilation
habang nirorob mo, lumabasn tapos sinapak mo,
pinutulan mo. Robbery with Arson for example the
offender after having robbed the house of Mr B,
then sinunog niya yung bahay, robbery with arson
yan. Bakit niya sinunog, baka kasi to conceal the
crime. Okay eto halimbawa MR A wants to rob the
house of Mr B kaso di makapasok sa pinto kasi
sarado. Naamaze si A sabi niya ang ganda naman
ng kahoy ng bahay so umuwi siya after awhile
sinuog niya ang bahay tapos ginather niya yung
uling, binenta niya, anong crime yan? Arson with
theft. Bakit theft? Did Mr A personally get the
personal poperty of Mr B without his consent
pwede but yung applicable provision diyan e yung
the 2nd form of theft yung “if a person has
maliciously cause damaged the property of another
and abused the fruits and profts thereof may be
liable for theft” Complex crime ah, Arson with theft.
Pareho ang rule doon sa par 2, 3, 4 sa At 294
paerhong complex crime sila. Question: Can Art
294 be commited in its attempted state? Meorn
bang attempted robbery with homicide actually
meron but attempted robbery with homicide os
covered by Article 297, andon ang penalty.
Papaano kung special complex crime of attempted
robbery with rape? What law will govern? Article
294 in relation of Art 6 of the RPC. Meron pa rin
attempeted stage yung robbery under Art
294.Except yung attempted robbery with homicide
kasi andon siya sa Art 297. Okay kapag nakita niyo
sa problem, the robbers fled empty handed, edi
attempted pero for example balak niyong
pagnakawan yung banko imbis na 5 million 5 pesos
ang nakuha niyo, consummated robbery na yan.
Art 295 eto yung mga qualifying circumstances with
cviolence or intimdation of persons. Kung meorn
man qualifung circumstance na icoconsider, yjung
band lang. Robbery committed by a band. A band
is composed of atleast 4 armed malefactors acting
together in the commission of robbery. Band is not
a qualifying circumstance not robbery with
homicide. Eh san lang qualifying circumstance
yun? Par 3 and par 4 of Art 294. Does band have
an effect on the crim liability of a person who was
guilty of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape or
intentional mutilation but not as a qualifying
circumstance but only as a generic aggravating
circumstance. Shempre pag generic aggravating
circumstance yan that would be susceptibe by any
offset by any mitigating circumstance. Art 296.
Importante ito, laging tinatanong. The crime of
robbery must have been commited by a bond.
Dapat atleast 4 are armed. A B C D E have agreed
Ms X’s house. Lahat sila armed with firearms.
While robbing the house, Mr A had forcibly had
carnal knolede of Ms X. What are the respective
criminal liabilities of A B C D E? Inasfar criminal
liability is concerned, A is guilty of robbery with
rape. Pagkatapos umalis na sila dala-dala yung
mga ninakaw nila. Kitang-kita si Mr A robbery with
rape. What about Misters B and C? Under 296, B
and C are also liable for robbery with rape. O ayan
ha, B and C are liable for robbery with rape unless
either or both B and/or C had attempted to prevent
or endeavored to prevent Mr A from raping Ms X.
Halimbawa nirerape na ni Mr A etong si, when he
was about to rape Ms X, sabi ni Mr B, “huy Mr A
wag na ako na lang” pero di naman natuloy. Liable
si Mr B ng robbery with rape. But if Mr C under
circumstances had at least attempted to prevent Mr
A from raping Ms X then Mr C is liable only for
robbery with use of force upon things. Yun lang ang
kanyang criminal liability. Papano naman yung
lookouts? Of what crime are they guilty? Are they
also liable for robbery with rape, yung krimen na
ginawa ni Mr A? The answer is no. they are liable
for the crime that they had conspired to commit
which is robbery with use of force upon things.
Bakit kaya? Because of the circumstance that they
were outside the house, they were lookouts and
that they could not have prevented Mr A from
raping Ms X. Yun lang ang paliwanag dyan. Pero
kung sinabi kong look-ins, hindi lookouts, look-ins
nakatingin nakikita they had this chance of
preventing Mr A from raping Ms X pero they did not
do, they may be held liable for robbery with rape as
well. Alam nyo, ganyan lang kasimple ang provision
na yan under 296 pero paborito yan. Titignan nyo
na lang. Meron bang opportunity to prevent? Pag
meron at hindi mo ginawa, liable ka rin for the
assault, liable ka for robbery with homicide, liable
ka for robbery with rape. Pero pag wala naman,
kasi may lumabas na bulk question e.. ganyan..
dalawa yung floors ng bahay tapos ang plano ng
lima to rob the house, yung sa baba lang. umakyat
yung isa, nakita nya may magandang babae dun
habang nagnanakaw yung iba sa baba, ni-rape nya
yun tas bumaba na’t umalis na rin sila, sya lang
ang liable for robbery with rape.. pero yung iba na
nasa baba, robbery lang yan.. with use of force
upon things because at that point, wala silang
opportunity to prevent the person who ascended
the second floor and rape the woman. O gets nyo
yan ha, so madaling-madali yan. To be safe, mas
maganda na kabisaduhin nyo yung Article 296.
Yung 297, binanggit ko na yan. Attempted robbery
with homicide. Kung homicide yan, consummated.
What about if the offenders have merely attempted
to commit robbery – attempted lang – and in the
course thereof, had attempted to kill a person?
Then of what crime or crimes may he be held
liable? He may be held liable for attempted robbery
only. Kasi wala namang namatay. Could he be
separately charged of attempted or frustrated
homicide? The answer is no. Unang-una, walang
special complex crime na attempted robbery with
attempted or frustrated homicide. Wala yan.
Ngayon, e merong attempt to kill someone. Pwede
ba syang kasuhan ng dalawa? Attempted robbery
and attempted or frustrated homicide or murder?
Hindi sya pwedeng kasuhan because the act of
attempting to kill a victim in attempted robbery
should be deemed as part and parcel of an element
of attempted robbery, which is violence. Nandun na
yung attempt to kill sa violence, and that therefore,
ang kaso lang would be attempted robbery only.
Crimes against chastity muna tayo. The crime of
rape is no longer a private crime. It is now a public
crime. So, kelan naging public crime ito? October
22 of 1997. Ano bang significance ng date? It was
on that date that RA 8353 had taken effect. Yung
New Rape Law. So from then on, reclassified na
ang rape. It is no longer a crime against chastity, it
is now a crime against persons. Kaya nandun sya
sa 266-A, B, C, D. nandun na. sasabihin nyo, “sir
so what? E ano kung public crime, private crime
yan, crimes against persons, crimes against
property?” Eto yung mga legal implications of the
reclassification. Since it is now a public crime, it can
now be prosecuted de officio. Unlike before when it
was still a private crime, only the offended party or
his/her parents, grandparents or guardian in that
order who may institute a criminal action for rape.
Dati. Ngayon hindi na. Kahit sino pwedeng mag-
epal. Kahit hindi kamag-anak, pwede. Next, isa pa
sa mga legal implications ng reclassification: The
crime of rape now transcends genders. Ibig sabihin,
traditionally, the crime of rape may be committed
only by a man who would have carnal knowledge of
a woman. Ngayon, hindi na. Pwede nang man
versus man, woman versus woman, pwede ring
woman against a man. Pero yung man versus man,
woman against a man, or woman against a woman,
hindi yan yung traditional form of rape. Pumapasok
na sya dun sa rape through sexual assault, yung
binanggit ko na pang-apat na beses na insertion
committed by any person who would insert any
object or instrument in the genitals of a woman or in
the anal orifice of any person. Or by a man who
would insert his penis in the mouth of any person,
or in the anal orifice of any person. Yun yung
bagong form ng rape. Ano pa yung inintroduce ng
RA 8353 dyan sa bagong rape na yan?
Traditionally, ito lang yung mga circumstances in
rape. Una, yung if force or violence is employed. If
the victim is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious, or if the victim is a statue – statutory
rape below 12. Or if the victim is demented. So,
anong inintroduce dun sa traditional form of rape
noong RA 8353? Yung by means of fraudulent
machination or abuse of authority. Isa pa sa mga
legal implications of the reclassification is that
pardon or forgiveness extended by the offended
party to the offender as a rape would no longer
result to the extinction of the criminal action. Kahit
na pinatawad na ng biktima yung rapist, pwede pa
ring isampa yung kaso. Pero, as we have
discussed last week, in the crime of rape, yung
subsequent valid marriage between the offender
and the offended party extinguishes not only the
criminal action but remits the penalty as well. Yung
subsequent valid marriage lang, except in marital
rape cases wherein the mere pardon of forgiveness
extended by the victim, the wife to the husband
who is the offender, would extinguish not only the
criminal action but the liability as well. So, yun yung
mga innovations sa rape. Yung sinasabi dun,
insertion of an object, di ba binanggit ko na sa inyo
yung insertion of a finger constitutes rape through
sexual assault. Only to satisfy your curiosity, yung
finger ba ang pinakamaliit na dapat i-insert mo
dyan for you to be held liable for rape through
sexual assault? Actually, sinasabi ko nga, sabi ko,
the size of the object that may be inserted may
range between the size of a toothpick up to the size
of a lamp post. Kasi hindi natin alam, although sabi
ko nga, it pays to ask a naughty question because
you will pass the Bar exams. Alam nyo yung mga
nagtanong sa akin ng mga naughty questions, sila
yung mga pumapasa sa Bar, ewan ko pero wag
kayong mananadya ha.. mamaya’t lalapitan nyo ko
dyan magtatanong ka ng naughty question.. di ba?
Ok tanong, “sir what if you would insert a hair
strand in the genitals of a human?” isip ko, “ano
bang hair strand? Hair strand ng higante, pwede.”
Di ba? So yun lang, yun at yun ang pwede mong i-
insert. Pero may mga qualifying circumstances in
rape, ha? If the crime of rape be committed by 2 or
more persons, if the crime of rape is committed with
the use of a deadly weapon. Qualifying yan,
tumataas ang penalty. Although wala nang itataas
kasi, no? kaya nga sabi nga, kung magre-rape ka,
sampu na kayo, gumamit ka ng tangke, di ba
ganun din penalty, reclusion perpetua. Pero yung
titignan nyo may mga qualifying circumstances,
merong sampu. Pag sinabi ng examiner,
“enumerate the 10 qualifying circumstances in
rape?” anong gagawin nyo? Mag-walk out kayong
lahat. Kasi hindi yan itatanong, sigurado. Di ba?
Baka siguro, at least five. Di ba, siguro
makakapagbanggit na kayo ng lima, di ba? One of
which is that if the victim is under 7 years old. Or if
the victim is the contest custody of the PNP or the
AFP tapos ang offender is a member of any of
those organizations. Or if the victim is a member of
a religious, di ba? Mga madre. Di ba? Or if the
victim is pregnant. Di ba? So yan, mga qualifying
yan. Or if the offender is suffering from AIDS, HIV,
and SGV tas nagta-transmit dun sa victim. Alam
nyo yung SGV? Syphilis, gonorrhea, and other
venereal diseases. Kala nyo accounting firm ha?
Hinde, yan yon. Syphilis, gonorrhea, and other
venereal diseases. So yon ang mga qualifying
circumstances yang mga yan. Ok, so nakapagbigay
na ko ng lima, tama na. kasi magbibigay yan lima
lang. ok. So meron nang special aggravating
circumstance in rape –I’m sorry – special complex
crime in rape. Eto yung rape with homicide. Rape
with homicide may be committed by a person who
may have carnal knowledge of a woman under any
of these circumstances. Tapos because or in the
course thereof, napatay yung victim. That would be
rape with homicide. Halimbawa, dalawa yung
victim, pinatay nya pareho. How many counts of
rape with homicide? Dalawa din. Di ba? Kung
sampu at lahat pinatay nya, ten counts of rape with
homicide. Now, yung special complex crime of rape
with homicide, yung homicide na yan, again, should
be construed in its generic sense. So kahit na
merong qualifying circumstance yung killing in rape
with homicide, rape with homicide pa rin. Although
the qualifying circumstance may be treated as a
generic aggravating circumstance. So ganun din,
pag ang ni-rape e less than three days old,
namatay, rape with homicide din yan. May
treachery naman. Di ba? Presumed ang treachery
in rape with homicide. Presumed yan if the victim is
less than three days old. So hindi pwedeng rape
with infanticide. Ganun din pag ang ni-rape mo e
nanay mo, di ba, o legitimate grandmother mo. Di
ba? So that would be rape with homicide. Pag ini-
rape mo yung asawa, yan, marital rape, tapos
pinatay mo pa yung asawa mo, ang kaso dyan is
rape with homicide pa rin. And your relationship
with your wife whom you would kill would be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. So
kung may ilalabas man na special complex crime,
sigurado homicide yung isang krimen dun. Tatlo
lang naman dyan magtatanong e. sa kidnapping
with homicide, robbery with homicide, at saka rape
with homicide. Dun lang yan magtatanong. So mga
special complex crime, so ganyan yung rule in
rape. Siguro hindi na rin magtatanong eto, hindi rin
siguro magtatanong, ewan ko lang, baka sa
evidence ninyo, yung article 266-D. di ba, rule of
evidence yan e. yung any manifestation of
resistance di ba may be considered as an evidence
in rape? Di ba kasi sometimes rape victims, so
kung magiging gender-insensitive ako, sorry ha,
walang malice to, promise, di ba, mamatay man
yung kapitbahay namin, promise, walang malice..
so, yung any form of resistance because normally,
women who are victims of rape would usually
resist. Di ba, physically, di ba, or sometimes, vine-
verbalize nila yung resistance nila, di ba? Pero
yung iba naman kasi, some of them are cowed,
especially if the offender is an ascendant. Yung
father-daughter na rape, yan, yung bata minsan
hindi na yan nagre-resist, di ba? Pero sometimes,
yung resistance nga, sabi ko, vine-verbalize yan.
So what if the woman who is being raped would
continuously be uttering, sabi nya, “OMG! OMG!”
teka, blasphemous yan.. uhmm.. halimbawa, “oh
no! oh no!” no? mali dyan, hindi dyan.. “oh no! oh
no!” ganyan.. siguro resistance yan.. di ba? Pero
pag “oh yes! Oh yes!” na yan, na-consensual yan.
So depende rin sa, eto, rule of evidence kasi yung
article 266-D. yung ano lang, rape by means of
fraudulent machination, rape with abuse of
authority, bago kasi yan e. di ba ang halimbawa ko
dyan sa rape by means of fraudulent machination is
this, di ba, etong si Mr A had talked to a prostitute,
a high-profile one.
Sabi nya, “ate magkano ba serbisyo mo?” sabi
nitong prostitute, “500,000” sabi nya, “o sige ate, I
will engage your services, pero I have to be frank
ma’am because I have to payyou via or through a
post-dated check. Pero if it is a consolation ma’am,”
sabi nya, “hindi lang 500,000. Gagawin kong 2
milion.” E di syempre nagtanong yung prostitute,
“sigurado bang maggu-good yan?” “yes.
Magkakaroon ito ng pondo. Two things lang,” sabi
nya, “number one, tumama ako ng 50 million sa
lotto, hindi ko pa nakukubra. Dun ko kukunin yung
pondo, tignan mo, eto yung ticket o! bumili ka
dyaryo, tignan mo, tumama ito.” Tumama nga, 50
milion. “ah okay, o bukod dyan, ano pa?” “etong
cheke” “ok from whose account is this check
drawn?” “ah account ko yan but I have a co-
depositor in the name of Mr Lucio Tan” “e asan ang
pangalan ni Mr Lucio Tan” “wala, wala dyan pero
sigurado yan,co-depositor” o eto na, to cut the long
story short, Mr A was able to sweet talk Ms B,
etong prostitute.
So, nag-sex sila, and the prostitute had relied to the
promise that the check in the amount of 2 million
pesos would be good upon its presented for
payment. O, tapos na, pumunta ngayon sa bangko
etong si prostitute on the due date of the check.
She presented the check for payment, what
happened? It bounced in the same way that they
bounced 3 days earlier, no? Talbog! Ok, anong
nadiskubre ngayon ni Ms Prostitute? O nadiskubre
nya na yung lotto pala na ticket ni Mr A eh binili
pala sa pekeng-peke. Pangalawa, hindi pala totoo.
Meron ngang co-depositor etong si Mr A dun sa
kanyang account. Pero hindi si Lucio Tan kundi si
Lucio Fer. Ok so kung sabi, patay, di, dinemanda
ngayon eto ni Prostitute si Mr A. anong mga kaso?
Una, estafa by post-dating a check under Article
3152-D. pwede ba yon? Pwede yon. Pangalawa,
violation of BP22. Pangatlo, rape by means of
fraudulent machination. So, rape yan. Because the
prosecutor of this case would not have given in to
the desires of A were it not for his assurance that
the check that he issued in payment for her
services would be good upon presented for
payment. Kaya yan ha, rape by means of
fraudulent machination. Hindi porke’t prostitute
yung victim, ano na ha, consensual na agad porke’t
may bayad wala nang rape.
May rape pa rin dyan. Kaya kung mag-iissue kayo
ng cheke, siguraduhin nyong maayos. So yon, rape
by means of fraudulent machination. So, hangga’t
maaari, ayokong i-discuss yang grave abuse of
authority. Pero mamaya ko idi-discuss. Kukunin ko
muna yung ibang mga provisions under that title
Crimes against Chastity. Yung Acts of
Lasciviousness, it is a crime against chastity. It is a
private crime, meaning that the criminal action,
therefore, may be instituted only by the offended
party, or by his/her parents/guardian in that order.
Considering that it is a private crime, pardon or
forgiveness extended by the offended party to the
offender extinguishes the criminal action. So,
considering further that it is a private crime, the
subsequent valid marriage between the offender
and the offended party would not only extinguish
the criminal liability of the offender but those of his
co-principals accomplices or accessories, if there
are. Sa rape, hindi ah. Di ba nabanggit ko sa inyo,
under Article 344, wala na yung rape. Ibig sabihin
etong si Ms N, halimbawa, was gang-raped by A to
Z, 26 in all. Nakulong etong si A to Z. while they
were serving the respective sentences, etong si Mr
A and Ms B have become textmates. And
eventually, they were calling each other “Bae” and
eventually, they got married. Ano yung
consequence nung marriage between A and N,
extinguished ang criminal liability ni Mr A. e papano
si B up to Z, extinguished ba yung criminal liability
nila? Dati, oo. Ngayon, hindi. Pero kung acts of
lasciviousness yung ginawa ni A to Z against Ms N,
yung pagpapakasal ni Mr A with Ms N would
likewise result to the extinction of B to Z’s criminal
liability for acts of lasciviousness kasi acts of
lasciviousness is a private crime and the
prosecution for private crimes is governed by
Article 344 of the RTC. So yon ang rule dyan sa
Acts of Lasciviousness na yan. Now, qualified and
simple seduction. Pag sinabi mong seduction,
anong ibig sabihin non? Sexual intercourse agad.
Agad-agad. So dalawang klaseng seduction:
qualified and simple. May pagkakapareho yang
dalawa 337, 338. Both are private crimes, both are
crimes against chastity. In both, the offender is a
man. In both, the offended party is a woman. In
both, the offended party is a woman between 12 to
18. In both, the offender had seduced the offended
party or the woman. In other words, that the
offender had carnal knowledge or sexual
intercourse with the victim. So magkakapareho sila.
Ano ang pagkakaiba nila? The reason why the
offender had succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of the woman. Yung rason. In qualified
seduction, ano ang rason? Abuse of authority,
abuse of confidence, or abuse of relationship. In
simple seduction, the offender had sexual
intercourse with the woman by means of deceit. At
isa pang pagkakaiba nila, the woman who is 12 to
18 in qualified seduction must be a virgin. Pag
sinabi mong virgin, are we talking of physical
virginity? No. kahit na hindi na physically virgin
yung 12 to 18 years old na babae, the offender may
still be held liable for qualified seduction if this
woman is of good reputation. Doon sa simple
seduction, must the woman or the girl between 12
to 18 be a virgin? The law is silent as to that. So,
ibig sabihin, ke virgin yan or not, ke of good
reputation yan or not, the offender may still be
liable for simple seduction if he had seduced the
woman by means of deceit. Yun yung qualified
seduction, qualified by means of deceit.
Pangalawa, paki-alis nyo na si widow. Di ba,
nakalagay doon widow? Bakit mo aalisin? May
widow ba between 12 to 18? Marrying age is 18.
Alisin nyo na si widow. So, dun sa qualified
seduction, makikita nyo, abuse of confidence,
abuse of relationship, abuse of authority. For which
reason, pina-specify yung mga offenders. Sino ba
yung mga offenders dito who may abuse their
authority, confidence, or relationship? Public
authorities, priests, domestics, persons in charge
with the custody of the victim. Sila yan. Meron pa
ba akong hindi nabanggit? Teachers. Pero hindi
kasama ang Law professors. Yes, hindi talaga
kasama. Wala namang Law student na under 18 di
ba? Hinde, pero kasama yon. Halimbawa, pag
ginawa kong halimbawa ang sarili ko, hindi totoo
ha, ok, now, halimbawa I teach in La Salle Law
School sa gitna, o ayan. Dun sa College of Law,
dun ako nagtuturo, di ba? What if I had sex with a
La Salle student 16 years old, college. Liable ba
ako for qualified seduction? The answer is yes.
Kahit hindi ko siya estudyante, for as long as the
professor and this student, and the professor is
teaching in the same school where this student is
enrolled. Hindi mo kailangang estudyante yan.
Kaya ako dumadayo sa ibang eskuwelahan para..
hindi, joke yon.. kaya.. hindi ako dumadayo, sila
yung pumupunta.. joke again.. now, kasi baka
sineseryoso nyo ko e, at least hindi yon totoo, kaya
lahat ng sinasabi ko sa inyo rito joke lahat yan.. ok..
so yan ang qualified and simple seduction. Now,
yung by means of deceit, this usually takes the
form of yung breach of promise to marry. Di ba
yung 30-year-old bachelor sabihan nya si ate 17
years old, “ate pag pumayag ka makipag-sex sa
akin mamayang gabi, bukas na bukas bibiyahe
tayo ng Vatican, papakasal tayo dun. Si Pope
Francis ang magkakasal sa atin.” O ayun, pumayag
naman, ayan, that’s simple seduction by means of
deceit. O kaya nabalitaan nitong si lalaki etong si
16-year-old girl e adik sa text. “ate gusto mo bang
maging perpetual recipient ng pasaload?” “ok yun
ah, ano? Anong catch nyan?” sabi nya, “eto
loloadan kita mamayang gabi at gabi-gabi at
perpetual recipient ka ng pasaload” yan, simple
seduction by means of deceit. Ok, so kaya lang sa
akin, eto personal opinion, yung rape by means of
fraudulent machination at yung rape by abuse of
authority had decriminalized simple seduction and
a part of qualified seduction. Bakit ganyan ang
opinion ko insofar as simple seduction is
concerned? Bakit sa tingin ko wala nang simple
seduction? Kasi tignan nyo, napansin nyo yung
prostitute? May deceit ba dun? May fraudulent
machination? Meron. Di ba? Take note ha,
prostitute, tapos yung offender may be convicted of
rape and may be sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua. E bakit naman sa simple seduction may
panloloko din? Sinong niloko mo rito, bata? Tapos
ang penalty mo lang presume correctional? Di ba?
Kaya if you would become practitioners someday,
at may lumapit sa inyong bata niloko kaya
nakipagsex sa isang lalaki, di ba, anong ikakaso
mo? Wag mong kasuhan ng simple seduction.
Tatawanan ka nung lalaki. Kasuhan mo ng rape by
means of fraudulent machination para no bail. Kaya
sabi ko wala na e, inconsistent kasi yung rape by
means of fraudulent machination dun sa simple
seduction. Yan ang aking observation lang. pero
pag nakita mo sa problem nakita mo yung bata 12
to 18, di ba, yung sexual intercourse by means of
deceit, wag mong susundin yung opinyon ko na by
means of fraudulent machination lang. just parrot
the elements of simple seduction. Ayun ang
nakalagay sa batas, di ba, wag mong sasabihin
yung aking opinion. Na yung opinion kong yan pag
kumuha ka na ng Bar at pumasa ka na, saka mo na
ipagyabang sa mga ibang tao na ito ang, eto, ito
ang opinyon ko dyan. Akuin mo nang opinyon mo
yan. Oo. Pupwede na yan, pero sa ngayon hindi.
Ganun din sa abuse of authority. Bakit mo
kakasuhan ng qualified seduction? E pwede mo
namang kasuhan ng rape. Pero, opinyon ko lang
yan dyan ha. Now, meron din yung acts of
lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party. Tataka kayo, “sir, tagpayo po, may kaso?” ok
meron ha. Actually, yung qualified and simple
seduction at saka yung acts of lasciviousness with
the consent of the offended party, parehong-pareho
sila. Private crime, crime against chastity, offender
lalaki, offended party babae, offended party 12 to
18, virgin in qualified seduction, virgin or not in
simple seduction.. pareho. Merong abuse of
authority, abuse of relationship, abuse of
confidence, meron by means of deceit. Ano lang
ang pagkakaiba? Dun sa acts of lasciviousness
with the consent of the offended party, nabitin si
lalaki kasi acts of lasciviousness lang. walang
sexual intercourse. Kumbaga, sa instance ng
sexual intercourse, hinipuan lang nya yung babae,
dahil niloko nya “o pahipo naman dyan bigyan kita
ng pasaload” “ayan o sige na asan ung pasaload?”
Ayan acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the
offended party yan.
So, forcible abduction. Forcible abduction, it is a
private crime. But once it is complexed with a public
crime, then forcible abduction becomes a public
crime. Now, how is this crime of forcible abduction
committed? This may be committed by any person
who abducts a woman against her will with lewd
designs. Pero yung consented abduction, meron
abduction pero not against the will of the woman.
Pero kailangan may lewd designs din. Kaya lang
the woman had given her consent to the supposed
abduction because ilang taon sya, di ba? Just like
the circumstance of the victim/s in qualified and
simple seduction. Again, this is a misconception
that has to be corrected. So, pag sinabi mong
crimes against chastity, isip agad natin, private
crime yan. But the truth is, merong dalawang
krimen under that title crimes against chastity that
are public crimes. Public crimes meaning that they
can be prosecuted de officio, meaning that any
person may institute a criminal action against the
offender. And I am looking at the crimes of white
slave trade and corruption of minors. So yan, ano,
kung ikaw ay magne-negosyo at ang mga
empleyado mo e mga kamag-anak ni Charlie Puth,
mga Puths, that’s white slave trade. Ayan, public
crime yan. Balikan natin si crimes against property.
Yung robbery, dalawang klase ha? Yung diniscuss
ko kanina, ang tawag dun e robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons. Merong isa pang
robbery, yung robbery with use of force upon
things. Pag sinabi mong robbery with use of force
upon things, essentially, the offender must enter a
dwelling. He must enter a building. He must enter a
structure for the purpose of what? Para magnakaw.
Basically, yan. Now, ano ang pagkakaiba ng
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons? The crime of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons may be
committed anywhere. Kahit saan. So much so that
dwelling unlawful entry, breaking wall, roof, floor,
door, etc., there are aggravating circumstances
under Article 14 may be appreciated in robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons. While
this is not so, insofar as robbery with use of force
upon things, the aggravating circumstances that I
have mentioned are inherent in robbery with use of
force upon things so much so that they may not be
appreciated. Ganyan kasimple pero tinanong yan
sa Bar exams in 2009 again. Bakit kaya? Siguro
hindi na itatanong ngayon kung siya man ang
examiner. Para at least alam nyo, kasi tinanong
yan e. tapos, pangalawang distinction as regards to
imposition of penalties. Doon sa robbery with use of
force upon things, ang penalty nyan would depend
on the amount or value of the property stolen. Pero
dun sa robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons, hindi natin pinag-uusapan yung halaga
kung magkano ang nanakaw. The penalty for
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons is dependent on what? On the degree or
the nature of the violent in the degree of violence
that was exerted by the offender against the
victim/s at saka yung injury which the offender may
have, offended party may have sustained, yun ang
pinagbabasehan ng penalty. Hindi yung amount.
Dun sa robbery with use of force upon things,
kelangang pumasok ka, di ba sa bahay, para
magnakaw at inilabas mo. So ganon yon. Pero
kung halimbawa e ikaw naman gifted ka yung
kamay mo e 10 feet ang haba, nakita mo bukas
yung pintuan or bintana, pinasok mo meron kang
kinuha at inilabas mo, theft lang yan. Kung lalabas
man yan sa Bar exams, hindi yung 10 feet ang
haba. Di ba, nakita lang nung tao, 2 feet lang yung
haba ng kamay nya, maikli lang pero nakita nya
bukas yung bintana, may nakita syang
halimbawang celfone na ganun, inabot nya kinuha
nya di ba so ang liability nun would be robbery with
use of force upon things. Pero kahit na kaya nyang
kunin halimbawa pumasok muna sya dun sa
bintana at kinuha nya at lumabas sya ulet, that
would now be considered as robbery with use of
force upon things kasi meron nang unlawful entry.
Alam nyo ba yung unlawful entry? Article 14
paragraph 18 I think that the crime be committed by
entering the dwelling of another through a way not
intended for the purpose di ba kung pumasok ka
dun sa bintana kahit hindi mo sinira yung bintanang
yan meron nang unlawful entry kaya nga inherent
yan in robbery with use of force upon things. Di ba
tinanong nga ako, “is unlawful entry inherent in
retrosexual assault if the man would insert his penis
in the anal orifice of a woman?” sabi ko, “oo nga
ano? Unlawful entry. Di ba, through a way not
intended for the purpose..” but it is not inherent ha,
hinde. So, yun yung robbery with use of force upon
things. Madali lang yang robbery with, basta’t
walang violence against or intimidation of persons
may pagpasok ng bahay, siguraduhin mo na,
robbery with use of force upon things yan. So punta
tayo dun sa theft. Bukod dun sa traditional form
yung ordinaryong definition nyang “unlawful taking
with intent to get of a personal property that
belongs to another without the consent of its
owner.” Meron pang ibang forms of theft. One of
which is that if a person finds a lost or a missing
item and fails and refuses to return the same to its
owner or give the same to the authorities. Pag
nakahanap ka ng nawawala, di ba, tinago mo, ah,
theft ang kaso mo. If you would steal coconuts from
a plantation, punt aka sa department store
magnakaw ka ng Kellogs, theft daw yan. ANong
pagkakapareho ng theft sa robbery with use of
force upon things as regards to the penalty?
Pareho sila. The penalty sa theft sa robbery with
use of force upon things would depend on the
amount of the value of the property stolen. Except
that in theft the stealing may not be committed
under the circumstances wherein the crime of
robbery with use of force upon things is committed.
Yung pagpasok sa bahay o sa building o sa
establishment. Alam niy yung mga salisi gang
pumunta siya sa building nakita niya walang tao
kinuha niya yung gamit, theft lang yan pero pag
sarado ang pinto, pinilit buksan at kinuha, robbery
with use of force upon things na yan. If the crime of
theft is qualified, halimbawa may mga qualifying
circumstance yan, ano ang magiging consequence,
so the imposable penalty would be, 2 degrees
higher. Kung halimabawa ang ninakaw o meg
limang piso lamang, at ang penalty for stealing an
item that is worth 5 pesos sabihin na nating arresto
menor, papano kung ang nagnakaw is a domestic
servant? Anong penalty imposed sa kanya sa
pagnakaw ng limang piso? He may be convicted of
qualified theft and may be sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of prision correctional kasi 2
degrees higher. If wala namang qualified
circumstance, nagnakaw ka ng bagay less than 5
pesos, arresto menor lang siya. Now in qualified
theft ang max is prision mayor. SO kung qualified
ang theft that ang imposable penalty for theft ay
prision mayor, then technically, ang penalty would
be reclusion perpetua. Pero sabi ng SC diyan, ang
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua is merely
descriptive, hindi ko maintindihan anong ibig
sabihain niya ng descriptive. ANo pa yung mga
qualified circumstances? If the offender is a
domestic servant, If there is grave abuse of
confidence, if the subj of theft is amotor vehicle, a
large cattle or male matter, or if you would steal a
coconut from a plantation. Nakita mo si kuya may
dalang buko, nagnakaw ka, simple theft lang yan
pero pag nasa plantation, qualified siya. Or ou
would commit theft in an earthquake or other
catastrophe or calamity, qualified theft yan. DI lang
yan generic. Pag sinabi mong large cattles dapat
member of the bovine family. Halimbawa kamibing,
they are member of the bovine. Motor vehicle.
Meorn anti carnapping law. Has the anti
caarnapping law has removed from the coverage of
aArt 310 yung stealing a vehicle? Qualified theft pa
rin bay an or Anti carnapping? SO depende yan sa
ninakaw mo. If you had stolen a tricycle, a
motorcycle, a sedan, a truck, or a bus ang kasomo,
violation of the anti carnapping law. Pero kung
ibang sasakyan, qualified theft. Kung ang service
mo ay mortorized lawn mower, nanakaw mo yan,
qualified theft ang kaso. Eh kung ang service mo ay
pison, bulldozers, mga heavy equipment, pag
ninakaw mo yan theft lang yan. Domestic Servant.
Itong domestic servant na ito, he may be held liable
of qualified theft even if she’s a new domestic
servant.
Halimbawa hinire mo ngayon, the following day
kinuha na mga alahas mo. Qualified ba yan? Yes
because of the mere fact that she is a domestic
servant. Iniisip kasi natin dapat you must have
reposed some trust and confidence as a domestic
servant bago maging qualified yung theft, No. Iba
yung abuse of confidence as a qualifying
circumstance in theft. As a qualifying circumstance,
the offended party must have reposed some trust
and confidence upon the offender. The confidence
reposed upon him by the offended part facilitated
its commission. Art 312, may improtanteng aspect.
Pag sinabi mong occupation of property or sinabi
mong occupation of real rights and property,
paramg ano ito eh, squatting. PD772 nung araw,
pag ikaw ay squatter noon, pwede kang ikulong.
Kaya nga ngayon ang aquatter, informal settlers na
ang tawag diyan. Ngayon, di na kriment ang
squatting. But if the person occupied the real
property of another through the use of violence and
intimidation, then he is a criminal under Art 312. Or
if he usurps the real rights of an owner, that would
constitute real rights on property under Art 312.
What if the offender had occupied the real property
of another through violence and intimidation, and
as a result, had killed the owner, the what crime or
crimes may the offender may be validly charged?
He may become liable and prosecuted for and
convicted for occupation of real property only. Dun
lang siya macoconvict, if may namatay iba naman
yun. Sabi, if the the offender, in addition to the
penalty, for occupation of real property, must be
sentenced to suffer the penalty corresponding to
the violence it has committed. Kung may napatay
siya, Occupation of real property. He cannot be
charged separately of murder or homicide kasi
pwede maging element na yan of occupation of real
property. SO convicted lang siya ng occupation of
real property, yet, he must only be sentenced to
suffer the penalty corresponding to the violence it
has committed. Yung occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights and property, is one of the
3 crimes under the RPC that has a 2 tiered, bakit 2
tiered penalties yan? Isnag krimen lang ang
iccharge sayo pero 2 penalties ang dapat iimpose.
iSa pa diyan yung direct bribery (Art 210) Public
Officer or employee, in consideration of a gift,
promise, present or offer would perform an act
which constitutes an act by reason of his office.
Pero pag may krimen siyang ginawa, in
consideration of a gift, promise, present or offer, he
may also be punished to suffer a penalty
corresponding to the crime to which he/she had
performed in consideration of that gift or present. DI
na siya kailangan kasuhan pa for that. Pwede na
yung direct bribery lang di ba sabi ko, in addition to
the penalty. Maltreatment of prisoners ganun din.
Pag sinabing mong Maltreatment of Prisoners di ba
the offender, public officers or employee di ba will
be charged with the custody of the prisoner who
would overdo the handling and correction of the
prisoner by imposing inhumane or cruel
punishment. Halimbawa yung inhumane treatment
nay an would reseulty to serous physical injuries, in
so far of that situation is concerned, 2 krimen ang
pwedeng icharge dun yung sa public officer-
maltreatment under Art 235 and another serious
physical Injuries under Art 263. Art 315, ART 316,
Art 317, Art 318 So Estafa or Swindling.
Halimbawa ikaw ay manankay ng jeep pero di ka
nagabayad, taga abot ka lang kunyari ng bayad. Eh
kaso namukhaan ka na ng driver, pag baba mo
pinahuli ka ng driver. Estafa baa ng kaso mo? The
answer is yes but not under Art 315 but under Art
318, yung other deceits. Halimbawa kumain ka sa
Jollibee di ka nagbayad, may kaso k aba na
estafa? Wala kasi una bayad dun eh. Pero sa mga
restaurants na una ang kain bago bayad tapos
tumakbo ka at tumakas, estafa yan. There was the
chief of staff of the sSpeaker of the House then,
People vs Villoso. Itong SI villoso, kaibigan niya si
Mr Raon SY, may ari ng Shangrila Restaurant. In
2003 sabi ni Mr Villoso kay Mr Ramon
Sy, “Mr Sy, pustahan tayo. If Bong Bong Marcos
runs for senator in 2004 elections, he will surely
win.” Sabi ni Mr Sy, hindi yan! LIpas na si Bong
Bong Marcos” so anong ginawa ni Mr Villoso,
nagpustahan. Pagnanalo si Mr, Sy kakain siya at
10 sa kaniyang kaibigan sa restaurant ni Mr Sy ng
libre pero ang sabi ni Mr SY, papaano kung talo?
“Edi kakain pa rin kami ng 10 kong kaibigan pero
magbabayad kami” So deal. AYos. ANong ngyari,
talo si Bong Bong. SO kumain sila. Nataon naman
si Mr Sy wala ditto s apilipinas. Kumain sila, bill nila
is 11 or 12 thousand tapos nung sinisingil na sila,
Sabi ng manager kay Mr Villoso, “Okay na ito sir,
may usapan na kami ni Mr Sy, wag na kayong
magbayad” Nung umuwi si Mr Sy, nakita niya na
nalugi ng 11 or 12 thousand. SO nagcommunicate
sila ni Mr Villoso, nangako ng nangako yung isa
and eventually, hindi nga nagbayad. ANong ginawa
ni Mr Sy nagfile siya ng complaint for estafa.
Convicted yan citing Art 315 par B. “Yung the fact
that you have gone to the restaurants and paid his
bills constitutes to the crime of estafa” Nag appeal
ang SC. Grabe di ba for the sum of 11-12 thousand
pesos. Hindi na lang nagpaareglo. 8 years
imprisonment pa ang sintensya. Yung mga ganyan
kaso if you become law practitioners someday,
kung pwede mo ng isettle sa baba, eh isettle mo
na. Eto amyroon nagtanong sakin, “ in case a
person has taken as a hostage another and has
asked for the release of the person what would be
the crime?” Pwede itong maging kidnapping, and
serious illegal detention, kasi sabi hinostage mo
lang so in effect you are depriving the person of his
liberty tapos qualifying yung ransom. ANg
tinatanong diyan, how regular. Alam niyo yung rave
scandal, iba yun sa alarms and scandal. SO , this
may be committed by any persons who performs a
highly scandalous act that s offensive to decency
and good person and such may be performed in a
public place, within public view or knowledge, and
that the offender must not be violating another
provision of the RPC. Now yung halimbawa, A and
B sweet hearts, itong si Mr A yung boyfriend meron
siyang van, heavily tinted in a parking area a public
place. Inside the van, he was having sexual
intercourse with his girlfriend. Dumana yung police,
nakita gumagalaw ang van, bigla niyang binuksan,
nakita silang dalawa, may they be held libale for
grvae scandal, the answer is NO. Where they
performing a highly scandalous act? Yes. Public
place? Yes. But in this instance, the car is an
extension of their home. Kaya nagulat nga ako sa
antismoking, kapag nagsmoke ka daw sa kotse,
may kaso ka pa rin. Kaya lang don’t get me wrong
ha, yung sinasabi kong “extension of one’s abode”
ha, yung kotse, pwede yan except the violation of
firearms. Pero yung van nay an if not heavily tinted,
grave scandal yan kasi sabi don “In a public place
or within public view or knowledge” If sa bahay mo
nakaiakipagsex ka sa ibang babae, grave scandal
bay un? Depende no, kapag nagssex kayo tapos
bukas bintana pati pintuan mo, grave scandal yun.
Eto naman sinasabi nangyayari lagi sa sinehan.
May magboyfriend, napagisipan nilang manood ng
sine. BUmili sila ng ticket and pagpasok sa sinehan
napansin nila wala masyadong tao. SO pumunta
sila sa pinakataas ng aprt ng sine, the darkest
portion of the theater. Later on, eventually, they
were having sex. An usher came and nakita niya.
Are A and B guilty of grave scandal? Yes. It was
performed in a highly scandalous act, and was
performed in a public place. Kahit walang tao dun,
it’s a public place. So for example, A and B
pumasok 9pm, last full show, pag pasok nila last
full show. After the movie, the movie gowers gone
out of the theater, wala ng tao. After an hour
fireworks started may security guard na nahuli sila.
DInala sa police station. Question is hould they be
committed or acquitted? They should be acquitted.
They performed a highly scandalous act that is
offensive to decency or good customs, yes, but was
it committed in apublic place? No as of that time,
hindi nay an public place, bawal na ang publiko
diyan. Was it committed in a public view or
knowledge? Siguro hindi kasi security lang ang
nakakita sa kanila. Eto baka this question may be
asked in the bar, pakinggan niyo ito. A and B are
husband and wife respectively, as well as C and D.
Unknown to the husband A, B is having an affair
with C. SI C knows that B is a married woman. One
day, D the wife, had decided to watch a movie,
while inside the movie house, D was already sitting
heard the moans of a man that was familiar to her.
SO she tilted her head towards that person of a
theaer, pag tingin niya, she saw a sillhouete which
appears to be those of 2 persons, one of which was
sitting on top of the lap of another. Dala
niyakanyang flash light, kinuha niya sa bag, tinapat
niya yung flashlight sa feet nung 2 persons nay un
pag tingin niya, nakahubad. Pagtingin sa taas, a
woman is sitting on top of the lap of the man, pag
tingin niya si husband niya pala yun. Is B and C be
held guilty of grave scandal? No becase they are
violating another provision of the RPC which is Art
333 and 334. She is commiting adultery because
she is a married woman who had sexual
intercourse with a man other than her husband, she
is also guilty of concubinage as a concubine cause
she is also having sexual intercourse with a married
man other than her husband under scandalous
circumstances. SI C naman, what crimes under the
RPC was he committing? He was commiting
adultery as well cause he is man who had sexual
intercourse with a woman whom he knows is
already married. He is guilty also of concubinage.
He being a married man who had sexual
intercourse with a woman other than his wife under
scandalous circumstances. ANg tanong ditto e ilan
criminal information ang information ang iffile mo? 1
lang kasi complex crime ito. Bakit complex crime?
Because there was a single act of sexual
intercourse that resulted to atleast 4 crimes-
adultery or concubinage. If Mr B and Mr C was
convicted, they may be sentenced to suffer 1
penalty. What penalty, the penalty that corresponds
to the most serious offense o be applied in its
maximum period. as between adultery and
concubinage which has the greater penalty? It is
the crime of Adultery. And that therefore, both may
be convicted of a complex crime and may be
sentenced to suffer only 1 penalty. Max of which is
within the range of the max penalty to be applied in
its max period kasi nga complex crime and the
minimum to be applied the Indeterminate Sentence
Law should be within the range of the penalty next
lower to the prescribed penalty. Single act lang yan
e which resulted to 2 or more less grave felony.
Adultery and concubinage is a private crime na
pwedeng maginstitute only is yung offended
spouse. A and D oft or decide not to file any
criminal actions to their spouses, may they be held
liable for grave scandal, the answer is Yes. Kasi
wala ng violation eh. DI ba magkakaroon na ng
violation kapag meron ng criminal action that would
be instituted. Kung di sila magdemanda, the State
will run after them cause grave scandal is not
private crime but a public crime. Balikan na natin si
Estafa (Art 315) Sabi, fraud or deceite is an
essential element of estafa. Pero di yan totoo,
persons may be convicting of swindling or estafa
even in the absence of fraud and deceit. Those 3
classifications of Estafa under the 1st parargraph
yung estafa by abuse of confidence, yung fraud or
deeit is not essential but the element common ot all
forms of estaf aunder 315 is damage which is
capable of pecuniary estimation cause the penalty
of estafa would depand on the amount of the
damage caused by the offender to the offended
party. Kailangan quantifiable kung di walang estafa.
What about the intent to cause damage, pwede. As
long as the damage caused be quantified. Example
A, a kasambahay of Mr and Mrs B and C, one
morning when he was in the house of doing her
chores, the phone rang. SInagot ni ate. “Hello! Ikaw
ba si A? Ikaw ba yung kasambahay ni B and C?
Nandito sa hospital yung mga amo mo kailangan
nila ng pambayad bago maoperahan. SInabi niya
na nasa vault ang pera, nakabukas daw yun.
Kumuha ka ng Php 100,000 at magkita tayo sa
MOA, iabot mo sakin yung pera.” SI A kinuha niya
yung pera but before going to MOA< pumunta
muna siya sa NBI SInumbong niya. Entrapment.
Inshort, hinuli. ENtraped. Of what crime should this
member of dugo dugo gang be held guilty? Guilty
yan ng estafa. Attempted Estafa. IN attempted
estafa, element niyan, no amage is caused. But the
offender has the intention of causeing damage to
another and which damage is capable of pecuniary
estimation under par 2 of Art 315. Pagsinabi mo ng
par 2 of Art 315. Dito mo na kinakailangan ang
estafa as an element. ANo naman yung estafa by
misappropriation or conversion? Under Are 315 par
B, the offender must have received money or
property on commission, for administration or in
trust and that the offender in this case must have
the obligation to return the property to its owner or
atleast to remit to the owner of the property its
value. Or having denies having received this
property under such conditions, estafa nay an
under Art 314 par 1 sub par B. If the possession of
the offender of the property is physical, juridical or
both, chances are the offender may be held liable
for misappropriation or conversion. Example, si Mr
A operates a warehouse, pinapatago gamit sa
kanya for a fee. 1 days si Mr B may shipment 200
sack of rice and to be stored for a period of 7 days.
Mr A charged it 5000 pesos a day. Mr B agreed but
it had to be paid on the 7th day. On the 3rd day, he
sold the 200 sacks of rice. What crime does the
owner of the warehouse be liable? Qualified theft
by abuse of confidence or estafa by
misappropriation or conversion? misappropriation
or conversion. SO how will you qualify the nature or
possession of the owner of the warehouse over the
200 sacks of rice? DI lang physical, juridical as
well. Ano ba yung juridical possession? Possession
over a thing whereby the possessor may defend his
possession over the thing even against the claim of
the owner. Meron bang right si owner ng
warehouse to retain in the possession of the sack
on the 3rd day? Yes, hindi pa bayad di ba. Kung
ang sitwasyon naman, on the first day pa lang
bayad na and if the owner of the sack of rice have
decide to retrieve them on the third day pa lang,
wla na siyng magagawa kasi bayad na siya.
Kunyari until the 7th day, bayad and on the 8th day
hindi pa kinuha, ibinenta ngayon the following day
ni Mr A, anong liability niya, Estafa na yan. Kasi on
the day Mr A disposed the 200 sacks of rice, he
had not only acquire physical possession but also
juridical possession. Kasi yung sa 8th day wala
pang bayad so Mr A has the right to retain the
sacks. Yan nilabas yan noon sa bar exams, baka
itanong ulit. Tatandaan niyo ditto that the offender
must have received on commission for
administration or In trust. Sino bang nakabasa ng
Milan Bank? Sa Commercial law niyo ata yan eh.
Kung naalala ko yan,ito yung may nagpadala ng
$10,000, nadagdagan ng zero, tapos hindi sinoli.
Yan applicable yan, estafa. Possible itanong din
diyan yung paragraph 2 sa paragraph A yung using
a fictitious name for pretending to possess power,
influence, property agency etc, yan estafa by
means of false prtetnses. Uually connected ito sa
illegal recruitment.
By the way yun PONSI’S SCHEME. Medyo pag-
aral niyo yan. What crime under the RPC may the
offender be held liable if he engages in this
scheme? That would be estafa by means of false
pretenses under paragragph 2 subparagraph A of
Art 315. Nasa material niyo yung PONSI’S
SCHEME, basahin niyo na lang. SO illegal
recruitment. This is punished under Magnacarta for
OFWs. There are 2 requisites, yung una is that the
offender must have engaged in recruitment
activities for employment abroad, pangalawa, that
the offender has no license or accreditation to
engage in that activity from the POEA, so illegal
recruiter ka na niyan. SO RA8042 are crimes mala
prohibita. Karamihan ng kinakasuhan ng illegal
recruitment, may kasamang estafa yanby means of
illegal pretenses, and there was this person
wherein he questioned the constitutionality of RA
8042 kasi sinasabi nila, if you would be convicted of
two (2) crimes punishable by different laws and
which crime resulted frm single transaction, then
the right of the accused against double jeopardy
could have been violated. Sabi nga kapag
naconvict mo sa estafa, coconvict mo pa sa illegal
recruitment. Double jeopardy yan. Sabi ng SC,
theres nothing wrong in convicting the accused
estafa by means of false pretenses and illegal
recruitment under RA 9042, sabi ng SC magkaiba
silang dalawa (2) as regards to their elements and
nature because estafa by means of false pretenses
is a crime malum in se while illegal recruitment is a
crime malum prohibitum. Estafa, good faith is a
defense while in illegal recruitment, goodfaith is not
a defense. Since magkaiba silang dalawa, walang
double jeopardy. Example, si Mr. A nagbabasa siya
ng diyaryo, nakakkita siya ng add aba sabi niya “for
employment abroad” nabasa niya nakalgay sa
advertisement, Php 100,000/ month. He was
enticed to go. Pagpunta niya aba recruitment
agency without knowing na walang lisensya POEA.
Usapan, sa Alaska sila magttrabaho. Sabi, bawat
salmon na mahihili nila kikita nila ng $5-$10.
Nagbayad siya ng placement, in short, natanggap
na. Pagdating sa Alaska naglinis sila ng isda, pero
ang isa hindi naman Salmon, dilis pala, idedebone
nila. 2 buwan palang nabulag na siya. Anong kaso
ng illegal recruiter? Estafa by means of false
pretenses, under Art 315, paragraph 2 sub
paragraph A and illegal recruitment. 2 ang pwede
nilang maging convictions that. Meron dun yung “by
pretending to have bribe a government official”
estafa rin yan. Yung mga fixer sasabihin niya yung
“ah kakilala ko itong judge na ito” ayan estafa yan
tumatanggap yuan Php 100,000 pesos, panalo ka!
Ayan kapag nagbigay ka sa kaniya, di ba liable yan
estafa by means of false pretenses. Ang importante
diyan yung remedy nung government official na
siniraan ng offender. DI ba “without prejudice to any
action for calumny against the offender. Alam niyo
ba yung calumny? Libel yan. Yung slunder,
defamantion, magkakaparehas yang mga yan.
Kaya kapag tinanong, anong ikakaso mo sa akin
kasi siniraan kita? Calumny. O di ba hindi niya
naintindihan, libel yan. Art 315 2(d) by post dating a
check. BP 22 tayo ngayon. Bouncing check law.
Kug sasagot kayo sa bar if you have to include in
your answer yung tumalbog yung checke nung
prinesinta, “it bounced” ANo kayo highschool?
Sabihin mo naman, “when the check is presented
for payment, it was dischonored on the ground that
it was drawn against a close account or drawn
against insufficient funds.
Wag lang “bounced.” So in both, estafa by post
dating a check 2(d) of Art 315, and violation of
BP22, the offender may have issued, made, drawn
or check, pareho sila. But the check was issued,
made, drawn or check, pareho sila saan sila
magkakaiba? 1. Estafa by post dating a check 2(d)
of Art 315 is a crime mala in se while violation BP
22 isa c crime Mala prohibita. Eh ano naman? Aba
siyampre since mala in se mala prohibita, pasok
ditto yung good faith, lack of criminal intent, or
malice as adefense. While in violation of BP 22,
yung good faith, lack of criminal intent, or absnce of
malice are not valid adefense. Cause what is
punished is the mere issuance of a check na
walang pondo, e liable ka na for BP22. Sir, may
depensa ba in violation of BP 22? Meron naman,
kapag forged ang signature, or if nagissue ka
talaga ng cheke? Yes may defense ka diyan “if the
check is not issued on account or for value”
Example., si Mr A nagaaral sa isang eskwelahan sa
katipunan Ave, sabi niya, “tay, may assignment po
kami sa economics, pinagdadala po kami ng cheke,
yung duly accomplished check pero hindi crossed
check ah, payable to the order of cash, kayo nap o
bahala kung magkano halaga pero dated ha.” SI
tatay mayabang nilagay Php 10 million pesos,
dated hindi crossed. Ito na si anak, naaglag ang
checke, may nakapulot, dineposito nung nakapulot
sa account niya, eh tumalbog. DInemanda na
ngayon nung tatay nung nakapulot, ano ang
defense? Good faith ba? Hindi. Good faith is not a
defense in violation of BP22. Ang defense niya ditto
ay that the check is not issued on account or for
value, wala namang value yung checke bakit
inissue yung 10 million na yan eh 1000 lang yung
laman ng account, eh gagawin na ngang
halimbawa anak niya na sa eskwela eh. In other
words, he did not freely and conscoulsy performed
the act. He has no intention for perpetrating that
act. Kaya nilagay niya 10 million, ayan pwede pa
rin namang depensa. Pero in estafa by post dating
a check, fraud, or decit is essential. Kelan ba
magkakaroon ng fraud and decit? If a person
issued a check to be dishonored later on, pwede
siyang makasuhan ng estafa by post dating a
check or violation of BP22 or pwede ring walang
estafa pero BP22 lang pero di pwede mangyare
yung estafa lang and walang BP22, malabong
mangayri yon. SO pwedeng 2 estafa and BP 22
pwedeng BP22 lang pero di pwedeng estafa lang
kasi in estafa, fraud and decit is essential. Kelan
magkakaroon ng fraud, kelan magkakaroon ng
deceit? This is when the offended party, meaning
the person to whom the check is issued would not
have parted with his money or property, where it
not for the assurance that the check that was
issued to him would be good upon its presentment
for payment. Fraud or deceit wold usually come in if
the check was issued at the time the action as
contracted. Example Mr A nadiskubre niya na si Mr
nagpurchase ng BWM worth Php 50,000. Nilapitan
ni A si B sabi niya A, bibilhin ko yang koche mo ng
100,000. Eto check post dated, next week may
pondo na yan. Niloko no, sabi niya may hidden
treasure, wala naman. SO inissue ang checke, post
dated, next week. Binigay ang koche, etc, tumalbog
ang cheke. Eto yung Estafa by post dating a check.
If the check was issued in payment of a preexisting
obligation, walang estafa by post dating a check,
BP22 lang yan. Kasi violation of BP 22, the
offender may be held liable whether or not the
check is issued in payment of a pre existing
obligation, pero kung estafa by post dating a check,
the offender may not have any criminal liability if a
check was issued in a payment of pre-existing
obligation. It is because, there can be no fraud or
decit in the issuancane of that check if the same
was made in payment of the preexisting obligation.
Halimbawa si Mr A lumapit kay B nanghihiram ng
100,000 babayaran daw next month. Edi pinhiram.
Here comes the due date, wala pang bayad. B
sought A. Sabi ni A, extension for 1 month daw.
Sabi ni B, okay sige 1 month extension pero
magissue ka sakin ng cheke worth 100,000 by the
end of the month, di na kita pupuntahan, idedeposit
ko na alng yung checke. Nagissue si A ng checke.
On the due date, B presented the check for
payment and later on dishonored. What crime did
Mr A violated? BP22. Hindi yan pwedeng estafa
because the check that A issued, it was issued in
payment of a pre existing obligation. At mosy, ang
liability ni A would be for violation of BP22. Meorn
pa silang pagkakaiba, yung tungkol sa demand. Is
demand prior to the institution of action for violation
of BP22 essential and mandatory? Yes. If the
criminal action of BP22 is instituted without any
demand or notice of dischonor, issued prior to the
filing of the case, ididismiss lang ng prosecutor
yung complaint. ANo ba yung significance nung
demand sa violation of BP22? 1 of the elements of
the crime in violation of BP22 is that the offender
who had issued, made or drawn the check has
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time
of the issue. Hindi ka pwedeng makasuhan kung di
mo alam na walang funds yan but knowledge
whether or not from the checks were drawn is a
state of mind. How would we know that the maker
of the check knew that at the time it issued the
same, the same was not funded. Papasok ditto
yung presumption. Yung presumption, if the issue
of the check has been served with a demand letter
or notice of dishonor before the institution of the
criminal action and that the issue of the check has
not paid the amount due there on to the payee
within the period, ditto na magkakaroon ng
presumption it may now be presumed that the
issurer of the chck knew at the time of its issuance
was not funded. DI napatutunayan ng prosecution
na alam na ng issuerer. So magkakaroon na ng
presumption but the said presumption is disputable.
Pero kailangan talaga ng demand, di magkakaroon
ng presumption, kung walang second element in
violation of BP22 at kung walang violation ng 2nd
element, dismissed ang kaso kasi walang isang
element. Pero pag estafa by post dating a check, is
demand essential? Dati hindi kailangan. Ngayon
sbai ng Sc, it is essential. Pag walang demand,
dismissed ang kaso. Pero merong pagkakaiba ang
demand sa BP22 sa demand ng estafa by post
dating a check dahil ang demand or notice of
dishconor in violation of BP22, those must be in
writing Yung lang ang pagkakaiba. Pero the SC
insofar as demand in estafa by post dating is
concerned, is silent in their decision basta sabi lang
may demand. SO it may be safe to assume that
demand may be in any form may be an writing or
not. Yung in writing lang yung BP22. BP22 the
subject check must have been presented for
payment within 90 dys from its issue. But what if it
was presented after 90 days but before 6 months,
wala na bang criminal liability yung nagissue ng
check? Meron pa rin. Ano lang yung implication? If
the subject check would be issued after 90 days,
mawawala na yung presumption of knowledge on
the part of the offender on the insufficiency of
funds, yun lang ang amwaawala. The prosecution
may still present evidence to establish that element
but it must be presented within 6 months. What
would happen to a check if not presented within 6
months? Magiing stale. Pag naging stale yan, wala
ka ng P22, wala ka ng estafa by post dating a
check, magiging civil nalang yan at ebidensya ng
pagkakautang, nothing more. You can no longer
run after the accused under RPC or BP22.
Prosecution must prof that the same was been sent
or kung nareceive nila. Pag walang proof, wala pa
rin dapat patunayan yan. Pero meron itong kaso.
March 15, 2004. Nalimot ko yung name eh. SO si A
and B are betfriends, sabi ni A “bes, pautang
100,000” Sabi ni B, wala siyang 100,000 pero may
pupuntahan, si C baka pautangin ka. But A and C,
hindi sila magkakilala. Punta si A nd B sa bahay ni
C. SO B introduced A to C. Pumayag si C
magpautang pero sabi niya, “ Ms A, just issue me a
check, ilagay mo lang yung date when would you
be paying the same so that when its due date,
deposito ko nalang yung check” 1 month later, due
na ang utang, C deposited the check for payment
and later on dischoneroed on the ground that it was
drawn against a disclosed account. Anong ginawa
ni C, hindi naman kakilala si A kinontact niya si B.
Kinausap ni C si B, tinanong yung address ni A to
know where to send the demand letter. Sabi ni B,
icoconvince niya si A to pay C but lumipas na ang 2
weeksm walang ngayari. C institute a criminal
action for BP 22 to Mr A. Eh panao ang subpoena?
Ayun nakacare of ngayon kay B. SO kay B
bumabagsak ang notices. Nagkaroon ng
preliminary investigation. Look, walang demand
letter. Walang notice of dishonor wala pero finile
ang kaso. Surprisingly the prosecutor probable
cause in violation of BP22. Bakit ko sinabing
surprisingly? Eh wala yung 2nd element of the
defense eh. KNowldege of the insufficiency of
funds is not proven. Could it be presumed A was
knowledgeable at the time she issued the check?
DI pwedeng ipresume kasi als nga siyang sulat na
tinanggap. Pagdating sa MTC, the judge after
submission of the parties’ evidence, surprisingly,
convicted A. Walang demand. Nagappeal si A sa
RTC, RTC affirmed. CA affirmed. SC affirmed. How
did the SC ruled in this case? Exception ba ito?
Parang exception. Sabi ditto ng SC “we cannot
blame C for not sending A any demand letter
before he instituted a criminal action for violation of
BP22 because she does not know where to send
the same in the first case. In view of this peculiar
circumstances of this case, notice requirement can
be dispensed in this kind of scenario lang. Yan
yung estafa by post dating a check. For purposes
of the Bar exam, just read the codal provisions on
ART 316, Art 318, ito fall back niyo ito kung gusto
niyo talagang maconvict and wala dun sa estafa,
ipasok niyo ditto, “other deceits” Kasali ditto yung if
you, for profit would interpret dreams,make
forecast, Art 318 yan. For profit lang pero pag
donation, di yan for profit. For purpses of the Bar,
Art 332 is important, yung exemptions ng criminal
liability. Sabi dun, no criminal but only civil liability
shall result form the commission of theft swindling
of malicious mischief caused by any of the ff:
spuses, ascendants, descendants or relative by
affinity of the same line; widowed spouse with
respect to the properties of of the deceased spouse
before the same is transferred to another; brothers
and sisters, brothers in law and sisters in law IF
LIVING TOGETHER. Nawiwierduhan ako sa
sposes, kapag magnanakawan daw ang spouses,
walng criminal liability for theft. Example. Meron
akong kabit, natulog kami sa isnag lugar pag gising
ko sa umaga ubos ang pera sa wallet ko, njuries, A is guilty of attempted murder. Bakit
dinemanda ko siya for theft. Will the criminal attempted lang instead of physical injuries? Kasi A
complaint prosper? NO. Bakit? Ito ang opinon ng upon setting the house on fire had the intention of
isa sa mga authors ng RPC. Ewan ko, sa libro ni killing him. If purpose of A is not to kill anyone but
Justice Rees, kasama dun ang concubines, just to burn it, arson yan. If may naatay, walang
paramours, apti common law relationship. Walang intention, arson pa rin. Walang arson with
liability pala ang querida. Pag sinabi moa ng theft homicide. Sabihin mo nalang “the person may be
kasama ang qualified theft but not ang robbery. held liable of the crime arson and considering that
ANg robbery, mitigated kapag magkamaganak. he had intentions to kill, he may be held to suffer
Dun sa estafa or swindling Art 315-318, exempted the maximum penalty for arson” Kasi arson pa rin
ang criminal liability nitong mga taong ito. naman yan e kahit ilan pa ang namatay for aslong
“Sir papaano if A and B siblings living in 1 roof. A as the accused had not intended to kill the victim.
issued a check to B, “pautangin mo Sa arson kung may lalabas, dun lang kayo
ako, bibigyan kita checke. SO pinautang nagbigay magfocus.
ng cheke.Eh tmalbog. DO Mr A the one who issued
a check has criminal liability for estafa? None kahit
may fraud or deceit yan kasi it is against is sibling
whom he was living under one roof. Exepmted ba
siya for violation in BP22? Yes because estafa by
post dating acheck would appear to be more
serious tha BP22 ang estafa by post dating a check
6- 12 years ang penalty mo pero yung BP22, 1
month and 1 day to 1 year ata and a fine of not
more that 200,000. SO, Arson, ito yung panununog
ah. Basta by means of fire. PD 1613 has repealed
Art 320-326 inclusive. Totoo bay an? Partly. Hindi
nirepeal ang Art 324. Meron tayong tinatawag na
crime of distraction under Art 324. DI ba mga
terorista kunyare pinasabog nila ang building na
wala nmang tao. ANong kaso mo? Distraction
under Art 324. But if your intention is pasabugin
kasi may tao sa loob, anong kaso mo? Murder
kung namatay may namatay by means of
explosion, frustrated or attempted murder if may
nabuhay if may intention. Pero pag wala ka naman
intention na pasabugin ang building, akala mo
walang tao, pinasabog mo, merong namatay, are
you held liable for murder? No wala ka namang
intention to kill but you may be held liable for
distraction under Art 324 at mas mataas ang
penalty kapag may namatay. Tatandana niyo sa
arson ito lang. Kung sinunog moa ng property mo,
meron ka bang liability? Depende kung nasaan ang
property mo. Kung property mo nasa tuktok ng Mt
Apo pwede ka bang makasuhan? Depende pa rin
kasi kung marami ring T*anga na nagpatayo ng
bahay sa Mt Apo, liable ka. Ano ang bottomline
ditto? You may not be held liable for Arson by
burning your property unless in doing you will
endanger the other structures within the vicinity.
Pangalawa, yung conspiracy. Conspiracy to commit
arson is punishable. SO much so, I two or more
person has decided to commit arson and decide to
commit the same, liable na sila agad. Kahit di sila
nanunog, liable na. Halimbawa sinunog mo ballpen
ng kaklase mo? PWede mo bang kasuhan ng
arson? Oo kapag yung kaklase mo nakatira diyan
sa ballpen na yan. Pero ballpen lang, that is
malicious mischief. Pag sinunog mo motorcycle, or
any mode of conveyance that will carry atleast 2 or
3 persons, arson. Establishments, houses
buildings, orchards forest, grasslands, pag sinunog,
arson. Bu of course the means that you should use
is fire. DIyan sa arson kapag may namatay? O
halimabaa A intended to kill B. Alam ni A na si B
nasa bahay niya so pumunta siya sa bahay sand
set the house on fire. Namatay si B. A is guilty of
murder by means of fire. If B suffered only physical