Crim II Du Notes

Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
Criminal Law II
The Revised Penal Code – Book Two
Title I: Crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations
Article 114. Treason. – Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them aid or comfort
within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless in the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the
accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished
by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines
2. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved
3. That the offender either:
a. Levies war against the Government, or
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort
Treason – a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it; in its general sense, it is the
violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the supreme authority of the State
Treason is a war crime. It cannot be committed in time of peace.
Allegiance – the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individuals owe to the government under which they live or to their
sovereign, in return for the protection they receive
Allegiance may be permanent (to government or sovereign of country) or temporary (a resident alien to a country where he resides in).
Two ways of committing treason:

1. By levying war against the Government
Concurrence of two things needed:

a. That there be an actual assembling of men
b. For the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force
The levying of war must be with the intent to overthrow the government and not merely to resist a particular stature or to repel a
particular officer. The purpose is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy. It is not necessary that those attempting to
overthrow the government by force of arms should have the apparent power to succeed in their design in whole or in part.
2. By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort
Adherence to the enemy and giving aid or comfort to them must concur together. Only one is not sufficient to constitute treason.
The aid and comfort must be given to the enemy by some kind of action. It must be a deed or physical activity, not merely a mental
operation. What aid and comfort constitute treason must depend upon their nature, degree and purpose. It is to render assistance to the
enemies as enemies and not merely as individuals, in furtherance of their hostile designs. It is given after the declaration of war.
“Adherence to the enemy” – means to betray; when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or
convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest
“Aid or comfort” – an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s country and an
act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor’s country to resist or to attack the enemy
“Enemies” – applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of hostility with the traitor’s country; it does not embrace rebels in
insurrection against their own country because they are still citizens and not enemies
There is no treason through negligence. The overt act of giving aid or comfort must be intentional.
Common crimes charged as overt acts of treason cannot be regarded as separate crimes or as complexed with treason.
Treason may be committed by a Filipino who is outside of the Philippines.
Treason is a continuous offense- it may be committed by a single act or by several series of acts not only in a single time
A person cannot be convicted of treason if the evidence against him is circumstantial or only an extrajudicial confession
Ways of proving treason:

1. Testimony of two witnesses, at least, to the same overt act
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the overt act of giving aid or comfort but not necessary to prove adherence. It must
be adhered to as to each and every one of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue.
Notes from the lectures of Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan and the Revised Penal Code Book Two by Luis B. Reyes
Compiled by: Kelvin Du
Page | 1
Criminal Law II
Overt act – that physical activity, that deed that constitutes the rendering of aid and comfort
It is not required that the testimonies be identical. It is sufficient that the witnesses are uniform in their testimony on the overt act; it is
not necessary that there be corroboration between them on the point they testified. It is not affected by discrepancies in minor details.
Adherence may be proved:

1. By one witness
2. From the nature of the act itself
3. From the circumstances surrounding the act
2. Confession of the accused in open court
“Confession” – a confession of guilt in open court, before the judge while actually hearing the case; not only an admission of facts made
by the accused in giving his testimony after a plea of not guilty, from which admissions of his guilt can be inferred
Cruelty and ignominy are aggravating circumstances in treason

Evident premeditation is not aggravating in treason because it usually requires reflective and persistent determination
Superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in treason, and are not aggravating
Defense of suspended allegiance and change of sovereignty is not acceptable. Other than the defense of duress (fear of immediate
death), lawful obedience to a de facto government is a good defense in treason.
Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason – Penalty. – The conspiracy and proposal to commit the crime of treason
shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos, and by prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding 5,000 pesos.
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit the felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Although the general rule under Article 8 is that conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is not punishable, mere conspiracy and
proposal to commit treason is a felony. In treason, the very existence of the state is in danger.
Note: The two-witness rule does not apply to this crime because this is a separate and distinct offense from that of treason.
Article 116. Misprision of treason. – Every person owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a
foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, who conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as
soon as possible, to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be,
shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
Elements:
1. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the Government, and not a foreigner
2. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason defined under Article 115) against the Government
3. The he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province
or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides
Misprision of treason is a felony committed by omission. This is an exception to the general rule that mere silence of one does not
commit a crime under the RPC. Here, the offender is criminally liable for a failure to do an act.
The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage. If the treason already erupted into an overt act,
the implication is that the Government is already aware of it and there is no more need to report the same. Violation of Article 116 is a
felony by omission with dolo and not by culpa.
You must not be in conspiracy with the others- you will be liable under Article 115.
Are parents/children or husbands/wives required to report the same to the authorities?

They are not accessories under Art. 19 but principals to the crime of misprision of treason; neither can they claim the benefits of Article
20 which exempts certain relatives from criminal liability if they acted only as accessories to the crime. Whether the conspirators are
parents or children and the ones who learn are parents or child, they are required to report the same. Although blood is thicker than
water, when it comes to the security of the state, blood relationship is always subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply
here because the persons liable are not considered as accessories but treated as principals.
Page | 2
Criminal Law II
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. – The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relative by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article.
Article 117. Espionage. – The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who:
1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any information,
plans, photographs, or other date of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to in the preceding
paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.
The crime is not conditioned on the citizenship of the offender.
Espionage – the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe
that the information is to be used to the injury of the Republic of the Philippines or to the advantage of any foreign nation
Two ways of committing espionage:

1. By entering, without authority therefor, a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any
information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines
Elements:
1. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein
2. That he has no authority therefor
3. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines
The offender must have the intention to obtain information relative to the defense of the Philippines. It is not necessary that he has
obtained the information; it is sufficient that he has the intent and has entered the prohibited premises. The offender is any private
individual- whether a private citizen, an alien or a public officer.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph
no. 1 of Article 117, which he had in his possession by reason of the public office he holds.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph no. 1 of Article 117, by reason of the
public office he holds
3. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation
The offender must be a public officer who has in his possession the articles, data or information by reason of the office he holds. Taking
advantage of his official position, he reveals the information which is confidential and relevant to the defense of the Philippines.
Not all public officers or employees can commit the crime. If the offender is not the custodian of the said document, he is not liable for
espionage under Article 177 but he is liable for violation of C.A. 616 if he discloses the said information relative to the defense of the
Philippines.
If the information disclosed to a representative of a foreign nation does not relate to the defense of the Philippines and the offender is
the custodian thereof, his liability will not be under Art. 117 but he is liable for another crime- infidelity in the custody of public records.
Acts punishable under CA 616 (An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses Against the National Security):
Sec. 1: Unlawful obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense
Sec. 2: Unlawful disclosing information affecting national defense
Sec. 3: Disloyal acts or words in time of peace
Sec. 4: Disloyal acts or words in time of war
Sec. 5: Conspiracy to violate preceding sections
Sec. 6: Harboring or concealing violators of the law
Sec. 8: Photographing vital military information
Treason Espionage
The offender is a Filipino citizen or resident alien, the crime is not conditioned on the citizenship of offender
Committed during war time Committed during war time or peace time
There are 2 ways of committing treason There are many ways of committing it
Mala in se Mala in se if prosecuted under Art. 117; or
Page | 3
Criminal Law II
Mala prohibita if prosecuted under CA 616
Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts, provokes or gives
occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their person or
property.
Elements:
1. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts
2. That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons or property
The penalty if lower if committed by a private person (prision mayor) compared to that of a public officer or employee (prision
correccional).
The crime is committed in time of peace. It is prohibited because it disturbs the relation that our country may have with another
country. According to Viada, the intention of the accused is immaterial because the law considers the effects his acts produce.
Article 119. Violation of neutrality. – The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion of a war
in which the Government is not involved, violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
Elements:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is not involved
2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality
3. That the offender violates such regulation
Neutral – a nation or power which takes no part in a contest of arms going on between others
There must be a war going on between nations but our country is not a party to the war. To maintain its neutrality, the Philippine
government promulgates rules to protect its interest but the offender violates any of the rules promulgated.
There must be regulation issued by competent authority for the enforcement of neutrality.
The violation may be done by means of dolo or by culpa- it may be committed through reckless imprudence.
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile county. – Any person, who in time of war, shall have correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government;
2. By prision mayor, if the correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the enemy. If the offender intended to
aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death
Elements:
1. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops
3. That the correspondence is either –
a. Prohibited by the Government
There must be a prohibition. It does not matter what the contents of the letter are. The only issue is there is a prohibition and despite it,
you still make correspondence. It is prohibited because of the possibility that some information might be useful to the enemy.
Prohibition by the government is not essential for (b) and (c).
b. Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs

c. Containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy
Correspondence – communication by means of letters; it may refer to the letters which pass between those who have friendly or
business relations
The letter must be sent without any intention on the part of the writer to give information to aid the enemy. If the correspondent is meant
to give information to aid the enemy, the crime committed is tantamount to the crime of treason and the penalty of such crime is
imposed to the offender. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, the crime amounts to treason
and the penalty given is the same as that for treason. The offense is qualified.
Article 121. Flight to enemy’s country. – The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegiance to the
Page | 4
Criminal Law II
Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority.
Elements:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved
2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the Government
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country
4. That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority
A resident alien can commit treason because of his temporary allegiance to the Philippines. A Filipino citizen owes natural or
permanent allegiance to the Philippines. Flight to enemy’s country can also be committed by a resident alien.
However, the law is explicit that the going or flight to the enemy country must be prohibited by the government. The government must
implement the prohibition by promulgating rules and regulations to such effect otherwise, without such proscription, no crime is
committed.
The crime is consummated by mere attempt.
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
Piracy – it is the robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and is done with animo lucrandi and in the
spirit and intention of universal hostility
Robbery – is the taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain; there is a presence of force, intimidation or threat
and violence (without this, it is theft)
Piracy is considered as a crime against humanity and all of mankind, against the whole world. Pirates may be prosecuted wherever
they go and wherever they are arrested because they violate the law of nations.
Three kinds of piracy:

1. Piracy in the high or open seas under the RPC
May be committed in the following manner:

1. By attacking a vessel in the high or open seas
2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of the vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
Elements:
1. That a vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters
2. That the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the vessel
3. That the offenders:
a. Attack or seize that vessel
b. Seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers
4. There is intent to gain
High seas – refers to bodies of waters outside the territorial waters of the Philippines even if it is within the territorial waters of another
country; seas which no one owns; res nullus
Complement – the full number of officers and crew needed to man a ship
Who may commit piracy in the high or open seas? Only outsiders to the vessel. It cannot be committed by passengers or members of
the crew or complement of the vessel; they cannot be insiders.
2. Piracy in Philippine waters under PD 532, as amended
Originally, piracy and mutiny can only be committed in the high seas- outside of the Philippine territorial waters.
PD 532 was issued in August 1974 punishing piracy, but not mutiny, in Philippine territorial waters.
RA 7659: The Heinous Crime Law – now punishes piracy and mutiny whether committed in the high seas or in Philippine territorial
waters and the penalty has been increased to reclusion perpetua from reclusion temporal
Who may commit piracy in Philippine waters? Outsiders and insiders- the passengers or crew
Page | 5
Criminal Law II
Vessel – any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine waters. It
shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
Philippine waters – includes rivers
PD 532 defines abetting piracy as a crime committed by any person who:

1. Gives pirates information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government
2. Acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage
3. Air piracy under RA 6235
Mutiny – the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship against the
authority of its commander
Elements:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters
2. The offenders are either members of its complement or passengers of the vessel
3. The offenders either attack or seize the vessel or seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of
the crew or passengers
Two kinds of mutiny:

1. Mutiny in the high or open seas under the RPC
2. Mutiny within Philippine waters under PD 532 as amended by RA 7659
Piracy Mutiny
Kind of offenders Committed by persons who are not member of the Committed by members of the complement or the
complement or passengers of the vessel; they are passengers of the vessel
strangers to the vessel
Criminal intent Criminal intent to gain is clear There is no criminal intent to gain; may only intend to
ignore the ship’s officers or they may be prompted by
a desire to commit plunder
Article 123. Qualified piracy. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes
referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
Murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape are mere circumstances qualifying piracy. Any of these crimes cannot be punished as
separate crimes nor can they be complexed with piracy. A special law cannot be complexed with a felony under the RPC. Only felonies
can be complexed with one another. When any of the crimes of murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape accompany piracy, there is
no complex crime. Instead, there is only one crime committed- qualified piracy.
What if the prosecutor filed separate cases for piracy and murder? The crime committed is still qualified piracy.
Case: People vs. Timon November 12, 1997- a stray decision where the accused was guilty of piracy with homicide
Mutiny is qualified the same way as piracy is qualified.
RA 6235: The Anti-Hijacking Law or The Aircraft Piracy Law
Four situations governed:

1. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the pilots thereof to change the
course or destination of the aircraft
2. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land
within any part of the Philippine territory
The point of distinction is whether the aircraft if of Philippine registry or foreign registry.
If the aircraft if of Philippine registry, before the anti-hijacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If not in flight then the crime is
governed by the RPC- grave coercion, grave threat, homicide or murder as the case may be.
If the aircraft is of foreign registry, it need not be in flight. They are considered in transit when they are in foreign countries. Technically,
they are still in flight because they need to move out of that country.
Page | 6
Criminal Law II
“In flight” – from the moment all exterior doors are closed following embarkation until such time the same doors are opened again for
disembarkation
Hijacking cannot be committed in the attempted stage.
3. Carrying or loading onboard an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines any flammable,
corrosive, explosive or poisonous substance
4. Loading, shipping or transporting onboard a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility any flammable, corrosive, explosive or
poisonous substance, if this was done not in accordance with the rules and regulation set and promulgated by the APO on this
matter
Qualifying circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft
2. Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape
RA 9372: Human Security Act of 2007
Terrorism – acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public. Any act intended to cause death or serious
bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population of serious bodily harm, compelling a government
or an international organization to do or abstain doing any act.
Terrorism is a crime of result. The crime can be committed only if: (Elements:)
1. Any of the crimes listed under RA 9372 is committed

2. Sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace
3. It is done in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand
Section 3. The crime of terrorism is committed by any person who engages in any of the following acts (predicate crimes) punishable
under the RPC and under special laws:
1. Piracy and mutiny 8. Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste
2. Rebellion of insurrection Control Act
3. Coup d’ etat 9. Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act
4. Murder 10. Anti-Hijacking Law
5. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention 11. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
6. Crimes involving destruction 12. Illegal Possession of Firearms
7. The Law on Arson
Penalty: 40 years of imprisonment without the benefit of parole
Sec.4 – Mere conspiracy to commit terrorism is punishable with a penalty of 40 years imprisonment
Who are the persons liable for terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism?
1. Principals by direct participation
2. Accomplices (Sec. 5)
3. Accessories (Sec. 6)
What are the acts that are authorized/allowed under RA 9372 (illegal if not under this law)?
1. Tracking down, tapping, listening to, interception and recording of messages, communications, conversations, discussions,
spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism
2. Apprehension and detention without a warrant of a person suspected of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
3. Judicial authorization to examine bank deposits, accounts and records
Sec. 17 – Case: Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-Terrorism Council October 5, 2010
Title II: Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State
Crimes under this title are those which violate the Bill or Rights accorded the citizens under the Constitution. The offenders are public
officers or employees acting under supposed exercise of official functions although illegally (except under Article 133). The counterpart
is Title IX for offenders who are private persons.
Classes of arbitrary detention:
Page | 7
Criminal Law II
1. Arbitrary detention by detaining persons without legal ground (Art. 124)
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125)
3. Delaying release (Art. 126)
Article 124. Arbitrary detention. – Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not
exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention has continued more than three but not
more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital,
shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
The offenders are those who are vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons. Ex. Policemen, mayor, judges
Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the authority to do an arrest and detain person can be guilty of this crime. If
the offender does not have authority, it might only be illegal detention (Article 267).
2. That he detains a person

3. That the detention is without legal grounds
Detention – defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty
A person is considered detained when he is paced in a confinement or when there is restraint on his person.
Legal grounds for detention:

1. The commission of a crime
2. Violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient on a hospital
The usual cause of arbitrary detention is that the public officer arrests and detains someone without any warrant.
Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Arrest without warrant – When lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the object sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
Arbitrary Detention Illegal Detention (Art. 267)

The offender is a public officer The offender is a private person or a public officer whose function
does not include the power to arrest and detain a person
The public officer has a duty to arrest and detain a person Does not have the power to arrest or detain a person
It is necessary that there must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party. If there is no actual restraint, even if there have
been warnings, the crime is not committee. It will only be for threat.
Arbitrary Detention Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)

The offender is a public officer who has the power to make arrests The offender may be any person
Main reason for detaining the offended party is to deny him of his The purpose is to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not
liberty commit, to deliver the person to the proper authority, to file the
necessary charges in a way to incriminate him
Arbitrary detention can be committed through imprudence.

The law does not fix a period of detention. It can be for only an hour or less.
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. – The penalties provided in the next
Page | 8
Criminal Law II
preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail
to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and
thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
Article 124: There is no legal ground for detention; detention is illegal from the beginning
Article 125: There is a legal ground for detention; detention is legal in the beginning but becomes illegal from the expiration of the period
Elements:
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. Twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent
b. Eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent
c. Thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent
“Judicial authorities” – means the courts of justice or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or
confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense; refers to the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may
be established by law
This is a felony by omission- failure to deliver a person within the stated period to the proper judicial authorities (judges).
What do you mean by delivery of a detained person? It consists in making a charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner with the
proper judicial authority. It does not involve the physical delivery of the prisoner before the judge. The purpose of this is for the court to
determine if the offense is bailable or not, and to allow him the right if so, or to issue an order of release or of confinement.
When a person is detained, he may ask for a preliminary investigation. The accused must sign a waiver for Article 125.
Article 125 only applies if the detention is without virtue of a valid warrant of arrest but the arrest must be lawful. There only
needs to be a reasonable time for detention, or indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or he posts bail for his
temporary release.
The detained person should be released when a judge is not available.
What if the accused violated a special law? Determine the penalty of the special law whether it is grave, less grave or a light felony.
Circumstances considered in determining liability of offender:

1. The means of communication
2. The hour of arrest
3. Other circumstances such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and file
in time the necessary information
Case: Soria vs. Desierto January 31, 2005

Based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the
period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a "no-office day."
Rights of the person detained:

1. He shall be informed of the cause of his detention
2. He shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at anytime with his attorney or counsel
RA 9372
Sec. 18 – A period of three days or 72 hours counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended
or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police.
Sec. 19 – In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than 3 days without written
approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge
Sec. 20 – The penalty for the law enforcement person shall be 10 years and 1 day to 12 years of imprisonment.
Article 126. Delaying release. – The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the
liberation of such person.
Three acts punishable:

1. By delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
Page | 9
Criminal Law II
2. By unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner
3. By unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person
Elements:
2. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon
a petition for the liberation of such person
3. That the offender without good reason delays:
a. The service of the notice of such order to the prisoner
b. The performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner
c. The proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
Public officers most likely to commit this offense are the wardens, jailers and peace officers who are temporarily in-charge of prisoners
or detained persons.
Article 127. Expulsion. The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being
thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.
Two acts punishable:

1. By expelling a person from the Philippines
2. By compelling a person to change his residence
Elements:
2. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence
3. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law
This article is correlated with Section 6 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution. What is violated is your liberty of abode.
In essence, this is coercion. When committed by a private person, the crime committed is grave coercion.
Only the President of the Philippines can deport a person by his power of deportation through the Commission of Immigration. It is an
act of the state where the SC has no power to interfere with or to control the action of the President.
Courts can order you to change residence through ejectment and expropriation proceedings or in the penalty of destierro.
Article 128. Violation of domicile. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer
or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or
other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or, having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being
required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.
If the offense be committed in the nighttime, or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Crimes known as violation of domicile:

1. Violation of domicile by entering a dwelling against the will of the owner thereof or making search without previous consent of
the owner (Art. 128)
2. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art. 129)
3. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130)
Elements:
The public officers are those possessed of the authority to execute search warrants and warrants of arrest. If the offender is a private
individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Article 280).
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects
1. If the offense is committed at nighttime
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately after the search made by the
offender
In order to commit this crime, the entry must be against the will of the owner, which presupposes opposition or prohibition by said
owner. If the entry is only without the consent of the owner then the crime of violation of domicile is not committed. The prohibition may
be express or implied.
Page | 10
Criminal Law II
Express- there are signs saying ‘strangers keep out’ or ‘do not enter’ posted in front of the dwelling
Implied- the door is locked or even if it is open, there are barriers
The primary objective of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the owner. If the privacy is already lost, any subsequent change
in attitude will not restore the privacy which was already lost.
Three instances when search without warrant is considered valid (and the seizure of evidence is also valid):
1. Search made incidental to a valid arrest
2. Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of the situation prevents the police officer
from securing a search warrant
3. Plain view doctrine- when the article to be seized is in plain view of the officer

1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof
2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave
the same
Article 128 is not applicable when a person is searched without a warrant outside his dwelling. The crime may be grave
coercion (Art. 286) or unjust vexation (Art. 287).
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained, and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. – In addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary
severity in executing the same.

1. By procuring a search warrant without just cause
Elements:
2. That he procures a search warrant
3. That there is no just cause
2. By exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally procured
Elements:
2. That he has legally procured a search warrant
3. The he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same
Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
Probable cause – it is such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action,
and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper
Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of the following personal property:
1. Subject of the offense
2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
3. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
In order that the search warrant may be issued, it must be based on probable cause in connection with the offense to be determined by
the judge personally (Sec.4, Rule 126). The warrant will be valid only for 10 days (Sec.10, Rule 126). After that period, the warrant is no
longer valid and those claims will be inadmissible as evidence.
Case: Galvante vs. Casimero April 22, 2008

The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not
penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law.
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be
Page | 11
Criminal Law II
imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers, or other
belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two
witnesses residing in the same locality.
Elements:
2. That he is armed with search warrant legally procured
3. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
4. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality are not present
The policemen need not wait for the person subject of the search or the owner of the house. It can be a member of his family or two
witnesses residing in the same locality. Normally, elected barangay officials are requested by the policemen to aid or witness in the
conduct of the search. The law however does not require the witnesses to be barangay officials.
Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

No search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member
of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
The papers and effects mentioned in the law must be found inside the dwelling in the house and not in a moving vehicle. The
application of the law is limited to the dwelling and personal properties found therein.
The reason behind the requirement is to avoid incriminatory machination or planting of evidence.
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association
or from attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either
alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
Three acts punished:

1. By prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same
a. The meeting must be peaceful
b. There is no legal ground for prohibiting, or interrupting or dissolving that meeting
2. By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
3. By prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for
the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
Elements:
2. That he performs any of the acts mentioned
The right to join includes the right not to join. If people will force you, it will be grave coercion.
The right to join, however, is not absolute. It may be regulated in order that it may not cause injury to its equal enjoyment by others
having equal rights. The power to regulate is justified under the police power of the state.
Under the Bill of Rights, Section 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
A private individual cannot commit this crime, only public officers. They are not allowed to prevent the joining of a peaceful meeting.
The meeting may be interrupted if there is legal ground, such as when it is no longer peaceful. If the offender is a private individual, the
crime is disturbance of public order (Article 153).
In order for the provision to be applicable, it is necessary that the accused who is a public officer be a stranger to the meeting and not a
participant of the said meeting. If he is a participant, he may be guilty for unjust vexation.
Does the government have the right to regulate the conduct of a meeting or assembly? One of the ways it can regulate is by the
granting or denial of an application to hold a meeting or rally.
Case: Primicias vs. Fugoso 80 Phil 71

This case is about the denial of the government to an application to hold a rally on Plaza Miranda. Is it legally grounded?
Page | 12
Criminal Law II
The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing
upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar
speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted
authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." As the request of the petition was for a permit
"to hold a peaceful public meeting," and there is no denial of that fact or any doubt that it was to be a lawful assemblage, the reason
given for the refusal of the permit can not be given any consideration.
Case: Ruiz vs. Gordon 126 SCRA 233
Case: Reyes vs. Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553
The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time
when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required.
Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid
objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or
modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an
imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether
favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to the proper
judicial authority. Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of
constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary, — even more so than on the other departments — rests
the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying
phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitously termed by Justice Holmes 'as the sovereign prerogative of
judgment.' Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as
they do precedence and primacy.
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.

1. To prevent the holding of ceremonies of any religion
2. To disturb the ceremonies or manifestations
Elements:
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same
If the ceremony is prevented or disturbed with the use of violence or threats, the crime is qualified. (par. 2)
There is no provision of law which requires religious services to be conducted in a certain form or style. There is no standard form of
what constitutes a religious ceremony. Persons who meet for the purpose of religious worship, by any method which is not indecent and
unlawful, have the right to do so without being molested or disturbed.
Case: German vs. Barangan 135 SCRA 514

Petitioners converged at J.P. Laurel Street, Manila, for the ostensible purpose of hearing Mass at the St. Jude Chapel which adjoins the
Malacañang grounds located in the same street. Wearing the now familiar inscribed yellow Tshirts, they started to march down said
street with raised clenched fists and shouts of antigovernment invectives.
If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield and
give way to the latter. The government steps in and either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes the one exercising it.
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious
ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
Elements:
1. That the acts complained of were performed (1) in a place devoted to religious worship, or (2) during the celebration of any
religious ceremony
2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
“Religious ceremonies” – are those religious acts performed outside of a church, such as processions and special prayers for burying
dead persons
An act being notoriously offensive to the religious feeling must be directed to a religious practice or dogma.
Page | 13
Criminal Law II
“Notoriously offensive” – there is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful; an act intended to ridicule or mock another
religion, mocks or scoffs anything devoted to religious ceremonies, plays or destroys any object of veneration by the faithful
In determining whether an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful, the same must be viewed or judged from the standpoint of the
offended religion and not from the viewpoint of the offender.
RA 9745: Anti-Torture Act of 2009
Section 3 – Definition of torture

Section 4 – Types of acts of torture
Section 27 – Who are liable as accomplices
Torture has no prescriptive period: Section 45. Torture is a non-prescriptible offense.
Title III: Crimes against Public Order
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – How committed. – The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and
taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
Elements:
1. That there be (a) public uprising, and (b) taking arms against the Government
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either:
a. To remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws:
i. The territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or
ii. Any body of land, naval or other armed forces
b. To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives
The crime of rebellion cannot be committed by a single individual, it is committed by several or a multitude of persons for the purpose of
overthrowing the government. It is by nature a crime of masses. 40 men do not constitute a multitude. The nature of rebellion evokes
not merely a challenge to the constitutional authorities but also a civil war on a bigger or larger scale.
The essence of the crime is a public uprising with the taking up of arms. It aims to overthrow the duly constituted government. It does
not require the participation of any member of the military, etc. This crime can only be committed through force and violence.
Rebellion and insurrection are not synonymous. Rebellion is more frequently used where the object of the movement is completely to
overthrow and supersede the existing government while insurrection is more commonly employed in reference to a movement which
seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance, or to prevent the exercise of government authority with respect to particular
matters or subjects.
What is the purpose of rebellion? There are two:

1. To overthrow
2. To deprive
Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot being fired. Actual clash of arms is not necessary; mere armed public uprising
is already enough.
Who are liable for the crime of rebellion or insurrection?

1. Any person who commits, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection
2. Any person who participates or executes the commands of others in a rebellion or insurrection
“To remove allegiance from the government”- used to emphasize that the object of the uprising could be limited to certain areas such as
isolating a barangay or municipality or province in its loyalty to the duly constituted government or national government.
RA 9372: Human Security Act of 2007

Rebellion or insurrection is considered as terrorism when a person commits it thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be
guilty of the crime of terrorism. (Sec. 3)
It is not necessary that the purpose of rebellion is accomplished. The crime is committed from the moment a group of men rise publicly
and take arms against the government.
Page | 14
Criminal Law II
Treason Rebellion
A crime against the security of the state or national security A crime against public order
There is levying of war against the government during war time There is levying of war against the government during peace time
It can be committed by an individual by adhering to the enemy, It can only be committed by a multitude of men
giving aid and comfort
The purpose is to deliver the government to the enemy or to pave The purpose is to substitute the existing government with another
the way for the coming of the enemy
May be committed by mere adherence to the enemy giving them Always involves taking up arms against the Government
aid or comfort
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to
achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never recognized the
Government.
Article 134-A. Coup d’etat – How committed. – The crime coup d’etat is a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy and stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or
simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office or employment, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment
2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth
3. That the attack is directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
power
4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power
Characteristics of coup d’etat:

1. There is a swift attack upon the facilities of the government
2. May be committed singly or collectively
3. The objective may not be to overthrow the government but to paralyze or destabilize through the seizure of facilities or utilities
4. The principal offenders are members of the armed forces or the Philippine National Police
5. May be carried out not only by force or violence but also through stealth, threat or strategy
Rebellion Coup d’etat

Committed by any person, whether a private individual or a public The offender is a member of the military or police force or holding
officer a public office or employment
The object is to eliminate the allegiance of a people in a territory The object or purpose is to diminish or seize state control or state
power
In both instances, the offenders intend to substitute themselves in place of those who are in power
Who may commit coup d’etat? Who are liable:

1. A person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding public office or employment
2. Any person not in the government service who participates or in any manner supports, finances, abets or aids in the
undertaking of coup d’etat
In relation to: Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when
an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
Doctrine of absorption – Common crimes inherent in the commission of the crime of rebellion are not complexed with one another.
Case: People vs. Hernandez

The crime charged in the information is simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies.
Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense are divested of their character as common offenses and assume the
political complexion of the main crime of which they are merely ingredients and consequently cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense or complexed with the same.
Does this doctrine still hold true?
Page | 15
Criminal Law II
Case: Enrile vs. Salazar 186 SCRA 218
The Hernandez ruling remains a binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on
the occasion thereof either as a means necessary to its commission or as an intended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.
The information filed against the petitioner does in fact charge an offense to be read as charging simple rebellion.
Case: Enrile vs. Amin 189 SCRA 573

The Hernandez ruling is still binding.
Case: Drilon vs. CA April 20, 2001

The allegations of bad faith and malice in the complaint are based on the ground that the petitioners knowingly and allegedly
maliciously filed the information for an offense that does not exist in the statute books. While it is true that the petitioners were fully
aware of the prevailing jurisprudence enunciated in People v. Hernandez, which proscribes the complexing of murder and other
common crimes with rebellion, petitioners were of the honest conviction that the Hernandez Case can be differentiated from the present
case. Accordingly, despite its defect, the information filed by petitioners remained valid inasmuch as it nevertheless charges an offense
against the herein private respondent.
Case: Fr. Reyes vs. CA December 3, 2009

Section 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of
any person, which is his or her right to life, liberty and security. The Court will not spare any time or effort on its part in order to give
priority to petitions of this nature. However, the Court will also not waste its precious time and effort on matters not covered by the writ.
Case: Gonzales, et al. vs. Abaya August 10, 2006

The offense for violation of Article 96 (Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman) under the Articles of War is service-
connected. This is expressly provided in Section 1 Paragraphs 2 of RA 7055. It bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners
concerns the alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the constitution. Such violation allegedly caused dishonor and
disrespect to the military profession. In short, the charge has a bearing on their professional conduct or behavior as military officers.
Equally indicative of the service-connected nature of the offense is the penalty prescribed for the same which is dismissal from service.
In summary, we do not apply the Hernandez ruling or the doctrine of absorption here. It is a separate act under the military tribunal.
While it is true that coup d’etat absorbs common crimes; but in the case of Article 96, it is not a crime but mere violation of the internal
rules of the military. It cannot be considered and it does not hold true that Article 96 is absorbed in the crime of coup d’etat.
Case: Baylosis vs. Chavez 202 SCRA 405 October 3, 1991

When a criminal act has elements common to more than one offense, is there an option to choose which case to file?
The public prosecutor should have the option to ascertain which prosecution should be initiated on the basis of the evidence at hand.
That the criminal act may have elements common to more than one offense does not rob the prosecutor of that option or discretion and
mandatorily require him to charge the lesser offense although the evidence before him may warrant a prosecution of a more serious
one.
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat. – Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or
insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal.
Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup d’etat shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup
d’etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period.
When the rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the
others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels,
shall be deemed a leader of such rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat.
Who are the persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat?
1. Leaders – those who maintain or promote or head a rebellion or insurrection, and any person who leads, directs or commands
others to undertake a coup d’etat
2. Participants – those who participate or executes the commands of others in a rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat, and any
person in government service who participates or supports, finances, abets or aids in the undertaking of coup d’etat
Article 136.Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection. – The conspiracy and proposal to commit
Page | 16
Criminal Law II
coup d’etat shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos
(P8,000.00).
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000), and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not
exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000).
General rule- conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is not punishable because these are only mere preparatory acts. They are not
punishable except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor.
Ex. No crime as conspiracy to commit murder but as conspiracy as a manner of committing murder.
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon public officer or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the
duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them.
Acts punished:
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all means in their power
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels
3. By accepting appointment to office under them
While the law only speaks of rebellion, the crime of coup d’etat should be included in the definition of Article 137.
The law was amended to add another mode of overthrowing the government- coup d’etat.
When one is appointed to serve the government, one becomes a public officer. He takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution
and obey its laws. Because you take the oath, you acknowledge that a public office is a public trust. He must serve the government with
utmost responsibility, integrity and honesty; that he is accountable to all people in all his acts and activities as a public office. The act of
accepting the authority of the new dispensation is prohibited under art 137 and is punished as disloyalty. In local parlance, he is a
traitor.
The offender must be a public officer or employee. If a private individual accepts appointment, he is not liable.
The crime of disloyalty presupposes the existence of rebellion by other persons.
The offender should not be in conspiracy with the rebels; otherwise, he will be guilty of rebellion and not merely disloyalty,
because in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.
Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection. - The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts
specified in Article 134 of this Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations
tending to the same end.
Elements:
1. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the Government
2. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to
the same end
The intellectual or emotional sympathy harbored by the offender in favor of the rebels is not a crime. Freedom of thought is not
punishable; it is outside the realm of criminal law.
When a person advocates the commission of rebellion by inciting others through utterances, then he is liable. The overt act punished is
the inciting of others to overthrow the government by means of speeches, etc.
The crimes of rebellion and inciting to rebellion cannot co-exist because the latter is absorbed in the former.
Inciting to rebellion Proposal to commit rebellion

In both cases, the offender induces another to commit rebellion
It is not required that the offender has decided to commit rebellion The person who proposed has decided to commit rebellion
The act of inciting is done publicly The person who proposes the execution of the crime uses secret
means
The crime of rebellion should not actually be committed by the persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited. If they commit
rebellion, the proponent or the one inciting becomes a principal by inducement on the crime of rebellion.
Article 139. Sedition – How committed. – The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to
attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
Page | 17
Criminal Law II
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof from freely
exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government of all its property or
any part thereof.
Elements:
1. That the offenders rise (1) publicly, and (2) tumultuously
2. That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods
3. That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:
a. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election
b. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof from
freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee
d. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class
e. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government of all its
property or any part thereof
Sedition is committed by (a) rising publicly and (b) tumultuously. The two elements must concur. When there is only public uprising and
the same is not tumultuous, the crime of sedition is not committed.
Sedition – in its general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State; the ultimate object of sedition is the violation
of the public peace or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it
Tumultuous is also mentioned in Article 251: Death caused in a tumultuous affray.

Tumultuous – when more than 3 armed malefactors participate in creating a commotion or disturbance; a situation wherein the
disturbances or confusion is caused by at least four persons
Article 163: “tumultuous if cause by more than three perosons who are armed or provided with means of violence”
There is no requirement that the offender should be armed. One can be violent without being armed. It is the use of violence by the
group of person in expressing their grievances against the government which makes the collective acts seditious.
What is the object of sedition? It may be political, like in rebellion.

What is the objective of the law? To put a limit in the freedom of expression or the right of the people to assemble and petition the
government for redress and grievances. In order that one may enjoy this freedom, the assembly must be peaceful.
The purpose of sedition must be known. Why did they take up arms?
Rebellion Sedition
The uprising is directed against the government. It is an invariably The public uprising is directed against the execution of a law,
political crime- has for its purpose the withdrawal from the administrative order or against the performance of a public officer
allegiance of the government or its laws, or to deprive the Chief of their functions or against the holding of a popular election; the
Executive or the Congress its powers and prerogatives; the purpose may be political or social
purpose is always political
Principle of absorption: Common crimes committed in furtherance The doctrine of absorption does not apply in sedition. It can
thereof are absorbed happen that serious common crimes are also committed
There is a public uprising through taking up arms against the The public uprising must necessarily be tumultuous
Government
The simultaneous acts of the offender are intended to overthrow The simultaneous acts of the offender are not intended to
the government. overthrow the government. What makes it a crime is the
disagreement manifested in the form of violence
Both crimes are committed by person who rise publicly. Sedition is a lesser crime of rebellion
Article 140. Penalty for sedition. – The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine
not exceeding 10,000 pesos.
Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 5,000
pesos.
Who are liable:

1. The leader of the sedition
2. Other persons participating in the sedition
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. – Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Page | 18
Criminal Law II
There is no crime for the proposal to commit sedition.

The conspiracy must be to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election. It may also
be a conspiracy to prevent national and local public officials from freely exercising their duties and functions, or to prevent the
execution of an administrative order.
There must be an agreement and a decision to rise public and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition.
Article 142. Inciting to sedition. – The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the
accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches,
write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof,
or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the function of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the
people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall
knowingly conceal such evil practice.

1. Inciting others to the accomplishment any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof,
which tend to disturb the public peace
Elements:
1. That the offender does not take direct part in the crime of sedition
2. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations
tending to the same end
“Scurrilous” – means low, vulgar, mean or foul
Uttering seditious words or speeches and writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels are punishable when:
1. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office
2. They tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes
3. They suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots
4. They lead or tend to stir up people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order
of the Government
The offender must not be a participant to any public uprising against the government. If he is already committing the crime of sedition,
the act of inciting the people against the government will already constitute an element of the crime of sedition. Inciting to sedition is an
element of sedition. It cannot be treated as a separate offense.
If there is only one intent or one criminal design, the offender should be charged for only one crime.
Inciting to sedition usually commands the constitutional right of the citizen to freely express his view on matters of public concern,
Freedom of speech of the press and of expression are made known to the public in the form of published writings, books, etc; it can
also be in the form of shows, drama, cartoons, and caricatures.
It is not necessary, in order to be seditious, that the words used should in fact result in a rising of the people against the
constituted authorities.
“Knowingly concealing such evil practices”, although ordinarily an act of the accessory, is treated and punished as that of a
principal as one of the ways of violating Article 142.
Two rules:
1. The Clear and Present Danger Rule – the danger should be both clear and imminent; there must be the probability of serious
injury to the State; the danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable
2. The Dangerous Tendency Rule – if it tends to create a danger of public uprising; it could easily produce disaffection among the
people and a state of feeling in them incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government
Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies. – The penalty of prision correccional or a fine
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, by force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the
National Assembly or of any of its committees or sub-committees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of
any provincial boards or city or municipal council or board.
Page | 19
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That there is a projected or actual meeting of the Congress or any of its committees or sub-committees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial boards or city or municipal council or board
2. That the offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud
This crime is against popular representation because it is directed against the officers whose primary function is to meet and enact
laws. When these legislative bodies (Congress) are prevented in doing their duties, the system of government is disturbed. The 3
branches of government must continue to exist and do their duties. Significantly, what is emphasized is the legislative branch because it
holds the purse of the government.
In relation to the subject matter of acts tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies, the law and, in this case, the
Constitution, orders the Congress of the Philippines to meet either in regular or special sessions to sustain or revoke the proclamation
or suspension. The checks and balance, which is the hallmark of our democratic system of government, cannot be placed in jeopardy if
the President, with the use of force or fraud, will prevent the Congress from meeting and performing its mandated role- to determine
whether or not the President had facts and legal basis to suspend a particular writ of habeas corpus or to declare a martial law.
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who disturbs the meetings of the National Assembly or of any of its committees or sub-committees, constitutional commissions
or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial boards or city or municipal council or board, or in the presence of any such
bodies should behave in such manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
Elements:
1. That there be a meeting of the National Assembly or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial boards or city or municipal council or board
2. That the offender does any of the following acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings
b. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due it
The disturbance may be in the form of utterances, speeches, or any form of expressing dissent, which is not done peacefully but
implemental in such a way that it substantially interrupts the meeting of the assembly or adversely affects the respect due its members.
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use
force, intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly from attending the meetings of the Assembly or of
any of committees or sub-committees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or
casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the
Assembly is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.

1. By using force, intimidation, threats or frauds to prevent any member of the National Assembly from (1) attending the meetings
of the Assembly or of any of committees or sub-committees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
from (2) expressing his opinions or (3) casting his vote
The offender is any person and the offended party is a member of Congress that has not committed any crime to justify the
use of force, intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent him from attending any meeting of Congress.
It is not necessary that a member of the Assembly is actually prevented from attending the meeting of the National Assembly
or from expressing his opinion or casting his vote.
Elements:
1. That the offender uses force, intimidation, threats or fraud
2. That the purpose of the offender is to prevent any member of the National Assembly from:
a. Attending the meetings of the Assembly or of any of its committees or constitutional commissions, etc.
b. Expressing his opinions
c. Casting his vote
2. By arresting or searching any member thereof while the National Assembly is in regular or special session, except in case
such member has committed a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor
Elements:
2. That he arrests or searches any member of the National Assembly
Page | 20
Criminal Law II
3. That the Assembly, at the time of the arrest or search, is in regular or special session
4. That the member arrested or searched has not committed a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty higher than
prision mayor
This is in relation to Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Article 146. Illegal assemblies. – The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period shall
be imposed upon the organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under this Code, or of any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his agents. Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer he
penalty of arresto mayor, unless they are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional.
If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he
is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under this Code, and he shall be considered a leader or organize of the meeting within the
purview of the preceding paragraph.
As used in this article, the word “meeting” shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a fixed place or moving.
This law punished a gathering of people for illegal purpose. The unlawful purpose must be punished under the RPC. If the unlawful
purpose is punished under a special law then illegal assembly is not committed.
Two kinds of illegal assemblies:

1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code
Requisites:
1. That there is a meeting, a gathering or group of person, whether in a fixed place or moving
2. That the meeting is attended by armed persons
3. That the purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the Code
2. A meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his agents
Requisites:
1. That there is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or moving
2. That the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection,
sedition or direct assault
When the illegal purpose of the assembly is to incite others to commit the crimes, the presence of armed men is unnecessary. The
mere gathering for the purpose of the people is sufficient to bring about the crime.
Who are the persons liable?

1. Organizers or leaders of the meeting
2. Persons merely present at the meeting who must have a common intent to commit the felony of illegal assembly
Two presumptions if carrying an unlicensed firearm:

1. The purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned is to commit acts punishable under the RPC
2. He is considered a leader or organizer of the meeting
The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or gathering of people for illegal purpose punishable by the RPC. Without gathering,
there is no illegal assembly.
Article 147. Illegal associations. – The penalty if prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents of associations totally or partially organized for the purpose
of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code or for some purpose contrary to the public morals. Mere members of said
associations shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Two kinds of illegal associations:

1. Those totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code
2. Those totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals
Who are the persons liable?

1. Founders, directors and president of the association
2. Mere members of the associations
Public morals – refers to crimes punished under Title VI of the RPC (gambling, prostitution, grave scandal)
Page | 21
Criminal Law II
The Constitution, under the Bill of Rights. guarantees the right of the people to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary
to law. For the full enjoyment of the privilege, the law requires that the association must be organized for some lawful purpose.
Ex. Communist Party of the Philippines- declared illegal because of the perception that they are organized to overthrow the government
of the Philippines.
Case: People vs. Ferrer 48 SCRA 382

Congress enacted RA 1700 declaring the CPP as an organized conspiracy whose purpose is to establish a communist form of
government or a totalitarian regime in the country. Judge Ferrer declared RA 1700 as unconstitutional. The SC upheld the validity of the
law. The naming of the CPP in the law is only definitional to demonstrate a good example of what an illegal association is supposed to
be. RA 1700 is not intended to single out the CPP but rather it was directed against any other organization with similar objectives as the
CPP.
Now, RA 1700 or the Anti-Subversion Act has been repealed by Pres. Cory Aquino with RA 7636.
Case: People vs. Asuncion 208 SCRA 231

If We are to espouse the theory of the respondents that force and violence are the very essence of subversion, then it loses its
distinction from rebellion. The first Whereas clause of R.A. 1700 states that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the
Government, not only by force and violence but also by deceit, subversion and other illegal means. This is a recognition that subversive
acts do not only constitute force and violence, but may partake of other forms as well. One may in fact be guilty of subversion by
authoring subversive materials, where force and violence is neither necessary or indispensable.
Illegal association Illegal assembly

It is not necessary that there be actual meeting It is necessary that there is an actual meeting for the purpose of
committing any of the crimes punishable under the RPC
It is the act of forming or organizing and membership in the It is the meeting and attendance at such meeting that is being
association that is punished punished
The persons liable are the founders, directors, presidents and the The person responsible are the organizers and leaders of the
members of the association meeting and the persons present during the meeting
The basis for liability is the gathering for an illegal purpose which The basis is the formation of or organization of an association to
constitutes a crime under the RPC engage in an unlawful purpose which is not limited to the violation
of the RPC but includes the violation of a special law and those
against public morals- inimical to public welfare
Article 148. Direct assaults. – Any person or persons who without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the
attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously
intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of
such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays
hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Two ways of committing direct assault:

1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the
crimes of rebellion and sedition
Elements:
1. That the offender employs force or intimidation
2. That the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects in the crime of
sedition
3. That there is no public uprising
2. Without public arising, by attacking, by employing force, or by seriously intimidating or seriously resisting any person in
authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on the occasion of such performance
Elements:
1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance
2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent
3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, o
that he is assaulted, (b) by reason of the past performance of official duties
4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties
5. That there is no public uprising
Page | 22
Criminal Law II
“Attack” – includes any offensive or antagonistic movement or action of any kins
The offender must know that the person assaulted is person in authority or his agent.
This crime can only be committed by means of dolo (intent). It cannot be committed by means of culpa or negligence.
There can be a complex crime of homicide with direct assault. The information must allege both offenses. Under Article 48, in complex
crimes, the penalty of the graver offense is used.
Slight physical injuries cannot be complexed with direct assault. A light felony cannot be complexed with a less grave felony, or even a
grave felony. Direct assault is committed by attacking, employing force necessarily follows and there will be injuries. Slight physical
injuries are absorbed in the crime of direct assault.
Less serious physical injuries may be complexed with direct assault. If a person is medically attended for 12 days, it is considered as
less serious physical injuries, it is not absorbed by the crime of direct assault.
If a public officer is attacked by a private individual, we have to ask what the reason of his attack was. If the reason of his attack is
because of past performance then there is direct assault. However, if a person of authority or his agent is attacked while he is engaged
in the performance of his duties, we do not anymore ask what the motive for the attack is.
If the person in authority such as a judge already retired, there is no longer direct assault because the victim is no longer considered a
person in authority.
Who is a person in authority?

Any public officer vested with jurisdiction recognized in law and clothed with authority in law whether individually or as a member of
boards or corporate body. It includes a barangay chairman, members of the Lupong Tagapagsundo (under the LGC) and the barangay
kagawads. Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools recognized by the government are persons in authority only for purposes of Art.
152, in relation to Art. 148 and Art. 151, and in connection with their duties. In other cases, they are not to be considered as persons in
authority. Ex. Mayor, Congressmen, judges, division superintendent of schools, provincial fiscal, barangay chairman
Who is an agent of a person in authority?

Any person who by direct provision of law, by election or appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of order
and the protection and security of life and property. Ex. Policemen, NBI, municipal treasurer
Case: People vs. Sion August 1997

Section 388 of the Local Government Code of 1991 expands the definition of a person in authority by expressly providing that for
purposes that concerns the penal code, the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members, kagawads and members of the
Lupong Tagapamayapa shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions.
The offended party in direct assault must not be the aggressor. If there is unlawful aggression employed by the public officer, any form
of resistance which may be in the nature of force against the offended party will be considered as an act of legitimate defense.
Can it be considered as direct assault when a policeman accepts a challenge by an individual to a fistfight because of the performance
of a lawful duty? The character of the person in authority or his agent is not laid off at will or removed at the pleasure of the public
officer but it is attached to him as long as he remains in public office. (Justo vs. CA)
May direct assault be committed upon a private individual? Yes, when the private person comes to the aid of a person in authority and
he is likewise assaulted. Under RA 1978, a private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is, by fiction of law, deemed or
is considered an agent of the person in authority.
Case: Lydia Gelig vs. People July 28, 2010

Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of persons in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The appellate court must be consequently overruled in setting aside the trial court’s verdict. It erred in
declaring that Lydia could not be held guilty of direct assault since Gemma was no longer a person in authority at the time of the assault
because she allegedly descended to the level of a private person by fighting with Lydia. The fact remains that at the moment Lydia
initiated her tirades, Gemma was busy attending to her official functions as a teacher.
Case: Enrique vs. People June 30, 2005

It is a matter of record that at the time of the assault, Lt. Leygo was engaged in the actual performance of his official duties. He was
wearing the designated police uniform and was on board a police car conducting a routinary patrol when he first came upon the truck
unloading chicken manure. Because the unloading of chicken dung was a violation of La Trinidad MO No. 191, the lieutenant ordered
the truck driver to return from where he came, but petitioner, in defiance of such lawful order, commanded the truck driver to return to
Shilan, the place where the truck was first intercepted, and on being informed that the same truck had returned, the lieutenant had
every reason to assume it did return for the purpose of unloading its cargo of chicken dung, thus stopped it from doing so.
Page | 23
Criminal Law II
Case: People vs. Asilan April 11, 2012

The RTC, in acquitting Asilan of Direct Assault, held that while it was confirmed that Adovas was in his police uniform at the time of his
death, the prosecution failed to establish convincingly that he was in the performance of his duty when he was assaulted by Asilan. The
RTC explained that there was no evidence to show that Adovas was arresting somebody at the time Asilan stabbed him.
When does it become qualified? The penalty will be higher than the normal crime
1. When the assault is committed with a weapon
2. When the offender is a public officer or employee
3. When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority
Evidence of the motive of the offender is important when the person in authority or his agent who is attacked or seriously
intimidated is not in the actual performance of his official duty.
Article 149. Indirect assaults. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the
authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article.
Elements:
1. That a (person in authority or his) agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault defined in Article 148
2. That a person comes to the aid of such (authority or his) agent
3. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the (authority or his) agent
The situation contemplated in Article 149 is one where direct assault is committed against an agent of a person in authority. A private
individual comes to the aid of the public officer being assaulted and in giving aid or assistance; the private individual is equally or
likewise assaulted. There are two offended parties: the agent of a person in authority and the private individual who comes to his
rescue.
The assistance rendered must be to an agent of a person in authority. If the aid is rendered to a person in authority, then the private
individual on such occasion becomes an agent of a person in authority. A force or intimidation enforced against him is, for all intents
and purposes, considered direct assault.
There is no indirect assault when there is no direct assault.
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the
Constitutional commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from
two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly
summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the
Constitutional commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member
authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or
constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books,
papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty
shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a
summons or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
There are five specific acts made punishable:

1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of the National Assembly, its special or standing committees and
subcommittees, the Constitutional commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions, or before any commission or
committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses
2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or constitutional body or official
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when
required bu them to do so in the exercise of their functions
4. By restraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body
5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official
Case: Arnault vs. Balagtas

Congress, or any of its legislative bodies, has the power to punish witnesses as the same is founded upon reason and policy. Said
power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power, for how could a legislative body obtain their
knowledge and information in which to base intended legislation if it cannot require and compel disclosure of such knowledge and
information if it is impotent to punish a defiant to its power in authority. When the framers of the Constitution adopted the principle of
separation of powers making its branch supreme within the realm of its respective authority it must have intended its department’s
authority to be full and complete independent of the others’ authority and power; for how can power be complete if every act of defiance
against it, the leg body is required to resort to the judicial department for the appropriate remedy.
Page | 24
Criminal Law II
This article does not include local legislative bodies.
Case: Negros Oriental vs. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete

The power of contempt is not extended to local legislative bodies. Local legislative bodies are but a creation of law and therefore, for
them to exercise the power of contempt there must be an express grant of the same. The Local Government Code prevailing at that
time was B.P. Blg. 57.
Absent a constitutional or legal provision for the exercise of these powers, the only possible justification for the issuance of a subpoena
and for the punishment of non-members for contumacious behaviour would be for said power to be deemed implied in the statutory
grant of delegated legislative power. But, the contempt power and the subpoena power partake of a judicial nature. They cannot be
implied in the grant of legislative power. Neither can they exist as mere incidents of the performance of legislative functions. To allow
local legislative bodies or administrative agencies to exercise these powers without express statutory basis would run afoul of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
Thus, the contempt power, as well as the subpoena power, which the framers of the fundamental law did not expressly provide for but
which the then Congress has asserted essentially for self-preservation as one of three co-equal branches of the government cannot be
deemed implied in the delegation of certain legislative functions to local legislative bodies. There being no provision in the Local
Government Code explicitly granting local legislative bodies, the power to issue compulsory process and the power to punish for
contempt, the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish the petitioners Torres and Umbac for contempt.
Under the new law, RA 7160, it is silent on the matter. Chapter 2 does not provide for the same. As a matter of fact, Section 48 on local
legislation and Section 50 of the IRR merely enumerate what the rules or procedure shall provide but nowhere in the said law was it
mentioned or suggested that the local legislative bodies have the power to issue summons or subpoenas.
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. – The penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding
articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of
official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging
from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
Elements:
1. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender
2. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent
3. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of Articles 148, 149 and 150
Elements of simple disobedience: (par. 2)

1. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender
2. That the offender disobeys such agents of a person in authority
3. That such disobedience is not of a serious nature
Resistance against a person in authority or his agent Direct assault

The person in authority or his agent must be in actual The person in authority or his agent must be engaged in the
performance of his duties performance of his official duty or is assaulted by reason thereof
Committed only by resisting or seriously disobeying a person in Under the second type, it can be committed in four ways:
auth or his agent attacking, employing force, seriously intimidating, and seriously
resisting a person in authority or his agent
In both crimes, there is force employed but the use of force is not There is force employed
so serious since there is no manifest intention to defy the law and
the officers enforcing it
Article 152. Persons in Authority and Agents of Persons in Authority – Who shall be deemed a such. – In applying the provisions of
the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or government corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barangay captain and a
barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
Any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and property, usch as a barrio councilman, barrio policemen and barangay leader,
and a any person who comes to the aid of person in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
The importance of knowing the difference between a person in authority and an agent comes when they are assaulted in the
performance of their duties. When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority, the penalty is higher.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest. What has been delegated cannot be further delegated.
Case: Castillo vs. People January 30, 2012
Page | 25
Criminal Law II
Having been established that the assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities who effected the searched
warrant, the same barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority. The Local Government Code (Section 388) also
contains a provision which describes the function of a barangay tanod as an agent of persons in authority.
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public order – Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. –
The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment, or shall interrupt
or disturb public performances, functions, or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of Articles 131
and 132.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character.
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting, association, or public place, shall make any outcry
tending to incite rebellion or sedition or in such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public
order.
The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed 200 pesos shall be imposed upon those persons who in violation of the
provisions contained in the last clause of Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
Band – when there are more than three armed malefactors; it is tumultuous if by a band
Tumultuous – if the disturbance or interruption is cause by more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
Five ways of committing this crime:

1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Articles 131
and 132
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed
“Outcry” – means to shout subversive or provocative words tending to stir up people to obtain by means of force or violence any of the
objects of rebellion or sedition; it is a public disorder if the outcry is more or less unconscious outburst which, although rebellious and
seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition
Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from
200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as
news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State;
2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches, shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the
constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority,
or before they have been published officially; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or scandal in public places, provided that the
circumstances of the case shall not make the provision of Article 153 applicable.
The purpose of the law is to punish the spreading of false information which tends to cause panic, confusion, distress and divide people
in their loyalty to the duly constituted authorities. It is to protect the public interest.
Four acts made punishable:

1. By publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, as news any
false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State
2. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying, or extolling any act punished
by law, by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches
3. By maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they
have been published officially
4. By printing, publishing, or disturbing (or causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real
printer’s name, or which are classified as anonymous
Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit of the State is not necessary. The mere possibility of causing such
danger or damage is sufficient.
If the offender does not know that the news is false, he is not liable there being no criminal intent on his part.
Article 155. Alarms and scandals. – The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive calculated
Page | 26
Criminal Law II
to cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public
peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or scandal in public places, provided that the
circumstances of the case shall not make the provisions of Article 153 applicable.
Four acts punished:

1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place, calculated to cause (which
produces) alarm or danger
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public
tranquility
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided Article 153 is not applicable
Charivari – includes a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on kettles, tins, horns, utensils, etc
designed to annoy and insult; equivalent to breach of the peace in municipal ordinances.
If a person fires his gun, there are three possible crimes that might be charged against the person.
Other provisions that have to be considered:
1. Alarms and scandals- if the firearm is discharged and is not pointed to a particular person
2. Art. 254. Illegal discharge of a firearm- if the firearm is discharged and is pointed to a particular person with no intention to kill
3. Murder or homicide, as the case may be- if the firearm is discharged and pointed to a particular person with the offender
having in mind the intent to kill the offended party
Alarms and scandals constitute only one crime. It deals with disturbance of public peace and tranquility.
Unjust vexation- this is the proper crime if the disturbance is specifically directed unto you
Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein or shall
help the escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation or bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto mayor
shall be imposed.
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall
be imposed in their minimum period.
Two kinds of prisoners:

1. Detention prisoners- accused of a crime and the case is still going on
2. Convicted prisoners- convicted by final judgment
If the penalty is less than 3 years, the prisoner serves his sentence in the city or municipal jail. If more, then it is in the DAPECOL.
Who may commit the crime?

1. Private person
2. Jail guard or warden
If the offender is the jail guard or jail warden who has custody of the prisoner, he commits Infidelity in the custody of a prisoner (Art.
223). If the offender is not a custodian but a private person, he commits the crime of Delivering prisoners from jail.
Elements:
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment
2. That the offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such person
Means of committing the crime: (not elements of the offense)

1. Violence
2. Intimidation
3. Bribery – the offender’s act of employing bribery as a means of removing or delivering the prisoner from jail
A hospital or asylum is considered an extension of jail or prison.

The offender is usually an outsider.
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final
Page | 27
Criminal Law II
judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates,
walls, roofs, or floors or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other
convicts or employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.
Evasion of service of sentence has three forms:

1. Evasion of service of sentence by escaping during the term of sentence (Art. 157)
2. Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the penal establishment because of a calamity, conflagration (Art. 158) –
amended by RA 10592
3. Violation of the condition of a conditional pardon (Art. 159)
Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment
2. That he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence
Qualifying circumstances (making the penalty higher):

1. By means of unlawful entry – “escalamiento” or scaling
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation
4. Through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution
“Escape” – to flee from, to avoid, to get out of the way, as to flee to avoid arrest
Case: Tanega vs. Masakayan February 28, 1967

Tanega was convicted of slander by QC City Court. He appealed his conviction but found guilty by the RTC and was sentenced to
suffer 20 days of arresto mayor. The CA affirmed the conviction. The case was sent back to the original trial court for execution of
sentence, for the accused to be placed on the custody of law. During the hearing for the sentence, the petitioner filed a motion to defer
the hearing. On the appointed day and hour of the hearing, the petitioner failed to show up. Judge Masakaya issued a warrant for her
arrest. Petitioner was never arrested, accused moved to quash the warrant or order of arrest alleging prescription of penalty. The judge
rejected the plea and instead directed the issuance of another warrant of arrest. Tanega went to SC in question of law.
Slander is only felony with a light penalty. Light penalties prescribe in 1 year. The prescription of penalty shall commence to run from
the date the culprit should evade the service of sentence. Reason dictates that one can escape only after he has started service of his
sentence. Even under the old law, Viada emphasizes, where the penalty consists of imprisonment, prescription shall only begin to run
when he escapes from confinement.
For prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape during the term of
such imprisonment. Adverting to the facts, we have here the case of a convict who sentenced to imprisonment by final judgment was
thereafter never placed in confinement or detention. Prescription of penalty then does not run in her favor because in the first place she
was never arrested.
The scenario for Article 157 to apply is that you are arrested and that you are placed inside a detention cell and while thereat, you
escape.
Case: Pangan vs. Gatbalite

Article 93. The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of
sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which
this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should
escape during the term of such imprisonment.
The crime of evasion of service of sentence may be committed even if the sentence is only destierro. This is committed if the convict
sentenced to destierro will enter the prohibited places or come within the prohibited radius of 25 km of such places as stated in the
judgment. If the sentence violated is destierro, the penalty upon the convict will not be imprisonment because the penalty for the
evasion cannot be more severe than the penalty evaded. The penalty also for the violation of Article 157 will also be destierro.
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities. – A
convict, who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the
occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not
participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case
shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the authorities within the
above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.
Page | 28
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined in a penal institution
2. That there is disorder, resulting from:
a. Conflagration
b. Earthquake
c. Explosion
d. Similar catastrophe
e. Mutiny in which he has not participated
3. That the offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined, on the occasion of
such disorder or during the mutiny
4. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the
Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity
Article 158 was affected by the passage of RA 10592. Under the new law, it applies even if you are a detention prisoner and not only to
a convicted prisoner. It is favorable to the accused.
For such an event to be considered as a calamity, the President must declare it to be so. He must issue a proclamation to the effect
that the calamity is over. Even if the events mentioned may be considered a calamity, there is a need for the CE to make such
announcement. Absent such declaration, even if the prisoner will return to the penal institution where he was confined, the same is of
no moment because in the meantime he committed a violation of law by pure evasion of sentence under Art. 157.
Under Article 98, this is what we call special time allowance.
If a prisoner who has escaped he returns, he will be rewarded: given a deduction of 1/5 of the original sentence.
If a prisoner who has escaped fails to return, he is penalized with additional 1/5 penalty based on the remaining sentence.
If a prisoner did not leave the penal institution but chose to stay in the place of confinement, he will be rewarded: given a deduction of
2/5 of period of sentence (RA 10592)
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon the convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of
such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the
unexpired portion of his original sentence.
Elements:
1. That the offender was a convict
2. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
3. That he violated any of the conditions of such pardon
Conditional pardon – a contract between the Chief Executive, who grants the pardon, and the convict, who accept it
Article 159 deals with conditional pardons granted by the President. The conditional pardon is a contract or covenant between the
parties. It is a silent contract between the convict and the Chief Executive. It is in writing and to be effective, it must be accepted in
writing by the convict. If he does not then there is no contract. He shall abide by the terms of the pardon. If he violates any of the terms,
he is deemed not to have interest to comply with the conditions of the pardon granted him. Thus, the crime committed is still evasion of
service of sentence under Article 159.
Effect:
a) If the penalty remitted by the pardon is less than 6 years, the convict will suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period. This is an additional penalty aside from the unexpired portion of the sentence that was pardoned.
a. The violation is considered a substantial offense since there is a new penalty.
b) If the penalty remitted by the pardon is higher than 6 years, there is no additional penalty because the convict shall then suffer
the unexpired portion of his original sentence.
a. The violation of the conditional pardon is not a substantial offense because no new penalty is imposed. He will just
have to perform the unexpired portion.
Exception:
Where the violation of the condition of the pardon will constitute evasion even though committed beyond the remaining period of the
sentence: this is when (a) the conditional pardon expressly so provides or (b) the language of the conditional pardon clearly shows the
intention to make the condition perpetual even beyond the unserved portion of the sentence. In such case the convict may be required
to serve the unserved portion of the sentence even though the violation has taken place when the sentence has already lapsed.
In order that the conditional pardon may be violated, it is conditional that the pardonee received the conditional pardon. If he is released
without his conformity to the conditional pardon, the pardonee shall not be liable for evasion of service of sentence.
Page | 29
Criminal Law II
The condition imposed upon the prisoner that he should not commit another crime extends to offense punished by special
laws.
The condition that the offender “shall not again commit another crime” does not mean merely being charged with an offense. It
is necessary that he be found guilty of the offense.
Case: Torres vs. Gonzales

Article 159 is a distinct felony. It is a substantive crime; for one to suffer the consequence of its violation, the prisoner must be charged
in court. He will be entitled to a full blown hearing in full enjoyment of his right to due process. Only after final judgment has been
rendered against him may he suffer the penalty prescribed under Article 159.
Succinctly put, in proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the
conditions of his pardon, the Executive Department has two options: (i) to proceed against him under Section 64 (i) of the Revised
Administrative Code; or (ii) to proceed against him under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another precious offense – Penalty. – Besides
the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by
law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall
have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching said age, unless by reason of his conduct or
other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
Types of criminal repetitions:

1. Habitual delinquency – when the offender is convicted a third time or oftener of the crimes of falsification, estafa, theft,
robbery, serious or less serious physical injuries
2. Recidivism – when one is convicted of a crime and recidivism is appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance against
him
3. Habituality – one against whom the aggravating circumstance of reitaracion is appreciated
4. Quasi-recidivism
Elements:
1. That the offender was already convicted by final judgment of one offense
2. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same
Case: People vs. Alicia

Quasi-recidivism is not a crime in itself. It is a special aggravating circumstance which directs the court to impose the maximum period
of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. The court will do away or will ignore mitigating and aggravating circumstances in
considering the penalty to be imposed. There will be no occasion for the court to consider imposing the minimum, medium and
maximum period of the penalty. The mandate is absolute and is justified by the finding that the accused is suffering from some degree
of moral perversity if not total incorrigibility.
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. To be appreciated as a
special aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information.
For generic aggravating circumstances, the rule now is that it should be properly alleged in the information and proven during trial for it
to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance and the accused to be given the maximum penalty. If it is not alleged in the
information but proven during trial, there will be no effect at all insofar as the penalty is concerned. It will only have effect in the
imposition of damages.
Kinds or types of aggravating circumstances:

1. Generic aggravating circumstance (Article 14)
2. Inherent aggravating circumstance
3. Specific aggravating circumstance
4. Qualifying aggravating circumstance (ex. Article 248- Murder)
Case: People vs. Gaorana

The accused is a convicted prisoner committed in the DAPECOL. While in the DAPECOL, he was charged for the crime of rape. The
information alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The trail court made
no express ruling that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so. During the trial, prosecution manifested that appellant had been
convicted by the RTC and was serving his sentence for the crime of homicide. However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present
in evidence the record of appellant’s previous conviction. The requirement, for one to be considered as a quasi-recidivist, there must be
evidence to prove that there is or he was previously convicted. The fact that he was in DAPECOL serving his sentence, still his case
might be pending appeal. It is not enough that the accused is serving his sentence at the time. It does not prove final judgment.
Page | 30
Criminal Law II
What the law provides is that the crime committed, while serving his sentence or before serving the same, must be a felony, not
governed by special laws. The new offense need not be of a different character from that of the former offense, nor do the two offenses
have to be embraced in the same tile of the Code. The nature of the first offense does not matter; it may be a felony or not.
RA 8294: Illegal Possession of Firearms

Predecessor of the law: PD 1866
Amended by the new law: RA 10591: Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act
Example: Robin Padilla case

Robin was charged for illegal possession of firearms based under PD 1866. He was chased and flagged down and several guns were
found in his possession. The penalty in PD 1866 is higher (compared to RA 8294). He was convicted of the charge. RA 8294 was being
created during the time of his conviction- the higher the caliber of the gun the higher the penalty. By reason of the enactment of RA
8294 which was given retroactive effect, Robin was released from prison.
If you used an unlicensed firearm in killing someone, what crimes are committed?
Under RA 8294 (Sec.1 paragraph 3): There will only be one crime of homicide or murder, as the case may be, aggravated with the use
of an unlicensed firearm
Before: You can be charged for illegal possession of firearm and another charge for homicide or murder
If you are found in possession of an unlicensed firearm during an election gun ban, what crimes are committed?
Case: Celino vs. CA June 29, 2007
The accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The
word "committed" taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence, necessarily implies a prior
determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission. In the present case, however,
petitioner has only been accused of committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there
is yet no showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply.
In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm
should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered
as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
d’etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal
possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
Case: Agote vs. Judge Lorenzo July 22, 2005

Guided by the foregoing, the Court cannot but set aside petitioner’s conviction in Criminal Case No. 96149820 for illegal possession of
firearm since another crime was committed at the same time, i.e., violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban.
Indeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter
offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical injuries, both of which are punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however,
necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review.
Case: Artillero vs. Casimiro April 25, 2012

Issue: Whether or not a barangay captain can carry a firearm outside of his residence even with the absence of a permit
The authority of Aguillon to carry his firearm outside his residence was not based on the IRR or the guidelines of P.D. 1866 but, rather,
was rooted in the authority given to him by Local Government Code (LGC).
Section 389 of the LGC of 1991: (b) In the performance of his peace and order functions, the punong barangay shall be entitled to
possess and carry the necessary firearm within his territorial jurisdiction, subject to appropriate rules and regulations.
Title IV: Crimes against Public Interest
These crimes are perpetuated against the public in general. There is deceit employed in the commission of the crime. Unlike in estafa
where the deceit is employed to a particular person, the deceit is against the public in general.
Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.

1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines
2. Forging the signature of the President
3. Forging the stamp of the President
After forging, he is found in possession of the same. The fact of forging is what is punished under the law.
Page | 31
Criminal Law II
If the forged signature is used to defraud a particular individual, the crime committed will be estafa (Article 315). The damage is caused
to a person and not to the public interest.
If the forged signature is used to pardon a convict, the crime will be forging the signature of the President (Article 161).
Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned in the preceding article.
Elements:
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive was forged by another
person
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp
The offender under this article should not be the forger.
Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. – Any person who makes, imports, or utters false coins, in connivance
with counterfeiters or importers, shall suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver
coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten-centavo denomination or above.
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed 2,000 pesos if the counterfeited coins be any
of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below ten-centavo denomination.
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be currency of a
foreign country.
Crimes under counterfeiting coins:

1. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163)
2. Mutilation of coins – importation and utterance of mutilated coins (Art. 164)
3. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance (Art. 165)
Acts of falsity; terms used when that which is falsified is:

1. Counterfeiting – money or currency
2. Forgery – instruments of credit and securities and obligations issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands or any body
or institution authorized by the government to issue the same
Ex. Bonds from CARP to be exchanged in 5 or 10 years, a lotto ticket
3. Falsification – can only be committed with respect to documents
Elements:
1. That there be false or counterfeited coins
2. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins
3. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or importers
Coin – a piece of metal stamped with certain marks and made current at a certain value
Utterance – means distribution; to distribute; it is to pass counterfeited coins including delivery or when it is paid
Counterfeiting – imitation of a legal or genuine coin; a spurious coin is made; there is imitation of the peculiar design of a genuine coin
3 kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished:

1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines (below 10-centavo denomination)
3. Coins of the currency of a foreign country
Mere possession of counterfeit money is not a crime. To constitute a crime, the possession must be coupled with intent to use any of
such counterfeited money. Two elements must be present: (a) intent to use the counterfeit money; and (b) knowledge that the money in
his possession is counterfeit money.
Counterfeiting of coins involves whether it is legal tender or not. In the crime of counterfeiting, the object of the law is not the fraud to be
perpetrated on the public. Even if the coin is no longer a legal tender, the act of imitating or manufacturing the coin of the government is
illegal and is penalized. The law prohibits people from trying to imitate the manufacture of money. Hence, it is not necessary that the
coin counterfeited is still of legal tender.
If the coin is old, antique or vintage, the crime of counterfeiting is still committed. The motivating rationale is that if people would be
allowed to imitate money just because it is no longer of legal tender, then they will be emboldened to counterfeit coins of legal tender.
This will result to confusion to the public and to the government as well. Counterfeiting should be penalized from the very start whether
the coin is of legal tender or not.
Page | 32
Criminal Law II
Article 164. Mutilation of coins – Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not to exceed 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the
(United States or of the) Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins, in connivance with the mutilator or importer.
Two acts punished:

1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirement that there be intent to damage or to defraud another
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there must be connivance with the mutilator or
importer in case of uttering
Two crimes that may be committed for coins in circulation:

1. Counterfeiting of coins- crime of remaking or manufacturing without any authority to do so
In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not concerned with the fraud upon the public such that even thought the coin is no longer legal
tender, the act of imitating or manufacturing the coin is already penalized. The law wants to prevent people from trying their ingenuity in
their imitation of the manufacture of money.
2. Mutilation of coins- refers to the deliberate act of diminishing the proper metal contents of the coin either by scraping,
scratching or filling the edges of the coin and the offender gathers the metal dust that has been scraped from the coin
Mutilation – means to take off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for another metal of inferior quality; to diminish by
ingenuous means the metal in the coin
The coin must be of legal tender in mutilation: “coins of the legal currency” and “current coins”.
If the coin mutilated is legal tender of a foreign country, it is not a crime of mutilation under the RPC.
Mutilation under the RPC is true only to coins. It cannot be a crime under the RPC to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation
under the RPC is to collect the precious metal dust.
Under PD 247, mutilation is not limited to coins. It can also refer to paper bills.
Not accepting or refusing coins of legal tender (such as 1 centavo coins) and throwing it will be guilty under PD 247 because if no one
picks up the coins, the act will result to the diminution of the coins in circulation.
Anyone who is in possession of defaced money is the one who is the violator. The intention of PD 247 is not to punish the act of
defrauding the public but to punish the act of destruction of money issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines. The primary purpose
of PD 247, at the time it was ordained, was to stop the practice of people writing at the back or at the edges of the paper.
Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. – Any person who knowingly, although without the connivance
mentioned in the preceding articles, shall possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually utter such coin,
shall suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said articles.
Two acts punished:

1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the same, knowing that it is false or
mutilated
Elements:
1. Possession
2. With intent to utter
3. Knowledge
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated
Elements:
1. Actually uttering
2. Knowledge
The possession prohibited under this article is not only actual, physical possession but also constructive possession or the
subjection of the thing to one’s control.
Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged
notes and document. – The forging or falsifications of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable
to bearer and the importation and the uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall
be punished as follows:
Page | 33
Criminal Law II
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos, if the document which has been falsified,
counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or security (of the United States or) of the Philippine Islands.
The words “obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands” shall be held to mean all bonds, certificates
of indebtedness, national bank notes, coupons, United States or Philippine Islands notes, treasury notes, fractional notes,
certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers or the United States or of the
Philippine Islands, and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under
any Act of the Congress of the United States or the Philippine Legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered document is a
circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos, if the falsified or counterfeited document was
issued by a foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine note to exceed 2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered document is a
circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor.

1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes
3. Uttering of such dales or forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or importers
Forging – committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and
genuine document
Falsification – committed by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means, the figures, letters, words, or signs
contained therein
The money bills issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines are national bank notes.
Article 167. Counterfeiting, importing, and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. – Any person who shall forge, import, or
utter, in connivance with the forgers or importers, any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer,
shall suffer the penalties of prision coreccional in its medium and maximum perios and a fine not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
Elements:
1. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer
2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer
“Payable to order” – where it is drawn payable to the order of a specific person or to him or his order
“Payable to bearer” – ownership is transferred to another by mere delivery to him of such bill or ticket
Article 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. – Unless the act be one
of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession,
with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than
that prescribed in said articles.
Elements:
1. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to
order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person
2. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified
3. That he performs any of these acts:
a. Using any of such forged or falsified instruments
b. Possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments
A person in possession of a falsified document and who makes use of the same is presumed to be the material author of the
falsification. This is specially true if the uttering was so closely connected in time with the forgery.
Article 169. How forgery is committed. – The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of the following means:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a
true and genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, or sign contained therein.
Par. 1: The situation contemplated refers to a person who commits forgery with respect to an instrument that is not genuine but is made
to appear as genuine or authentic. Forgery is committed for as long as the document involved is a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or order.
Page | 34
Criminal Law II
Par. 2: The instrument contemplated is genuine but the alteration is introduced to change its meaning. It would appear that even if the
change does not materially affect the integrity of the document, forgery is still committed. What is being protected by the law is not the
interest of a particular individual but the public interest in general.
The essence of forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document. Not any alteration of a letter, number,
figure or design would amount to forgery. At most, it will only be frustrated forgery. When what is being counterfeited are obligations or
securities issued by the government, which under the RPC is given the status of money or legal tender, the crime committed is forgery.
The crime of forgery is not committed in changing P sign to $. The forged instrument and currency note must be given the appearance
of a true and genuine document. The crime committed would only be for a violation of PD 247.
Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents. – The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not
exceeding 6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without proper authority therefor, alters any bill, resolution, or
ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
What are the five classes of falsification?

1. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170)
2. Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public (Art. 171)
3. Falsification of a public or official, or commercial document by a private individual (Art. 172, par. 1)
4. Falsification of private document by any person (Art. 172, par. 2)
5. Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages (Art. 173)
What are the different kinds of documents?

1. Public document – any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official or placed under oath by public
officers, with the solemnities required by law; a document created, executed or issued by a public official in response to the
exigencies of the public service, or in the execution of which a public official intervened
2. Official document – any instrument issued by the government or its agents or its officers having the authority to do so; a
document issued by a public official in the exercise of the functions of his office; it is also a public document
3. Private document – any instrument or deed executed by a private person or between private persons without the intervention
of a notary public or other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced
or set forth; it is executed by and between two private individuals; ex. promissory note without any intervention of notary public
4. Commercial document – any document defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or any other commercial law;
documents or instruments used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade; ex. checks issued for payment
Elements:
1. That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any
provincial board or municipal council
2. That the offender alters the same
3. That he has no proper authority therefor
4. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document
The legislative documents referred to are the bills, resolutions or ordinances that have been enacted, approved or pending approval by
Congress or its local counterparts. When what is falsified is a resolution or ordinance enacted by a barangay council, Article 170 has no
application because it is limited only to the House of Legislature, municipal council or provincial board.
Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine
note to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any pubic officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or
including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
Document – any written instrument which establishes a right or by which an obligation is extinguished; a deed or agreement executed
by a person setting forth any disposition or condition wherein rights and obligations may arise; a writing or instrument by which a fact
may be proven and affirmed
Page | 35
Criminal Law II
Note: Mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document. It is necessary that the blank space be filled, with signature.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public
2. That he takes advantage of his official position
3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in any act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
them
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
e. Altering true dates
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original
exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of
such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons
Only public officers, employees, notary publics, or ecclesiastical ministers can be the offender. The offender takes advantage of his
official position by falsifying any of the document mentioned from 1-8. Either (a) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to
intervene in the preparation of the document, or it may be a situation wherein (b) he has the official custody of the document.
Even if the offender is a public officer but the falsification made by him is not in his official custody or is not related to the performance
of his duties or he did not take advantage of his official position, he will still be liable for falsification but not under Article 171, instead he
may be liable under Article 172.
A clerk of court, falsifying summons by taking advantage of his position, is guilty of falsification under Article 171. Altering summons has
the effect of declaring the other party in default. If the falsification is done by a municipal mayor, he is liable for falsification under Article
172. Although he is a public officer, he did not take advantage of his position since he is not in custody of the documents or summons.
Alteration or changes to make the document speak the truth do not constitute falsification. The essence of falsification is to
make a document speak a falsity. If it is to rectify to speak the truth, then falsification is not committed by the offender.
There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private documents. They have the same element.
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric
Feigning – simulating a signature, handwriting or rubric out of one which does not in fact exist; to give a mental existence
Imitation of another’s signature need not be perfect.

Ex. Imitating the genuine signature of the judge
Requisites:
1. That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate
2. That the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each other
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
Requisites:
1. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or proceeding
2. That such person did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding
Ex. Making it appear that a person is present in a council meeting to reach quorum
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them
Requisites:
1. That a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding
2. That such person or persons made statements in that act or proceeding
Page | 36
Criminal Law II
3. That the offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than those in fact made
by such person or persons
Ex. Case: People vs. Capule- preparation of the deed of parcel of land from illiterate owners
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
Elements:
1. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person
Ex. Submission of application in bar examination stating that he had no prior conviction when in fact there is one
Case: Llamoso vs. Sandiganbayan - Mistake of fact can be a defense (in relation to US vs. Ah Chong)
Ex. Municipal treasurer saying there is enough budget when in fact there is none
The wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of
falsification of public document.
There is no falsification by one who acted in good faith.
5. Altering true dates
For falsification to take place, the date of the document must be material or essential to the right created or the obligation to be
extinguished. It affects either the veracity of the document or the effects thereof.
Ex. Arrest and detention of an offender without a warrant and beyond the time allowed by law, changing the date of arrest to
prevent liability
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning
Elements:
1. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document
2. That it was made on a genuine document
3. That the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document
4. That the change makes the document speak of something false
Ex. Case: People vs. Manansala- changing the TPR/TOP to avoid arrest from traffic violations
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or
including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original
Elements:
1. There is a genuine document
2. The change in the document
Alteration – act of making changes in a document making the document speak for something the parties did not intend to
speak
Done in two ways:

1. Purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists
2. Including in a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
Ecclesiastical ministers – refers to pastors, priests, etc. who perform marriages
Page | 37
Criminal Law II
Falsification is not a continuing offense.
Case: Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan

The Court also rejects Sarep's argument that there is no falsification, as the alleged falsified document bears the correct item number
and appropriate eligibility. It is falsification, and not a correction, which the law punishes.
Since petitioner is the only person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the document that was found in his possession, it is
presumed that he is the material author of the falsification. Petitioner has failed to convince the Court that a person other than himself
made the erasures, alterations and superimpositions on the questioned appointment paper.
Case: Domagas vs. Malanan

Case: Caubang vs. People
In a crime of falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of truth as
therein solemly proclaimed.
Case: Venancio Sevilla vs. People

Venancio Sevilla is a councilor of Malabon City. He has to submit a data sheet. In answering a question of whether he has a pending
criminal case, he marked “no” as the answer. He claimed that he did not intend to falsify his PDS, that it was prepared by his staff. The
Sandiganbayan charged him with falsification of public document through reckless imprudence.
Does the crime of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence exist? The proper designation of the felony should be
reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents, not falsification of public documents through reckless imprudence.
Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or
official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document
commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to
cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions
of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
Three acts made punishable:

1. Falsification of a public, official or commercial document by a private individual
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position
2. The he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171
3. That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document
When the document is a public or official or commercial document, the falsification may be complexed with the crime of estafa
(under Art. 135) and other crimes such as malversation of public funds.
The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification.
Ex. Falsifying a check to obtain the amount by encashing it in a bank. The main objective is estafa, with the use of falsification of a
commercial document.
2. Falsification of private document by any person
Elements:
1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7, enumerated in Article 171
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document
3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such
damage
When the document that is falsified is a private one, the falsification cannot be complexed with estafa. The rule is, when an
element of a crime is common to more than one crime, you can only use that element to make up one crime. The same
element cannot be used more than once. There will be double jeopardy.
Mere falsification of a private document is not enough. Damage is an essential element when what is falsified is a private document.
“With the intent to cause such damage” – means that the offender performs some other independent act in order to make use of it- an
act which, while it does not result in prejudice to a third party, has been done nevertheless with the intention of causing such prejudice
Page | 38
Criminal Law II
3. Use of a falsified document
Introducing in a judicial proceeding – Elements:

1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivision no. 1 or 2 of Article 172
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding
Use in any other transaction – Elements:

1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivision no. 1 or 2 of Article 172
3. That he used such document (not in judicial proceedings)
4. That the use of the false document cause damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage
Rules to remember:
1. It is a crime when it is introduced in a judicial proceeding even if there is no intent to cause damage to another. Knowingly introducing
a falsified document in a judicial proceeding is sufficient to consummate the crime. The mere introduction of the forged document is a
crime in itself. Damage is not essential.
However, when the falsified document is knowingly introduced in an administrative proceeding, the use alone is not a crime, there must
be intent to cause damage or damage is actually inflicted. It must be proved.
2. Falsification of document is a separate and distinct offense from that of the use of falsified documents. If the falsification of the
document was done or performed because it was necessary to the use of the same and in the commission of the crime then there is a
complex crime punished under Article 48 of the RPC.
3. Good faith is a defense in falsification of public document.

4. There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is a private document.
5. An employee of a private company who punches the bundy clock on behalf of a co-employee is guilty also of falsification of a private
document.
6. The user of the falsified document is deemed the falsifier or author of the falsification if (a) the use was closely connected in time with
the falsification; or (b) the user has the capacity of falsifying the document.
Why is it important to determine the kind of document? Reasons:

1. To determine whether the crime of falsification is committed or not
2. To determine whether the falsification may be complexed with other crimes
3. Mere falsification of a public, official or commercial document constitutes a crime. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary
4. Mere falsification of a private document is not a crime because damage or at least intent to cause damage is an essential
element of the crime
Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph, and telephone messages, and use of said falsified messages. – The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any officer or employee of the Government
or of any private corporation or concern engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone
messages who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph, or telephone message of any system or falsifies the same.
Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the intent to cause such prejudice, shall suffer
the penalty next lower in degree.

1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee of the Government or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged
in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone messages
2. That the offender commits any of the following acts:
a. Uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message
b. Falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message
3. Using such falsified messages
Elements:
Page | 39
Criminal Law II
1. That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message was falsified by any of the persons specified in
the first paragraph of Article 173
2. That the accused used such falsified dispatch
3. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third party, or that the use thereof was with intent to cause
such prejudice
The offender must a public officer or employee who is engaged in the business of sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph, or
telephone messages. Their responsibility is to preserve at all times the truth and the reliability of the messages as received and as
transmitted.
Damage is an indispensible element or the intent to cause damage appears to have motivated the offender. (par.2)
The receipt and sending of messages by government employees or private individuals is endowed with some degree of public interest.
Messages can bring good or bad news. Unfortunately, information cannot always be good news but whether good or bad, the recipient
must be protected against false information.
Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service, etc. – The penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, shall issue a false certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstances.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes
mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
Certificate – any writing by which testimony is givent hat a fact has or has not taken place
Par. 1: False medical certificate by a physician

Par. 2: False certificate of merit or service by a public officer
Last paragraph: False medical certificate or false certificate of merit or service by a private individual
Article 175. Using false certificates. – The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any one who shall knowingly use any of
the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article.
Elements:
1. That a physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer had issued a false certificate of merit or
service, good conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had falsified any of said certificates
2. That the offender knew that the certificate was false
3. That he used the same
Articles 171 and 172 are of general application.
Article 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. – The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make or
introduce into the Philippines Islands any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements intended to be used in the
commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the preceding sections of this chapter.
Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or implements mentioned in the
preceding paragraph, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided therein.
Two acts punished:

1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification
2. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the
Philippines by another person
Article 176 also applies to constructive possession.
Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. – Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an
officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under
pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippines Government or
of any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods.
Two ways of committing the crime of usurpation:
Page | 40
Criminal Law II
1. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine Government or any foreign government
In usurpation of authority, the mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer is sufficient. There is no need for
him to perform acts pertaining to public officers.
2. By performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of a foreign
government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so
In usurpation of official function, it is essential that the offender shall perform acts pertaining to a person in public authority.
The element of false pretense is necessary to commit the crime of usurpation of authority or of official function. Any civic-minded citizen
who performs duties pertaining to public officers like conducting traffic or arresting criminal committing crime or collecting garbage does
not constitute the crime because of lack of false pretense.
One who knowing and falsely represents himself to be the duly elected mayor in town or to be the duly appointed municipal
judge are the offenders referred to in this article.
Article 177 also includes public officers of any foreign government. In 1932, when the RPC was made applicable, we were still
a colony of the US.
Article 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution
of a judgment, or causing damage.
Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed
200 pesos.
Two acts punished:

1. Using fictitious name
Elements:
1. That the offender uses a name other than his real name
2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly
3. That the purpose of the offender is:
a. To conceal a crime
b. To evade the execution of a judgment
c. To cause damage to public interest- if the damage is to private interest, the crime will be estafa under Art. 315
2. Concealing true name
Elements:
1. That the offender conceals:
a. His true name
b. All other personal circumstances
2. That the purpose is only to conceal his identity
The name of a person is what appears in his birth certificate. It refers to his first name, surname and maternal name. Any other name
which a person publicly applies to himself without authority of law is a fictitious name.
RA 142 as amended by RA 6085: Use of Aliases
Rationale: To curb the practice among the Chinese of adopting scores of different names and aliases which created tremendous
confusion in the field of trade
When is the use of alias allowed by law? The use of an alias is allowed as pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or
other entertainment purposes, and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice (Sec.1)
What is the rule with respect to the use of a person’s registered name? No person shall use any name different from the one with which
he was registered at birth (Sec.1)
Case: Cesario Ursua vs. CA April 10, 1996

An alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in
addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent
Page | 41
Criminal Law II
authority. A man's name is simply the sound or sounds by which he is commonly designated by his fellows and by which they
distinguish him but sometimes a man is known by several different names and these are known as aliases.
Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to another person in a single instance without any sign or indication
that the user intends to be known by this name in addition to his real name from that day forth does not fall within the prohibition
contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended.
Case: People vs. Joseph Estrada April 2, 2009

The repeated use of an alias within a single day cannot be deemed "habitual," as it does not amount to a customary practice or use. To
our mind, the presence of Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde and opened Trust Account No. C163 does not
necessarily indicate his intention to be publicly known henceforth as Jose Velarde.
Article 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. – The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly
and improperly make use of insignia, uniforms, or dress pertaining to an office not held by such person or to class of person of which he
is not a member.
Elements:
1. That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress
2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of persons of which he is not a
member
3. That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly
The uniform contemplated by law carries authority which the public looks up to and respects. Ex. Uniform of the Philippine army,
marines, air force, scout rangers
This article does not apply to uniforms of imaginary offices.
The wearing of insignia, badge or emblem of rank of the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or of the PNP is punished by
RA 493. When the uniform or insignia is used to emphasize the pageantry of a play or drama or in a moving picture film, the crime is
not committed.
The illegal manufacture, sale, distribution and use of PNP uniforms and insignias is punished under EO 297.
Article 180. False testimony against a defendant. – Any person who shall give false testimony against the defendant in any criminal
case shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal or perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been
acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos.
False testimony – a declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is contrary to what is true or to deny the same or
to alter essentially the truth.
False testimony is committed by a person who, being under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter at a hearing
before a competent authority, shall deny the truth or say something contrary to it.
What is the nature of the crime of false testimony?
1. False testimony cannot be committed through reckless imprudence because it requires criminal intent or intent to violate the
law (an essential element to the crime)
2. If the false testimony is due to an honest mistake or error or there was good faith in making false testimony then there is no
crime of false testimony. Good faith can be a matter of defense under this crime.
Why is false testimony a criminal act?

CA: Falsehood is ever reprehensible; but is particularly odious when committed in judicial proceedings, as it constitutes an imposition
upon the court and seriously exposes it to a miscarriage of justice. While false testimony in favor to an accused may be less obnoxious
than false testimony against him, both forms are equally repugnant to the orderly administration of justice and deserve to be rigorously
suppressed.
What are the forms of false testimony?

1. False testimony in criminal cases (Art. 180 and 181)
2. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182)
3. False testimony in other cases (Art. 183)
Page | 42
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That there be a criminal proceeding
2. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein
3. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false
4. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment
It does not matter whether the accused is convicted or acquitted, what is important is the giving of false testimony in court; and that the
judgment is final and executory. There should first be a judgment: conviction or acquittal.
It is emphasized that the situation contemplated under Art. 180 is the pendency of a criminal case. A false witness is presented by the
prosecution against the accused and after trial, the court renders a decision of conviction, and that the decision becomes final.
Thereafter, an investigation is conducted wherein it is disclosed that during trial a false witness was presented. The penalty imposed on
the false witness will depend on the penalty against the accused to whom he testified falsely.
In resolving the merits of the false testimony given by the accused, the witness who gave the false testimony is held liable even if his
testimony was not given any probative value by the court. What is made punishable is the mere giving of the false testimony.
Article 181. False testimony favorable to the defendant. – Any person who shall give false testimony in favor of the defendant in a
criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine
not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of arresto mayor in any
other case.
In this case, the testimony given is absolutely false and intended to favor the accused. The probative value of the testimonial evidence
is subject to the rules on evidence- it may or may not be considered by the trial judge. Whether the testimony is credible or not or
whether it is appreciated or not in the context the witness wanted it to be, the crime of false testimony is still committed since it is
punished not because of the effect it produces but because of its tendency to favor the accused.
Article 182. False testimony in civil cases. – Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil case shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos;
and the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000
pesos, if the amount in controversy shall not exceed said amount or cannot be estimated.
Elements:
1. That the testimony must be given in a civil case
2. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case
3. That the testimony must be false
4. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false
5. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in said case
The basis of the penalty is made to depend upon the amount of the civil action. The civil action contemplated is an ordinary civil action.
Ex. Recovery of a sum of money, specific performance
If the false testimony is given in a special proceeding (ex. naturalization proceedings), he will be punished under Art. 183.
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements
and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material
matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the
three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.
Two acts made punishable: (two ways of committing perjury)

1. By falsely testifying under oath – you testified in court in a special proceeding case
2. By making a false a affidavit
Elements of perjury:
1. The testimony was given in a non-judicial proceeding, or in the form of an affidavit
2. The narration given in the non-judicial testimony must be on a material matter
3. The testimony or affidavit must be under oath or administered by a person who is competent to do so
4. The false testimony or affidavit was willfully and deliberately made and not a product of oversight
5. The testimony or affidavit was given or presented because it was required by law or made for a legal purpose
1. That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter
Page | 43
Criminal Law II
2. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath
3. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood
4. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law (People vs. Bautista)
Material matter – the main fact which is the subject or object of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or any
fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry, or which legitimately
affects the credit of any witness who testifies
Oath – involves the idea of calling the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, to witness what is claimed to be true and is
accompanied by an invocation of his vengeance or a renunciation of his favor in the event of falsehood, it may also take the form of a
warning to the affiant that telling a lie is a felony or is a violation of law and that he has an obligation to tell the truth under pain of
retribution for testifying otherwise; any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully
Affidavit – a sworn statement in writing; a declaration in writing, made upon oath before an authorized magistrate or officer
Material – when it is directed to prove a fact in issue

Relevant – when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue
Pertinent – when it concerns collateral matters which make more or less probable the proposition at issue
False testimony Perjury

It is not required that the offender asserts a falsehood on a The witness must testify or assert a fact on a material matter with
material matter, it is enough hat he testifies falsely with deliberate full knowledge that the info given is essentially contrary to the
intent truth
The false affidavit or testimony is given in a judicial proceeding Given in a non-judicial proceeding
The statement or testimony need not be required by law The statement is required by law
The amount involved is material, especially in a civil case The amount involved is not material
It is always material in a criminal case It is immaterial whether the statement or testimony is favorable to
the accused or not
Because of the nature of perjury, which is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood, there is no perjury committed through
reckless imprudence or simple negligence under Art. 365. Perjury can only be committed by means of dolo. Good faith or lack of malice
is a good defense when one is indicted with the crime of perjury.
Things to remember:
1. Perjury is a crime other than false testimony in criminal cases or in civil cases
2. Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict the affiant for the crime of perjury. There must be evidence to
show which of the two statements is true and which is false. The same must be established or proved from sources other than
two contradictory statements.
3. There is no perjury if the accused signed and sworn a statement before a person not authorized to administer oath.
4. The affidavit or sworn statement must be required by law (ex. affidavit of adverse claim or affidavit of good moral character to
take the bar examination).
Case: Union Bank and Desi Tomas vs. People February 28. 2012
Desi filed two cases: one in Pasay City and one in Makati City. She was charged with perjury for making a false certificate against
forum shopping. Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was allegedly shown when she made the false declarations in
the Certificate against Forum Shopping before a notary public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material statements she
subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the proper court to try the
perjury case against Tomas.
The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant
subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the
crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the
testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor
civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the
oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases,
determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime committed.
Case: Philip Yu vs. Hernan Lim September 22, 2010

Since perjury requires a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in a statement under oath or in an affidavit, and the statement or
affidavit in question here is respondent’s verification and certification against forum shopping, it then becomes necessary to consider
the elements of forum shopping to determine whether or not respondent has committed perjury. In other words, since the act of
respondent allegedly constituting perjury consists in the statement under oath which he made in the certification of nonforum shopping,
the existence of perjury should be determined visàvis the elements of forum shopping.
Page | 44
Criminal Law II
A perusal of the two cases would show that while it involves the same res, it does not involve the same parties or rights or relief prayed
for. In sum, none of the requisites of forum shopping were satisfied. Clearly, it cannot be said that respondent committed perjury when
he failed to disclose in his Certification Against Forum Shopping the previous filing of the cadastral case.
More importantly, it must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation
administered by authority of law on a material matter. Thus, a mere assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The
assertion must be deliberate and willful.
Do we still have the crime of subornation of perjury?

Subornation of perjury is no longer considered as a specific felony with a separate article of its own. Nevertheless, it is a crime defined
and punished under the RPC. The crime committed by one who induces another to testify falsely and the person who agrees, in
conspiracy with the inducer, testifies falsely, is called perjury.
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. – Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in
any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this
Section.
Elements:
1. That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony
2. That he knew the witness or the testimony was false
3. That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding
Article 185. Machinations in public auctions. – Any person who shall solicit any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from
taking part in any public auction, and any person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts,
promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned.
Acts punished:
1. By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction
Elements:
1. That there be a public auction
2. That the accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders
3. That such gift or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that public auction
4. That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
The act of soliciting, asking or demanding is already the act made punishable. The crime is consummated by mere solicitation of gift or
promise as consideration for not bidding. The offender is the solicitor in this instance. If the person solicited agrees to the proposition,
he also incurs criminal liability as principal to the crime by direct participation.
2. By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice
Elements:
1. That there be a public auction
2. That the accused attempted to cause the bidder to stay away from the public auction
3. That it was done by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice
4. That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
In both cases, the intention of the offender is to lower or reduce the price of the thing subject of the public auction.
This crime is committed by sheriffs during the time of public bidding or sales.
Case: Ouano vs. CA 188 SCRA 799

There is a second bidding for the auctioned property. The first bidding was unsuccessful because of a protest by Ouano. Ouano and
Eschavez orally agreed that only Eschavez made a bid and then divide the property and induce the only other interested party to
ensure success.
Ouano and Echavez had promised to share in the property in question as a consideration for Ouano's refraining from taking part in the
public auction, and they had attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in causing another bidder to stay away from the auction in order
to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned In so doing, they committed the felony of machinations in public auctions
defined and penalized in Article 185 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or
Page | 45
Criminal Law II
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with any other person or
persons to monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of any
other article to restrain free competition in the market;
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any
merchandise or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine,
conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture, production, processing, assembling or
importation of such merchandise or object of commerce or with any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or
object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the
manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of commerce is used.
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the
penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial
steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and being the subject
thereof, shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the president and each one of its agents
or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association, who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to
prevent the commission of such offense, shall be held liable as principals thereof.
What are the acts punished?

1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market (par. 1)
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market (par. 2)
3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with any person to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of merchandise (par. 3)
Why is it punished?
What is being encouraged is competition. In a free society there must be free competition which is referred to as the law of the market.
The customers should be free to exercise their privilege to choose the goods available in the market.
Section 19, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution: No combinations and restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.
Art. 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals
or their alloys. – The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed on any
person who shall knowingly import or sell or dispose of any article or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals, or
their alloys, with stamps, brands, or marks which fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
Any stamp, brand, label, or mark shall be deemed to fail to indicate the actual fineness of the article on which it is engraved, printed,
stamped, labeled or attached, when the rest of the article shows that the quality or fineness thereof is less by more than one-half karat,
if made of gold, and less by more than four one-thousandth, if made of silver, than what is shown by said stamp, brand, label or mark.
But in case of watch cases and flatware made of gold, the actual fineness of such gold shall not be less by more than three one-
thousandth than the fineness indicated by said stamp, brand, label, or mark.
Elements:
1. That the offender imports, sells or disposes of any of those articles or merchandise
2. That the stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals
or alloys
3. That the offender knows that the stamps, brands, or marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the metals or alloys
Art. 188. Substituting and altering trademark, tradenames, or service marks. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period or a fine ranging from 50 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall substitute the trade name or trademark of some other manufacturer or dealer or a colorable imitation thereof,
for the trademark of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce and shall sell the same;
2. Any person who shall sell such articles of commerce or offer the same for sale, knowing that the trade name or trade-mark has been
fraudulently used in such goods as described in the preceding subdivision;
3. Any person who, in the sale or advertising of his services, shall use or substitute the service mark of some other person, or a
colorable imitation of such mark; or
4. Any person who, knowing the purpose for which the trade name, trade mark, or service mark of a person is to be used, prints,
lithographs, or in any way reproduces such trade name, trademark, or service mark, or a colorable imitation thereof, for another person,
to enable that other person to fraudulently use such tradename, trademark, or service mark on his own goods or in connection with the
sale or advertising of his services.
A tradename or trademark as herein used is a word or words, name, title, symbol, emblem, sign or device, or any combination thereof
used as an advertisement, sign, label, poster, or otherwise, for the purpose of enabling the public to distinguish the business of the
person who owns and uses said trade-name or trade-mark.
Page | 46
Criminal Law II
A service mark as herein used is a mark used in the sale or advertising of services to identify the services of one person and distinguish
them from the services of others and includes without limitation the marks, names, symbols, titles, designations, slogans, character
names, and distinctive features of radio or other advertising.
Art. 189. Unfair competition, fraudulent registration of trade name, trademark or service mark, fraudulent designation of origin,
and false description. – The penalty provided in the next proceeding article shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, in unfair competition and for the purposes of deceiving or defrauding another of his legitimate trade or the public in
general, shall sell his goods giving them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods
themselves, or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained or the device or words thereon or in any other features of
their appearance which would be likely to induce the public to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other
than the actual manufacturer or dealer or shall give other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose.
2. Any person who shall affix, apply, annex or use in connection with any goods or services or any container or containers for goods a
false designation of origin or any false description or representation and shall sell such goods or services.
3. Any person who by means of false or fraudulent representation or declarations orally or in writing or by other fraudulent means shall
procure from the patent office or from any other office which may hereafter be established by law for the purposes the registration of a
trade-name, trade-mark or service mark or of himself as the owner of such tradename, trademark or service mark or an entry
respecting a tradename, trademark or service mark.
Articles 188 and 189 of the RPC were repealed by RA 8293.
RA 8293: Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
Title V: Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs
Articles 190, 191, 192 and 193 were repealed by RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659.
RA 9165: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
There is no more distinction between an illegal and prohibited drug.
Most common prohibited acts filed in court:

1. Selling (Sec. 5)
2. Possession of dangerous drugs (Sec. 11)
3. Possession of drug paraphernalia (Sec. 12)
4. Possession of dangerous drugs during parties (Sec. 13) or pot sessions
5. Possession of drug paraphernalia during parties (Sec. 14)
6. Use of dangerous drugs (Sec. 15)
7. Cultivation or culture of plants (Sec. 16)
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment. In selling, there is a policeman who acts as the poseur-buyer. The confidential informant
introduces the poseur-buyer to the accused to buy drugs. The police will prepare buy-bust money- marked money with their initials.
Case: People vs. Manuelita Ampatuan July 30, 2014

The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs.
It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court as the identity of the
drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. The defense never raised as
defense any break in the chain of custody of the seized shabu and drug paraphernalia.
The absence of marked money does not run counter to the presented proof of illegal sale of shabu. Lack of marked money is not an
element to the crime of illegal sale of shabu. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation, although having evidentiary value, is
not vital to the prosecution of the case. It is merely corroborative in nature.
Case: People vs. Malakas December 8, 1993

This is one of those cases prosecuted under the Dangerous Drugs Act where a buybust operation leading to the arrest of the accused
does not withstand the requisite proof beyond reasonable doubt to put the accused justifiably behind bars.
If we were to believe the account of the prosecution, it would seem that there was no agreement whatsoever as to the sum of money to
be paid and the amount of prohibited drugs to be purchased. Indeed, the seller has first to be apprised of how much is being purchased
before he could deliver. The poseurbuyer could do this by expressly disclosing how much he is buying or by simply giving the marked
money for the seller to have a hint of how much worth the buyer is interested to acquire.
Case: People vs. Uson July 5, 1993

Page | 47
Criminal Law II
In the case at bar, Pat. Raul Casino's narration of the circumstances that led to the eventual entrapment of appellant is replete with
significant inconsistencies and improbabilities as to render his testimony unworthy of merit and credence. Moreover, there are portions
in his account in court of the whole incident which plainly collide with, and are contradictory of, is declarations in the sworn statement
which he executed shortly after the arrest of appellant.
Case: Al Ghoul vs. CA
Case: People vs. Willy Yang

As to the non-presentation of the buy bust money, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in
the buy-bust operation. The presentation is not an indispensable requirement to obtain conviction. It is sufficient to show that the illicit
transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence.
What is a decoy solicitation?

A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is called a decoy solicitation, is not
prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operation. (Case: People vs. Botanes June 17, 2008)
Can an accused invoke instigation as a defense? No.

It is an established rule that when an accused is charged for the sale of illicit drugs, the following defenses cannot be set up:
1. The facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way
2. The criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act
3. The policies authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission
Case: Norgie Cruz vs. People

Does the absence of a prior surveillance affect the validity of an entrapment operation? Surveillance may not be conducted.
Case: People vs. Ong February 6, 2008

What is an objective test in a buy-bust operation?
It has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buybust operation—from the initial
contact between the poseurbuyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to
purchase the drug, the payment of the buybust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts
to insure that lawabiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.
In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the buybust operation. The details of the
meeting with the informant, the alleged source of the information on the sale of illegal drugs, appear hazy.
Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Case: People vs. Pringas August 31, 2007)
1. The accused must be in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed said drug
What is the chain of custody rule? (Case: People vs. Habana, People vs. Gadianan)
In a nutshell, the chain of custody refers to the movement of the evidence from the time it is recovered from the crime scene up to the
time it is offered in evidence in court. The primordial purpose is to see to it that the evidence has not been substituted or altered up to
the time it is presented in court.
Technically, it refers to the chronological documentation of the movement of the drug.
Sec. 21 – basis of the chain of custody rule
Case: People vs. Balibay September 10, 2014

The purpose of the law in requiring the prosecution to present the testimony of the police officers who handled the substance in court is
to ascertain that the integrity and identity of the substance is preserved, that the police officers and laboratory technician who handled
the seized substance undertook precautionary measures to preserve the identity and integrity of the substance.
Trends and issues:

There is no textbook method in conducting a buy-bust. The court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of
effective means to apprehend drug dealers.
Prior surveillance of a test buy is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation.
Credence is usually given to prosecutions’ witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Note: Presumption of regularity in the performance of functions (rebuttable through presentation of evil motive)
The presentation of the marked money or buy-bust money is not indispensable but only corroborative evidence. The failure of
the PDEA to record the marked or boodle money is not made up.
Page | 48
Criminal Law II
Case: People vs. Clemente June 27, 2008
The failure to present the asset does not prejudice the case of the state for as long as the elements of the sale is proven. The
simultaneous exchange of the money and the drug is not necessary.
Case: People vs. Figueroa April 11, 2012
Case: People vs. Andaya as distinguished from People vs. Marcelo

Andaya: Non-presentation of the arresting lawmen must be credibly explained. Non-presentation of the CI as poseur-buyer is fatal.
Marcelo: Even if the asset is not presented, it is not fatal to the prosecution if the relevant information acquired by the poseur-buyer was
equally known to the police officers who gave evidence at the trial. They were all direct witnesses to the actual sale.
Sec. 21 – The role of the media is necessary

After the buy-bust operation has been conducted, media is required. In raids by virtue of a search warrant, the media must be present
during the conduct of the inventory.
Why do we need the media to be present? To prevent planting of evidence and preserve the sanctity of the evidence, to strengthen
public awareness and promote the fight against illegal drugs
Case: PDEA vs. Brodett and Jorge Joseph

Applicability of Article 45 of the RPC and Sec. 20 of R.A. 9165- cannot release confiscated objects belonging to third persons pending
trial and before judgment
Case: Pimentel vs. COMELEC, SJS vs. DDB and PDEA, Lacerna vs. DDB and PDEA November 3, 2008
The constitutionality of Section 36 regarding mandatory drug testing is put to question.
Students of secondary and tertiary levels- upheld because of parens patriae
Officers and employees of public offices- valid
Persons charged with criminal offenses higher than 6 years- unconstitutional because it is not random
Candidates for public office, appointed or elected- unconstitutional because qualifications are provided under the Constitution
Case: Jaime dela Cruz vs. People July 23, 2014

Are people charged for violation of RA 9165 allowed to undergo a mandatory drug test? And if so, is it admissible against them?
We declare that the drug testconducted upon petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under
Article II of R.A. 9165. To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II
is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. Note thataccused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion. The RTC
and the CA, therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely a
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation."
The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
Sec. 26 – there is a crime of conspiracy under RA 9165
Case: Posiquit vs. People January 16, 2012

Can there be conspiracy in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs?
While it is true that there is no conspiracy to commit the crime of possession because it is not defined in the law, but conspiracy may be
present in the commission of possession as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Case: Raul David vs. People October 17, 2011
Case: People vs. Spouses Posada March 12, 2012

The Supreme Court in People v. Sanchez, clearly discussed how chain of custody should be proven, to wit:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
Possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof. Possession is a necessary element in a prosecution for
illegal sale of prohibited drugs. It is indispensable that the prohibited drug subject of the sale be identified and presented in court. That
the corpus delicti of illegal sale could not be established without a showing that the accused possessed, sold and delivered a prohibited
drug clearly indicates that possession is an element of the former. The same rule is applicable in cases of delivery of prohibited drugs
and giving them away to another.
Page | 49
Criminal Law II
Other salient points:
There is no such thing as a plea bargaining agreement in RA 9165
Non-applicability of the probation law for drug traffickers and pushers (Sec. 24)
RA 9165 has been amended by RA 10640. The amendment is for Section 21 only.
RA 9165 RA 10640
3 witnesses are required: Media, DOJ and elected public official 2 witness: Elected public official, DOJ or media
- because of the difficulty on the part of the policemen to gather
people who must witness the conduct of the inventory
Silent When the confiscation is by virtue of a search warrant, the
conduct of the inventory and photograph should be made at the
place where the search warrant was served.
In a warrantless arrest, the conduct of the inventory must be made
at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the
apprehending team, whichever is applicable
Silent, no provision Non-compliance under justifiable grounds shall not render void or
invalid such seizures and custody of said items
The chemistry report should be issued within 24 hours. Certification of the forensic laboratory examination results shall be
- the chemistry report is prepared by the crime laboratory and issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject items
states whether or not the confiscated items are drugs
Title VI: Crimes against Public Morals
Articles 195 to 199 have been repealed and modified by PD 449, PD 483, and PD 1602 as amended by LOI 816.
When one is prosecuted for the crime of illegal gambling, the law that is used is PD 1602.
Gambling – a game or device or method the result of which depends solely or chiefly upon chance or hazard. It is any game or
scheme, whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles or value or representative of value are at stake or
made. The definition of gambling refers to games that have no name or although having a name, the same is unknown to the
authorities.
The manner of determining whether the game played is prohibited or not is whether the result will depend only or chiefly upon chance
or hazard. Significantly, if the game has been indentified and declared as a form of gambling by express provision of the law, there will
be no need or requirement to go into the methods upon how the game is being played.
The purpose of the law is to repress an evil that undermines the social, economic and moral growth of the nation. That is why the
aversion of the state against gambling is not only found in the RPC but it is also made punishable by special laws. To make it more
difficult for gamblers to continue their trade, the Civil Code provides that no action can be maintained by the winner for the collection of
what he has won in a game of chance.
A mere bystander or spectator is not criminally liable because he does not take part therein, directly or indirectly
Lottery – a scheme for distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for
the chance to obtain a prize
PD 1602: Prescribing Stiffer Penalties on Illegal Gambling
What are the acts made punishable?

1. Directly or indirectly taking part in gambling
2. Knowingly permitting gambling to take place in an inhabited or uninhabited place
3. Acting as maintainer, conductor or banker in any game of jueteng and other similar games
4. Knowingly and illegally possessing lottery lists, paper or other matter pertaining to the game of jueteng or other similar games
Section 1 (e) – a barangay captain or official will be liable if they fail to take action on a gambling house in their jurisdiction
New law: RA 9287 amending PD 1602
Article 197 has been repealed by PD 483.
Page | 50
Criminal Law II
PD 483: Penalizing Betting, Game-Fixing or Point-shaving and Machinations in Sport Contests
Section 2 – this is in connection with the games of basketball, volleyball, softball, baseball, chess, boxing bouts, etc.
Article 199 has been repealed by PD 449.
PD 449: Cockfighting Law of 1974
Article 200. Grave scandal. – The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall offend
against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.
The crime of grave scandal is a crime against public morals. Necessarily, the offender must commit the crime in a public place or within
the view of the public. Besides being contrary to morals and good customs, the act must be committed within the view of the public as
the publicity of the act is an element of the crime. Such character of the act scandalizes the moral sensibilities of the person present
and witnessing the incident.
Grave scandal – consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs which, having been committed publicly, have given
rise to public scandal to person who have accidentally witnessed the same
Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act or acts
2. That such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs
3. That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of this Code
4. That the act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view
Decency – means propriety of conduct, appropriate behavior as it is consistent with the accepted norms of modesty and good taste
Customs – means the accepted or established usages, social standard or convention of behavior carried on by tradition whose validity
and continued observance is enforced by social disapproval of any breach thereof
The scandalous acts must be performed in public. If the act is performed inside a house and someone sees it, the crime of grave
scandal is not committed.
Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may bring about criminal liability for the crime of grave scandal provided such act
does not constitute such other crime that is provided for under the RPC. The crime of grave scandal is to be considered as a crime of
last resort just like the crime of unjust vexation or impossible crimes.
Distinction should be made as to the place where the act is committed: whether it is in a (1) public place or a (2) private place.
If it is in a public place, criminal liability arises irrespective of whether the criminal act is open to the public view. Simply said, public view
is not required. The crime is committed even if people did not see you.
If it is in a private place, public view or public knowledge is required.
Public view does not require numerous persons. Even if there was only one person who witnessed the offensive act for as long as the
third person was not an intruder, grave scandal is committed.
If the act of the offender is punished under another article of the RPC, Article 200 will not be applicable
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. – The penalty of prision mayor or a
fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
2. a. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing such literature; and the
owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
b. Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographers, or any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or
shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in
film, which are proscribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no
other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race, or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic
in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful
orders, decrees and edicts; and
3. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature which are offensive to morals.
Obscene – something offensive to chastity, decency, delicacy or good taste; it must have tendency the to corrupt and influence those
whose minds are open to moral influences
Page | 51
Criminal Law II
The test of obscenity or the Kottinger rule – the rule used in determining whether or not the thing or material charged as obscene
has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of those open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands the material may
come; and whether or not such publication or act shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency
The owner of a theater exhibiting pornographic films is liable for indecent exhibition.
A dancer dancing naked in a club in front of customers is liable for indecent show.
The owner, author and the editor of a magazine publishing nude men and women and stories of sexual desires and
experiences are liable for obscene publications.
Erotic stories published with one’s consent may be punishable.
Espousing beliefs of wife-swapping which is contrary to public morals is punished.
Case: People vs. Aparici

Nudity itself is not inherently obscene or indecent. Mere nudity in paintings and sculpture is not obscenity as they may be considered
pieces of art; but the artistic, the aesthetic and the pulchritude of the nude body of a living woman may readily be transformed into an
indecent and obscene object by posture and movements of such body which produce perceptible and discernible reaction of the public
or the audience witnessing the same. The object of the law is to protect the morals of the public. The reaction of the public during the
performance of the dance should be made the gauge in the determination of whether a dance is indecent of immoral. This is called as
the reaction test; testing the reaction of the public. The SC in this case did not use the obscenity test or the Kottinger rule.
Moral – implies conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or character, sometimes,
specifically, to sexual conduct
There must be publicity. It means that the acts done must come to the knowledge of third persons.
The object of the law is to protect the morals of the public.
Mere nudity in pictures or painting is not obscenity

Mere possession of obscene materials in not punishable
Case: Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC
RA 9775: Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
Child pornography – refers to any public or private representation by whatever means of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit
sexual activities, or any representation of the sexual parts of the child for primarily sexual purposes
Child pornography material – refers to the means and methods by which child pornography is carried out. It may be by visual or
simulated depiction (digital image, computer image, computer-generated image indistinguishable from that of real children engaged in
explicit sexual activities) and real or actual.
RA 9995: Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
Article 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; Penalty. – The following are vagrants:
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to apply himself
or herself to some lawful calling;
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places, or tramping or wandering about the country or the
streets without visible means of support;
3. Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians or pimps or those who habitually associate with
prostitutes;
4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or
uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
5. Prostitutes.
For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be prostitutes.
Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging
from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
From the definition of prostitution, there can be no male prostitutes since the law only talks about women.
Case: People vs. Evangeline Siton

The following are vagrants: (2) Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places, or tramping or wandering
about the country or the streets without visible means of support.
As of the moment, there is no more crime of vagrancy. It has been decriminalized by RA 10158.
Page | 52
Criminal Law II
What is the effect on the pending cases? They were all dismissed because the law expressly says so under Section 2, even if the case
arose prior the enactment of the law. Retroactive effect was applied because it is favorable to the accused.
RA 9208: Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
There is no crime of conspiracy to commit trafficking persons. It is not provided for under the law.
Title VII: Crimes Committed by Public Officers
Article 203. Who are public officers. – For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any
person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties
as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
In defining the term public officers, the law makes reference to the manner by which he is appointed to public office: because of his
appointment by competent authority or because he is elected into public office. There are certain duties that he has to perform which
are inherent to or by reason of his appointment or election; these duties are considered as duties by direct provision of the law. It must
also be known when a person is a person in authority or when he is an agent of a person in authority.
Person in authority – any person directly vested with jurisdiction whether as an individual or as a member of some court,
governmental board or commission
Agent of person in authority – a person who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property; any person who comes in the aid of
persons in authority
Malfeasance – evil doing or wrong doing or misconduct; the evil performance of the public duty by public officers; the performance of
some an act which ought not to be done
Misfeasance – the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner; the improper performance of an act which may lawfully be done
Nonfeasance – the omission of some act which ought to be performed
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. – Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case
submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Knowingly rendering unjust judgment is also known as prevaricacion.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is unjust
4. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust
Judgment – the final consideration and determination of the issues presented before the court of competent jurisdiction; in a criminal
proceeding, it is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged
Unjust judgment – that which is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence, or both
“Knowingly” – means consciously, intelligently, willfully, intentionally, deliberately and maliciously
The law requires that the judgment must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by
him. It must contain a clear and distinct statement of facts proved or admitted by the defendant upon which the judgment is based.
There is no such thing as oral judgment.
To be liable for the crime, not only must the judgment be proved to be unjust, it must likewise have to be established to have been
knowing rendered. There must be a conscious and deliberate intent to an injustice. This usually occurs when a judge entertains hatred,
envy, revenge, or greed against one of the parties.
A judge in deciding a case is empowered to weigh the evidence and the law. If he acts in good faith, any mistake on the judgment will
not operate or will not work against him. There is no evident bad faith on his part. Even if his conclusion of law is different from what an
ordinary judge will do but there is no showing of evident bad faith, then there is no liability under Article 204.
An unjust judgment may result from (a) error, (b) ill-will or revenge, or (c) bribery.
Page | 53
Criminal Law II
There must be evidence that the decision rendered is unjust. There is no presumption that the judgment is unjust, there must be strong
evidence to support it. Judges, in rendering decisions, exercise wide latitude of discretion. Abuse of discretion or mere error of
judgment cannot likewise serve as basis for rendering an unjust judgment in the absence of proof.
Bad faith is the ground of liability

Judgment must be contrary to law and not supported by the evidence
There must be evidence that the judge knew that the judgment is unjust
Does not apply to members of a collegiate court
Case: Valdez vs. Valera 81 S 246

Judges cannot be subjected to civil liability, criminal or administrative for any of their official acts no matter how erroneous for as long as
they act in good faith. It is only when they act fraudulently or corruptly or with gross ignorance of the law that they may be held
criminally liable or administratively liable.
Case: Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion 235 S 597

To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties
must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption. In the case before us, the administrative complaint does not even allege that the erroneous decision of respondent was thus
motivated.
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is both a criminal and an administrative charge. The gist of the offense therefore is that an
unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be unjust.
An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, or both. The source of an unjust judgment may
be error or ill-will. There is no liability at all for a mere error. It is well settled that a judicial officer, when required to exercise his
judgment or discretion, is not liable criminally for any error which he commits, provided he acts in good faith. Bad faith is therefore the
ground of liability. If in rendering judgment the judge fully knew that the same was unjust in the sense aforesaid, then he acted
maliciously and must have been actuated and prevailed upon by hatred, envy, revenge, greed, or some other similar motive. As
interpreted by Spanish courts, the term "knowingly" means sure knowledge, conscious and deliberate intention to do an injustice. Mere
error therefore in the interpretation or application of the law does not constitute the crime.
The nature of the administrative charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is the same as the criminal charge. Thus, in this
particular administrative charge, it must be established that respondent Judge rendered a judgment or decision not supported by law
and/or evidence and that he must be actuated by hatred, envy, revenge, greed, or some other similar motive. In the case at bench, the
motive of respondent Judge is not even alleged.
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. – Any judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall
render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by arresto mayor and temporary
special disqualification.
Elements:
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust
4. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance
“Manifestly unjust judgment” – it is so manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt
the injustice
The unjust judgment is merely the result of inexcusable negligence or ignorance of the law. The ignorance may refer to substantive or
procedural law. There must be an apparent and notorious manifestation of lack of logic and false interpretation of the law.
Case: Cortes vs. Catral 279 S 1
In sum, we find respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused without
having conducted the requisite hearing. It is indeed suprising, not to say, alarming, that the Court should be besieged with a number of
administrative cases filed against erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no dearth of jurisprudence on the basic principles
involving bail.
Case: Layola vs. Judge Gabo January 26, 2000

With respect to the alleged rendering of an unjust interlocutory order, in connection with the denial by respondent judge of the motion
for reconsideration of the order granting the petition of the Chief of Police, Sta. Maria Station to take custody of accused SPO2 German,
the OCA found such a charge to be unfounded. The OCA perceived no evidence that the respondent judge issued the questioned order
knowing it to be unjust; and neither is there any proof of conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
As to the propriety of the act of respondent judge in releasing accused SPO2 German to the custody of the immediate superior instead
of ordering the arrest of said accused, the OCA found respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law for failing to conduct a
Page | 54
Criminal Law II
summary proceeding to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against subject accused was strong, considering that the charge
of murder is a non-bailable offense.
It is a settled doctrine that for a judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be established beyond cavil
that the judgment adverted to is unjust, contrary to law or unsupported by the evidence, and that the same was rendered with conscious
and deliberate intent to do an injustice. In other words, the quantum of proof required to hold respondent judge guilty for alleged
violations of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code, is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, i.e., that the Court may impose its authority upon erring judges whose actuations, on their face,
would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law, or misconduct, is obviously applicable in the instant case.
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order. – Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.
Elements:
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree
b. Renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance
Interlocutory order – an order that is issued while the case is pending final determination; an order which is issued by the court
between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final
decision of the matter in issue.
Ex. An order granting preliminary investigation or an order appointing a receiver
An interlocutory order refers to issues that have to be resolved before a judgment is rendered. It leaves something to be done by the
trial court with respect to the merit of the case. It is a ruling on some collateral matter in a case pending trial; it does not dispose the
case on the merits.
Article 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Elements:
2. That there is a proceeding in his court
3. That he delays the administration of justice
4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in
the case
Mere delay without malice in holding trials or rendering the judgment will not make the judge criminally liable.
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and
suspension shall be imposed upon any public officers or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously
refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
Two ways of committing:

1. By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law
2. By maliciously tolerating the commission of the offense
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses:

1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses
2. That there is dereliction of the duties of his office; that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he does not cause the
prosecution of the criminal or knowing that a crime is about to be committed, he tolerates its commission
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law
This article deals on the prosecutors. It also refers to public officers of the prosecution department whose duty is to institute criminal
action for offenses made known to them or committed in their presence. These offenders include prosecutors, members of the PNP and
NBI and the barangay captains.
The offender did not file a case despite the clear evidence that there is a prima facie case against the person.
Can we compel prosecutors to file an information? No, they are under no compulsion where they are not convinced that the evidence
would warrant the filing of an action in court. Fiscals enjoy wide altitude of discretion to avoid the courts from being flooded with cases
of doubtful merit.
Page | 55
Criminal Law II
In distant provinces, the local chief of police is the prosecuting officer. Barangay captains are supposed to prosecute violators of the law
within their jurisdiction. If they do not do so, they might be prosecuted for this crime.
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – Revelation of secrets. – In addition to the proper administrative action, the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
attorney-at-law or solicitor who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice
his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having
received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without
the consent of his first client.

1. By causing damage to his client, either (1) by any malicious breach of professional duty, (2) by inexcusable negligence or
ignorance
2. By revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity
3. By undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client, after having
undertaken the defense of said first client or after having received confidential information from said client
The relation between the lawyer and his client is one of confidence. The client is free to tell the lawyer all about himself which may
include the commission of a crime, vice or defect without fear that such disclosure could later be used against him. The communication
given by a client to his lawyer is a privileged communication. It is impressed with public interest and to preserve the sanctity of the
institution, a lawyer is held criminally liable for violation of such confidence.
A lawyer to whom a case is referred by a client for legal action is forbidden and precluded from handling the defense of the adverse
party even in the situation where the lawyer has resigned as counsel of the client in the case. To give further effect and to preserve the
confidentiality of the information given, a lawyer is made criminally liable not only for revealing the secret of his client but also in
handling the case of the opposing party.
Under the Rules on Evidence:

Communications made by a client to his lawyer is covered by the protective mantle of privileged communication. The lawyer and his
secretary cannot be examined on the matter. This applies even if after consultation with his would-be lawyer, the client and the lawyer
did not eventually have a lawyer-client relationship. If the lawyer reveals such communication, he violates the nature of the confidential
information that he obtained in his professional capacity. However, mere revelation of the secrets of a client does not necessarily
amount to a crime. There must be malicious breach of professional duty on the part of the lawyer.
A lawyer who has already accepted to handle the cause of a client cannot later on switch sides and undertake the defense of the
opposing party in the same case. The motivating rationale is that having undertaken the defense of a party, he has already received
confidential matters or information from his client relative to the case. The only way he can handle the case of the adverse party is if he
does it with the consent of his first client. The requirement is that there must be a written consent from the client.
The communication between a lawyer and a client about a client’s future criminal acts are not privileged.
Article 210. Direct bribery. – Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present received by such officer, personally or through
the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not less than three
times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer
executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph and if said act shall not have been
accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value
of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his
official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and
a fine of not less than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary
disqualification.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim
commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties.
Three forms of bribery:

1. Direct bribery (Art. 210)
2. Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
3. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A)
Page | 56
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Article 203
2. That the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another
3. That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer
a. With a view to committing some crime
b. In consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust
c. To refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do
4. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official
duties.
The crime of bribery refers to the act of the receiver, the public officer. The act of the giver of the bribed money is corruption of a public
official under Article 212.
Direct bribery covers: (a) those which amount to a crime; (b) those which do not amount to a crime; and (c) the omission to perform an
act incumbent upon a public officer.
Direct bribery is still committed even if the public officer does not perform the act. What the law requires is that the public officer agrees
to perform an act. The mere agreement is already enough to consummate the crime of direct bribery.

1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present – an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duties
Consider whether the official act which the public officer agreed to do is a crime or not:
If it will amount to a crime, it is not necessary that the corruptor should deliver the consideration for the doing of the act. The moment
there is a meeting of the minds even without the delivery of the consideration or even without the public officer performing the act
amounting to a crime, direct bribery is already committed on the part of the public officer, and corruption is already committed on the
part of the supposed giver. The agreement is a conspiracy involving the duty of a public officer. The mere agreement is a felony
already.
If the public officer commits the acts which constitute the crime, he, as well as the corruptor, will also be liable for that other crime in
addition to the crime of direct bribery and corruption of public officials.
Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted and consummated stages. Direct bribery is possible only if the corruptor concurs
with the offender; once there is concurrence the direct bribery is already consummated. In short, the offender could not have performed
all the acts of execution to produce the felony without consummating the same.
There is no frustrated corruption and frustrated bribery. These crimes involve concurrence of the will of the corruptor and the public
officer. Once their wills concurred, the crime is immediately consummated. If the public officer refuses to be corrupted, the crime is
merely attempted corruption of public officer.
If the public official accepted the corrupt consideration and turned it over to his superior as evidence of the corruption, the
offense is attempted corruption only and not frustrated. The official did not agree to be corrupted.
If the public officer did not report the same to his superior and actually accepted it, he allowed himself to be corrupted. The
corruptor becomes liable for consummated corruption of public official under Article 212; and the public officer becomes liable
for consummated crime of bribery under Article 210
If the public official demanded something from a taxpayer who pretended to agree and used marked money with the
knowledge of the police, the crime of the public official is attempted bribery since the giver had no intention to corrupt him and
he could not perform all the acts of execution.
If there is double-crossing, direct bribery is still committed in its consummated stage since both agreed.
Note: Be sure that what is involved is bribery and not extortion. If it were extortion, the crime is robbery under Article 294. The one who
yielded to the demand does not commit corruption because it was involuntary.
The phrase “any public officer who shall agree to perform an act” does not imply that it is only the public employee who should agree. It
applies even if it is the employee who proposes it.
There cannot be a receiver unless there is one willing to give; and vice versa.
Can a private individual be held liable under Article 201? Generally no, unless the person is one of those mentioned in the last
paragraph: assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties.
Page | 57
Criminal Law II
2. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duty
The public officer agrees to do something which does not constitute a crime. A gift is accepted.
3. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of gift or
promise
Article 211. Indirect bribery. – The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, suspension and public
censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
Elements:
2. That he accepts gifts
3. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office
In indirect bribery, there is no promise or agreement to do something or refrain from doing something. You were given a gift because of
your position as a public official. If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason of his public position, the crime is
considered as indirect bribery.
The public officer receives or accepts gifts or money or anything of value by reason of his office. If there is only a promise of a gift or
money, no crime is committed because of the language of the law which uses the phrase “shall accept gifts”. The gift is given in
anticipation of future favor from the public officer.
The public official does not undertake to perform an act or abstain from doing an official duty from what he received. Instead, he simply
receives or accepts gifts or presents for no other reason except his office or public position. There is no attempted and frustrated stage
in indirect bribery; it is always in the consummated stage.
There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider the property as his own for that
moment. Mere physical receipt and accompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to
convict the officer. Appropriating the gift for yourself or putting it in your bag is already considered as acceptance. There is an act that
he accepted such gift to be liable for indirect bribery.
Rule: The public officer must have performed an act of appropriating the gift for himself, his family or employee. It is the act of
appropriating that signifies acceptance. Merely delivering the gift to the public officer does not bring about the crime.
What may begin as an indirect bribery may ripen to direct bribery.
Direct bribery Indirect bribery

The public officer must do something in consideration of the gift; There is no such requirement; he simply accepts a gift or present
the public officer is called upon to perform or refrain to perform an given to him by reason of his office
official act in exchange of the gift, present or consideration given
to him
The mere agreement on the part of the public officer already The public officer must accept the gift to consummate the crime
consummates the crime if the act agreed upon amounts to a crime
The gift is given for or in consideration of his office The gift is given by reason of his office; he does not perform any
official act
.It may be committed in the attempted or consummated stage It may only be committed in the consummated stage
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery. – If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting
an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement
2. That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/or death
3. That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift or present
Article 212. Corruption of public officials. – The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification
and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as
described in the preceding articles.
Page | 58
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer.
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under circumstances that will make the
public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery
It is the giver who is punished under this article. The receiver is liable for bribery.
Generally, under Article 17 of the RPC, one who induces another to commit a felony is liable as principal by inducement and the one
induced and who will implement that act is criminally liable as principal by direct participation. This principle is not applicable when there
is a specific provision of law that punishes a specific act. The general rule is only applied when there is absence of a specific codal
provision to deal with the particular situation.
PD 46: Prohibits the giving and acceptance of gifts to a public officer even during an anniversary or when there is an occasion like
Christmas, New Year or any gift-giving anniversary.
It punishes both the receiver and the giver. It does not matter if it is for past or future favors.
The giving of parties by reason of the promotion of a public official is considered a crime even though it may call for a
celebration.
The giving of a party is not limited to the public officer only but also to any member of his family.
PD 749: Grants immunity from prosecution to a private person or a public officer who shall voluntarily give information or testify in a
case of bribery or a case involving a violation of RA 3019.
It provides immunity to the bribed giver provided that: (a) he voluntarily discloses the transaction he had with the public officer
constituting direct or indirect bribery or any other corrupt transaction; and (b) he must willingly testify against the public officer involved
in the case to be filed against the said public officer.
Before the bribed giver may be dropped from the information, he must be charged first with the receiver. Before trial, the prosecutor
may move for the dropping of the bribed giver from the information and be granted state immunity, complying with certain provisions.
RA 7080: The Crime of Plunder
Plunder is the crime defined and penalized under RA 7080 which became effective in 1991. This crime modified certain crimes in the
RPC insofar as the over acts by which a public officer amasses, acquires or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are felonies under the RPC
like bribery brought against the public treasury, other frauds, malversation, when the ill-gotten wealth amounts to a total value of 50
million pesos (as amended by RA 7659). Note: The amount used to be 75 million pesos.
When do we say that a property is illegally acquired asset? When the property is extremely disproportionate to your income
Extraterritoriality principle of criminal law applies to the crime of plunder
Short of the amount, plunder does not arise. Any amount less than 50 million is a violation of the RPC or under RA 3019
Is the crime of plunder mala in se or mala prohibita? It is mala in se which requires proof of criminal intent. It is a special law
but it is considered as an amendment of the RPC
The act of forfeiture on the part of the State does not prescribe, what prescribes is on the criminal aspect which prescribes in 20 years
(Sec. 6). Forfeiture in a criminal case is considered in persona. Similar to a money judgment, it runs against a defendant until it is fully
satisfied. The criminal forfeiture is considered part of the criminal proceeding against the public officer rather than a separate
proceeding against the property itself. The scope of criminal forfeiture by the government includes any property, real or personal,
involved in a crime or traceable to the property. The term “involved in” has consistently been interpreted broadly by the courts to include
any property involved in, used to commit, or used to facilitate the crime.
Not only does the plunder law authorize the forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth but also any assets acquired through the use of the ill-
gotten wealth even if they are in the possession of other persons. It can be recovered by the state
Case: Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan November 19, 2001

RA 7080 is mala in se precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se. The element of mens rea or criminal intent must be
proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is no forfeit that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed
willfully, unlawfully and criminally. It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of the petitioner.
The application of mitigating and extenuating/aggravating circumstances in the RPC to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder Law
indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his
criminal intent.
Note: The phrase “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously” in an information is used or limited for crimes under the RPC and not when one is
charged under a special law.
Page | 59
Criminal Law II
Case: Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan February 26, 2002
It matters little that subparagraph (a) did not utilize the exact words "combination" or "series" as they appear in R.A. No. 7080. For in
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we held that where these two terms are to be taken in their popular, not technical, meaning, the word
"series" is synonymous with the clause "on several instances." "Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the
items in Section 1 (d) of the law. The word "combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two different predicate acts in
any of said items. Plainly, subparagraph (a) of the Amended Information charges petitioner with plunder committed by a series of the
same predicate act under Section 1 (d) (2) of the law.
Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and economic treason, punishes the use of high office for
personal enrichment, committed thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period of time, that
may involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or omissions sought
to be penalized do not involve simple cases of malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of
an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy. The abovedescribed crime does not yet exist in Philippine statute
books. Thus, the need to come up with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible recurrence of the depravities of the previous
regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to succumb to the corrupting influence of power.
There is no denying the fact that the "plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy" is made up of a
complex and manifold network of crimes. In the crime of plunder, therefore, different parties may be united by a common purpose. In
the case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts have a commonality—to help the former President amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Subparagraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the different participation of each
accused in the conspiracy. The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to receive protection
money from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and
SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself from
commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in
the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.
Case: Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan January 28, 2003
Case: Wellex Group Inc. vs. Sandiganbayan June 25, 2012

There is no dispute that the subject shares of stock were mortgaged by petitioner Wellex as security for its loan. These shares being
the subject of a contract that was accessory to the Wellex loan and being an asset of the forfeited IMA Trust Account, the said shares
necessarily follow the fate of the trust account and are forfeited as well.
Section 2 of R.A. 7080 mandates the court to forfeit not only the ill-gotten wealth, interests earned, and other incomes and assets, but
also the properties and shares of stock derived from the deposit or investment. The Sandiganbayan Decision imposed the penalty of
forfeiture when it convicted the former President Estrada of the crime of plunder. It is beyond cavil that it found the subject IMA Trust
Account traceable to the accounts declared to be ill-gotten by the former President. Thus, to rigidly construe the mandate of Section 2
of R.A. 7080, as petitioner would want us to do, is to render the Plunder Law inutile.
Not only does the Plunder Law authorize the forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth as well as any asset acquired with the use of the ill-gotten
wealth, Section 6 likewise authorizes the forfeiture of these ill-gotten wealth and any assets acquired therefrom even if they are in the
possession of other persons.
RA 3019: The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
The Anti-Graft Law was enacted under the police power of the State to promote morality in the public service.
The law punishes not only public officer who shall commit the prohibited acts enumerated under Section 3 but also those who induce or
cause the public officer to commit those offenses.
Section 8. Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to unexplained wealth. — If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act
Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether
in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his
other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such
public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank
deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents
including but not limited to activities in any club or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of a
non-official character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of proportion to legitimate income, shall
likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The
circumstances hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid ground for the administrative suspension of the public official concerned for
an indefinite period until the investigation wealth is completed. (As amended by BP Blg. 195, March 16, 1982)
Case: Santillano vs. People March 3, 2010

Clearly, the law punishes not only public officers who commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those who induce or
cause the public official to commit those offenses. This is supported by Sec. 9, which includes private persons as liable for violations
under Secs. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Santillano’s argument echoes the issue raised in Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, where the appellant was also a private person.
Affirming his conviction, we held that appellant’s assertion was at odds with the policy and spirit behind RA 3019, which was "to repress
Page | 60
Criminal Law II
certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto." Go went
on to explain: The fact that one of the elements of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 is "that the accused is a public officer" does not necessarily
preclude its application to private persons who, like petitioner Go, are being charged with conspiring with public officers in the
commission of the offense thereunder.
Go, citing Luciano v. Estrella, Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, and Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, laid to rest the debate on a private
person’s culpability in cases involving RA 3019 by unequivocally stating that private persons found acting in conspiracy with public
officers may be held liable for the applicable offenses found in Sec. 3 of the law.
Santillano argues too that there was no evidence that he conspired with his co-accused. He cites as basis the Sandiganbayan’s
statement that there was no proof of actual agreement among the accused to commit violations of RA 3019. Proof of conspiracy need
not be direct or actual. Indeed, prosecutors would be hard-pressed to secure a conviction for those charged under RA 3019 if direct
evidence were required to be established.
Case: Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan 128 S 383

If a person is charged under RA 3019, he will be suspended preventively. Preventive suspension is resorted to in order to prevent the
accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office. The
presumption is that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or both.
We find no merit in petitioner’s contention that Section 13 of Republic Act 3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which
includes the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as among the crimes subjecting the public officer charged therewith
with suspension from office pending action in court, is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the
enactment of ex post facto law. Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that suspension from the
employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. It is not a penalty
because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement
and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. Those mentioned in paragraph Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of said
Article 24 are merely preventive measures before final judgment. Not being a penal provision, therefore, the suspension from office,
pending trial, of the public officer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its effectivity does not
violate the constitutional provision on ex post facto law.
Further, the claim of petitioner that he cannot be suspended because he is presently occupying a position different from that under
which he is charged is untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under Republic Act 3019 or for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds
or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in
court, shall be suspended from office. Thus, by the use of the word "office" the same applies to any office which the officer charged may
be holding, and not only the particular office under which he was charged.
The law does not speak of the specific duration of the preventive suspension (Sec. 13). It is for a period of 90 days after his
arraignment. The court does not have the discretion not to suspend him.
Case: Oliveros vs. Villaluz 57 S 163 – 60 days; once the information is found to be sufficient in form and in substance the court must
issue the suspension order as a matter of course, the court cannot argue any justification.
Case: Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan – 90 days
Case: Layno vs. Sandiganbayan 136 S 536 – 60 days
Case: Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan 173 S 409 – 90 days
Case: Rios vs. Sandiganbayan 279 S 581 – 60 days
Case: Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan 288 S 328 – went back to the Deloso ruling: 90 days
Case: Linus vs. Sandiganbayan GR 134272 – preventive suspension may not exceed 90 days
Can a person be charged separately with violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and direct bribery?
Yes, an accused may be charged for both offenses because the elements of direct bribery are different from the elements under RA
3019. There is no double jeopardy.
The requirement under RA 3019 is that you intervene under your official capacity.
Case: Valera vs. Office of the Ombudsman February 7, 2008

One need not look beyond the provisions of RA 3019 to hold that a brother-in-law falls within the definition of family under Section 3(d)
thereof. Certainly, the definition of the word family under the said law will unduly limit and render meaningless Section 3(d) of RA 3019
to comply to the latter. In fact, family relation is defined under Section 4 of RA 3019 which, according to the said section, shall include
the “spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree”.
Case: Ong vs. People September 25, 2009

RA No. 3019. Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.- In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
Page | 61
Criminal Law II
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
The following essential elements must be present:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
We find that all the elements of the offense charged have been duly established beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner, being then the
Mayor of Angadanan, Isabela is a public officer discharging administrative and official functions. The act of purchasing the subject truck
without the requisite public bidding and authority from the Sangguniang Bayan displays gross and inexcusable negligence. Undue injury
was caused to the Government because said truck could have been purchased at a much lower price.
Case: Sison vs. People 614 S 670 March 9, 2010

The requirements of the law on government procurements should never be taken for granted because grave consequences await those
who violate them.
It is undisputed that the first element is present in the case at bar. The only question left is whether the third and fourth elements are
likewise present. We hold that they are.
The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019
is enough to convict.
"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they
are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross
negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own
property."
In the instant case, petitioner was grossly negligent in all the purchases that were made under his watch. Petitioner’s admission that the
canvass sheets sent out by de Jesus to the suppliers already contained his signatures because he pre-signed these forms only proved
his utter disregard of the consequences of his actions. Petitioner also admitted that he knew the provisions of RA 7160 on personal
canvass but he did not follow the law because he was merely following the practice of his predecessors. This was an admission of a
mindless disregard for the law in a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering that as municipal mayor, petitioner
ought to implement the law to the letter. As local chief executive, he should have been the first to follow the law and see to it that it was
followed by his constituency. Sadly, however, he was the first to break it.
Petitioner should have complied with the requirements laid down by RA 7160 on personal canvass, no matter how strict they may have
been. Dura lex sed lex. These requirements are not empty words but were specifically crafted to ensure transparency in the acquisition
of government supplies, especially since no public bidding is involved in personal canvass. Truly, the requirement that the canvass and
awarding of supplies be made by a collegial body assures the general public that despotic, irregular or unlawful transactions do not
occur. It also guarantees that no personal preference is given to any supplier and that the government is given the best possible price
for its procurements.
The fourth element is likewise present. While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as
a result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violated—the first, by
causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense, an accused may be charged under either mode or
both. The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of
one would suffice for conviction.
Aside from the allegation of undue injury to the government, petitioner was also charged with having given unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference to private suppliers. Under the second mode, damage is not required.
The word "unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate
reason. "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some
course of action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.
In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the
exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner did just that. The fact that he repeatedly failed to follow the
requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves that unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference was given to the winning
suppliers. These suppliers were awarded the procurement contract without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible
price for the government. The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen by respondent, were able to profit from the
transactions without showing proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the government. For that, petitioner must now face the
consequences of his acts.
Note: Destroying evidence of the crime is punished as obstruction of justice under PD 1829.
Case: People vs. Cesar Guy 582 S 108 March 20, 2009
As a general rule, a private individual cannot be liable under RA 3019.
Page | 62
Criminal Law II
Exception: When the private person is in conspiracy with the public officer in the commission of the offense, similar to the crime of
plunder.
Case: People vs. Benjamin Romualdez April 29, 2009

The Office of the Ombudsman charged Romualdez under Section 3(e). While he was the provincial governor of Leyte, Romualdez had
himself assigned as ambassador to 3 countries knowing that such appointment is in violation of the existing laws since it is incompatible
with his office as governor. Is he guilty of the offense charged?
The rule is that for criminal violations of RA 3019, the prescriptive period is tolled only when the office of the Ombudsman receives a
complaint or otherwise initiates its investigation. As such, preliminary investigation must commence more than 15 years after the
imputed acts were committed. Further, the law was so vital that the information could not have been cured or resurrected by mere
amendment as a new preliminary investigation had to be undertaken and evidence had to be adduced before a new information could
be filed.
Case: Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan September 24, 2014

It is irrefutable that the first element is present. Coloma was undisputably the Director of the PNPA at the time material to the charge
against him. Apart from this, he never denied his designation as the Special Assistant and Action Officer to the Director of the LIS-
PPSC. From the task of selecting the site for RTS 9 to the dealings with the contractors for the project, this latter position signifies
Coloma’s task to oversee and administer the construction of RTS 9. His claims that he had no participation in the construction of the
facilities do not, in any way, strip him of both his powers and duties related to the implementation of the project.
As to the second element, Coloma’s argument is basically a denial of bad faith on his part. He claims that his statements as to the
completion of the project’s land development; the 90% completion of the administration building’s construction; and the commencement
of the construction of the 50-capacity barracks were his personal factual observations, thereby negating the charge that he was guilty of
misrepresentation in his official report.
The second element of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed in three ways, that is, through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict.
Here, the results of the ocular inspection clearly belie Coloma’s reports. While it may be conceded that there was no averment of the
entire project’s completion, and that “completion” may be susceptible of a subjective interpretation, it still perplexes the Court as to why
Coloma, a responsible officer in the administration of the multi-million peso project, failed to provide a reliable and accurate description
of the project’s accomplishment. The discrepancy between the results of the ocular inspection and Coloma’s statements in his report
was not a trivial matter that would merit disregard. The Court may not close its eyes from the ostensible manipulation of information
stated by Coloma. From a person tasked to administer the project in terms of site selection and payment of suppliers, a just and
authentic reporting was expected. After-mission reports are not inconsequential documents which merely partake of a formality or a
mechanism for a smooth transition of duties. It is not an empty statement of accomplishments. A report on the progress and/or
completion of a government infrastructure project serves not only as a descriptive account of the project, but more importantly, as a
source of information on the faithful execution of a government objective financed by public funds.
In a catena of cases, the Court has held that there are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the
performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive term
“or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. In other words, the presence of one would suffice
for conviction. Further, the term “undue injury” in the context of Section 3(e) of the R.A. No. 3019 punishing the act of “causing undue
injury to any party,” has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of "actual damage." Actual damage, in the context of these definitions,
is akin to that in civil law.
As explained by the Sandiganbayan, the undue injury caused by Coloma to the government is based on two grounds: 1) as a co-
signatory in the current accounts created for the payment of creditors, Coloma reserved himsel f control over the deposits to and
withdrawal therefrom, and 2) the cost of the RTS 9 as declared by Coloma in his report was significantly higher than the actual cost
computed after inspection.
Case: Merencillo vs. People 521 S 45

Section 3 of RA 3019: “in addition to acts or omission of public officer already penalized by existing law”. There is no double jeopardy.
RA 1379: Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth
RA 1379 provides the procedure for forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth in violation of RA 3019. The proceedings under RA 1379 are civil
in nature and not criminal in nature.
Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public officer has amassed wealth out of proportion of his legitimate income may file a complaint
with the prosecutor’s office of the place where the public officer resides or holds office. The prosecutor conducts a preliminary
investigation, just like in a criminal case, and he will forward his findings to the Office of the Solicitor General. If the OSG finds probable
cause then he will file a petition requesting the court to issue a writ commanding the respondent to show cause why the ill-gotten wealth
described in the petition should not be forfeited in favor of the government.
Is there a prescriptive period for the government to claim assets?
Page | 63
Criminal Law II
It used to be 4 years from the date of resignation or dismissal. This has been repealed by express mandate of Article 11, Section 5 of
the 1987 Constitution.
Case: Republic vs. Megrino 189 S 289
The rule is that the right of the state to recover ill-gotten wealth is imprescriptible. It does not prescribe.
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to
prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment
or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts or
omissions:
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law;
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially;
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different
from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the
Administrative Code shall be applied.
The essence of this crime is making the government pay for something not received or making it pay more than what is due. It is also
committed by refunding more than the amount which should properly be refunded. This occurs usually in cases where a public officer
whose official duty is to procure supplies for the government or enter into contract for government transactions connives with the said
supplier with the intention to defraud the government. Also, when certain supplies for the government are purchased with a high price
but its quantity or quality is low.
What is contemplated in this article is the act of a public officer who enters into an agreement with a private individual concerning the
furnishing of supplies to the government but under a scheme adopted to benefit such public officer from the contract or transaction. It is
considered as fraud or deceit against the public treasury because in the end the transaction will result to the loss of income to the
government.
Elements of frauds against public treasury:

2. That he should have taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity
3. That he entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made us of any other scheme with regard to (1)
furnishing supplies, (2) the making of contracts, or (3) the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or
funds
4. That the accused had intent to defraud the Government
It is not necessary that the government is actually defrauded by reason of the transaction. It is sufficient that the public officer
who acted in his official capacity had the intent to defraud the government.
Par. 2: Illegal exaction – refers to a case where a public officer whose duty is to collect fees or taxes in favor of the government, takes
advantage of his official position by demanding a greater amount, or by not issuing a receipt of the sum connected, or by demanding
something in kind of greater value other than the money.
Elements of illegal exaction:

1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different
from that provided by law
Article 214. Other frauds. – In addition to the penalties prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book Two of this Code,
the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification shall be imposed ipon any
public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in said provisions.
Elements:
2. That he takes advantage of his official position
3. That he commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Articles 315 to 318 (estafa, other forms of swindling, swindling a
minor, other deceits)
Note: The municipal courts have no jurisdiction to impose the penalty of disqualification.
Page | 64
Criminal Law II
Article 215. Prohibited transactions. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become
interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction.
Elements:
1. That the offender is an appointive public officer
2. That he becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or speculation
3. That the transaction takes place within the territory subject to his jurisdiction
4. That he becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency
The appointive public officer should not devote himself to commerce.
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who,
directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountant who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution, or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to the
guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate.
The mere violation of the prohibition is already punished even if no actual fraud occurs because of the possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may place his owns interests above that of the government or party which he represents.
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation. – Any public officer who, by reason of the
duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall
consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially,
or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prisions correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or
malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but
does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more
than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand
pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the
amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any
duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.
Malversation – embezzlement of public funds; it consists in the misappropriation, appropriation or conversion of public funds or
property to one’s personal use or, knowingly or through abandonment or negligence, allowing others to use or appropriate the same.
The offender is made liable because of the nature of his duties to take care of the funds or property entrusted to him with the diligence
of a good father of a family. He is accountable by virtue of the nature of his office to account for funds or properties that come to his
possession. If he is not accountable for the funds or properties and he misappropriates the same, the crime will not be malversation but
only for estafa under Article 315.
Elements:
1. That the offender be a public officer
2. That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
3. That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person
to take them
Acts punished:
1. By appropriating public funds or property
2. By taking or misappropriating the same
3. By consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public funds or property
4. By being otherwise guilt of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property
The penalty for malversation is the same whether committed by dolo or by culpa, whether with malice or through negligence.
Page | 65
Criminal Law II
In determining whether the offender is liable for malversation, it is the nature of the duties of the public officer that controls. While the
name of the office is important, what is controlling is whether in performing his duties as a public officer, he has to account or is required
by the nature of the performance of the duty to render an account on the money or property that came into his possession. Even a mere
clerk can commit the crime of malversation.
This is a crime where the guilt of the accused is presumed (last paragraph). He has to prove otherwise. The presumption is disputable
and comes into play only after a demand has been made by a person duly authorized to do so.
Ordinarily, malversation can only be committed by a public officer or employee. A private person cannot commit malversation except in
the following instances: (exceptions)
1. When the private person conspires with public officers in committing the crime of malversation
2. When he takes direct participation or cooperates in the commission of malversation in connivance with the public officer
3. If the private person be charged with any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenue or property
Malversation Estafa
Committed by accountable public officers Usually committed by a private individual
The object is public funds or property The funds or properties subject of misappropriation are privately
owned
Personal appropriation is not indispensable because allowing The offender appropriates personally the funds or properties
others to commit the misappropriation is already considered as
malversation
In malversation, all that the prosecution has to do is to prove that the offender received public funds or property and that while the same
were in his possession, he could not account for them or that he did not have them in his possession upon demand by any duly
authorized officer and he could not give a legal excuse for the disappearance of the same.
An accountable officer may be convicted even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is the shortage of
his account which he could not explain satisfactorily.
Case: Arturo De Guzman vs. People

In the face of the evidence presented, the accused failed to overcome the presumption under Article 217 that the failure of the public
office to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer,
shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. In malversation, all that is necessary is to
prove that the accused received and is in possession of public funds, that he did not have them in his possession and he could not
account for them or give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same.
If there is legal excuse (such as robbery) then the legal presumption of prima facie evidence of guilt will not apply. In order to support
conviction, the prosecution must prove the actual misappropriation of the missing funds.
Generally, there is no need to prove the actual misappropriation of funds. The exception will only come in when the said public officer
has reported the loss of the money and the report made has a color of truth.
Case: Salvacion vs. Sandiganbayan July 11, 1986

If a public officer reports the loss of money before a cash examination is made, and the cause of the loss as reported has a distinct ring
of truth to it, the legal presumption of prima facie evidence of guilt will not apply. In order to support conviction, the prosecution must
prove the actual misappropriation of the missing funds.
Case: Mahinay vs. Sandiganbayan May 9, 1989

To rebut the presumption of guilt prima facie under Article 217, the accused must raise the issue of accuracy, correctness and regularity
in the conduct of the audit. If he asks for a second audit before the filing of the information against him and the same was denied, and
during the trial some disbursement vouchers were introduced which were not considered in the first audit, the denial of the request for
the second audit is fatal to the cause of the prosecution because in the meantime the evidence adduced does not establish a fact
beyond reasonable doubt.
Note: Asking for a second audit is one of the manifestations that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
Case: Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan 149 S 108 – abandoned

The accused incurred shortages because the auditor disallowed certain cash advances that the accused granted to employees. On the
same day that the audit was made, he partly reimbursed the amount then paid it in full three days later. The SC considered the
circumstances as negative of criminal intent. The cash advances were made in good faith and out of goodwill to co-employees which
was a practice tolerated in their office. The actual cash shortage was only 1.74 pesos and together with the disallowed advances was
fully reimbursed within a reasonable time. There was no negligence, no malice nor intent to defraud the government.
Page | 66
Criminal Law II
Case: Meneses vs. Sandiganbayan 232 S 441
The accused was the cashier of the treasurer’s office of Albay. During an audit examination of her accounts, she was found to have
incurred the shortage of 2.5 million. Because she failed to produce any cash and valid cash items to effect the shortage in her
accountabilities, she was charged with malversation of public funds. Petitioner's defense, relying on Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, is that
she had not benefitted a single centavo from the missing funds; rather, said funds were disbursed as cash advances to her co-
employees in good faith and in continuance of a practice tolerated in her office.
The practice of disbursing public funds, under the "vale" system as a defense in malversation cases, was advanced, briefed and argued
in Cabello v. Sandiganbayan 197 SCRA 94, and found to be unmeritorious. In Cabello, it was ruled that the giving of vale by public
officers out of their accountable funds is prohibited. The grant of loans through the vales system is a clear case if an accountable officer
a consenting to the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons which is punishable by law.
The “vale” system ruled under the Quizo case cannot be tolerated. Besides, it is not allowed under Article 217. The granting of cash
advances through vales by any public officer who is accountable for public funds or property is an illegal act, whether it is by consenting
or through negligence or abandonment. To put an end to the unauthorized practice of the "vale" system, the General Auditing Office
laid down the following rules for the observance of all concerned: A vale, IOU, chit or other form of promissory note, is not acceptable
credit to the cash account of any accountable officer, and is at once excluded during the cash examination from among the cash items.
Malversation is committed by a police officer who confiscates an illegal firearm and sells it
The buyer of the firearm cannot be held liable under the Anti-Fencing Law because there is no robbery or theft
Through negligence, malversation may be committed when the person did not exercise safekeeping by not locking a drawer.
Thus, any loss may be attributed to him
Malversation is committed when the accountable officer makes it appear that there was robbery
A person whose negligence made possible the commission of malversation by another can be held as liable also as principal by
indispensable cooperation.
It is not necessary that the accountable public officer should actually misappropriate the fund or property involved; it is enough
that he has violated the trust reposed on him in connection to the property or funds entrusted to his custody.
Demand is not necessary.
Damage on the part of the government is not considered an essential element of the crime. It is enough that the proprietary
rights of the government over the funds have been disturbed through breach of trust.
A public officer will be charged in violation of the RPC or RA 3019 before the RTC or the Sandiganbayan depending on his salary
grade. If a public official is charged before the Sandiganbayan and there is an allegation in the information that he is in conspiracy or he
has an accomplice or accessory who is a private individual in the commission of the crime punished in RA 3019 or Article 217.
Can the private individual be tried together with the public officer in the Sandiganbayan?
Case: Valmadrid vs. Sandiganbayan 195 S 497
Private persons may be charged together with public officers to avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation of witnesses and exhibits
against conspirators in different venues, especially if the issues involved are the same. It follows therefore that if a private person may
be tried jointly with public officers, he may also be convicted jointly with them, as in the case of the present petitioners.
How about if a judge is charged with malversation? Where do you file the case?
Case: Salvador vs. Pelayo July 6, 2000
The issue is whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain criminal charges filed against a judge of the regional trial court
in connection with his handling of cases before the court.
Petitioner criticizes the jurisprudence cited by the Office of the Ombudsman as erroneous and not applicable to his complaint. He insists
that since his complaint involved a criminal charge against a judge, it was within the authority of the Ombudsman not the Supreme
Court to resolve whether a crime was committed and the judge prosecuted therefor.
The issues have been settled in the case of In Re: Joaquin Borromeo. There, we laid down the rule that before a civil or criminal action
against a judge for a violation of Art. 204 and 205 (knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order) can be entertained, there must first
be "a final and authoritative judicial declaration" that the decision or order in question is indeed "unjust."
Case: Torres vs. People August 31, 2011

An accountable public officer, within the purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is one who has custody or control of public
funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee, the fact that as part of
his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it, is the factor which determines whether
or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a school principal of a public high school, such as
petitioner, may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same.
Petitioner also posits that he could not be convicted under the allegations in the Information without violating his constitutional right to
be informed of the accusations against him. He maintains that the Information clearly charged him with intentional malversation and not
malversation through negligence, which was the actual nature of malversation for which he was convicted by the trial court. This too
lacks merit.
Page | 67
Criminal Law II
Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property, or passively through
negligence. To sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while the prevailing
facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to prove
the existence of negligence because both are equally punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Case: Mallare and Gosudan vs. People February 8, 2012

Mayor Mallare and Treasurer Gosudan were charged with malversation of public funds following acts of alleged unlawful disbursement
for extending unlawful loans to public officials.
The Sandiganbayan further stated that Gosudan’s acts of allowing other persons to borrow municipal funds constituted solid proof of
malversation. In the case of Mallare, his act of getting or accepting the subject loan for himself in the amount of P 300,998.59 from
Gosudan amounted to a conspiracy with the latter in the commission of the crime of malversation. The full restitution of the total amount
of the loaned public funds did not exonerate Mallare and Gosudan because the crime of Malversation of Public Funds was already
consummated upon the latter’s granting of the loans, and upon the former’s acceptance and taking of the amounts lent to him.
Restitution of the loaned amounts could only mitigate their civil liabilities, not exonerate them from criminal liability.
Clearly, the subject loans that Gosudan extended to the said municipal officials and employees including herself were unofficial and
unauthorized loans and, therefore, anomalous in nature.
Returning the amount or funds embezzled after the COA audit found out there are insufficient funds, is not an exempting circumstance
and does not erase the criminal liability but it has the effect of a mitigating circumstance; it is akin to voluntary surrender.
Case: Resurreccion et al. vs. People July 9, 2014

Anent the charge for malversation against Resurreccion, the Sandiganbayan found that all the elements are present: first, Resurreccion
was a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime; second, the P.3,000.00 reimbursement came from the 20%
Development Fund; third, by virtue of his position as Mayor of Pilar, Resurreccion was accountable for the public funds; and fourth, by
reimbursing the donation he made to a religious organization, Resurreccion allowed a third person (Knights of Columbus) to take the
P3,000.00 from the 20% Development Fund without legal basis.
PD 1564 amending Act No. 4075: The Solicitation Permit Law
Elements: (to be held liable under the law)

1. Soliciting or receiving contribution for charitable or public welfare purposes
2. The omission to secure a permit from the DSWD prior to soliciting or receiving contributions
Case: People vs. Castaneda 187 S 148

A priest solicited for the construction of his church building.
Any person intending to make such solicitations is required to first secure a permit to do so; without that permit, he commits a crime if
he solicits or receives contributions; but obviously, if he makes no solicitation or receives no contributions, he commits no crime even if
he obtains no permit. The permit, once obtained, authorizes a person to solicit and receive contributions for charitable or public welfare
purposes, whether from one or a thousand donors; and since plainly, the motive for the obtention of such a permit is invariably, not to
say always, to solicit not from one donor only, or two or three, but from as many as may be approached and importuned, it seems
logical to assume that it was not the intendment of the statute to make punishable every single act of solicitation without permit as
individual, separate crimes, a proposition enhanced by the fact that the infringement of the statute is treated as a mere misdemeanor or
light offense, and by the familiar principle that criminal laws should be construed in favor of the accused.
Hence, solicitations or acceptance of donations for charitable or public welfare purposes over a period of time, without the requisite
permit to do so, are to be deemed one offense only regardless of the number of such acts of solicitation or acceptance of contributions.
In this sense, the offense is a continuing one perpetrated over a span of time. The period of its prescription shall therefore be computed
from the latest act of solicitation or acceptance of contributions, and not from the first.
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. – Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by
resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Insular Auditor (Commission on Audit), or
to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom
2. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
3. That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor
4. That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered
Who are required by law or regulation to render accounts?

Cashiers
Storehouse keepers
Warehousemen
Page | 68
Criminal Law II
Those who by the nature of their position become custodians of public funds or property
Demand for accounting by the COA or auditor is not necessary, it is sufficient that there is a law or regulation requiring him to
render account
It is not essential that there be misappropriation
Case: Lumauig vs. People July 7, 2014

He was charged under Article 218. His defense is that no demand was made upon him. Demand is not necessary.
Case: Manlangit vs. People August 28, 2007

He resigned without accounting for the fund. He was charged with Article 218. His defense is that the case is moot because he
rendered an accounting although late. According to him, there was no criminal delay on his part since there was no demand from the
COA for accounting.
Demand to render account is not necessary for one to be liable under Article 218. It is sufficient that there is a law or regulation
requiring one to render account. It is the failure to follow the requirement of the law that is made punishable. It is not necessary that the
offender actually committed malversation because the object of the law is to prevent the situation of the crime being committed because
of the failure of the accountable to render an account.
Article 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. – Any public officer who
unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the Commission on Audit, showing that
his account have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both.
Elements:
2. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
3. That he must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) the Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit
a certificate showing that his accounts have been finally settled
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. – Any public officer who shall apply any public funds or property under his
administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer he
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total value of the sum misapplied, if by reason
of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 percent of the sum
misapplied.
Technical malversation – the penal sanction to the constitutional provision under Article 8, Section 18 (“No money shall be made out
of the treasury except of an appropriation made by law.”). It is called technical malversation because the funds or property are used for
a purpose other than that which the same was appropriated.
The offender is entrusted which such fund only to administer or apply the same to public purpose for which it was appropriated by law
or ordinance. Instead of applying it to the public purpose to which it was already appropriated by law or ordinance, the public officer
applied it to another purpose.
Elements:
2. That there is public fund or property under his administration
3. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance
4. That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance
Damage to the government is not an essential element of the crime. Even though the application may prove to be more beneficial to the
public interest than the original purpose for which the amount or property was appropriated by law, the public officer will still be liable for
technical malversation.
If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or ordinance and this was applied to a public purpose by the custodian
thereof, the crime is plain and simple malversation under Article 217.
If the funds have been appropriated for a particular public purpose but the same was applied to private purposes, the crime
committed is simple malversation.
Good faith is not a defense.
Page | 69
Criminal Law II
In the illegal use of public funds or property, it is not necessary that the offender derives monetary benefit from the use of public funds
or property. While the purpose for which the funds have been diverted is also public, the practice is not allowed because it could
undermine public service. Programs of the government which are otherwise good could suffer because of the diversion of public funds
to support projects which may not have any community value. If public officers are allowed to change or amend the intended purpose of
the appropriation law or ordinance, the act of appropriating a particular sum for certain worthy projects would be rendered nugatory.
Hence, there is wisdom in this particular provision of the Code because it gives direction in the implementation of government projects.
Malversation Technical malversation

In both crimes, the offenders are accountable public officers
Personal benefits are derived from the proceeds of the crime The offender derives no personal benefit from the commission of
the act
The conversion is for the personal interest of the offender The object to which the fund is applied is also for public use
The correct remedy for the accountable public officer to divert a fund is to ask a resolution from the council in order to realign a
particular project.
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. – Any public officer under obligation to make payment from
Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall
Two acts made punishable:

1. By failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make such payment from Government funds in his
possession
2. By refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his
custody or under his administration
The refusal must be malicious. If the refusal is lawful then the person will not be held liable.
Elements:
1. That the public officer has Government funds in his possession
2. That he is under obligation to make payment from such funds
3. That he fails to make the payment maliciously
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. – The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who in
any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular (now national), provincial, or municipal funds, revenues, or property or to any
administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a
private individual.
Private individuals liable:

1. Private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenue, or
property and who shall fail to observe the provisions of Article 217 and 221
2. Administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property
belongs to a private individual
Purpose: To extend the provisions of malversation to private individuals
Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term “administrator”. Thus, if they misappropriate money or property placed under their custody by
virtue of a writ of seizure, attachment or deposit by public authority, the crime of malversation is committed.
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. – Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his
custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been
finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
Elements:
2. That he has in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape
The public officer must be in connivance or he consents to the escape of the prisoner.
Page | 70
Criminal Law II
There are two classes of prisoners:
The fugitive has been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty – convicted prisoners
The fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any crime or violation of the law or municipal ordinance – detention prisoners
Case: US vs. Bandino

Infidelity was not committed as there was no connivance between the policeman and the prisoner in his escape.
Laxity in the performance of duties does not necessarily constitute a violation of Article 223.
Case: People vs. Evangelista

A municipal mayor who utilized the prisoner’s services for domestic chores in his house, including using him as cook, is liable for
faithlessness in the custody of prisoner, even though the convict may not have fled as much as prisoners leaving the prisoner.
A police officer allowing a prisoner to go home to sleep every night and return to jail every morning until the sentence is served is liable
under Article 223. Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity thus making the penalty ineffectual, although the convict may not
have fled.
Article 224. Evasion through negligence. – If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the officer
charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification.
Elements:
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
3. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence
Not every error is considered as negligence under Article 224. To be liable, the negligence must be notorious and apparent. The laxity
must be definite and must seriously suggest a deliberate non-performance of a duty.
Case: People vs. Quisel

A town policeman had four prisoners under his custody. As they were returning to the municipal jail, he ordered them to help in chasing
a carabao that had gone loose. One prisoner decided to escape. The accused policeman showed laxity in the performance of his
official duty amounting to deliberate non-performance thereof therefore liable under Article 224.
Case: People vs. Nava

The jail guard permitted the prisoner to answer the call of nature while he stood guard outside. Since the toilet was dilapidated, the
prisoner was able to escape. The SC absolved the accused; there was no negligence on his part.
What kind of negligence is needed to be liable? Notorious and apparent positive negligence
If a public officer is able to recapture a prisoner who has escaped, it does not afford complete exculpation of the crime.
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. – Any private person to whom the conveyance
or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two
preceding articles, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the public officer.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private person
2. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him
3. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. That the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or that the escape takes place through his
negligence
The penalty to be imposed is one degree lower that that imposed against public officers.
Article 225 will not be applicable if the private individual is the one who made the arrest. The offender is not the one who
arrested the escaping prisoner but one who agreed to have the custody or charge of the prisoner or person under arrest.
This crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners if the offender involved is the custodian of the prisoner.
If the offender who aided or consent to the prisoner’s escaping from confinement, whether the prisoner is a convict or a detention
prisoner, is not a custodian, the liability will fall under Article 156 and not 225.
If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to escape is already off duty at that time and he is no longer the custodian of the prisoner, the
crime committed by him is delivering prisoners from jail. You do not apply the principle of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all.
Page | 71
Criminal Law II
The party who is not a custodian who conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in the
custody of prisoners, he commits the crime of delivering prisoners from jail.
If a private person approached the custodian of the prisoner and for a certain consideration told the custodian to leave the door of the
cell unlocked for the prisoner to escape, the crime committed is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
Note: When a prisoner is entrusted to you even if you are a private person, you will become a public officer by operation law, and so
when you consent to the escape of the prisoner by reason of a consideration then you will be liable for bribery.
If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail, bribery is just a means under Article 156 that would call the imposition of a heavier penalty
but not a separate charge of bribery. However, under Article 225 in infidelity, what is basically punished is the breach of trust because
the offender is a custodian, for that the crime if infidelity. If he violates the trust because of some consideration, bribery is also
committed. A higher degree of vigilance is required; failure to do so will render the custodian liable.
Article 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. – Any public officer who shall remove, destroy, or conceal
documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused
thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the
damage caused to a third party or to the public interests shall not have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification
shall be imposed.
Elements:
1. That the offender be a public officer
2. That he abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers
3. That the said documents or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office
4. That damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest should have been caused
Damage to a third party is usually pecuniary. Damage to the public interest may consist in mere alarm to the public or the alienation of
its confidence to any branch of government service. Material damage may not be necessary.
Removal of a document – it presupposes unlawful appropriation of the official document

Destruction – to render the document useless; its nature to prove the existence of a fact is lost such that it can no longer prove the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue
Concealment – to make it appear that the document is not available
In these three instances of committing infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of removal, destruction or concealment should be
coupled with criminal intent or malice on the part of the offender. If the removal of the document is for lawful purpose, that is, to secure
the same from imminent danger of loss such as fire, then no crime is committed under Article 226.
Document – must refer to an instrument or writing that has created or has established a right or has extinguished an obligation; it is a a
written instrument by which something is proven or made of record; this concept must be construed strictly
Infidelity in the custody of public document Estafa Malicious mischief

The offender is the custodian of the official The offender is not a custodian of the The offender purposely destroys and
document removed or concealed official document removed or concealed damages the property or document
The removal is for an illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is to tamper with it, to profit by it, or to commit an act
constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof
The crime is consummated upon its removal or secreting away from its usual place in the office; it is immaterial whether or not
he has actually accomplished the illicit purpose for which he removed the document
Article 227. Officer breaking seal. – Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority, who
shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period and medium
periods, temporary special disqualification, and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Elements:
2. That he is charged with the custody of papers or property
3. That these papers or property are sealed by proper authority
4. That he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken
Page | 72
Criminal Law II
Article 228. Opening of closed documents. – Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding article who,
without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody,
shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Elements:
2. That any closed paper, document, or objects are entrusted to his custody
3. That he opens or permits to be opened said closed papers, document or objects
4. That he does not have proper authority
Officer breaking seal Opening of closed document

The mere breaking of the seal is what is made punishable. The mere opening of the closed document is enough to hold the
person liable
It must be done without lawful authority or order from competent authority
Damage to the public interest in not required
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. – Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official
capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge or which should not be published, shall
suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the public
interest; otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification, and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Acts punished:
1. By revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity
Elements:
2. That he knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reasons
4. That damage, great or small, be caused to the public interest
If the secret revealed does not affect public interest, the revelation will constitute no crime at all. The secrets referred to are those which
have an official or public character. It does not include secret information regarding private individuals or military or state secrets
inasmuch as the revelation of the same is classified as espionage, a crime in violation of the national security of the state. The article
refers to minor official betrayals or revelation of secrets of little consequence and affecting usually the administration of justice.
2. By delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published
Elements:
2. That he has charge of papers
3. That those papers should not be published
4. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person
5. That the delivery is wrongful
6. That damage be caused to public interest
Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. – Any public officer to whom the secrets of any private individual
shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
2. That he knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his office
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason
Public revelation is not required. Revelation to one person is enough. The intention of the law is to encourage people to
confide their problems especially with regard to the administration of justice.
It is not necessary that damage is suffered by the private individual.
Article 231. Open disobedience. – Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision or order
of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer the
Page | 73
Criminal Law II
penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its
maximum period, and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judicial or executive officer
2. That there is a judgment, decision or order of a superior authority
3. That such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued with
all the legal formalities
4. That the offender without any legal justification openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or order, which he is
duty bound to obey
The gravamen of the offense is the open refusal of the offender to execute the order without justifiable reason. This can be in the form
of an order directing the performance of a duty where the offender refuses to perform or obey what is directed to be done.
The word “execute” does not only mean the performance of an act since the judgment, decision or order may also direct the
nonperformance of an act. Either way, there is an open refusal to obey the order; therefore, the crime is committed.
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer, when said order was suspended by inferior officer. – Any public officer
who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter have
disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and perpetual special
disqualification.
Elements:
2. That an order is issued by his superior for execution
3. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of such order
4. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order
5. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension
What is contemplated under this article is a situation where the subordinate has some doubts regarding the legality of the order. Hence
he is afforded an opportunity to suspend the execution of the order so as to give him time to further study the same. He commits no
crime for doing this act. However, if he continues to suspend the execution of the order notwithstanding the disapproval by his superior
of the state of execution, such refusal on his part already consummates the commission of the crime under Article 232.
Article 233. Refusal of assistance. – The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period,
perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, upon demand from
competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service, if such failure shall
result in serious damage to the public interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Elements:
2. That a competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or
other public service
3. That the offender fails to do so maliciously
There must be a demand from competent authority.

Damage is essential whether great or small but the penalty is affected by the seriousness of the damage.
The refusal must be done with malice.
The situation contemplated may refer to the administration of justice before the case is filed in court.
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn
in or to discharge the duties of said office.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a elected by popular election to a public office
2. That he refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office
3. That there is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office
A political exercise which is the system adopted in a democratic form of government such as ours cannot be treated with triviality. Aftert
the proclamation of the candidate by a public office, it becomes his duty to render public service. Since it is his duty, then his refusal to
perform such duty is punishable under the law.
Page | 74
Criminal Law II
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall overdo himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge by the imposition of punishments
not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the prisoner, the offender shall be
punished by prision mayor in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding six thousand pesos, in
addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.
Elements:
2. That he has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner
3. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge either:
i. By the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
ii. By inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner
b. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from the prisoner
The penalty provided for in Article 235 is a two-tiered penalty.

Two-tiered penalty – that which occurs when the law provides that the penalty to a particular crime is in addition to the penalty
imposable to another crime committed which results to the commission of such particular crime
Hence, there is no complex crime fo maltreatment of prisoners with serious or less serious physical injuries, as defined in Article 48.
Two kinds of maltreatment contemplated:

1. Imposing punishment not authorized by regulation
2. Inflicting authorized punishment in a cruel or humiliating manner on a prisoner under the charge of the public officer
Public officers here overdo themselves. They show perverted action of their role within the framework of a democratic government, or
an open confession of their incapacity to fulfill their mission. This is necessary because some public officials in their zeal to perform
their duty and get evidence against the accused do not hesitate in many occasions to employ physical cruelty and mental torture.
The prisoner maltreated must be under the actual charge of the public officer and not by legal fiction. The offended party must be a
prisoner in the legal sense. The mere fact that a private citizen had been apprehended or arrested by law officers does not
automatically constitute him as a prisoner. To be a prisoner, he must have been booked and incarcerated no matter how short it is.
The maltreatment must be in relation to the correction and handling of the prisoner and maltreatment for the purpose of handling or
extorting a confession. It cannot be by reason of a personal grudge.
If in the process of imposing discipline the prisoner suffers physical injuries, this offense will be treated as a separate crime.
If the maltreatment is employed to extract a confession or to obtain information from the prisoner, the same will be considered as a
qualified circumstance and will be treated as such to increase the penalty against the offender.
If as a result of the maltreatment physical injuries were caused to the prisoner, a separate crime for the physical injuries shall be filed.
You do not complex the crime of physical injuries with the maltreatment under Article 235.
Offended party must be a convict or detention prisoner

To be a detention prisoner, the accused must have been booked in the office of the police and placed in jail even for a moment
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. – any person who shall assume the performance of the duties and powers of
any public office or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond required by law, shall be suspended from such
office or employment until he shall have complied with the respective formalities and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.
Elements:
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment, either by election or appointment
2. That the law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first give a bond
3. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office
4. That he has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by law
Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. – Any public officer who shall continue to exercise the duties and powers
of his office, employment, or commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulations or special provisions applicable to the case,
shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, special temporary disqualification in its minimum period and a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Elements:
Page | 75
Criminal Law II
1. That the offender is holding a public office
2. That the period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for holding such office, has already expired
3. That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office
A public officer who has been suspended, separated, declared overaged, or dismissed cannot continue to perform the duties of his
office.
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position. – Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his
office to the detriment of the public service, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
If such office shall have been abandoned in o0rder to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any of
the crimes falling within title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of this Code, the offender shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and by arresto mayor if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of
preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any other crime.
Elements:
2. That he formally resigns from his position
3. That his resignation has not yet been accepted
4. That he abandons his office to the detriment of the public service
Oral resignation is not allowed. The resignation must be in writing and directed to the appointing power who has the authority to accept
and disapprove the same. This requirement is indispensable because the letter of resignation goes into a process. In the same manner,
the Civil Service Law does not allow oral appointments. It should be done in writing and the officer or employee must take an oath or
post a bond with respect to offices which carry accountability for money or property.
The situation contemplated is one who leaves his office even before the acceptance of his resignation.
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. – The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification, and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall encroach upon the powers of
the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by
attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a n executive or judicial officer
2. That he (a) makes general rules or regulation s beyond the scope of his authority, or (b) attempts to repeal a law or (c)
suspends the execution thereof
The provision is intended to give force and effect to the theory of separation of powers.
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions. – Any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive authorities, or
shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period.
Elements:
2. That he (a) assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or (b) obstructs the executive authorities in the lawful
exercise of their powers
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or
shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
Elements:
1. That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the Government
2. That he (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his
jurisdiction
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. – Any public officer who, before the question of jurisdiction is decided, shall
continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.
Elements:
Page | 76
Criminal Law II
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer
3. That there is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet decided
4. That he has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the proceeding
5. That he continues the proceeding
There is an authority which maintains the view that even if the jurisdiction of the offender is later upheld or sustained, he is still liable
because what is in issue is not the legality of his jurisdiction but whether he obeys or disobeys the TRO issued by the higher authority.
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. – Any executive officer who shall address any order
or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Elements:
1. That the offender is an executive officer
2. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice
Article 244. Unlawful appointment. – Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person
lacking the legal qualification therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
2. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office
3. That such person lacks the legal qualifications therefor
4. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualifications at the time he made the nomination or
appointment
The qualification of a public officer to hold a particular position in the government is provided for by law.
For judges, it is the President who appoints. The JBC is the governing body who will screen the applicants.
To nominate is to guarantee to the appointing power that the person nominated has all the qualification s to the office.
To recommend does not make any guarantee as to the legal fitness of the candidate to public office. It is usually done by private
individuals.
The term “nominate” is not the same as “recommend”. The act of nominating is an official duty and can be performed only by a public
officer. Recommending a person for appointment to public office with knowledge that the recommendee has no qualification is not a
crime under Article 244.
Case: People vs. Sandiganbayan July 23, 2008

It bears stressing that temporary prohibition is not synonymous with absence or lack of legal qualification. A person who possessed the
required legal qualifications for a position may be temporarily disqualified for appointment to a public position by reason of the one year
prohibition imposed on losing candidates. Upon the other hand, one may not be temporarily disqualified for appointment, but could not
be appointed as he lacked any or all of the required legal qualifications imposed by law.
Article 245. Abuses against chastity – Penalties. – The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and
temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending
before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to, or consult with a superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest who shall
solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister, or relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such
warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and temporary special disqualification.
Three ways of committing abuses against chastity:

1. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before the offending officer for
decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer
2. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under the offender’s custody
3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity
of any person in the custody of the offending warden or officer
Solicit – means to demand earnestly a sexual favor; to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a
woman
Page | 77
Criminal Law II
It is not necessary for the offended party or victim to surrender her virtue to consummate the crime as mere proposal already
consummates the violation under Article 245.
The crime cannot be committed if the immoral or indecent advances are made to a man since the law refers only to a woman
A crime may be committed by a lesbian warden, the law does not provide that the custodian be a man
RA 7877: Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
RA 9160: Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001

Amended by RA 9194, RA 10167 and RA 10365 – the latest AMLA law
Case: People vs. Glasgow Credit and Collection Services 542 S 95 January 18, 2008
When petitioner Wellex contracted the loan from then Equitable PCIBank, the former voluntarilyconstituted a chattel mortgage over its
Waterfront shares, with the subsequent addition of the subject Wellex shares as added security for the loan obligation. Thus, the Wellex
loan and the Chattel Mortgage, which were constituted over the Wellex and Waterfront shares of stock, became the asset of the
aforementioned IMA Trust Account. In this case, the loan transaction between Wellex and Equitable PCIBank, as Investment Manager
of the IMA Trust Account, constitutes the principal contract; and the Chattel Mortgage over the subject shares of stock constitutes the
accessory contract.
Petitioner’s interpretation of Section 2 of R.A. 7080 is narrow and rigid and defeats rather than serves the ends of justice in plunder
cases. Section 2 of R.A. 7080 mandates the court to forfeit not only the ill-gotten wealth, interests earned, and other incomes and
assets, but also the properties and shares of stock derived from the deposit or investment. The Sandiganbayan Decision imposed the
penalty of forfeiture when it convicted the former President Estrada of the crime of plunder. It is beyond cavil that it found the subject
IMA Trust Account traceable to the accounts declared to be ill-gotten by the former President. Thus, to rigidly construe the mandate of
Section 2 of R.A. 7080, as petitioner would want us to do, is to render the Plunder Law inutile.
Not only does the Plunder Law authorize the forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth as well as any asset acquired with the use of the ill-gotten
wealth, Section 6 likewise authorizes the forfeiture of these ill-gotten wealth and any assets acquired therefrom even if they are in the
possession of other persons.
Title VIII: Crimes against Persons
Article 246. Parricide. – Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.
Elements:
1. That a person is killed
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused
This crime is regarded as the highest form of destruction of life. It is the most terrible and unnatural of crimes.
The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of the felony. In other words, parricide is a crime of relationship.
It is committed by people who are related by blood, except between spouses.
Points to remember:
Except between the husband and the wife, the offender must be related to the offended party by blood.
Such blood relationship must be in the direct line and not in the collateral line.
Between parent and child, the relationship may be legitimate or illegitimate. All other relationships must be legitimate.
Knowledge of relationship is not necessary because the law does not require knowledge of the relationship as an
indispensable element of the crime.
Parents and children are not included in the term “ascendants or descendants”. The relationship between ascendants and
descendants must be legitimate.
The child mentioned in the law must not be less than 3 days old; otherwise it will be infanticide.
The spouse must be legitimate. In killing a spouse, there must be a valid subsisting marriage at the time of the killing. Also, the
information should allege the fact of such valid marriage between the accused and the victim.
The relationship must be alleged in the information. It is an inherent aggravating circumstance.
A stranger who cooperates in the commission of parricide is not guilty of parricide but only of homicide or murder as the case
may be. The rule of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all does not apply because of the personal relationship of the
offender to the offended party.
Page | 78
Criminal Law II
Killing of a brother or sister is not parricide but it is pure and simple homicide because their relationship is in the collateral line.
A mother killing her child in order to conceal her dishonor is still parricide. It is not considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Killing of the adopted child or adoptive parent does not constitute the crime of parricide.
There can be no parricide if the marriage between the spouses is void ab initio.
Notwithstanding the provision of the law which suggests that parricide is essentially a felony committed by means of dolo and is therefor
punishable by reclusion to death, Article 365 expressly provides that parricide may be committed through reckless imprudence. The
penalty will be based under Article 365.
Parricide can be committed by mistake. This is demonstrated in a situation where a person wanting to kill a stranger kills his own father
by mistake. Although the crime committed is parricide, the offender will not be punished under Article 246 but under Article 49 which
prescribes a penalty much lower than that provided in Article 246.
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. - In cases in which the
felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit,
the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case
the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Even if the offender that the person he has killed is his son, he is still liable for parricide because the law does not require knowledge of
the relationship.
A Muslim spouse killing his first and third wife can only be liable for parricide for killing his first wife. There is no parricide if he kills his
other wives although they are recognized as valid. A Catholic husband can commit parricide only one. If a Muslim husband can commit
the crime of parricide more than once, then in effect he is being punished for the other marriages that he entered into which the law
authorized and recognized as valid.
Case: People vs. Tibon June 29, 2010

This appeal admits that parricide has indeed been committed. The defense, however, banks on Tibon’s insanity to exempt him from
punishment. The defense has unsatisfactorily shown that Tibon was insane when he stabbed his two young sons.
The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than
the rule in the human condition. There is a vast difference between a genuinely insane person and one who has worked himself up into
such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he does. We reiterate jurisprudence which has established
that only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting
circumstance of insanity be considered.
Parricide is differentiated from murder and homicide by the relationship between the killer and his or her victim. Even without the
attendant circumstances qualifying homicide to murder, the law punishes those found guilty of parricide with reclusion perpetua to
death, prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines). The
commission of parricide is punished more severely than homicide since human beings are expected to love and support those who are
closest to them. The extreme response of killing someone of one’s own flesh and blood is indeed unnatural and tragic. Tibon must thus
be handed down the harshest penalty for his crimes against his innocent children.
Note: Generic, qualifying, inherent aggravating circumstances if not alleged in the information can in no way be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in any event. If proven during trial, it can only serve to increase the civil liability.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. – Any legally married person who, having
surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age,
and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Requisites for the application of Article 247:

1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with
him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person
2. That he or she kills any or both, of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter
Page | 79
Criminal Law II
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse
Article 247 does not define a felony. It merely grants a privilege or benefit, more of an exempting circumstance, as the penalty is more
for the protection of the offender from the retaliation of relatives of the victim. It is more of a privilege or benefit to be given to an
accused rather than a punishment.
A person who acts under Article 247 is not committing a crime. Since this is merely an exempting circumstance, the accused must first
be charged with parricide, murder or homicide or homicide through simple negligence or serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence.
When the offender surprised the other spouse with the paramour or mistress, the attack must take place while the sexual intercourse
was going on. If the surprise was before or after the intercourse, no matter how immediate it may be, Article 247 does not apply. The
offender in this situation only gets the benefit of a mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation immediately preceding the act, or
passion or obfuscation.
Case: People vs. Trigo 174 S 93

Appellant also submits that the prosecution did not prove the motive of appellant for killing his wife. The law is well-settled that motive is
relevant only where the Identity of the person accused of having committed the crime is in dispute, where there are no eyewitnesses,
and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons.
The court a quo appreciated in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. We do not agree with this
finding. The accused himself testified that he went to the police station to report that his wife was stabbed by Buaco and to seek
protection as he feared that Buaco would also stab him. Clearly, his action cannot in any manner be considered as amounting to
voluntary surrender.
Case: People vs. Talisic 278 S 517

The accused-appellant admits having killed his wife but insists that he did so only after surprising her in the very act of sexual
intercourse with another man. However, he fails to substantiate the stringent elements required by law to absolve him of criminal
responsibility. His defense appears no more than an amalgam of confusion, contradiction and concoction.
An absolutory cause is present "where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
imposed." Article 247 is an example of an absolutory cause. Explaining the rationale for this, the Court held: The vindication of a man's
honor is justified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her,
even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a purification is so severe that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse is
caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only
during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.
Having admitted the killing, the accused must now bear the burden of showing the applicability of Article 247. Most critically, Appellant
Jimmy Talisic must prove that he caught his wife in flagrante delicto; that he killed her while she was in the very act of voluntary sexual
intercourse with another man or immediately thereafter. Sadly for him, he has miserably failed to do so.
The requirement is you kill any one of them or inflict physical injuries while they are doing the act of sexual intercourse or immediately
thereafter and not before.
To apply Article 247, you have to ask whether or not the spouse’s act of surprising the other spouse was while the intercourse is taking
place or it was made during the time or immediately thereafter.
The marriage between the spouses must be valid. The privilege extends to the parents who surprise their daughter less than 18 years
old and the daughter is living with them
Two stages:
1. The innocent spouse surprised the other spouse with the paramour or mistress in flagrante delicto; they must be in the act of
sexual intercourse (and not in doing preliminaries only).
2. The killing or infliction of serious physical injuries while the guilt spouse is in the act of sexual intercourse or the killing or
inflicting of serious physical injuries must be immediately thereafter.
Case: US vs. Alano

The phrase “immediately thereafter” means that the offender finds the spouse in actual sexual intercourse with another, the latter
escapes with the offended spouse in hot pursuit. The offender must inflict serious physical injuries or cause the killing of the offending
parties without interruption or interval.
The phrase “immediately thereafter” has been interpreted to mean that between the surprising and the killing or the inflicting of the
physical injury, there should be no break of time. In other words, it must be a continuous process. The phrase “immediately thereafter”
means that the discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing must all form parts of one continuous act.
Page | 80
Criminal Law II
Case: People vs. Gabriel
Case: People vs. Gonzales
The privilege granted is conditioned on the requirement that the spouse surprise the husband or wife in the act committing sexual
intercourse with another person. In this case, the accused did not surprise his wife in the very act of carnal intercourse but after the act.
The wife was in the act of rising up and the man was buttoning his drawers; it does not necessarily mean they were having intercourse.
It is the infidel spouse who must be surprised and not the innocent spouse otherwise the latter should have perfect timing so that he or
she should be surprised at the very moment that the intercourse is taking place.
The article presumes that the legally married person who surprises his or her better half in actual sexual intercourse will be overcome
by the obfuscation he felt when he saw them in the act, that he lost his head. The law thus affords protection to the spouse who is
considered to have acted in a justified outburst of passion from a state of mental disequilibrium. The offended spouse has no time to
regain his self-control.
If there was a break of time between the sexual act and the killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries, the law presupposes that the
offender regained his reason and therefore Article 247 will not apply. As long as the act is continuous, Article 247 may be invoked by
the offender.
Case: People vs. Abarca September 4, 1987

The provision of Article 247 applies in the instant case. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the
victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst.
Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements
are present in this case. The trial court, in convicting the accused-appellant of murder, therefore erred.
Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of
them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly
thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon
his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not
have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.
Neither is the accused liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados. The accused-appellant did not have the
intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule
presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony, which is not so in this case. Here, the accused was not committing murder when he
discharged his rifle upon the deceased.
This does not mean, however, that the accused-appellant is totally free from any responsibility. Granting the fact that he was not
performing an illegal act when he fired shots at the victim, he cannot be said to be entirely without fault. While it appears that before
firing at the deceased, he uttered warning words, that is not enough a precaution to absolve him for the injuries sustained by the
Amparados. We nonetheless find negligence on his part. Accordingly, we hold him liable under the first part, second paragraph, of
Article 365, that is, less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence.
Case: People vs. Cabalhin March 28, 1994

As to the issue on the applicability of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code to the case at bench, the principal question is whether or
not appellant killed his wife Marianita and Rolito as he caught them in the act of committing the sexual act, or immediately
thereafter. Clearly in the present case, appellant failed to prove that he killed Marianita and Rolito while in the act of sexual intercourse
or immediately thereafter. Therefore, appellant can not invoke Article 247 to be exempt from criminal liability. He is guilty of parricide
under Article 246 of the Code, which provides that any person who shall kill his or her spouse shall be punished by the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death.
Article 248. Murder. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense,
or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
3. By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of
an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse.
Elements:
Page | 81
Criminal Law II
1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide
Except for outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse, all the qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248 to upgrade the
killing to murder are found under Article 14 which enumerates aggravating circumstances. Not all the 21 aggravating circumstances
under Article 14 will qualify the killing to murder. It is limited only to qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248.
If what is alleged in the information to qualify the killing to murder is nighttime then the offender cannot be convicted for murder since it
is not mentioned in Article 248 although it is indubitably an aggravating circumstance in Article 14. The courts should just appreciate
nighttime as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Kinds of aggravating circumstances:

Generic
Inherent
Specific
Qualifying
The information would usually allege several qualifying circumstances. When all are proven or established during the trial, one is
enough o qualify the crime. In the meantime, the other qualifying circumstances found to be present shall lose their nature as qualifying
circumstance and will reacquire their original nature as generic aggravating circumstances.
For one to be liable for murder, the victim must be killed. The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense. Otherwise, if the
victim is not killed, the accused will be liable either in the attempted or frustrated stage
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity
Treachery
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof that tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might take.
The essence of treachery is that the offended party was denied a chance to defend himself because the offender devised methods and
means in executing the crime. It is a matter of whether or not the offended party was denied a chance of defending himself. If he was
denied the chance, then treachery is present.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor to an unsuspecting victim, depriving the later of any
real chance of defending himself thereby insuring without risk to the aggressor the commission of the crime, or without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim. It lies in the attack which comes without warning and is swift, deliberate and unexpected and
affords the hapless and unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.
Ex. An attack from behind is generally always treacherous. However, not all attacks from behind is treacherous since it depends upon
the circumstance. A frontal attack generally is not treacherous but it may be considered as treacherous such as when it is sudden.
Case: People vs. Manala August 14, 2002

When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault.
Treachery can only be appreciated or used or applied in crimes against persons.

Treachery cannot be presumed. When the manner of attack was not proven, there can be no treachery.
If the killing was preceded by a quarrel or altercation by the parties, there is no treachery because each of the protagonists
was put on guard with impending attack. Each of them is forewarned of an impending attack on either of them.
Murder is a non-bailable offense.
For treachery to exist, the following condition must concur:

1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself
2. The offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him
Case: People vs. Escarlos 410 S 463
Page | 82
Criminal Law II
Two requirements for treachery to apply:
1. The employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation
2. The deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution
Case: People vs. Almogera 415 S 647

The killing of minor children who by reason of their tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with
treachery even if the manner of the attack was not shown. It exists in the commission of the crime when the adult person illegally
attacked the child of tender years and causes death on the said minor child.
Case: People vs. Dizon 558 S 395

Treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected.
Rules when attack is frontal:
Case: People vs. Alfondre 199 S 64
1. If the attack is frontal, there is no treachery if the mode of the attack does not exclude any risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the party attacked may make
2. But there is treachery when the attack, although frontal, is sudden and unexpected
3. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel
the attack or avoid it
Alevosia or treachery is considered even if:

1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a generic intent to treacherously kill any first two persons belonging to a
class. (Case: People vs. Manalende)
2. There was aberration ictus and the bullet hit a person different from that intended. (The rule is different in evident
premeditation)
3. There was error in personae, hence the victim was not the one intended by the accused. (The rule is different in evident
premeditation)
Taking advantage of superior strength and employing means to weaken the defense
Taking advantage of superior strength means to deliberately use excessive force that is cut out of proportion to the means for self-
defense available to the person so attacked.
Case: People vs. Lobrigas et al. December 17, 2002

However, we do not agree with the trial court that the crime committed was murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength. To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take
advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the
crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available
to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders’ deliberate intent to do so.
There was no clear indication in this case that the accused-appellant and his companions purposely used their joint efforts to
consummate the crime. Consequently, the crime committed by accused-appellant was only homicide.
Case: People vs. Pogo 410 S 62

For the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to be appreciated, the size, age, and strength of the parties must be
considered and there must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter a superior strength
which is taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise
This qualifying aggravating circumstance affects not only the person who gave the price, reward, or promise but also the person who
received it. The person who induced others to commit the crime for a price, reward, or promise is liable as principal by inducement and
those who committed the crime are liable as principal by direct participation.
It is indispensable that the inducement made be the primary consideration for the commission of the crime.
3. By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and
ruin
Inundation, fire, poison, etc.
If the use of the fire is to conceal the killing, two separate crimes are committed: arson and homicide.
Page | 83
Criminal Law II
If fire is used as a means to kill, even if property were burned, murder and not arson is committed. If you used fire to kill
someone then it is murder. If in the course thereof, other houses were burned, it can only be considered as generic
aggravating circumstance.
If your purpose is to burn the house but someone was inside, the crime committed is destructive arson.
If fire was resorted to as a joke but death resulted to it, the crime committed is homicide because the use of fire must be
purposely resorted to in order to kill; it must be resorted to intentionally.
Case: People vs. Pugay 167 S 439

Having taken the can from under the engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased,
this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice even
before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from
any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased. We agree with the Solicitor
General that the accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
With respect to the accused Samson, the Solicitor General in his brief contends that "his conviction of murder, is proper considering that
his act in setting the deceased on fire knowing that gasoline had just been poured on him is characterized by treachery as the victim
was left completely helpless to defend and protect himself against such an outrage". We do not agree.
There is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had some reason to kill the deceased before the incident. On
the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing that his act was merely a part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance
of treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate and the culprit employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.
There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the deceased was gasoline and a
flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of
doubt, it call be conceded that as part of their fun-making he merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire. His act, however,
does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical
injuries on his person, a felony defined in the Revised Penal Code. If his act resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in the
instant case, he must be held responsible therefor. Article 4 of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia, that criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
As no sufficient evidence appears in the record establishing any qualifying circumstances, the accused Samson is only guilty of the
crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
By means of motor vehicles
This provision is intended to repress the treatment used by criminals of said means to commit a crime and flee after the crime is
committed. The circumstance of use of motor vehicle is aggravating when the motor vehicle is purposely used to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
Ex. Riding in tandem in a motorcycle
Can the crime of murder be committed if it is the motor vehicle itself that is being used in the commission of the crime? Yes.
After killing a person, if the accused used a motor vehicle to facilitate his escape then the crime is homicide because he did
not use it to facilitate the killing.
Case: People vs. Castodillo 401 S 723

The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the
commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other public calamity
5. With evident premeditation
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse
Cruelty means that the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
its commission. The deliberate augmentation of the wrong done is present when the offender performs other acts with the evident
intention to prolong the physical suffering of the victim.
Cruelty includes the situation where the victim is already dead and yet, acts were committed which would scoff or decry the corpse of
the victim. The crime becomes murder although the acts done no longer amount to cruelty.
Note: Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim must be alive.
Case; People vs. Butler January 27, 1983
Page | 84
Criminal Law II
The act of the accused in having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is undoubtedly an outrage of her corpse therefore the
crime committed is murder.
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed on him, this would also qualify the killing to murder due
to scoffing or outraging his corpse.
“Outraging” – means to commit an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act

“Scoffing” – means to jeer, and implies a showing of irreverence
Case: Simangan vs. People July 8, 2004

The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because the victim sustained 10 stabbed wounds, 3 of which were fatal. For cruelty to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance, there must be proof that in inflicting several stabbed wounds on the victim, the perpetrator
intended to exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. The number of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof of cruelty.
Supreme Court rulings:

Killing of a child of tender age
Evident premeditation is absorbed in the price, reward or promise if without the premeditation the inductor would not have
induced the other to commit the act, but not with regards to the one induced
Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and comprehended by the circumstance of treachery or forms part of treachery
Treachery is inherent in poison
For one of the accused who were charged with murder was the wife of the deceased but her relationship to the deceased was
not alleged in the information, her relationship should be appreciated as aggravating (not correct anymore)
Killing of the victims hit by hand grenade thrown at them is murder qualified by explosion, not by treachery
Case: People vs. Feliciano et al. May 5, 2014

They argue that the prosecution should not have included the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information
since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an
aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution
to state the aggravating circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the evidence,
introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and
unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off
does not prevent them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an
aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was,
therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to
conceal their identity.
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of men armed with lead pipes and baseball bats attacked Dennis Venturina and his
companions, which resulted in Venturina's death. As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, the offense committed
against Dennis Venturina was committed by a group that took advantage of its superior strength and with the aid of armed men.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be
considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to
defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to be on
guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men.
The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was
with their arms. In a situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible for them to fight back against the
attackers. The attack also happened in less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to help
them until after the incident.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves.
Treachery, therefore, was present in this case.
RA 9165: Dangerous Drugs Act
Will the Probation Law apply to the provisions of RA 9165?

Probation will not apply if the accused is convicted of trafficking or selling or transportation. It will apply for possession.
Page | 85
Criminal Law II
Section 24. Non-applicability of the Probation Law for drug traffickers and pushers. – Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or
Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
Section 25. Qualifying aggravating circumstances in the commission of a crime by an offender under the influence of dangerous drugs.
– Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
Penal Code shall be applicable.
Article 249. Homicide. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, without the attendance of any
of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.
Homicide – the unlawful killing of any person, which is neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide
Elements:
1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances or murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide
In the crime of homicide, necessarily he victim must die in order to consummate the crime. If he does not die, the crime is either in the
attempted or frustrated stage only. In the attempted or frustrated stage of homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill the victim. If
there is no intent to kill them the person will not be liable for homicide, attempted or frustrated, but only for physical injuries.
However, even if there is no intent to kill and death resulted from the injuries inflicted, the crime if homicide. It cannot be physical
injuries because with respect to the crimes of personal violence, the law looks upon the results of the act of the offender and holds him
responsible for all the consequences of the said act. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Evidence of intent to
kill is required only when what is involved is either attempted or frustrated homicide only.
Homicide Physical injuries

In attempted and frustrated homicide, there is always intent to kill. If there is no intent to kill, the crime is physical injuries only. It is
If the injury inflicted is slight or not mortal, and the offender does divided into 3 kinds: (1) serious; (2) less serious; and (3) slight
not perform all the acts of execution then he will only be liable for physical injuries.
attempted homicide. If the wound inflicted is serious or mortal and If the injuries were mortal but were due to negligence, the crime
the offender performs all the acts of execution, if the victim does committed is reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries.
not die because of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator then he will be liable only for the frustrated stage.
If as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the
crime will be homicide because the law punishes the result and
not the intent of the act.
PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 and RA 10591: Illegal Possession of Firearms
Elements of illegal possession of firearms:

1. Possession of the subject firearm
2. The fact that the accused does not have the corresponding permit or license to own or possess the same
Section 29: Use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime
punishable under the RPC or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted
coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’etat.
Loose firearm – refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been lost or stolen, illegally
manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of a n individual other than the licensee and those with revoked licenses
in accordance with the rules and regulations
How should homicide committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm be denominated?
Case: People vs. Castillo February 2000
If a crime of homicide of murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The crime should be denominated as homicide or
murder aggravated by illegal possession of firearm, and not illegal possession of firearm aggravated by homicide.
If an unlicensed firearm is used in the killing, there should only be one offense filed.
Page | 86
Criminal Law II
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof.
The prosecution must prove a negative fact: that the accused is not a licensed firearm holder. They will get a certificate from
the FED certifying that the person who is in possession of the said firearm is not a licensed holder.
Case: Mallari vs. CA December 1996

Petitioner claims that even assuming that the handgun and ammunition had in fact been found in his possession, the prosecution failed
to prove that he had no license therefor and absent this essential element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms, it was manifest
error for the Court of Appeals to uphold his conviction.
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof, viz: (a) the existence
of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to
possess the same. The latter is a negative fact which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is
the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. In the case at bench, the testimony of a
representative of, or a certification from the PNP (FEU) that petitioner was not a licensee of the said firearm would have sufficed for the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession. The absence of the foregoing is
fatal to the prosecution's case and renders petitioner's conviction erroneous.
Is it necessary to prove the existence of a negative fact if the firearm in question is a paltik (homemade gun)?
Case: People vs. Evangelista May 1996
No, indeed accused-appellant cannot be convicted even of simple illegal possession of firearm because of lack of evidence that the
firearm is unlicensed. The trial court based its decision simply on the fact that the firearm used in this case is a homemade gun known
in the dialect as paltik, apparently being of the opinion that a paltik cannot be licensed. This view was rejected in People v. Ramos:
We do not agree with the contention of the Solicitor General that since a paltik is a homemade gun, is illegally manufactured as
recognized in People vs. Fajardo, and cannot be issued a license or permit, it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed. This
appears to be, at first blush, a very logical proposition. We cannot, however, yield to it because Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in
no case be issued a license or a permit, and that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed.
Case: People vs. Nepomuceno June 1999
Case: People vs. Lazaro October 1999

Accused contends that the prosecution failed to prove the absence of a license to carry a firearm as the prosecution merely marked in
evidence a certification from the Firearms and Explosive Section in Camp Crame without presenting the person who issued the
certification himself.
On several occasions, the Court has ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and
Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second
element of possession of illegal firearms.
In view of the amendments introduced by Republic Act 8294 to Presidential Decree 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and
illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearms is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in
the homicide case.
Is ownership a requisite for the conviction for the illegal possession of firearm?
Case: People vs. Bergante February 1998
No, the unvarying rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law
requires is merely possession which includes not only actual possession but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing
to one’s control and management.
What if the prosecution did not present or offer in evidence the subject firearm in court? Can there still be conviction?
Case: Escalante vs. People January 9, 2013
Yes, the straightforward and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the petitioner’s possession of a firearm and the
circumstances surrounding it had amply established the corpus delicti.
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide. – The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose upon
the person guilty of the frustrated crime or parricide, murder, or homicide, defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty
lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the provisions of Article 50.
The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Article 51 should be imposed
for an attempt to commit any such crimes.
The provision of this article must be reconciled with the provisions of Article 50 to 57. It should also be considered with the
circumstances affecting criminal liability, such as the presence of justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances in the appreciation
of every case.
Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. - The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law
for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Page | 87
Criminal Law II
Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. - A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for
the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. – When, while several person, not composing of groups organized for the common
purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and
in the course of the affray someone is killed, and ti cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons
who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon the person of the victim.
Two instances contemplated:

1. Where death resulted and the person who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified
2. Where death resulted and those who inflicted serious physical injuries cannot be identified
Elements:
1. That there be several persons
2. That they did not compose group organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased
6. That the person or person who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified
Tumultuous affray – means that the assault was attended by at least four persons who are armed or provided with means of violence;
it is a free-for-all fight; when a quarrel occurs between several person not composing organized groups and they engage in a fight in a
confused and tumultuous manner in the course of which some persons were killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be
ascertained
If it can be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, Article 251 cannot apply. What applies is Article 249.
If there is a concerted fight, as when two identified groups of men assaulted each other, Article 251 is also not applicable.
It is not necessary that the “someone” referred to by law is a participant or part of the group fighting.
Who are liable:

1. The person or person who inflicted the serious physical injuries (“last touch”)
2. If it is not known who inflicted the serious physical injuries, all the persons who used violence upon the person of the victim are
liable but with lesser liability
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. – When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article,
only serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all
those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
provided for the physical injuries so inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those who
appear to have used any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be punished by arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
Elements:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article
2. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature only
3. That the person responsible therefor cannot be identified
4. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known
The offender cannot be identified or is unknown, the law provides an alternative solution to the problem- the authorities may determine
the identity of those who employed violence to the victim. Once these person are identified, they shall be charged and shall suffer a
penalty one degree lower that that required for serious physical injuries
Article 251 Article 252

Death is caused in a tumultuous affray Only serious physical injuries is inflicted
The victim need not be one of the participants The injured party must be one or some of those involved or
participants in the tumultuous affray
If only slight physical injuries is inflicted in a tumultuous affray and the identity of the offender is established, the provisions of Article252
will not be observed. Instead, the offender shall be prosecuted in the ordinary course of the law. There is no crime of slight physical
injuries caused in a tumultuous affray. Article 252 is limited to serious and less serious physical injuries only.
Page | 88
Criminal Law II
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide. – Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor, if such person lends his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed.

1. By assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not
This contemplates the giving of assistance by furnishing the person contemplating suicide with the means in which to kill himself.
This includes giving positing aid and suggesting the mode by which to commit suicide.
2. By lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself
Committing suicide is not a crime. In fact, the law forgives and pities the person.
Article 253 does not distinguish and does not make any reference to the relation of the offender with the person committing
suicide. The penalty is the same if the offender is a parent, child, or spouse.
Euthanasia – it is the practice of putting to death with the use of pain reliever a person suffering from an incurable disease.
The person responsible for the mercy-killing may believe that he is doing the patient a favor or that he is rendering a humanitarian
service, but in the eyes of law such person is liable for murder under Article 148 because in euthanasia the victim does not wish to die.
The doctor who results to mercy-killing is not liable under Article 253 but is liable for murder.
Article 254. Discharge of firearms. – Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated
or attempted parricide, murder, homicide, or any other crime for which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
Elements:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that person
There must be absolutely no intent on the part of the offender to kill the offended party. Absence of such intent can be shown
or demonstrated from the range or distance at which the gun is fired.
The purpose is to intimidate or frighten the offended party only. If there is intent to kill, then the person is liable for attempted
homicide or murder.
There can be a complex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with serious or less serious physical injuries.
The phrase “shall shoot at another” means that it should be aimed towards a particular person. The crime is not committed if it is not
directed to the person of the victim such as his house. This crime may not be committed through imprudence because the law requires
that the discharge must be directed at another.
If you discharge a firearm it may have three consequences:

1. The firing of a gun is illegal discharge of firearm if a person fires his gun at another without intent to kill
2. It is attempted homicide if the person fires his gun at another person with intent to kill but does not inflict a mortal or serious
wound
3. It is alarms and scandals if the person fires his gun in a public place causing alarm or damage
Article 255. Infanticide. – The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any
person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, and she shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the
maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
Infanticide – the killing of any child less than three days of age, whether the killer is the parent or grandparent, any other relative of the
child, or a stranger
Elements:
1. That a child was killed
2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age
3. That the accused killed the said child
The crime is based on the age of the child. The child should be less than 3 days old. If the child is exactly 3 days old, the crime will be
murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery since the child is not in a position to defend itself.
Page | 89
Criminal Law II
Mother Stranger
Three days old and above Parricide; the fact of concealment of dishonor will Murder; it cannot be parricide because he is not
not mitigate the criminal liability because it is not related to the child
considered in the crime of parricide
Less than three days of age Infanticide; concealment of dishonor as a motive Infanticide because it is not predicated on the
of the mother can be considered as a mitigating relation of the offender to the offended party but
circumstance on the age of the child
If the child is abandoned without any intent to kill and death results as a consequence, the crime if not infanticide but it is
abandonment under Article 276 (under 7 years of age, custody is incumbent upon her).
If the purpose of the mother is to conceal her dishonor, infanticide through imprudence is not committed because the purpose
of concealing the dishonor is incompatible with the absence of malice in culpable felonies.
When the offender is the father, mother or legitimate ascendant, he/she shall suffer the penalty for parricide. If the offender is any other
person, the penalty is that for murder. In either case, the proper qualification for the offense is infanticide. Even if the killer is the mother
or father or legitimate grandparents, the crime is still infanticide and not parricide but the penalty if that for parricide.
Parricide Infanticide
The age of the child should be 3 days and above The age of the child is less than 3 days
Can be committed if the victim and the offender are related by The offender may or may not be related to the child
blood
Concealment of dishonor is not a mitigating circumstance Concealment of dishonor by the mother or maternal grandparents
is a mitigating circumstance (however, it is not an essential
element of the crime)
There is no infanticide if the child is still-born.

If the mother is a CSW, she cannot invoke concealing of dishonor as a mitigating circumstance because she has no more
honor to conceal. The mother must be of good reputation.
Article 256. Intentional abortion. – Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman
3. That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the accused, the foetus dies, either
in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom
4. That the abortion is intended
Abortion – the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb which results in the
death of the fetus
Three ways of committing:

1. By using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman
2. By acting, but without using violence (such as through the use of drugs or beverages), without the consent of the woman
3. By acting, with the consent of the pregnant woman
If the pregnant woman consents, the liability is lower. The pregnant woman who consented is liable under Article 258,
consented abortion.
Abortion is not a crime against the woman but against the fetus.
If the mother, as a consequence of the abortion, suffers death or physical injuries, then there is the complex crime of murder or
physical injuries and abortion.
If the fetus survives in spite of the attempt to kill it, abortion is not consummated.
Infanticide Abortion
If the victim is already a person less than 3 days old or 72 hours If the victim is not viable but remains to be a fetus
and is viable or capable of living separately from the mother’s
womb
Page | 90
Criminal Law II
In intentional abortion, the offender must know of the pregnancy. The particular criminal intention is to cause an abortion. Therefore, the
offender must have known of the pregnancy for otherwise he could not try an abortion.
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and someone performs an abortion upon her, the one who performed the abortion will be
liable for the impossible crime if the woman suffer no physical injury. If she dies, the crime will be homicide or if only injuries is
sustained then the offender will be liable for serious physical injuries.
Note: Impossible crimes can be committed only if there is no other crime committed.
Under Article 40 of the Civil Code, birth determines personality. A person is considered born at the time when the umbilical cord is cut; it
then acquires a personality separate from the mother. However, even though the umbilical cord has been cut, under Article 41 of the
Civil Code provides that if the fetus had an intrauterine life of less than 7 months, it must survive at least 24 hours after the umbilical
cord is cut for it to be considered as born.
If the umbilical cord had not been cut and it is shown that the child who had an intrauterine life of 7 months could have survived beyond
24 hours, the crime is infanticide because the conceived child is considered as born. If it could be shown that the child could not have
survived, the crime is abortion because what was killed is a fetus only.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed upon
any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted
4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom
Violence was intentionally exerted to the pregnant woman which unintentionally results to abortion. The violence must be physical and
must be deliberate and voluntary.
Mere intimidation is not enough unless the degree of intimidation already approximates violence. While there is no intention on the part
of the accused to cause an abortion, nonetheless the violence that he employs on the pregnant woman must be intentional. In other
words, only the abortion is unintended.
This crime may be committed through negligence. What is important is that it is but enough that there is a use of violence and that kind
of violence is voluntary.
What is contemplated by unintentional abortion is that the force or violence must come from another. If it was the woman who was
doing the violence upon herself, it must be to bring about an abortion and therefore the crime will be intentional abortion.
If an abortive drug (prohibited or regulated drug) is used in an abortion, and as a consequence the woman died, what are the crimes
committed?
There can be a complex crime of homicide or parricide with unintentional abortion

For unintentional abortion to be committed, the accused must have known of the pregnancy
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice an abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person
should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion
3. That the abortion is caused by:
a. The pregnant woman herself
b. Any other person, with her consent
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor
This article talks about consented abortion. There is no violence exerted by a third person.
Page | 91
Criminal Law II
If the abortion is resorted to by the pregnant woman to conceal her dishonor, the penalty is lower. If the abortion is caused by the
woman’s parents or either of them for the purpose of concealing the girl’s dishonor, the penalty imposed upon the parents will be the
same as if the abortion was done by any other person. There is no mitigation for the parents of the pregnant woman, unlike in
infanticide.
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortive. – The penalties provided in Article 256 shall
be imposed in their maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or
skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion
3. That the offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes, or assists in causing, the abortion
4. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill
It is not necessary that the pharmacist knew that the abortive pill will be used to cause an abortion. What is punished is the act of
dispensing an abortive pill without the proper prescription. It is not necessary that the abortive pill be actually used.
If the pharmacist knew that the abortive pill will be used to cause an abortion and abortion results, he will be liable as an
accomplice.
If the abortion is produced by the physician to save the life of the mother, then there is no liability. This is called therapeutic
abortion. There must be no other practical or less harmful means of saving the life of the mother to make the killing justified.
Abortion without medical necessity to warrant it is punishable even with the consent of the woman or her husband.
Unintentional abortion through negligence or imprudence is committed when a sick pregnant woman is administered a
medicine by the doctor, which resulted to abortion.
RA 4729: Pharmaceutical Law June 18, 1966
An Act to Regulate The Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution Of Contraceptive Drugs And Devices
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation, to sell, dispense or otherwise distribute whether for or without
consideration, any contraceptive drug or device, unless such sale, dispensation or distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or
pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
Section 2. For the purpose of this Act:

(a) “Contraceptive drug” is any medicine, drug, chemical, or portion which is used exclusively for the purpose of preventing fertilization
of the female ovum: and
(b) “Contraceptive device” is any instrument, device, material, or agent introduced into the female reproductive system for the primary
purpose of preventing conception.
Section 3. Any person, partnership, or corporation, violating the provisions of this Act shall be punished with a fine of not more than five
hundred pesos or an imprisonment of not less than six months or more than one year or both in the discretion of the Court.
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall
kill his adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according to their nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
The seconds shall in all events be punished as accomplices.
Acts punished:
1. By killing one’s adversary in a duel
2. By inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries
3. By making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted
Duel – a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on
each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight
Who are liable:

1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary, or both combatants in any other case, as principals
2. The seconds, as accomplices
Page | 92
Criminal Law II
Article 261. Challenging to a duel. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who
shall challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff at or decry another publicly for having
refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.
Acts punished:
1. By challenging another to a duel
2. By inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel
3. By scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel
A challenge to a fight, without contemplating a duel, is not challenging to a duel. If moved by hatred or ill-feelings, it may only be light or
grave threats.
Article 262. Mutilation. – The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
Mutilation – the lopping or the clipping off of some part of the body; mutilation includes any part of the human body which is not
susceptible to grow again, and not only the reproductive organ
Two kinds of mutilation:

1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him , either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction
The castration must be made purposely otherwise it will only be considered as mutilation of the second kind.
2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the offended party, other than
the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his body
The intent to deliberately cut off the particular part of the body that was removed from the offended party must be established. If there is
no intent to deprive the victim of particular part of the body the crime will only be serious physical injuries.
If what was cut off was a reproductive organ, the penalty is higher than that for homicide
This cannot be committed through criminal negligence or culpa
Article 263. Serious physical injuries. – Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious
physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane,
imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the
person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an
arm, or a leg, or shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was
theretofore habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the
person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or
shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more
than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries
inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the person enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of any of the
circumstances mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this article shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum periods, the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period, the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
The crime of physical injuries assumes that the wounding, beating or the assaulting is without intention to kill; otherwise, it will become
attempted or frustrated homicide.
The crime of physical injuries is divided into three:

1. Serious physical injuries
2. Less serious physical injuries
Page | 93
Criminal Law II
3. Slight physical injuries
The crime of physical injuries is considered a crime of result because the nature of the crime depends on the result of the injury or the
gravity of the injury that the offended person sustained.
Any kind of physical injury should always be in its consummated stage.

Why is there no attempted or frustrated physical injuries? If the act does not give rise to injuries then it cannot be determined whether it
is attempted unless the result is there. As long as the injury is not there, then there can be no attempted or frustrated stage.
Paragraph 1 – If in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent,
or blind
Blindness must be complete or total. Mere defect in or weakness of vision is not contemplated. If only one eye is affected by blindness
then it will be covered under paragraph 2.
Impotency – the inability to copulate; there will be sterility
In mutilation, there is intent to cut the organ to deprive the person thereof but in physical injuries resulting to impotency, there is no
intention to cut it but it just so happened.
Paragraph 2 – If in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the
power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, or shall have lost the use of any such
member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged
What are lost under this paragraph are the principal members of the body.
Loss of an eye – partial loss of vision is enough

Loss of arm or leg – it must be distinguished from mutilation; the cutting is but a result of an assault directed by one person
against the victim
Loss of the power to hear – it must be to both ears; if only one ear is lost, paragraph 3 will apply
Incapacity must be permanent resulting to the inability to perform the work he was habitually engaged in.
Paragraph 3 – If in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall
have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days
Deformity – refers to ugliness which should be conspicuous or visible; disfigurement. If the deformity is hidden or concealed, it cannot
be considered as ugly.
Scar in the buttocks cannot be considered as deformity because it is concealed

Loss of front teeth, scar on the face are considered deformity
Loss of molar tooth, which cannot be seen,
When the injury created a deformity upon the offended party, you disregard the healing duration or the period of medical treatment
involved. At once, it is considered serious physical injuries. Even though the deformity may not have incapacitated from the offended
party from work or even though the medical treatment did not go beyond 90 days, the deformity will bring about the crime of serious
physical injuries.
Deformity requires the concurrence of the following conditions:

1. The injury must produce physical ugliness
2. It must be visible and conspicuous
3. The ugliness will not disappear through natural healing process; it is permanent and definite abnormality
“Any other part of his body” – refers to any other members other than an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg as mentioned in
paragraph 2.
Incapacity need not be permanent but such incapacity must not last for more than 90 days.
Paragraph 4 - If the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for
more than thirty days
Page | 94
Criminal Law II
While the law does not mention medical attendance as a requisite in determining the extent of the suffering of the victim in order to
characterize the injury as serious physical injury, such a omission is significantly important as the law in the meantime requires that the
illness must be for a period of more than 30 days which fact is more often evidenced by the medical certificate.
Qualified serious physical injuries – refers to the infliction of serious physical injuries on any of the persons enumerated in the article
defining parricide, or with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in the article defining murder, and where the law provide
for the imposition of higher penalties
RA 8049: The Anti- Hazing Law
Section 1. Definition of hazing + what is not considered hazing

Section 2. Requisites before hazing or initiation rites be allowed
Section 3. Duty of the head of the school or organization
Section 4. Who are liable for hazing + qualified hazing and penalties
Case: Villa vs. Lorenzo February 1, 2012

The public outrage over the death of Leonardo "Lenny" Villa – the victim in this case – on 10 February 1991 led to a very strong clamor
to put an end to hazing. Due in large part to the brave efforts of his mother, petitioner Gerarda Villa, groups were organized,
condemning his senseless and tragic death. This widespread condemnation prompted Congress to enact a special law, which became
effective in 1995, that would criminalize hazing. The intent of the law was to discourage members from making hazing a requirement for
joining their sorority, fraternity, organization, or association. Moreover, the law was meant to counteract the exculpatory implications of
"consent" and "initial innocent act" in the conduct of initiation rites by making the mere act of hazing punishable or mala prohibita.
In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the employment of physical
injuries must be coupled with dolus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of malicious intent is fundamental, since injury
arises from the mental state of the wrongdoer – iniuria ex affectu facientis consistat. If there is no criminal intent, the accused cannot be
found guilty of an intentional felony. Thus, in case of physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, there must be a specific animus
iniuriandi or malicious intention to do wrong against the physical integrity or well-being of a person, so as to incapacitate and deprive
the victim of certain bodily functions. Without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act of inflicting
physical injuries per se merely satisfies the elements of freedom and intelligence in an intentional felony. The commission of the act
does not, in itself, make a man guilty unless his intentions are.
Based on the foregoing contextual background, and absent further proof showing clear malicious intent, we are constrained to rule that
the specific animus iniuriandi was not present in this case. Even if the specific acts of punching, kicking, paddling, and other modes of
inflicting physical pain were done voluntarily, freely, and with intelligence, thereby satisfying the elements of freedom and intelligence in
the felony of physical injuries, the fundamental ingredient of criminal intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary,
all that was proven was that the acts were done pursuant to tradition. Although the additional "rounds" on the second night were held
upon the insistence of Villareal and Dizon, the initiations were officially reopened with the consent of the head of the initiation rites; and
the accused fraternity members still participated in the rituals, including the paddling, which were performed pursuant to tradition. Other
than the paddle, no other "weapon" was used to inflict injuries on Lenny. The targeted body parts were predominantly the legs and the
arms. The designation of roles, including the role of auxiliaries, which were assigned for the specific purpose of lending assistance to
and taking care of the neophytes during the initiation rites, further belied the presence of malicious intent. All those who wished to join
the fraternity went through the same process of "traditional" initiation; there is no proof that Lenny Villa was specifically targeted or
given a different treatment. We stress that Congress itself recognized that hazing is uniquely different from common crimes. The totality
of the circumstances must therefore be taken into consideration.
Thus, having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and the core principle of mala in se adhered to under the Revised
Penal Code, Congress did not simply enact an amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on hazing, founded upon the
principle of mala prohibita. This dilemma faced by Congress is further proof of how the nature of hazing – unique as against typical
crimes – cast a cloud of doubt on whether society considered the act as an inherently wrong conduct or mala in se at the time. It is safe
to presume that Lenny’s parents would not have consented to his participation in Aquila Fraternity’s initiation rites if the practice of
hazing were considered by them as mala in se.
For the foregoing reasons, and as a matter of law, the Court is constrained to rule against the trial court’s finding of malicious intent to
inflict physical injuries on Lenny Villa, there being no proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of malicious intent to inflict
physical injuries or animus iniuriandi as required in mala in se cases, considering the contextual background of his death, the unique
nature of hazing, and absent a law prohibiting hazing. The accused fraternity members are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. – The penalties established by the next preceding article shall be
applicable in the respective case to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical injury, by
knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity.
This article does not deal with a crime. It refers to a means of committing serious physical injuries. The offender must have no intention
to kill the victim because if he has such intention, the crime may be considered as frustrated murder.
Page | 95
Criminal Law II
“To administer” – means to direct or cause said substance or beverage to be taken orally by the injured person who suffers serious
physical injuries as a result
If the offender did not know the injurious nature of the substances he administered, he is not liable under this article
It does not apply when the physical injuries that result are less serious or slight
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries. – Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the
preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for
the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person, or under
circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or
persons in authority, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons
in authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such persons.
There is 10 days to 30 days that the person is incapacitated, or shall require actual medical attendance for those numbers of days.
1. Manifest intend to insult or offend the injured party
2. Circumstances adding ignominy to the offense
3. When the victim is the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers, or persons of rank or persons in
authority, provided the crime is not direct assault
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from
one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period;
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not
prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance;
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed
without causing any injury.
Three kinds of slight physical injuries:

1. Physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period
2. Physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury
The crime of maltreatment is a form of slight physical injuries. While the term is included in indentifying the forms of slight physical
injuries, the law however failed to define what it is all about. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, it must be another form of ill-
treatment. An example of maltreatment would be the slapping of the victim’s face which does not produce any injury. It can also
constitute slander by deed covered by a different article, if the purpose is to humiliate or cause dishonor to the person.
Physical injuries is a crime of result. While technically it is a material crime since it is divided in three categories, nonetheless, upon
reaching such stage it cannot be further divided as to constitute as attempted or frustrated physical injuries. It is one of those
considered as a formal crime; it can only be committed in its consummated stage.
If there is no proof as to the period of the offended party’s incapacity for labor or of the required medical attendance, the crime would
only be slight physical injuries. Sometimes the prosecutor would still require one to present a medical certificate since it contains a
healing period as stated by the examining physician.
If the wound would have healed for 8 days but the victim did not see a doctor and instead continued working. There was no
th
incapacity and no period of medical attendance. On the 9 day, the crime committed is slight physical injuries covered under
paragraph 2.
If 30 days has passed and still the victim continued working and was never incapacitated; he did not go to the doctor; however,
the wound was not healed. The crime is still slight physical injuries because he was not incapacitated even for a single day nor
have any medical attendance even for a day.
st
If on the 31 day the wound still did not heal and he continued to work without any medical intervention, the proper information
to be filed should be serious physical injuries under paragraph 4. He had been ill for more than 30 days and the fact that he
never saw a doctor is immaterial because medical attendance is not required.
Case: People vs. Sales October 3, 2011
Page | 96
Criminal Law II
A and B, sons of X, were beaten with a stick of wood and tied to a coconut tree. A sustained injuries while B lost consciousness and
slipped from the tree and died. He was convicted to parricide and serious physical injuries. He argued on his appeal that he has no
intention to commit so grave a wrong since he merely intended to discipline B.
In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a
felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the
perpetrator. Here, there is no doubt appellant in beating his son Noemar and inflicting upon him physical injuries, committed a felony.
As a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child, he expired. Appellant’s criminal liability for the death of his son, Noemar,
is thus clear.
The imposition of parental discipline on children of tender years must always be with the view of correcting their erroneous behavior. A
parent or guardian must exercise restraint and caution in administering the proper punishment. They must not exceed the parameters
of their parental duty to discipline their minor children. It is incumbent upon them to remain rational and refrain from being motivated by
anger in enforcing the intended punishment. A deviation will undoubtedly result in sadism.
When you slap a person, there are instances when slapping the victim is considered as slander by deed.
Slander by deed – a crime committed when a person publicly subjects another to an act intended or calculated to cast dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon the latter. Absent the intent to cast dishonor, discredit, contempt, or insult to the offended party, the crime is
only maltreatment under Article 266 Paragraph 3 where by deed, an offender maltreats other without causing any injury.
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present;
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
The crime of rape under RA 8353: The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 is considered as an amendment to the provision of Article 266 of the
RPC.
The crime of rape used to be a crime against chastity but is now a crime against persons through RA 8353. An impossible crime of rape
may now be committed if there is an inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of inadequate or ineffectual means.
As amended, it can also now be committed by means of sexual assault, not just by a man.
Since rape is no longer a private crime, it can be prosecuted even if the woman did not file the complaint for as long as there is
a witness.
Rape is not just simple physical violence. It debases a woman’s dignity leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her for life.
There are two kinds of rape under the present law:

1. Organ rape or rape by sexual intercourse – the traditional one
There is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will. The offended party is always a woman and the offender a man because of the
term carnal knowledge. There must be sexual intercourse. The penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a man
2. That the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman
3. That such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented
2. Object or instrument rape or rape by sexual assault, gender-free rape
This is committed with an instrument or object or the use of the penis with penetration of the mouth or anal orifice. The offended party
and the offender may either be a man or a woman. The penalty is only prision mayor and it is bailable.
Elements:
1. That the offender commits an act of sexual assault
Page | 97
Criminal Law II
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person
3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented
A person who sucks another’s organ is not liable under this type of rape because he did not insert anything into the genital or
anal orifice of the other person.
Thrusting a piece of wood into the anal orifice of another, motivated by hate or anger, is not liable because the act is not
motivated by sexual satisfaction or lewd designs. In fact, the act was done because of hate or anger. The crime of rape has
remained to be a crime malum in se and intent is still essential in proving the crime.
Case: People vs. Pareja January 15, 2014

The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the concept of rape with the recognition of
sexual violence on "sex-related" orifices other than a woman’s organ is included in the crime of rape; and the crime’s expansion to
cover gender-free rape. "The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and the
introduction of rape by ‘sexual assault’ as differentiated from the traditional ‘rape through carnal knowledge’ or ‘rape through sexual
intercourse.’
Thus, under the new provision, rape can be committed in two ways:
1. Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as "organ rape" or "penile rape." The central
element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called "instrument or object rape," or "gender-free rape." It must be
attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.
In People v. Abulon, this Court differentiated the two modes of committing rape as follows:
(1) In the first mode, the offender is always a man, while in the second, the offender may be a man or a woman;
(2) In the first mode, the offended party is always a woman, while in the second, the offended party may be a man or a woman;
(3) In the first mode, rape is committed through penile penetration of the vagina, while the second is committed by inserting the penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and
(4) The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher than that under the second.
AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus. While she may not have been
certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that Pareja had anal sex with her in December 2003, thus,
clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by sexual assault. In other words, her testimony on this account was, as the Court of
Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable.
However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be found
guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions
between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict
Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the
lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine.
There can be three divisions of rape according to the age of the victim:
1. Where the victim is less than 7 years old – the penalty is death
2. Where the victim is less than 12 years old – statutory rape
3. Rape of a woman less than 18 years old and there is a relationship – mandatory penalty of death is imposed
4. The regular kind of rape where the victim is more than 18 years old
Through force, threat or intimidation
The force employed against the victim need not be of such character as could not be resisted. It is enough that the force used is
sufficient to consummate the offender’s purpose of copulating with the victim.
The force required in rape need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. Just because the victim did not shout or offer
tenacious resistance, it does not make the victims submission voluntary. What is necessary is that the force employed in accomplishing
it is sufficient to consummate the purpose that the offender has in his mind.
Force as a necessary element of the crime of rape is to be taken in its ordinary acceptance. It means common physical force and fear
of life or bodily harm so that one is not able to make resistance. The degree of force required to constitute rape is relative depending
upon the particular circumstance.
Page | 98
Criminal Law II
Force or violence is considered as a relative term because it depends on the age, the size, the strength of the parties and their relation
to each other. There is no hard and fast rule.
Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim. It is subjective. There is no hard and fast rule in determining the degree of
intimidation because it all depends on how the victim perceived the intimidation at the time the threat was committed. People’s
reactions vary depending upon the situation.
Intimidation is the act of deterring a person by threats. It consists in imposing or creating fear in the mind of a person or in bringing in a
sense of mental distress in view of risk or evil that may be impending reality or by imagination.
Case: People vs. Velasquez 120 SCRA 847

The criminal responsibility of the appellant may only be predicated on his having committed the crime of rape should it appear from the
evidence on record that he had, indeed, obtained carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will and consent by means of force
and intimidation, and with the use of a bladed instrument, as alleged in the information. We have meticulously examined the record of
this case, particularly the testimony of complainant Remedios Domingo, in an effort to find adequate confirmation of her claim that the
appellant succeeded in making her submit to his sexual desire by threatening her with death by means of a bladed weapon should she
refuse to do so, or should she cry out for help. Sadly enough, Our earnest endeavor and desire to render justice to the aggrieved party
had failed to dissipate persistent doubts in Our minds as to the credibility of her assertion that the appellant coerced and threatened her
with death into submitting to his carnal demand in the evening of February 9, 1966.
An abiding sense of fairness impels Us to take heed of the oft-repeated observations that "a rape charge is easy to make, hard to prove
and harder to defend by the party, though innocent" (People vs. Barbo, 56 SCRA 459); and that "experience has shown that unfounded
charges of rape have frequently been preferred by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior or undisclosed motive; hence, convictions
for such crime should not be sustained without clear and convincing proof of guilt." Under the circumstances appearing in the case at
bar, the claim of the appellant that the complainant was not totally unresponsive to his advances after he secured her intimacy with gifts
of money and nice things to eat is, to Our mind, not inherently improbable as to be totally disbelieved. He was single, a brother of her
employer, with a means of livelihood, and was staying in the same house with the complainant. Their sexual encounter was not
between total strangers where the man had no means except brute force to satisfy his lust upon the woman he had desired.
Case: People vs. Oarga 259 SCRA 90

The contention is without merit. When a female under twelve years of age is the victim of rape, it is utterly of no consequence that no
force or intimidation is used by the rapist, or that his prey is not deprived of reason or rendered unconscious. It suffices that there is
carnal knowledge of the latter, without more.
The fact is that Romeo Oarga, who is indisputably had moral dominance over Lorelie, standing as he did in the position of surrogate
parent, did use force and intimidation in initiating and consummating his lascivious attacks against her — a circumstance that this Court
finds amply proven by the evidence on record. He threatened her with a fan-knife (balisong) all the while he was about satisfying his
lewd desires. To an innocent eleven-year old girl, that threat must have engendered a deep-seated fear that if she dared resist or try to
frustrate Romeo Oarga, she, her brothers and sisters and even her mother would be killed. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the
victim and is, therefore subjective. Its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule, but must be viewed in the light of the
victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime. The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable;
people react differently in such situations: some may shout; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may openly
welcome their intrusion.
But such force or intimidation, as repeatedly pointed out, is not a factor in determining the existence of rape in the two cases at bar,
where mere sexual conjugation suffices to give rise to the crime, the victim being under twelve. Such force or intimidation would serve
merely to aggravate the liability for the offense.
Case: People vs. Edualino 271 SCRA 189

On accused-appellant's contention that the presence of force and intimidation was not proven, the Court has consistently ruled that
force and intimidation should be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the
offense.
Indeed, there can be no hard and fast rule on the matter specially in a situation like the present case where the victim testified to being
in a state of semi-consciousness after drinking a glass of beer given to her by accused-appellant.
Besides, the testimony of the victim is supported by the findings in the aforequoted medical certificate which shows that the injuries
suffered by the victim are consistent with the charges of rape and contrary to the theory of the defense that the injuries were inflicted by
the victim's mother when she was trying to quiet her daughter who was hysterical.
Is it necessary that there should be violence in the commission of the crime of rape? No, force or threat is not necessary because
intimidation is sufficient. This exists when a victim is scowled into submission as a result thereof thereby rendering resistance futile.
Intimidation would be enough, something where the victim is scowled into submission.
Is it necessary that the victim put up physical resistance? No.

Is it necessary that the offender inflict blows on the victim? No. Proof of injuries is not necessary because after all, it is not an element
of the crime of rape.
Page | 99
Criminal Law II
The crime of rape is very easy to charge, though difficult to prove it is more difficult to disprove.
The character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape.
In rape committed by a father against his own child, the father’s moral ascendency and influence substitutes for violence and
intimidation.
If the victim gave consent because of fear of any personal violence, it is considered as no consent at all. Even if the man puts
no hand on the woman yet if by the use of mental or moral coercion the accuses so overpowers her mind out of fear that as a
result, the woman does not resist the act of the accused, still the crime of rape is committed.
In order to consummate the crime of rape, it is not necessary that there is full penetration of the female organ by the male organ.
Penetration o matter how slight, even if there is no ejaculation, consummates the crime of rape. In fact, the presence or absence of
semen is immaterial since it is penetration, however slight, and not ejaculation that makes the crime of rape. Mere penetration of the
female labia consummates the crime of rape.
Penal penetration assumes that there is erection. There must be showing that there was erection. Without erection there can be no
penetration. There is a physiological impossibility of penetration absent erection. It is a matter of defense if the accused is suffering
from impotency.
What if there is an attempt to penetrate but there is no penetration at all? Rape is committed in the attempted stage.
What happens if there is only slight penetration? The crime of rape is committed in the consummated. Penetration no matter how slight
it is considered in its consummated stage. There is no crime of frustrated rape.
Case: People vs. Sampior March 1, 2000, People vs. Orita 184 SCRA 105
It is highly inconceivable how the crime of frustrated rape is committed. Mere penetration no matter how slight is consummated rape. If
there is no penetration it is in the attempted stage. There is no middle ground.
Case: People vs. Hangdaan 201 SCRA 568

The mere entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of vagina constitutes consummated
rape.
Case: People vs. Salinas 232 SCRA 774

There are no half-measures or even quarter-measures, nor is there gravity graduated by the inches of entry. Partial penal penetration is
as serious as full penal penetration. In a matter of speaking, bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do
not succeed in entering the castle.
Deprived of reason or unconscious
This applies when the victim is insane or is feeble-minded. The deprivation need not be complete. Mental abnormality on the part of the
woman-victim is already sufficient.
Is it required that the offender must have knowledge of the woman’s insanity or her mental condition?
Case: People vs. Carillo 236 SCRA 22
No, it is not necessary that the man must have knowledge of the mental condition of the victim of rape. Still, rape can be committed.
Unconscious: when a woman is sleeping, when the woman is under the influence of liquor, when the woman is under anesthesia.
Case: People vs. Lintag 126 SCRA 511, People vs. Isip Jr. 188 SCRA 648
The woman was under the influence of anesthesia. It is in this condition that she was raped. The woman admitted that she knew what
was happening to her because she was conscious. The defense contended that she consented.
If the woman’s will is affected by the anesthesia and there is copulation without her consent though she be, more or less, conscious, the
crime of rape is still committed.
Under 12 years of age or demented
Statutory rape – rape committed to a victim below 12 years of age
Elements:
1. That the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman
2. That such act is committed when the victim is under 12 years of age
Case: People vs. Campuhan March 30, 2000

Campuhan was found guilty of statutory rape and was meted the penalty of death. The issue was whether there was convincing proof
that the penis of the accused indeed touched the labia or slid into the female organ of the victim who was only 4 years old.
Page | 100
Criminal Law II
We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential
ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating
the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the
entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum.
Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the
surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not
sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either
labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of
lasciviousness.
Case: People vs. Romeo Jalosjos November 16, 2001

This Court has declared that the state policy on the heinous offense of rape is clear and unmistakable. Under certain circumstances,
some of them present in this case, the offender may be sentenced to a long period of confinement, or he may suffer death. The crime is
an assault on human dignity. No legal system worthy of the name can afford to ignore the traumatic consequences for the unfortunate
victim and grievous injury to the peace and good order of the community.
Rape is particularly odious, one which figuratively scrapes the bottom of the barrel of moral depravity, when committed against a minor.
In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is
always scrutinized with extreme caution.
In the present case, there are certain particulars which impelled the court to devote an even more painstaking and meticulous
examination of the facts on record and a similarly conscientious evaluation of the arguments of the parties. The victim of rape in this
case is a minor below twelve (12) years of age. As narrated by her, the details of the rape are mesmerically sordid and repulsive. The
victim was peddled for commercial sex by her own guardian whom she treated as a foster father. Because the complainant was a
willing victim, the acts of rape were preceded by several acts of lasciviousness on distinctly separate occasions. The accused is also a
most unlikely rapist. He is a member of Congress. Inspite of his having been charged and convicted by the trial court for statutory rape,
his constituents liked him so much that they knowingly re-elected him to his congressional office, the duties of which he could not
perform.
Statutory rape committed by a distinguished Congressman on an eleven (11) year old commercial sex worker is bound to attract
widespread media and public attention. In the words of accused-appellant, "he has been demonized in the press most unfairly, his
image transmogrified into that of a dastardly, ogre, out to get his slimy hands on innocent and naïve girls to satiate his lustful
desires." This Court, therefore, punctiliously considered accused-appellant’s claim that he suffered "invidiously discriminatory
treatment."
In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless
of her consent to the act or lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is incapable of
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is
engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape. The application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the
victim becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her passive submission to the sexual act will not
mitigate nor absolve the accused from liability.
What about if the woman is over 12 years of age?

It must be shown that the carnal knowledge with her was obtained against her will. We have to qualify if her consent was given freely or
not. It is necessary that there be evidence of some resistance put up by the offended party to show that there was rape. It is not
however necessary that the offended party should exert all her efforts to prevent the carnal intercourse, it is enough that from her
resistance it would appear that the carnal knowledge or the carnal intercourse is against her will.
Mere initial resistance which does not indicate refusal on the part of the offended party to the sexual intercourse will not be enough to
bring about the crime of rape.
In the crime of the rape, conviction does not require medico-legal finding of any penetration on the part of the woman. A medico-legal
certificate is not necessary or it is indispensable to convict the accused of the crime of rape. An evidence to prove rape is when there
are lacerations. However, there are instances where there may be no lacerations.
An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the offended woman. It does not require the testimony be corroborated
before the conviction can stand. This is particularly true if the commission of the rape is such that the narration of the offended woman
would lead to no other conclusion but that the rape was committed.
Case: People vs. Raptus 198 SCRA 425

The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years of age at the time she was
raped; proof of intimidation or force used on her, or lack of it, is immaterial. Furthermore, in this case, after each act the appellant
threatened to kill complainant if she would tell anyone about his lascivious acts, each threat installing fear in the mind of the minor,
which made her an "easy prey in his subsequent sallies."
More important, appellant fails to consider that the victim is still of tender age. A child who is only eleven (11) years old may not yet
know or fully realize the detestable nature and gravity of the acts committed upon her person. A child can easily be made to believe
otherwise, as could have been the case of Arlene. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the
Page | 101
Criminal Law II
assaults on their virtue because of the rapist's threat on their lives. It should be borne in mind that this case involves a victim of tender
years and limited schooling whose actions under such difficult and trying circumstances are dominated more by fear than by reason.
She cannot be expected to have such exceptional courage as to disregard a threat on her life.
But even assuming that Arlene may have innocently or otherwise dispensed of her sexual favors as alleged by appellant, particularly if
she were paid for it, such fact cannot change the revolting truth that appellant molested an 11-year old child. Rape is committed even if
the girl under twelve (12) years old consented to the sexual act or, for that matter, even if she were a prostitute.
What if the woman is more than 12 years old but is demented, can here be statutory rape?
Case: People vs. Estares 282 SCRA 524
The rationale therefor is that if sexual intercourse with a victim under twelve years of age is rape, then it should follow that carnal
knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of child below twelve years would also constitute rape.
Why is rape on a child 12 years old and below considered as statutory rape? The rule is such child cannot validly give her consent to
the sexual act.
What is an incestuous rape? It refers to rape committed by an ascendant of the woman.

In such cases, the force and intimidation need not be of such nature as would be required in rape cases had the accused been a
stranger. Conversely, the SC expects that if the offender is not known to the woman, it is necessary that there be evidence of
affirmative resistance put up by the offender woman. Mere “no” is not enough if the offender is a stranger.
In rape cases, the court must always be guided by the following principles:
An accusation of rape can be made with facility. It is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove
In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only 2 persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must
be scrutinized with extreme caution
Case: People vs. Cabalquinto September 19, 2006

Cabalquinto was charged for having raped his 8 year old daughter and was convicted of rape.
Henceforth, the Court shall withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and shall use fictitious initials instead to represent her.
Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their
identities, as well those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed.
Case: In Re Internet Webpage of the Supreme Court A.M. 99-7-06-SC February 14, 2006
There was a letter addressed to the Chief justice because a mother of a child-abuse victim expressed anxiety over the posting of full-
text decisions of the Court in a child sexual abuse case on the internet web page of the SC. She had a foreigner boyfriend who wanted
to marry her. The arrangement for the marriage was already made but the man saw on the SC web page that his fiancée was a victim
of a child abuse case. The mother submitted that confidentiality and the best interest of the child must prevail over public access to
information. According to the OSG, the fact that the aggrieved child may have consented through a parent or guardian to a public
hearing of the case does not negate the expectation of privacy which the child may later invoke because child victims cannot be
presumed to have intended their initial agreement to extend beyond the termination of their case to the posting of the decision posted
by the SC on the web page. Moreover, such an expectation of privacy is reasonable. Short of withdrawing the full text of decision in
such cases from the web page, the OSG proposed that the court instead replace the material information such as the name of the child
victim in its decision.
Marital rape
Schools of thought:
1: The moment the wife marries the husband, she giver her consent to the sexual intercourse. It is part of her obligation.
2: The husband is not liable for rape but for grave coercion.
Case: People vs. Edgar Jumawan April 21, 2014

A and B are married and had two children. The husband B became brutal in bed. The wife reasoned that she had a headache and
abdominal pain. Angered, the husband forced himself. This was heard by their children staying at the adjacent room. A was already
crying; she was rescued by her children. The next night, she refused to go to her husband’s room but the husband said that he can
have sex with her even in front of their children.
The husband was convicted and on appeal argues that the incidence of sexual intercourse were theoretically consensual and obligatory
because they were legally married and a cohabiting couple. He argued that consent to copulation is presumed between cohabiting
husband and wife and further claims that it should be viewed differently from ordinary rape cases.
The ancient customs and ideologies from which the irrevocable implied consent theory evolved have already been superseded by
modem global principles on the equality of rights between men and women and respect for human dignity established in various
international conventions, such as the CEDAW. The Philippines, as State Party to the CEDAW, recognized that a change in the
traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between them.
Accordingly, the country vowed to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and
Page | 102
Criminal Law II
women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices, customs and all other practices which are based on the idea of the
inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women. One of such measures is R.A. No 8353
insofar as it eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute proprietary rights over his
wife's body and thus her consent to every act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed.
A woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated practices labeled her to be. A husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife is not
merely using a property, he is fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He
cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent.
It is true that the Family Code, obligates the spouses to love one another but this rule sanctions affection and sexual intimacy, as
expressions of love, that are both spontaneous and mutual and not the kind which is unilaterally exacted by force or coercion.
Further, the delicate and reverent nature of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife excludes cruelty and coercion. Sexual
intimacy brings spouses wholeness and oneness. It is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a deep sense of spiritual
communion. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. It is an expressive
interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other and it can go a long way in deepening marital relationship. When it is
egoistically utilized to despoil marital union in order to advance a felonious urge for coitus by force, violence or intimidation, the Court
will step in to protect its lofty purpose, vindicate justice and protect our laws and State policies. Besides, a husband who feels aggrieved
by his indifferent or uninterested wife's absolute refusal to engage in sexual intimacy may legally seek the court's intervention to declare
her psychologically incapacitated to fulfill an essential marital obligation. But he cannot and should not demand sexual intimacy from
her coercively or violently.
Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed of the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution.
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree
of consanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the
offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime.
5. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.
6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/ Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim.
7. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine
National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
8. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability.
9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time
of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to
reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal
to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed of the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned
in this article.
In the crime of rape with homicide, Article 48 on complex crimes does not apply. Rape with homicide is a special complex crime
therefore Article 48 is not applied. It is because they have a distinct penalty provided for by law. It is called a composite crime.
In Article 48, you find the graver offense and apply it in its maximum period.
If three persons raped a girl, one after the other, there will be 3 informations each or a total of 9 informations. It is established that there
is conspiracy. Each one of the accused is not guilty only for the rape he committed but also for the rape committed by the other two.
Page | 103
Criminal Law II
Case: People vs. Sanchez January 25, 1999
Case: Sanchez vs. Demetriou November 1993 227 SCRA 627
Mayor Sanchez was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. 49 informations were filed charging 7 separate
homicides. He argues it is absorbed because the victim could not have died 7 times.
There will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the
crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of rape, loses
its character as an independent offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying circumstance.
Case: People vs. Conrado Laog October 5, 2011

AAA and her friend Jennifer were walking along rice paddies when the accused brought them to a grassy area and hit the on the head
with a lead pipe. He stabbed Jennifer with an ice pick and covered her body then hit AAA and stabbed her on the face then raped her.
After raping her, he also covered her with grass. When AAA regained consciousness, her uncle brought her to the hospital. The
accused was charged with rape for AAA and murder for Jennifer.
The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated, and it is immaterial that the
person killed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. An analogy may be drawn from our rulings in cases of
robbery with homicide, where the component acts of homicide, physical injuries and other offenses have been committed by reason or
on the occasion of robbery.
The charge is not murder. The charge would be rape with homicide even if the victim was not the one who was killed.
With the intent to kill A, B stabbed her then raped her when he saw her still breathing. The crime is not rape with homicide.
Rape with homicide presupposes that the woman is raped then killed afterwards. The crime committed is murder, rape is
considered as an aggravating circumstance of ignominy or cruelty under Article 248.
Remember that in determining whether or not qualified rape exists or for the accused to be convicted of qualified rape, it is necessary
that the age of the victim is properly alleged in the information. Failure to allege the age of the victim is a bar to the imposition of death
penalty since age, in this form of rape, is qualifying and not merely aggravating. The same rule applies in relationship. Relationship is
qualifying and not merely aggravating. The relationship and age must be alleged in the information so we can call it as a qualified rape.
The penalty is death.
Case: People vs. Pailanco January 20, 2000

Be that as it may, the supreme penalty of death cannot be imposed upon accused-appellant for the two counts of rape committed
against his daughter because the two (2) informations filed against him failed to state his relationship with the complainant as well as
the latter's age.
We have consistently held that these seven attendant circumstances are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances. Unlike
generic aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated and proved even if not alleged, special qualifying circumstances cannot
be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved. The special qualifying circumstances increase the penalties
by degrees in contrast with aggravating circumstances which affect only the period of penalty but do not increase it to a higher degree.
We have already emphasized in the case of People vs. Ramos that to effectively prosecute an accused for the crime of qualified rape,
the elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. Failure to allege the age of the victim and her
relationship to offender in an information for rape is a bar to the imposition of death penalty since age and relationship in this particular
form of rape is qualifying and not merely aggravating. The death penalty cannot be imposed when the circumstances are not alleged in
the information for it would be violative of accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of
accusation against him.
When the aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information even if proven during the trial, it has no effect at all; it is not
qualified. In the imposition of damages, it is the only time the aggravating circumstance will serve its purpose of increasing the damages
to be imposed to the offender, even though not alleged in the information and only proven in trial.
Article 266-C. Effect of pardon. – The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty: Provided, that the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty not be abated of the marriage is void ab
initio.
The offended woman may pardon the offender through a subsequent valid marriage. The effect of which would be the extinction of the
offender’s liability. Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned by the forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not void ab
initio.
If during the pendency of a rape case between a husband and a wife the wife pardoned the husband, it extinguishes the
incipient criminal liability of the husband.
If the wife pardoned the husband after a judgment of conviction has been rendered and the husband is already serving his
sentence, the pardon shall extinguish the criminal liability of the husband and shall abate the penalty imposed.
Page | 104
Criminal Law II
Case: People vs. Roben Lee
The accused threatened the victim that he will kill her and her relatives. She filed a case two years after the incident happened. She
then executed an affidavit of desistance. The accused surrendered and moved for the dismissal of the case since it arose only out of a
mere misunderstanding. Will the victim’s affidavit work to the dismissal of the criminal case against the accused after it has been filed?
To warrant the dismissal of the complaint on account of the victim’s retraction or pardon, it should have been made prior to the
institution of the criminal action. The only act according to Article 344 of the RPC extinguishes the penal action after the institution of the
criminal action or remit the penalty is the marriage between the offender and the offended party. Therefore, when the victim executed
an affidavit of desistance when the case has already been filed in court, it has no effect at all.
Article 266-D. Presumptions. – Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended
party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render him/her incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in
the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.
Title IX: Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days;
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority;
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall
have been made;
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female, or a public
officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days
b. That it is committed simulating public authority
c. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made
d. That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer
Article 267 has been modified by RA 7659 Section 8 (effective December 31, 1993). Three matters changes as a consequence:
1. Illegal detention is now for more than 3 days, originally it was 5 days
2. In paragraph 4: If the person detained or kidnapped was a minor and the offender is any one of the parents, the liability of the
parent, is in the last paragraph of Article 271.
3. The last paragraph was added. The amendment brought about the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide.
When a person is deprived of his liberty or is seized and forcibly taken to another place, the inquiry would be on what is the purpose of
the offender in taking him or her away:
If the seizure is only to facilitate the killing of the victim, the crime committed would either be homicide or murder and the crime of
kidnapping is absorbed.
If the seizure or deprivation of the liberty is only to compel the victim to perform an act, be it right or wrong, the crime committed would
only be grave coercion.
If the deprivation of liberty is to take away the victim to satisfy the lewd design of the offender, then the crime would only be forcible
abduction.
If seizure of the victim is solely to deprive him of his liberty, the crime is illegal detention.
The essence of the offense is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. There must
be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive the offended party of liberty. The restraint however need not
be permanent, it may only be temporary. The principal element of the crime is deprivation. The detention of the victim must be the
primary objective of the offender.
The gravamen of the crime of kidnapping is the taking and transporting of a person against his will from one place to another. The
gravamen of illegal detention is restraining a person in his freedom or liberty. There need not be an actual lock out, it is enough that his
freedom of movement or locomotion is restrained.
Page | 105
Criminal Law II
Kidnapping is a transitory crime. It can be filed in those places where kidnapping was done, in the exclusion of other courts, where the
elements of kidnapping are present.
Case: People vs. Godoy 250 SCRA 676

It is basic that for kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive the
offended party of her liberty. In the present charge for that crime, such intent has not at all been established by the prosecution.
To recall, complainant testified that appellant by himself went to fetch her at her parents' house the day after the alleged rape incident.
In her own words, appellant courteously asked her parents to permit her to help him solicit contributions for her candidacy. When they
left the house, appellant walked ahead of her, obviously with her parents and their neighbors witnessing their departure. It is difficult to
comprehend how one could deduce from these normal and innocuous arrangement any felonious intent of appellant to deprive
complainant of her liberty. One will look in vain for a case where a kidnapping was committed under such inauspicious circumstances
as described by complainant.
When the couple transferred to Edward's Subdivision, they walked along the national highway in broad daylight. Complainant,
therefore, had more than ample opportunity to seek the help of other people and free herself from appellant if it were true that she was
forcibly kidnapped and abused by the latter. In fact, several opportunities to do so had presented themselves from the time they left
complainant's home and during their extended stay in the hotel and in the lodging house.
We agree with appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove any motive on his part for the commission of the crime
charged. In one case, this Court rejected the kidnapping charge where there was not the slightest hint of a motive for the crime. It is true
that, as a rule, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and, not being an element of a crime, it does not have to be
proved. Where, however, the evidence is weak, without any motive being disclosed by the evidence, the guilt of the accused becomes
open to a reasonable doubt and, hence, an acquittal is in order. Nowhere in the testimony of either the complainant or her mother can
any ill motive of a criminal nature be reasonably drawn. What actually transpired was an elopement or a lovers' tryst, immoral though it
may be.
It is only the private individual who can commit this crime, when a private individual will detain another. If it is committed by a
public official, then arbitrary detention is committed under Article 124, unless he has no such duty to detain.
The carrying away of the victim can either be made forcibly or fraudulently.
It is not necessary that the victim be tied or locked up in a room. There is illegal detention when the freedom of movement is
restricted. You are brought to a safehouse, you can move but you cannot get out- it is still serious illegal detention.
In a robbery, when the robber will tell one not to move, the crime is robbery not serious illegal detention because it is
momentary and the intention is the commission of the crime of robbery. Not moving is only part and parcel of it.
Two kinds of illegal detention:

1. Serious illegal detention
2. Slight illegal detention
Serious illegal detention under Article 267 Arbitrary detention

Committed by a private person who kidnaps, detains, or otherwise Committed by a public officer who detains a person without legal
deprives another of his liberty grounds
Kidnapping with homicide
Because of the amendment, there is now the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide which has only one penalty. In the
composite crime of kidnapping with homicide, the term “homicide” is used in the generic sense and, thus, covers all forms of killing
whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. It does not matter whether the purpose of the kidnapping was to kill the victim or not, as
long as the victim was killed or died as a consequence of the kidnapping or detention. There is no more separate crime of kidnapping
and murder if the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing her.
The homicide in kidnapping with homicide is used in its generic sense and includes homicide or murder because killing is not a crime
but a qualifying circumstance. This is single indivisible offense, not a complex crime. Regardless of the number of persons killed (who
must be the kidnap victims) there is one crime only of kidnapping with homicide. The killing or death here is with reference only to the
victim, if another person is killed, killing is a separate crime.
How should the crime be designated when the kidnap victim was killed by his abductor?
The proper designation of the crime now is kidnapping wit homicide.
This new ruling eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the victim was not deliberately
resorted but was merely an afterthought.
Case: People vs. Rimorin
Page | 106
Criminal Law II
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely
an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art 48, nor be treated as separate crimes,
but shall be punished as a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide.
Article 48 does not apply to composite crimes. It does not govern in this case.
When the kidnap victim is killed the crime committed is kidnapping with homicide. There is no such crime as kidnapping with murder.
The homicide is used in its generic sense and covers all forms of killing. Thus, there is no crime as kidnapping with multiple homicide.
If a third person dies, a separate crime must be instituted.
The rule now is when the kidnapped victim is killed the crime committed is a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide. It is not
an ordinary complex crime under Article 48 but a special complex crime under RA 7659 which modified Article 267 of the Code. It does
not matter anymore if the purpose of the kidnapping is to demand ransom or not. There is no more separate crime of Kidnapping and
Murder if the person was kidnapped for ransom and he was killed when ransom was not paid.
Kidnapping with rape
If the victim was raped during the time she was kidnapped, this brings about the composite crime of kidnapping with rape. Being a
composite crime, and not a complex crime, the same is regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact the law punishes such act with
only a single penalty.
Note: In a way, it depreciated the seriousness of the rape because no matter how many times the victim was raped, there will only be
one crime of kidnapping with rape.
The offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs, as otherwise the crime would be forcible abduction with rape. When
the victim was raped during the time she was abducted, then the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape would be committed.
This time Article 48 will be applied.
Case: People vs. Lactao

The crime is serious illegal detention if the purpose was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. If in the course of the illegal
detention, the offended party was raped, a separate crime of rape would be committed because there is no complex crime of serious
illegal detention with rape. Illegal detention is not a necessary means of the commission of rape.
Case: People vs. Bernal 131 SCRA 1

The appellants were held guilty of separate crimes of serious illegal detention and of multiple rapes. With the amendment brought about
by RA 7659, making rape a qualifying circumstance in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the jurisprudence is
superseded to the effect that the rape should be a distinct crime. Article 48 on complex crimes may not apply when serious illegal
detention and rape are committed by the same offender. The offender of will be charged for the composite crime of serious illegal
detention with rape as a single indivisible offense regardless of the number of times the victim was raped.
After taking the victim with her, the accused went to their safehouse prompting them to kill the victim in her car, the crimes
committed are kidnapping for ransom and murder. She was not taken to be killed, killing was only an afterthought.
Case: People vs. Enanoria 209 SCRA 577

Based on the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than that Enanoria’s extrajudicial statement is admissible as evidence. As it
sets out in detail his participation in the kidnapping and the eventual murder of Mrs. Dakudao, Enanoria’s responsibility has been
pinpointed. However, Enanoria’s extrajudicial confession is not the sole basis for his conviction. He has been positively identified by
Pfc. Aquino Serenio as one of those who scampered out of the Ford Laser car when it stopped due to flat tires. Enanoria could have
disproved this testimony but he failed to do so. Neither did he present proof that Pfc. Serenio had a motive or reason for his inculpation.
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, his flight from the scene of the crime strongly indicated his guilt .
Conspiracy has also been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the concerted action of Enanoria and his companions. As Enanoria
admitted in his supplemental sworn statement, in kidnapping Mrs. Dakudao, his group adopted the same modus operandi they had
used in other kidnappings: they would wait for the owner to board his or her car, get in the car with him or her and bring the owner to
either Tunggol or Kabacan, North Cotabato where Eboy had a house.
The crime committed is kidnapping for ransom for which the death penalty is imposable under the last paragraph of Art. 267 of the
Revised Penal Code. Since the death penalty has been constitutionally abolished, the penalty imposable on the appellant is reclusion
perpetua.
There is no proof that Mrs. Lea Dakudao was kidnapped for the purpose of killing her so as to make the offenses one of kidnapping for
ransom and murder a complex crime. What is evident is the fact that the killing was perpetrated, apparently as an afterthought after the
Ford Laser car had been rendered immobile, while Mrs. Dakudao was in the custody of armed men which included Enanoria. Hence,
the killing is qualified by abuse of superiority and with the aid of armed men. That it was committed while the Ford Laser car was being
shot at by then pursuing police does not erase the crime there being proof that the bullets which killed Mrs. Dakudao came from a .38
caliber revolver like the gun retrieved from appellant during his arrest. There being conspiracy, appellant is also liable for murder
Page | 107
Criminal Law II
notwithstanding his claim that it was Amil who shot Mrs. Dakudao. For murder, Enanoria should suffer the separate penalty of reclusion
perpetua, the medium period of the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
Case: People vs. Akiran 18 SCRA 239

The accused was convicted for kidnapping qualified by ransom. He claim that his intention at most was to compel the victim to fulfill his
promise to pay hospital expenses. Such purpose to compel payment is embraced by the phrase kidnapping for ransom.
Demand for ransom is a law which originated from the US. They call it the Lindbergh Law. The US interpreted ransom to mean money,
price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person, a payment which releases one from the captivity.
Actual demand for ransom is not necessary as long as the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.
Case: People vs. Puno 219 SCRA 85

The primal issue for resolution in this case is whether accused-appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for ransom under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the information; or a violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery Law of 1974), as contended by the Solicitor General and found by the trial court; or the offense of simple robbery
punished by Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as claimed by the defense.
Prefatorily, it is worth recalling an accepted tenet in criminal law that in the determination of the crime for which the accused should be
held liable in those instances where his acts partake of the nature of variant offenses, and the same holds true with regard to the
modifying or qualifying circumstances thereof, his motive and specific intent in perpetrating the acts complained of are invaluable aids in
arriving at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion thereon.
Thus, to illustrate, the motive of the accused has been held to be relevant or essential to determine the specific nature of the crime as,
for instance, whether a murder was committed in the furtherance of rebellion in which case the latter absorbs the former, or whether the
accused had his own personal motives for committing the murder independent of his membership in the rebellious movement in which
case rebellion and murder would constitute separate offenses. Also, where injuries were inflicted on a person in authority who was not
then in the actual performance of his official duties, the motive of the offender assumes importance because if the attack was by reason
of the previous performance of official duties by the person in authority, the crime would be direct assault; otherwise, it would only be
physical injuries.
In the case at bar, there is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the
wrongful acts against complainant, other than the extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation. This
much is admitted by both appellants, without any other esoteric qualification or dubious justification. Appellant Puno, as already stated,
candidly laid the blame for his predicament on his need for funds for, in his own testimony, "(w)hile we were along the way Mam (sic)
Corina was telling me "Beloy, I know your family very well and I know that your (sic) not (a) bad person, why are you doing this?" I told
her "Mam, (sic), because I need money and I had an ulcer and that I have been getting an (sic) advances from our office but they
refused to give me any bale (sic). . . ."
With respect to the specific intent of appellants vis-a-vis the charge that they had kidnapped the victim, we can rely on the proverbial
rule of ancient respectability that for this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that
the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty, and not where such restraint of her freedom of
action was merely an incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders. Hence, as early as United
States vs. Ancheta, and consistently reiterated thereafter, it has been held that the detention and/or forcible taking away of the victims
by the accused, even for an appreciable period of time but for the primary and ultimate purpose of killing them, holds the offenders
liable for taking their lives or such other offenses they committed in relation thereto, but the incidental deprivation of the victims' liberty
does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention.
That appellants in this case had no intention whatsoever to kidnap or deprive the complainant of her personal liberty is clearly
demonstrated in the veritably confessional testimony of appellant Puno
Neither can we consider the amounts given to appellants as equivalent to or in the nature of ransom, considering the immediacy of their
obtention thereof from the complainant personally. Ransom, in municipal criminal law, is the money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity. It can hardly be assumed that when
complainant readily gave the cash and checks demanded from her at gun point, what she gave under the circumstances of this case
can be equated with or was in the concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping. These were merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by
the victim upon the occasion of a robbery or of which she was summarily divested by appellants. Accordingly, while we hold that the
crime committed is robbery as defined in Article 293 of the Code, we, however, reject the theory of the trial court that the same
constitutes the highway robbery contemplated in and punished by Presidential Decree No. 532.
Contrary to the postulation of the Solicitor General, Presidential Decree No. 532 is not a modification of Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code on kidnapping and serious illegal detention, but of Articles 306 and 307 on brigandage. This is evident from the fact that the
relevant portion thereof which treats of "highway robbery" invariably uses this term in the alternative and synonymously with
brigandage, that is, as "highway robbery/brigandage." This is but in line with our previous ruling, and which still holds sway in criminal
law, that highway robbers (ladrones) and brigands are synonymous.
Case: People vs. Dela Cruz August 11, 1997

In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latter's liberty, in any manner, needs to be
established by indubitable proof (People vs. Puno, 219 SCRA 85 [1993]). The acts held by the trial court, and maintained by the
People, as consummating the crime of kidnapping in this case are those when accused-appellant held the victim's hand and refused to
Page | 108
Criminal Law II
let go when the victim asked to go over to her neighbor, who by then already saw what was happening. This happened for only a very
brief span of time and the evidentiary record shows that there were a good number of people present at that time, that a guard was
stationed at the gate, and that there was at least a teacher nearby. The child could have just as easily shouted for help. While it does
not take much to scare the wits out of a small child like Whiazel, under the attendant circumstances, we cannot say with certainty that
she was indeed deprived of her liberty. It must further be noted that up to that brief moment when Cecilia saw them, and the child asked
to be let go, the victim had gone with accused-appellant voluntarily. Without any further act reinforcing the inference that the victim may
have been denied her liberty, even taking cognizance of her minority, the Court hesitates to find that kidnapping in the case at bar was
consummated. To our mind, the felony committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor in the attempted stage only.
In the case at bar, accused-appellant already commenced her criminal scheme by taking hold of Whiazel by the hand and leading her
out of the school premises. As mentioned earlier, these do not sufficiently establish that kidnapping had been consummated. However,
considering other attendant facts and circumstances, it does reveal that accused-appellant had less than noble intentions with the
victim. Firstly, the child was led to believe that accused-appellant wanted to see the dentist. It is not clear, however, that there really
was a Dr. Medina employed by the school as dentist. Not even the guidance counselor who testified for the defense made any specific
mention of the doctor. Secondly, if accused-appellant wanted to see the dentist, why was she on her way out? If it is true she had
already gone to the clinic and found no one there and that she then decided to leave, what else was she doing with the child? Thirdly,
accused-appellant did not simply ask for directions; she wanted the victim to accompany her. That seems suspicious enough. And of all
people, why ask a seven-year old? Fortunately, the further progress and completion of accused-appellant's felonious design was
thwarted by the timely intervention of Cecilia Caparos, the victim's neighbor.
Case: Egap, Sajiron, Maron Lajim vs. People February 4, 2010

15-year-old AAA and her aunt Dama were fetching water when Sajiron arrived with a bolo and told AAA to go with him. Dama reported
to AAA’s mother. Sajiron and Maron refused to go with them so they tied her and brought her to the forest where she was undressed.
She pleaded not to abuse her but he told her that if she submitted he will let her live. Maron stood guard. AAA was brought to Egap and
detained. He was instructed to shoot her if she will try to escape. AAA and Sajiron were married against her will and without her
parents. They stayed in one room. She was abused twice every night. A case of abduction with rape was filed against Sajiron while
serious illegal detention was filed against Egap.
There is conspiracy that existed.
A forcibly took X and brought him to La Union and kept him under heavy security. On the following day, A brought X to
Dagupan City and continued to deprive him of liberty. On the third day, A brought X to Tarlac. On the fourth day and still
depriving the victim of his liberty brought X to Manila. A committed kidnapping and serious illegal detention. He took the victim
against his will and brought him from one place to another depriving him of his liberty. The detention lasted for more than 3
days.
Piolo invited Rosa for a joyride. She wanted to go home but he brought her to his home and let her sign a promissory note to
marry him. He is liable for serious illegal detention.
In kidnapping, though the motive of the accused must be ascertained for the correct designation of the crime, motive is not an essential
element of a crime but it is important on certain instances to determine what crime is committed. Thus, when the act brings about
variant crimes, motive is important.
Forcible Abduction – committed if a woman is taken against her will with lewd designs and is transported from one place to another
Kidnapping – committed when a person is deprived of his liberty and is transported from one place to another
In forcible abduction, there is the presence of lewd design.
Grave Coercion – committed if a woman is dragged to a distance of 5 meters against her will
Illegal Detention – committed if a woman is taken against her will without lewd designs and is transported from one place to another
When the compulsion is legitimate, there is no coercion. This is true in giving of medicine.
If the taking was forcible abduction, and the woman was raped several times, there would only be one crime of forcible abduction with
rape, and each of the other rapes would constitute distinct counts of rape.
The main distinction between kidnapping and forcible abduction is the presence or absence of lewd designs. If the taking of the victim is
coupled with lewd designs, it is forcible abduction. If the intention is only to detain, it is kidnapping.
In grave Coercion if there is no intent to deprive a person of his liberty. If the evidence does not adequately prove this element, the
accused cannot be held liable for kidnapping.
Case: People vs. Astorga 283 SCRA 420

The accused and the victim were strolling on the school grounds. The accused took the victim to the highway leading to another town.
The victim told the accused that she wanted to go to the station but the accused refused to let her go.
The crime is grave coercion. Where the victim was merely dragged to another place, there was no confinement or detention of the
victim.
Page | 109
Criminal Law II
Case: People vs. Mirandilla July 27, 2011

A was with her sister in the town disco. X ordered her not to shout and brought A to a faraway house. He forced himself into her. When
A woke up she found herself alone and shouted but no one heard her. X arrived with his gang. He drove her to another place and raped
repeatedly. She succeeded in escaping and ran for 2 nights. X was charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, 4
counts of rape, and 1 count of rape through sexual assault.
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant
crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A.
No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter
how many times the victim was raped, like in the present case, there is only one crime committed – the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape.
It having been established that Mirandilla’s act was kidnapping and serious illegal detention (not forcible abduction) and on the occasion
thereof, he raped AAA several times, We hold that Mirandilla is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, warranting the penalty of death. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346 entitled, An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the penalty of death is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua, without
eligibility for parole.
We hold that the separate informations of rape cannot be considered as separate and distinct crimes.
Case: People vs. Dionaldo et. al. July 23, 2014

Anent the finding that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime, the Court likewise finds the conclusion of the RTC in this
regard, as affirmed by the CA, to be well-taken. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective,
not individual, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations. In this relation, direct proof is
not essential to establish conspiracy, as it can be presumed from and proven by the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose,
design, concerted action, and community of interests. Hence, as the factual circumstances in this case clearly show that accused-
appellants acted in concert at the time of the commission of the crime and that their acts emanated from the same purpose or common
design, showing unity in its execution, the CA, affirming the trial court, correctly ruled that there was conspiracy among them.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court is, however, constrained to modify the ruling of the RTC and the CA, as the crime the
accused-appellants have committed does not, as the records obviously bear, merely constitute Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention, but that of the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide. This is in view of the victim’s (i.e., Edwin’s)
death, which was (a) specifically charged in the Information, and (b) clearly established during the trial of this case.
This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of „special complex crime‟ of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It
effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely
sought by the accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought.
Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was
purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor
be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by
RA No. 7659.
Thus, further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, accused-appellants’
conviction must be modified from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide, which carries the penalty of death. As earlier intimated, the enactment of RA 9346 had suspended the imposition of the
death penalty. This means that the accused-appellants could, as the CA and trial court properly ruled, only be sentenced to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. To this, the Court adds that the accused-appellants are not eligible for parole.
Case: People vs. Petrus Yau et. al. August 20, 2014
The elements of Kidnapping For Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, are as follows: (a) intent on the
part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused,
which is extorting ransom for the release of the victim.
All of the foregoing elements were duly established by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at
bench. First, Petrus is a private individual. Second, Petrus kidnapped Alastair by using sleeping substance which rendered the latter
unconscious while inside a taxicab driven by the said accused-appellant. Third, Petrus took and detained Alastair inside the house
owned by him and Susana Yau in Bacoor, Cavite, where said victim was handcuffed and chained, and hence, deprived of his liberty.
Fourth, Alastair was taken against his will. And fifth, Petrus made demands for the delivery of a ransom in the amount of
US$600,000.00 for the release of the victim.
Anent the criminal liability of each accused-appellant, there is no doubt that Petrus is liable as principal of the crime of kidnapping for
ransom. Susana, on the other hand, is liable only as an accomplice to the crime as correctly found by the lower courts. It must be
emphasized that there was no evidence indubitably proving that Susana participated in the decision to commit the criminal act. The only
evidence the prosecution had against her was the testimony of Alastair to the effect that he remembered her as the woman who gave
food to him or who accompanied his kidnapper whenever he would bring food to him every breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required, in accordance with Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be
considered an accomplice, namely, (1) that there be a community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act,
Page | 110
Criminal Law II
with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation
between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
In the case at bench, Susana knew of the criminal design of her husband, Petrus, but she kept quiet and never reported the incident to
the police authorities. Instead, she stayed with Petrus inside the house and gave food to the victim or accompanied her husband when
he brought food to the victim. Susana not only countenanced Petrus’ illegal act, but also supplied him with material and moral aid. It has
been held that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed make a person responsible as an accomplice
in the crime committed.
Case: People vs. Aczon 225 SCRA 237

Although the information charged the accused-appellant with the crime of kidnapping with rape, the body of the information alleged a
crime of forcible abduction with rape, and the evidence proved at the trial is that of forcible abduction with rape. It is settled that what
controls is not the designation of the offense but the description thereof as alleged in the information. And as described therein, the
offense imputed to Villamor Aczon contains all the essential elements of forcible abduction with rape, to wit: (1) the taking of a woman
against her will; (2) the taking is with lewd designs and (3) the rape of the woman was accomplished through force or intimidation. Here,
Emily Miranda testified that the short man, which is accused-appellant, had a knife with which she was threatened. Under the facts
proven by the prosecution, accused-appellant committed the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape as the forcible abduction
was the necessary means to commit the crime of rape. The element of "lewd design" was established by the actual rape.
Pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, in complex crimes the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed. Article
342 of the said Code penalizes forcible abduction with the penalty of reclusion temporal while Article 335 penalizes the crime of rape
with reclusion perpetua. The latter then, is the more serious crime. The penalty to be imposed is, therefore, reclusion perpetua.
Illegal detention Arbitrary detention

Committed by a private individual who unlawfully kidnaps, detains Committed by a public officer or employee who detains a person
or otherwise deprives a person of liberty without legal ground
A crime against personal liberty and security A crime against the fundamental law of the state
Article 268. Slight illegal detention. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit
the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement of the detention,
without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives him or his liberty
3. That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal
4. That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 267
Although the law says “slight”, it is not to be considered as a light felony because in fact the penalty is reclusion temporal. It is
a grave penalty. Article 268 is a grave felony.
Under paragraph 2, the penalty for the accomplice who furnished the place is the same as that with the principal.
For privileged mitigating circumstance to be considered:

1. Voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or detained within 3 days from the commencement of the detentions
2. Without having attained the purpose intended
3. Before the institution of criminal proceedings against him
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of
delivering him to the proper authorities.
Elements:
1. That the offender arrests or detains another person
2. That the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the authorities
3. That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground for the arrest
If a person does not commit a crime, he cannot be arrested. Otherwise, Article 269 will be violated even if the purpose is to deliver the
person to the proper authorities. This is a situation not covered by warrantless arrest.
Page | 111
Criminal Law II
You know A committed a crime and he ran away. You failed to arrest him. One month after you see him and you arrest him to
deliver him to the proper judicial authorities. Arresting him is considered as unlawful arrest since you arrested him one month
after and not when he was committing the crime.
A stabbed B. C saw it and informed D. D went to A’s house and arrested him for the purpose of delivering A to the authorities.
D committed unlawful arrest.
A and B disagreed and had a fistfight where A had the upperhand and tied B with rope and brought B to the municipal judge.
The fact that he brought the accused to the judge does not exonerate him from unlawful arrest.
A was woken because of his wife quarreling with his driver. He arrested him and brought him to the police station. The arrest
was unauthorized by law or there is no reasonable ground for the arrest.
Unlawful arrest Arbitrary detention

A private individual or even public officer arrests or detains The public officer detains another without legal ground
another without legal ground
The offender is a public officer whose normal duty is law
enforcement, like a policeman. He has no warrant in the arrest
and the detention is without legal basis
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who,
being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
Elements:
1. That the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person
2. That he deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians
Only persons who are entrusted with the custody of the child may commit this crime. It may be committed by the father or the mother of
the minor.
It uses the word “kidnapping” but it is out of place. What is punished is the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the
custody of the child to his parents or guardian. The law presupposes that the offender had lost the right to have custody of the minor
and the parents are claiming that custody.
While 6 year old A was playing, he was taken by B without the knowledge of his parents. B was not entrusted with the custody
of the child. He is liable under Article 267 for kidnapping and serious illegal detention and not under Article 270.
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. – The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding seven hundred
pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons
entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the mother of the minor, the
penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.
Elements:
1. That the minor is living in the home of his parents or guardian or the person entrusted with his custody
2. That the offender induces said minor to abandon such home
This felony is committed by anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the house of his parents or guardians or the person entrusted
with his custody.
The mere inducement already consummates the crime. It is not necessary that the minor abandons his or her home as a result of the
inducement. Even if the minor did not agree, the crime is still committed. Inducement must be done with malice and determined will to
cause damage. When the victims abandoned their home due to restlessness or adventure, the crime is not committed.
The accused induced the minors to abandon the house of their parents by giving nice clothes and watches. The crime is
already committed even if the minors did not abandon their homes.
Purpose: To discourage and prevent disruption of filial relationship and undue interference of the parent’s right and duties to the
custody of the minor children in the rearing of them.
There are mitigating circumstances when it is the mother or father who induces the child.
Article 272. Slavery. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall
purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.
Page | 112
Criminal Law II
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Elements:
1. That the offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being
2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being
Slavery – the treatment of a human being as a mere property, stripped of dignity and human rights. The person is reduced to the level
of an ordinary animal, a mere chattel of material value capable of pecuniary estimation and for this reason the offender purchases or
sells the same.
If the purpose in detaining the person is for enslaving, then the crime committed is slavery. If it is not, then it is illegal
detention.
Obliging a person to work or render service to one whom he is indebted without remuneration and to remain there as long as
the debt is not paid is constitutive of slavery.
Qualifying circumstance:
If the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party to some immoral traffic such as prostitution
The employment or custody of a minor with the consent of the parent or guardian although against the child’s will, cannot be considered
involuntary servitude. (US vs. Cabang)
RA 9208: Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003

Amended by RA 10364
There is no conspiracy to commit trafficking in persons.
Case: People vs. Araguy et. al. October 12, 2011
Case: People vs. Shirley Casio December 3, 2014

Cebu policemen conducted an entrapment operation for the accused who was a pimp. The accused said that they know what they were
doing, that they consented.
With this sadly familiar question being used on the streets of many of our cities, the fate of many desperate women is sealed and their
futures vanquished. This case resulted in the rescue of two minors from this pernicious practice. Hopefully, there will be more rescues.
Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. It is committed even though the minor knew about or consented to the act of trafficking.
The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human
trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will.
Article 273. Exploitation of child labor. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service
Elements:
1. That the offender retains a minor in his service
2. That it is against the will of the minor
3. That is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the
custody of such minor
The service of the minor must be against his will.
The offender retains a minor in his service, or the service rendered by the minor is against the latter’s will. The retention is on the
pretext of reimbursing the accused on a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of the minor.
Here, there is some degree of restraint on the liberty of the minor. The restraint is on the pretext that the child must serve the accused
in order to pay an alleged debt incurred by his parents, ascendants, or guardians.
If the minor agrees or consents to serve the accused, there is no crime committed even if the service is rendered to pay the debts of an
ascendant.
RA 7610: Child Abuse Law

Amended by RA 9231: Anti-Child Labor Act of 2003
Page | 113
Criminal Law II
RA 9231 imposes heavier penalties on parents, guardians and employers of children below 18 years old who commit any of the
following acts:
1. Making the child work more than the maximum number of working hours provided by the said law
2. Misappropriating the earnings of the child and failure to setup a trust fund for the latter and render an accounting of such
3. Using, procuring or offering the child for purpose of prostitution or pornographic activities
4. Making the child work in hazardous working conditions or subjecting a child to various forms of slavery including trafficking of
children and recruitment of child soldiers under RA 9208
Article 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt,
shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.
Elements:
1. That the offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as household servant or farm laborer
2. That it is against the debtor’s will
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt
This article deals on another form of slavery. It is a way of giving force and effect to the constitutional provision which prohibits all forms
of involuntary servitude or involuntary service.
There is no distinction made whether the offended party is a minor or an adult.
Exploitation of Child Labor Services Rendered under compulsion in payment of a debt

It is the minor who is compelled to render services for the It is the debtor is the one who is compelled to work for the
supposed debt of his parents or guardian offender
The service of the debtor is not limited to household or farm work The service of the debtor is limited to household or farm work
The victim necessarily must be a minor It does not distinguish whether the victim is a minor or not
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. – The penalty of arresto mayor shall be
imposed upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious
offense;
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured;
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to
his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
Acts punished:
1. By failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying
when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious
offense
Elements:
1. The place is not inhabited
2. The accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying
3. The accused can render assistance without detriment to himself
4. The accused fails to render assistance
The law commands him to render help or assistance. Should the assistance endanger the life of the person giving help, his failure to
render assistance would constitute an exemplary circumstance.
Where the person is already wounded and is already in danger of dying, there is an obligation to render assistance only when he is
found in an uninhabited place. If the mortally wounded or dying person is found in a place not uninhabited, the abandonment will not
bring about the commission of the crime.
An uninhabited is based upon the possibility of a person receiving assistance from another. Even if there are many places around, the
place may still be uninhabited if the possibility of receiving assistance is remote.
2. By failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender has accidentally wounded or injured
Example: Hit and run cases
If what happened was an accident at first, there would be no liability pursuant to Article 12(4) of the RPC – damnum absque injuria.
Page | 114
Criminal Law II
If you abandon the victim, you will be liable under Article 275.
The character of the place is immaterial. As long as the victim was injured because of the accident caused by the offender, the offender
would be liable for abandonment if he would not render assistance to the victim.
3. By failing to deliver a child, under 7 years of age whom the offender has found abandoned, to the authorities or to his family; or
by failing to take him to a safe place
It is immaterial that the offender did not know that the child is under seven years. He is found in an unsafe place.
AAA went to the forest to hunt wild boars, while there, AAA found an old man profusely bleeding. He ignored the pleas of the
old man and left. He committed the crime of abandonment of a person in danger.
Artemio and Goldon went fishing. They came upon Cerafico on his banca, he was sick and asked Artemio and Goldon for
help. They left him. They are liable for abandonment of a person in danger. The possibility of Cerafico to receive help from
others is the main reason why failure to give assistance becomes a crime.
BB was jogging at People’s Park at 4am in the morning. He saw a man with a gunshot wound who pleaded to take him to the
hospital. BB simply looked at the man and abandoned him. He is not liable for abandonment of a person in danger. It not an
uninhabited place, it is a park. Here BB is not liable, to be liable for the crime the victim must be in an uninhabited place and
the person is wounded or in danger of dying.
A 4-year old child was abandoned by her parents in Manila in rain. X simply did nothing but looked at the child and failed to
take her to a safe place. She is liable for abandonment of a helpless person.
Note: Rendering help or assistance must not put your life in danger. If your life is put in danger, you will not be liable for this Article.
Article 276. Abandoning a minor. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any one
who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty provided for the act
committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.
Elements:
1. That the offender has the custody of a child
2. That the child is under 7 years of age
3. That he abandons such child
4. That he has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned
This article presupposes that the offender had no intent to kill because if the offender, in abandoning a minor, has the intention of killing
her, this article will not apply but it may be either murder or parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill is presumed in the death of a victim only in crimes against persons and not to crimes against security. Intent to kill cannot
be presumed from the death of the child.
Qualifying aggravating circumstances:

1. If by reason of the abandonment, the life of the minor shall have been in danger
2. If by reason of the abandonment, death of the minor resulted
The abandonment must be consciously and deliberately made. It does not refer to the momentary leaving of the child, but the
abandonment of such minor that deprives him of the care and protection from danger to his person. In order for this felony to exist,
there must be an interruption and cessation of the care and protection to his person, in such a way as to render any aid in case of
danger.
Article 347 paragraph 2 Article 276

The abandonment is for the purpose of losing the civil status; a To deprive the victim of care and protection
newly-born child id abandoned so that he may lose all traces of
filiation, that another may enjoy family rights belonging to him by
his birth
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. – The penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the rearing or education of a minor, shall
Page | 115
Criminal Law II
deliver said minor to a public institution or other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his care or in the
absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which their
station in life requires and financial condition permits.
Acts punished:
1. By delivering the minor to a public institution or other persons without the consent of the one who entrusted such minor to the
care of the offender or, in the absence of that one, without the consent of the proper authorities
Par. 1: The minor is entrusted to your custody but you delivered the minor to a public institution or another person without the consent
of the one who entrusted the minor to you.
2. By neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them the education which their station in life requires and financial
condition permits
Par. 2: The failure of the parents to give proper education must be deliberate. If the failure is due to the reason that the father lost his
job, then the father will not be liable. Article 277 is not applicable.
Abandoning a minor Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with custody

The custody of the offender is stated in general The custody of the offender is specific, that is the custody for the
rearing or education of the minor
The minor is under 7 years of age The minor is under 18 years of age (previously 21)
The minor is abandoned in such a way as to deprive him of the The minor is delivered to a public institution or other person
care and protection that his tender years need
Article 278. Exploitation of minors. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical
strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar
calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who shall employ any descendant of
his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years of age, who
shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any
habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in every case
be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or curator; and in the case of
the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their parental
authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators,
or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany any
habitual vagrant or beggar.
Although Article 278 is not expressly repealed by RA 7610 and RA 9231, most cases that are filed now are under RA 9231 and RA
7610.
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. – The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding articles, shall not
prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined and punished by this Code.
RA 7610: Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
Case: Olivarez vs. CA July 29, 2005

The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Section 32, Article XIII, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as follows:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
Page | 116
Criminal Law II
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a person.
The first element obtains in this case. It was established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner kissed Cristina and touched her
breasts with lewd designs as inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.
The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, is likewise
present. As succinctly explained in People v. Larin: A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when
the child indulges insexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion
or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
It must be noted that the law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit, but also one in which a child, through
coercion or intimidation, engages in lascivious conduct.
Thus, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence
of any adult. In this case, Cristina was sexually abused because she was coerced or intimidated by petitioner to indulge in a lascivious
conduct. Furthermore, it is inconsequential that the sexual abuse occurred only once. As expressly provided in Section 3 (b) of R.A.
7610, the abuse may be habitual or not. It must be observed that Article III of R.A. 7610 is captioned as "Child Prostitution and Other
Sexual Abuse" because Congress really intended to cover a situation where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into
lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit. The law covers not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse.
Thus, while it is necessary to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information, the failure to do so is not an irremediable
vice. When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor which contain the missing averments is attached to the information
and form part of the records, the defect in the latter is effectively cured, and the accused cannot successfully invoke the defense that
his right to be informed is violated.
Case: Navarrete vs. People January 31, 2007

In Amployo v. People, we declared that pursuant to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse
through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC
must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA 7610.
The elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are the following:
(1) The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) It is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3) The offended party is another person of either sex.
The foregoing shows that all the elements of acts of lasciviousness were proved. That BBB was less than twelve years old at the time
of the commission of the offense was not disputed. The prosecution established that petitioner intentionally "placed his penis" in BBB’s
vagina but without any indication that he was able to penetrate her.
"Lascivious conduct" is defined under Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of RA 7610 as: The intentional touching, either directly
or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus
or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
The aforestated acts of petitioner undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct under this law.
The law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation,
engages in any lascivious conduct. The very title of Section 5, Article III (Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse) of RA 7610 shows
that it applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed
subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. Here,
BBB was sexually abused because she was coerced or intimidated by petitioner (who poked her neck with a knife) to indulge in
lascivious conduct.
Case: Cabila vs. People November 23, 2007

The earlier-quoted Information filed against petitioner did not allege the presence of the above-listed second element of Section 5,
Article III of RA No. 7610 – that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. In fact no
attempt was made to prove that element, for it would have violated petitioner’s right to be informed of his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Petitioner could not thus have been held liable under Section 5(b), Article III of RA No. 7610. No doubt, the information charges
petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
Case: Flordeliz vs. People March 3, 2010

It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, AAA was eleven (11) years old. This calls for the application of
R.A. No. 7610.
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child
subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one -- through
coercion, intimidation or influence -- engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.
Page | 117
Criminal Law II
However, pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct committed
against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to
the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.
Based on the foregoing definition, petitioner’s act of touching AAA’s vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to lascivious
conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twelve years old and through intimidation, it is beyond cavil that
petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.
We are aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without stating therein
that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision
penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly
recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the complaint or information.
In the instant case, the body of the Information contains an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by petitioner and
unmistakably describes acts punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
Can there be double jeopardy if you are charged with the crime of rape under RA 8353 and for sexual abuse under RA 7610?
Case: People vs. Matias June 13, 2012
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender
should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized
with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse
under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender
cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be
subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA
7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot
be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
Case: People vs. Chingh March 16, 2011

In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision
of law, Armando was aptly prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, for
Rape Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty prescribed therein, which is prision mayor, considering that
VVV was below 12 years of age, and considering further that Armando’s act of inserting his finger in VVV’s private part undeniably
amounted to lascivious conduct, the appropriate imposable penalty should be that provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610,
which is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
The Court is not unmindful to the fact that the accused who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 366, in relation to Section 5
(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the one who commits
Rape Through Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prision mayor. This is undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it
was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed
to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims are children
or those "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves
from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition."
Sweetheart theory is an unacceptable defense

Case: Malto vs. People September 21, 2007
The designation of the offense in the information against petitioner was changed from "violation of Section 5(b), Article III" of RA 7610
to "violation of Section 5(a), Article III" thereof.
Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. It contemplates sexual abuse of a child
exploited in prostitution. In other words, under paragraph (a), the child is abused primarily for profit.
On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but
also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a
child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
The information against petitioner did not allege anything pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. It did not aver that AAA was
abused for profit. What it charged was that petitioner had carnal knowledge or committed sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct
with AAA; AAA was induced and/or seduced by petitioner who was her professor to indulge in sexual intercourse and lascivious
conduct and AAA was a 17-year old minor. These allegations support a charge for violation of paragraph (b), not paragraph (a), of
Section 5, Article III, RA 7610.
The first element of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertains to the act or acts committed by the accused. The second element refers
to the state or condition of the offended party. The third element corresponds to the minority or age of the offended party.
The first element was present in this case. Petitioner committed lascivious conduct against and had sexual intercourse with AAA in the
following instances: (1) on November 19, 1997, when he kissed her at the back and neck, touched her breasts and placed his hand
inside her blouse to gratify his lust; (2) on November 26, 1997, when, with lewd designs, he dragged her towards the bed of the motel
room and forcibly kissed her on the lips, neck and breasts and (3) when he exerted moral influence on her and pressured her until she
surrendered herself to him on November 26, 1997
Page | 118
Criminal Law II
The second element was likewise present here. On November 19, 1997, due to the influence of petitioner, AAA indulged in lascivious
acts with or allowed him to commit lascivious acts on her. This was repeated on November 26, 1997 on which date AAA also indulged
in sexual intercourse with petitioner as a result of the latter’s influence and moral ascendancy. Thus, she was deemed to be a "child
subjected to other sexual abuse" as the concept is defined in the opening paragraph of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 and in Larin.
The third element of the offense was also satisfied. On November 19, 2007 and November 26, 2007, AAA was a child as she was
below 18 years of age. She was therefore within the protective mantle of the law.
Petitioner claims that AAA welcomed his kisses and touches and consented to have sexual intercourse with him. They engaged in
these acts out of mutual love and affection. But may the "sweetheart theory" be invoked in cases of child prostitution and other sexual
abuse prosecuted under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610? No.
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim. It
operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that she
consented to the sexual relations.
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is
unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
another person.
Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The mere act of having
sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes
the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed.
A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is
not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to
minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender
years deserve its protection.
The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business
deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a child
should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy
under a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual predators
like petitioner will be justified, or even unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a
child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. – Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall
be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a
dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other
public houses, while the same are open.
Two forms of trespass:

1. Qualified trespass to dwelling (Article 280) – this may be committed by any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter’s will by means of violence or intimidation
2. Trespass to property (Article 281) – offender enters the closed premises or fenced estate of another that is uninhabited when
there is a manifest prohibition against entering such closed premises or fenced estate and the trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or caretaker thereof
Dwelling place – any building or structure devoted for rest and comfort, as distinguished from places devoted to business or offices. A
building becomes a dwelling place when it is put to use as a place for rest or comfort. It depends upon the use to which it is put.
Do you consider a kariton a dwelling place?
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private person
2. That he enters the dwelling of another
3. That such entrance is against the latter’s will
Lack of permission to enter a dwelling does not amount to prohibition. One who enters a building is not presumed to be a trespasser
until the owner tells him to leave. In such a case, if he refuses to leave then his entry shall now be considered to have been made
without the express consent of the owner. (Case: People vs. De Peralta)
Even if the door is not locked, for as long as it is closed, the prohibition is presumed especially if the entry was done at the late hour of
the night or at an unholy hour of the day.
Page | 119
Criminal Law II
The violence contemplated by the law must refer to the person only and not on things. As a qualifying circumstance to increase the
penalty, the law uses not only the word violence but also intimidation. Parenthetically, the latter term does cannot be interpreted as to
mean intimidation of things.
If it is a public official who enter the dwelling of another against the latter’s will, he will be liable for violation of domicile under
Article 128.
Instances when Article 280 does not apply even if there is trespass to dwelling:
1. When the entry is done to prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person
2. When the entry is done to render some service to humanity or justice
3. When the entry is made for the reason that the place is public (cafes, taverns, inns and public houses) and the same is open
4. Hot pursuit of a person who has committed a crime
Section 6, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court: A person who believes that a crime has been committed against him has every right to go
after the culprit and arrest him without any warrant even if in the process he enters the house of another against the latter’s will.
“Against the will” – the entrance is either expressly or impliedly prohibited or the prohibition is presumed. It is not necessary that the
prohibition be expressed by direct words.
If the entry is made in a way not intended for entry, it is presumed to be against the will of the occupant. It is not necessary that there be
a breaking or destruction of something.
May the owner be held criminally liable for trespass to dwelling?

Case: People vs. Almeda
Yes, even if the house belonged to the accused, if its possession has been delivered to another by reason of contract or by mere
tolerance, his being the owner would not authorize him to enter the house against the will of the lawful occupant. His ownership is not
authority for him to place the law into his own hands.
When leasing property, you should ask permission from the renter even if you are the owner.
What is intended to be protected and preserved by the law is the privacy of one’s dwelling.
A entered the house of B at 12:00 midnight and once inside, B saw A. B accosted A. A inflicted B serious physical injuries.
If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown, trespass to dwelling is committed.
If the purpose is shown, it may be absorbed in the crime as in robbery with force upon things, the trespass yielding to the more
serious crime
If the purpose is not shown and while inside the dwelling he was found by the occupants, one of whom was injured by him, the
crime committed is trespass to dwelling and frustrated homicide or physical injuries; or if there was no injury, unjust vexation.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass. – The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either of them is uninhabited, if the
prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Elements:
1. That the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another
2. That the entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest
4. That the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof
Premises – signifies distinct and definite locality. It may mean a room, shop, building or definite area, but in either case, locality is fixed.
The prohibition not to enter has to be manifest. If there is no manifest prohibition not to enter, then one will not be liable under Article
281. If it is fenced, one will still not be liable. In order to be liable, the owner must have put a sign such as “no trespassing”.
Trespass to property Qualified trespass to dwelling

The offender is any person The offender is a private person
Offender enters closed premises or fenced estate Offender enters a dwelling house
The place entered is uninhabited The place entered is inhabited
There is express prohibition from entering such closed premises Entering the dwelling against the will of the owner
or fenced estate and the trespasser has not secured consent or
permission from the owner or caretaker
Prohibition must be manifest Prohibition may be expressed or implied, it need not be manifest
PD 772 or the law on squatting has already been decriminalized.
Page | 120
Criminal Law II
Article 282. Grave threats. – Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter
or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have
made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have
attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a
condition.
Threat – a declaration of an intention or determination made orally or in writing to injure another by the commission upon his person,
honor or property, or a conduct of his family of some wrong which may or may not amount to a crime.
It is committed when offender threatens another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or any of his family
amounting to a crime.
Acts punishable:
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a
crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and the offender attained his purpose
Elements:
1. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or property, or upon that of the
latter’s family, of any wrong
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime
3. That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is imposed, even though not unlawful
4. That the offender attains his purpose
2. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose

3. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property that of his family of any wrong amounting to a
crime, the crime or threat not being subject to a condition
Elements:
1. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or property, or upon that of the
latter’s family, of any wrong
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime
3. That the threat is not subject to a condition
Threat is an oral or physical declaration of an intention to harm or injure another. Intimidation is an indispensable element of the crime.
The very essence of threat is to sow fear, anxiety and insecurity in the mind of the offended party. It is done by threatening to commit a
crime upon the person, honor and property of the offended party. There is a promise of some future harm or injury.
Threats to commit a crime upon the person: Juan calls Pedro by phone and tells him that if he does not give P10,000 he will
cut one of Pedro’s fingers.
Threats to commit a crime to the property of the offended party: Juan calls Pedro by phone asking for P10k, or else he will
destroy Pedro’s car. It is called malicious mischief.
Threats to commit a crime upon the honor of offended party: 10k or else he will report adultery of Petra to his husband. This is
a crime of dishonor, against chastity. Petra will be put into shame.
A demanded B to give him money or else he will expose to the public of his sexual videos with his mistress. A is liable of grave
threats. Threat can be in the form of demand of money or any kind of condition or imposition.
A intends to rape X, if X will not agree A will kill her husband. A is not liable for grave threat. The threat was employed for the
purpose of committing the crime of rape. The said threat cannot be considered as a separate crime because such threats form
part of the elements of the crime of rape.
The penalty to be imposed is one degree lower than the penalty of the crime threatened to be committed, if he attained his purpose.
If offender did not attain his purpose, the penalty shall be two degrees lower than that provided by law for the crime threatened.
If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty if fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
If the threat is made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty is to be imposed in its maximum period.
Usually this crime is filed in the MTC but there are cases wherein the RTC has jurisdiction such as when a person threatens to kill you
or burn your machineries because this amounts to arson.
Threat Robbery
The intimidation is future and conditional The intimidation is actual and immediate
The intimidation may be through an intermediary The nature of the intimidation is personal
The subject may refer to the person, honor or property The subject matter is personal Property
Page | 121
Criminal Law II
Intent to gain is not an essential element There is intent to gain
The danger to the victim is not instantly imminent nor the gain of The robber makes the danger involved in his threats directly
the culprit immediate imminent to the victim and the attainment of his gain immediate
thereby also taking crimes to his person by the imposition of
resistance which the victim might offer
Article 283. Light threats. – Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of
the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Elements:
1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong
2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime
3. That there is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even though not unlawful
4. That the offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not attained his purpose
This is a less grave felony because the penalty is arresto mayor only.
In order to convict a person, the threat must not be in a nature of a crime and there is demand for money or any other condition is
imposed even though lawful. The manner of committing light threats is the same as in grave threats except that the act threatened to be
committed does not constitute a crime. This is otherwise known as “blackmail”.
Blackmailing – refers to the extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the victim.
X threatened to report to the wife of Y the latter’s illicit relationship with another woman unless Y give him money. This is
blackmailing. X commits light threats. X threatened to commit a wrong not amounting to a crime. Jurisdiction belongs with the
MTC.
Jayson is about to take the Bar Examination. Jayson impregnated Zorayda, his girlfriend who is 17 years old. Matias, the
father of Zorayda threatened to report to the Supreme Court the sexual indiscretion of Jayson unless Jayson agrees to marry
his minor daughter. Matias is not liable for light threats. He has performed a lawful act. A, to be member of the Bar, must be a
paragon of good moral conduct.
Article 284. Bond for good behavior. – In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the person making the threats may
also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
The person making the threats (under Article 282 and 283) may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if
he shall fail to give such bail, he is sentenced to desitierro.
“Bond to keep the peace” under Article 35 is applicable to all cases and is treated as a distinct penalty. If the sentenced prisoner fails to
give the bond, he shall be detained for a period not exceeding six months if the crime for which he was convicted is classified as a
grave or less grave felony, or for a period not exceeding 30 days if convicted for a light felony.
Article 285. Other light threats. – The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or
draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense;
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime, and who by
subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense
shall not bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code;
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
This is a light felony.
Acts punished:
1. By threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense
2. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a crime, without pertaining in the idea involved
in his threat
3. By orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony
In the crime of light threats there is no demand for money and the threat made is not planned or done with deliberate intent. Threats
which would otherwise qualify as grave threats, when made in the heat of anger or which is a product of a spur of the moment, are
generally considered as light threats.
Page | 122
Criminal Law II
Whether it is grave or light threats, the crime is committed even in the absence of the person to whom the threat is directed.
Still, one will be liable.
A and B had an argument. Their argument became heated. A shouted “I will kill you, you will not pass this day”. A is liable for
light threats under Article 285. He threatened to kill the aggrieved party in the heat of an argument, but did not persist in
performing the idea involved in his threat.
Article 286. Grave coercions. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to
do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage, or for the purpose of compelling another to perform any
religious act or to prevent him from exercising such right or from so doing such act, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
The essence of coercion is that it is an attack on individual’s liberty. The objective of the law on coercion is to enforce the principle that
no person is allowed to take the law into his hands; that ours is a government of law and not of men.
Elements:
1. That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or that he compelled him to do something
against his will, be it right or wrong
2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation
3. That the person that restrained the will and liberty of another had not the authority of law or the right to do so, or, in other
words, that the restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right
Two ways of committing:

1. By preventing another by means of violence, threats or intimidation, from doing something not prohibited by law
When a person will do something, for as long as it is not illegal, you do not have the right to prevent him by way of violence or
intimidation. You can prevent him in some other way; otherwise you will be liable for grave coercion.
A was inside his classroom when X, by means of violence, dragged him outside to prevent him from attending his class. Here
there is no law which prohibits A from attending his class. Grave coercion is committed.
Suppose A had a hand grenade with him at the time he was attending his class and X, by means of violence, forcibly ejected
him from the classroom. In such a case, X cannot be held liable for grave coercion because A was prevented from doing
something which is prohibited by law.
In grave coercion, the act of preventing by force must be made at the time the offended party was doing or was about to do the act to
be prevented. If the act was already done when violence is exerted, the crime is unjust vexation.
2. By compelling another by means of violence, threatens or intimidation, to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong
You have no right to compel a person to do something even if it is the right things.
The law uses the word “something”. It is a very broad crime. The accused here compels another to do something or prevent the latter
from doing an act without the law telling us what is that something or what that act is all about. If the act prevented or the act compelled
to be committed is specified under a more specific provision in the RPC then that specific provision prevails. If the act is general, then
you apply Article 286.
A public officer with the use of violence prevents the holding of a religious ceremony. He will not be liable for grave coercion
but he will be liable under Article 132 for interruption of religious worship. There is coercion here but there is a provision which
is more specific.
The driver was waiting for his employer when he was asked by policemen to drive for them since they were in a hurry. The
driver refused. He was grabbed and pushed to the side. The policemen drove the car. There is grave coercion.
A is the landowner and B is his tenant. A ejected B thru force and violence from tilling the land. Grave coercion is committed.
A is the owner of an apartment. He forcefully ousted B who has not been paying his rent for 1 year. Grave coercion is
committed. A is putting the law on his own hands.
Case: Lee vs. CA 201 SCRA 405

Considering that the present case does not involve violence but intimidation, the provisions of Article 1335 of the New Civil Code on
intimidation are relevant. It states: There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-
grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or
ascendants, to give his consent. To determine the degree of the intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in
mind.
Page | 123
Criminal Law II
In the light of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner's demand that the private respondent return the proceeds of the check
accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges was not improper. There is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue. It is a practice
followed not only by banks but even by individuals to demand payment of their accounts with the threat that upon failure to do so an
action would be instituted in court. Such a threat is proper within the realm of the law as a means to enforce collection. Such a threat
cannot constitute duress even if the claim proves to be unfounded so long as the creditor believes that it was his right to do so
The circumstances of this case reveal that the complainant, despite her protestations, indeed voluntarily, albeit reluctantly, consented to
do all the aforesaid acts.
Bearing in mind her involvement in the deposit and encashment of the check, the complainant admitted to being nervous upon being
informed that the check was spurious. We find that complainant's lengthy stay at the bank was not due to the petitioner's threat. It was
rather due to her desire to prove her innocence.
In her insistence to clear up her name, it is not farfetched for Us to think that the complainant voluntarily but grudgingly returned the
money to show good faith. Thus, it was she who informed the petitioner about the existence of the RCBC Time Deposit Certificate. The
allegation that she did so because of petitioner's threats came from the complainant herself. She has not been able to present any
other witness to buttress her claim.
The most telling proof of the absence of intimidation was the fact that the complainant refused to sign the promissory note in spite of the
alleged threats of the petitioner. American authorities have declared that "(t)he force which is claimed to have compelled criminal
conduct against the will of the actor must be immediate and continuous and threaten grave danger to his person during all of the time
the act is being committed. That is, it must be a dangerous force threatened 'in praesenti.' It must be a force threatening great bodily
harm that remains constant in controlling the will of the unwilling participant while the act is being performed and from which he cannot
then withdraw in safety."
Prision mayor (penalty next higher in degree) shall be imposed:

1. If the coercion is committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage
2. If the coercion is committed to compel another to perform any religious act
3. If the coercion is committed to prevent another from performing any religious act
Article 287. Light coercions. – Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to
the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercion or unjust vexation shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both.
Elements:
1. That the offender must be a creditor
2. That he seizes anything belonging to his debtor
3. That the seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display of material force producing intimidation
4. That the purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of debt

1. Paragraph 1: Refer to a creditor who seizes anything belonging to his debtor by means of violence for the purpose of applying
the same for the debt
2. Paragraph 2: Refers to unjust vexation – committed by one who annoys or vexes or irritates another even if the act is not
productive of actual, material or physical injury
Unjust vexation – includes any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm would, however,
unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person.
Article 288. Other similar coercions – (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens.) – The
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person, agent, or officer of any
association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed
by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by
means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the Philippine Islands, unless expressly requested by the laborer or
employee.
Acts punished:
1. By forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling of the laborer or employee of
the offender to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind from him
2. By paying wages due his laborer or employee by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer or employee
This must be correlated with RA 602: The Minimum Wage Law.

Wages of laborers must be paid in legal tender. It is unlawful to pay the wages of laborers in the form of promissory notes, vouchers,
coupons, tokens or any other forms alleged to represent legal tender.
Page | 124
Criminal Law II
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats. – The
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for the purpose of organizing,
maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in
such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work, if the act shall not
constitute a more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Elements:
1. That the offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and
legal exercise of their industry or work
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or lockout of employers
Peaceful picketing should not be prevented. If the employer prevents it, he will be liable under Article 289 and the Labor Code.
Employers do not have the right to prevent their employees or laborers from joining any labor organization otherwise they will be liable
under Article 289.
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private individual who, in order to discover secrets of
another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
This provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to papers or
letters of the children or minors placed under their care or custody, nor to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official function
2. That he seizes the papers or letters of another
3. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person
4. That offender is informed of the contents of the papers or letters seized
This is the penal sanction to the constitutional guarantee that the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court when public safety or order requires otherwise.
Brad is in love with Ana. He had been courting but his efforts proved futile. Wondering if she already has someone, he
captured the letter of Alex to Ana to discover if he is the boyfriend. He is liable under Article 290.
Robin is a chickboy. His wife is suspecting that he has an illicit relationship so she rummaged through his drawers and closed
receptacles and discovered love letters. She is not liable because the article is not applicable to spouses with respect to letters
or papers of either of them. The love letter is not admissible as evidence when she will file for concubinage. The doctrine of the
fruit of the poisonous tree is applicable.
Note: The exclusionary rule is only applicable to law enforcement or police officers and not to private individuals.
“Seize” – means to place in the control of someone a thing or to give him the possession thereof. It is not necessary that there should
be force of violence. There must be taking possession of papers or letters of another, even for a short time only.
RA 4200: The Anti-Wire Tapping Law
Case: Montes vs. CA May 4, 2006

Montes is the Chief of the Legal Division of the DOST and was charged with grave misconduct. He counterfiled and was in the process
of gathering evidence. He produced recorded private conversations he had with the DOST Secretary at the latter’s office without the
Secretary’s consent.
Case: Gaanan vs. IAC 145 SCRA 17
Case: Atty. Capuchino vs. Apolonio et. al. September 5, 2011

Capuchino is counsel of Valencia charged with violation of BP22. Valencia was convicted but Capuchino filed for a motion for
reconsideration. They tried to settle the case but complainant Valmonte requested a higher amount. Valencia requested a court
stenographer Duque where the case was pending to hold the amount. Duque refused but Valencia insisted so he received it and issued
a receipt. His co-employees learned of the transaction and informed the judge. When they attended the hearing, the employees began
asking questions about Duque’s act. Their conversation was tape recorded without their consent. Out of it, they filed an administrative
case against Duque. Capuchino filed a case for grave misconduct against the employees.
The Court finds the respondents’ contentions without merit. Their concerted acts – of leading Atty. Capuchino and Valencia into the
court sala, engaging them in conversation regarding the money deposited with Duque, taping their conversation without Capuchino’s &
Page | 125
Criminal Law II
Valencia’s knowledge, and later using the taped conversation as basis of the complaint they filed against Duque – constitute
misconduct. It constitutes a violation of RA 4200.
Case: Chavez vs. DOJ Secretary February 15, 2008
Case: Felipe Navarro vs. CA and People August 26, 1999

Jalbuena and Lingan are reporters of a radio station. They went to Entertainment City following reports of nude dancers. As the dancer
removed her clothes, Jalbuena took a camera and took a picture. The floor manager Liquin and a security guard approach him and
asked why he took a picture. Commotion ensued when he ran out and went straight to the police station. Three policemen were
drinking including Navarro who asked them to join them. Navarro turned to Jalbuena and pushed him to the wall. He mauled Lingan
who died. Unknown to him, the incident was recorded by Jalbuena in his tape recorder. He was convicted and questioned the
admissibility of the tape record since it is a violation of RA 4200.
Indeed, Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice recording had made. It may be asked whether the tape is admissible in view of
R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in the affirmative.
Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Since the exchange between petitioner
Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.
RA 9372: The Human Security Act of 2007
Section 7. Intercepting and recording of communications for surveillance of suspects; policemen need to have a court order
Note: Exclusionary rule or the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree
Section 8. Application for judicial authorization
Section 16. Penalty
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. – The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall
reveal such secrets.
Elements:
1. That the offender is manager, employee or servant
2. That he learns the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity
3. That he reveals such secrets
Secrets must have come to their knowledge by reason of their office or position
Damage is not necessary
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. – The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee, or workman of any manufacturing or industrial
establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a manufacturing or industrial establishment
2. That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the industry which the offender has learned
3. That the offender reveals such secrets
4. That prejudice is caused to the owner
Chemists may be liable under this provision.
Title X: Crimes against Property
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. – Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another,
by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
Robbery – the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon things.
Elements:
1. That there be personal property belonging to another
You cannot rob your own property. It shall become an impossible crime.
Page | 126
Criminal Law II
There is no requirement under the law that the property must belong to the person robbed, it merely says that it must belong to another.
The principle is that the offended arty need not be the owner of the property, mere possession is enough as long as the offender is not
the owner thereof.
If A took the property of B, which X robbed from A. X is liable for robbery. It is irrelevant that the thing belongs to X. Even if A
was not the owner but was in possession of the things, the crime of robbery is committed.
The object of robbery is a movable property, a personal property. Real property or immovable property cannot be the object of robbery
because the element of the crime is that there be personal property. Robbing a person of real property is the crime of usurpation or real
property defined and penalized under Article 312.
If the property is res nullus or is without any owner, the rule is that the crime of robbery or theft cannot be committed. This is for the
simple reason that no one can be prejudiced by the taking of the personal property even though the intent to gain is present during the
taking.
2. That there is unlawful taking of that property
Unlawful taking – means that there is asportation. It means appropriating a thing belonging to another and placing it under one’s
control and possession no matter how momentary this possession or control might be.
Unlawful taking is an essential element of robbery. It must be against the will of the owner or lawful possessor of a personal property.
As an element of property, taking must have the character of permanency. If the disposition of a personal property is only temporary
and there is no intention on the part of the offender to deprive the owner or lawful possessor the thing permanently in his possession,
then the robbery is not committed.
If you robbed shades but then you were caught by a policeman. The taking is already consummated from the moment you had
in possession the shades belonging to another even if the possession was only temporary or momentary.
3. That the taking must be with intent to gain
How do you manifest intent to gain?

Intent to gain is presumed from the taking of a personal property belonging to another. Mere intent to gain is already enough. Actual
gain is not an element of the crime. Even if you did not obtain any actual gain for as long as there was intent to gain when you took the
personal property belonging to another against his will or without his consent, then the crime of robbery is committed.
There is animus lucrandi. It is the intent to obtain from the appropriation of the thing some utility, advantage or benefit. It is not
necessary that the gain may be realized as mere intent to gain is enough. There may not be an actual gain.
The felonious intent or animus lucrandi must exist prior to or at least coetaneously with the unlawful taking. Not only must the felonious
intent or animus lucrandi exist, but it must exist at the time the property is taken. At the very moment the property is taken, intent to gain
must already exist.
If A killed X but when he was about to leave, he stole the watch of X. The crime is not robbery with homicide because intent to
gain came after the killing, it was an afterthought. The crimes may be (1) homicide or murder and (2) theft.
If A robbed B and was caught by a policeman, A committed robbery even if he did not gain from the act.
If one robs and gives it to the poor (Robin Hood) then there is robbery because intent to gain does not necessarily mean that
the robber shall profit himself. Inner satisfaction is already enough.
4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything
The violence or intimidation must be against the person of the offended party and not upon the thing taken.
Classification of robbery:
1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons (Articles 294 , 297 and 298)
2. Robbery by the use of force upon things (Articles 299 and 302)
Among the two, robbery with violence or intimidation is the more dangerous and greater impact. It already involves lives. If the robbery
is made in combination of the two ways, the crime is designated as robbery with violence or intimidation. When violence or intimidation
and force upon things are both present in the commission of the robbery, the former is controlling because robbery characterized by
violence or intimidation against the person is evidently graver than robbery made with force upon things. When violence or intimidation
is made against the person who is present, there is greater disturbance to the order of the society and the security of the individual.
Robbery Theft
Page | 127
Criminal Law II
Both crimes involve unlawful taking or asportation as an element.
Both involve personal property belonging to another.
In both crimes, the taking is done with intent to gain.
The taking is done either with the use of violence or intimidation of The taking is done simply without the knowledge and consent of
a person, or with force upon things. the owner. There is violence or intimidation.
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have
been committed; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson;
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted;
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted;
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation
employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the
crime, or when in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its
commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263;
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.
“By reason of” – it means because of

“On the occasion of” – it means in the course of
Robbery with homicide
The crime committed when a person is killed during robbery with violence or intimidation is the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Article 48 does not apply to composite crimes. The commission of one crime is not necessary in the commission of another.
Three possible situations when taking property such as jewelries:

1. I will kill you first so that I can take your jewelries so there will be no hassle – robbery with homicide: by reason of
2. When I started taking your jewelries, you resisted and in the course of the struggle I killed you – robbery with homicide: on the
occasion of
3. I successfully removed all the jewelries and started to leave but realized that you recognized by face and so I went back and
killed you – robbery with homicide: on the occasion of
What is the common denominator of the three possible situations? There should always be intent to gain. The controlling factor to
determine whether the crime is a special complex crime of robbery is the presence or absence of intent to gain.
If A decided to kill X and so killed him and saw that he had jewelries. A took them from his body. The crime committed is not
robbery with homicide because intent to gain came after the killing. The crime would be homicide or murder and theft.
If A robbed B but while A was about to run away he was accosted by X. A shot X. The crime committed is robbery with
homicide. It is not necessary that the victim of robbery with homicide is the same person.
Case: People vs. Pidoy 225 SCRA 234

In the course of robbery, A killed 4 persons. How should the crime be charged? The crime committed is robbery with homicide
regardless of the number of persons who died. The second, third and fourth deaths shall be considered as additional aggravating
circumstances.
There is no such crime as robbery with double homicide or robbery with multiple homicide or robbery with murder. The term homicide is
used in its generic sense to include double or multiple homicide or murder. As long as there is only one robbery regardless of the
number of person killed, the crime is still called robbery with homicide. There is only one penalty because that is what the law provides.
A, B and C robbed a bank. A decide to double-cross B and C and killed them. A is liable for the crime of robbery with homicide
because the law does not distinguish as to who is killed. The important thing is that homicide is done by reason or on the
occasion of robbery.
If during the robbery, the victim died because of heart attack, the robbers are liable for robbery with homicide even if they did
not kill the victim. They are liable for the direct, logical and natural consequence of their felonious act. Note: The doctrine of
proximate cause. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil cause (Article 4).
If the victim puts up a fight and kills the robber, the crime of robbery with homicide is applied only to the robbers who
committed the crime.
Case: People vs. Peroles 226 SCRA 554
Page | 128
Criminal Law II
In the crime of robbery with homicide, the main actor is robbery. Robbery is the principal offense and not homicide. This is why in
robbery with homicide, it is essential to prove that property was taken. One must establish that there was robbery otherwise there can
be no conviction of robbery with homicide but only homicide or murder.
In robbery, is it necessary to that the property subject matter be presented as evidence? No.
Case: People vs. Cagurao 202 SCRA 179
One only has to prove the fact of loss without necessarily presenting the properties stolen because for all you know, it may not be
recovered anymore. (The same is the ruling for illegal possession of firearms)
Can one say that robbery is committed with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation? No, evident premeditation is
absorbed in the crime of pure and simple robbery. Should there be robbery with homicide, evident premeditation may be considered or
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
When in the course of the robbery, someone is killed but rape and arson are also committed, the crime is to be denominated as robbery
with homicide. The rape and arson can be appreciated as aggravating circumstances.
Principles:
There is robbery with homicide even if an innocent bystander, and not the person robbed, is killed.
There is robbery with homicide if the responding policeman is killed. The law does not require that the victim of robbery be also
the victim of homicide.
Any kind of killing by reason or on the occasion of robbery will bring about the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
This is true even if the victim was murdered or the victims are two or more, or even if the victim is less than 3 days old.
The crime is robbery with homicide even if the killing should have resulted from negligence or imprudence.
Points to remember:
There are no crimes of robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide.
The term homicide is used in its generic sense. Any other act producing or results short of death is covered by the term
homicide.
The homicide and the serious physical injuries must be merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
There is no such thing as robbery with murder, robbery with double homicide, robbery with multiple homicide, or robbery with
multiple murder. There is no robbery with infanticide.
When robbery is consummated but homicide is attempted or frustrated, there are two separate crimes.
Robbery with rape
When robbery is committed and the woman is brought outside her house and was raped, the crime is robbery with rape. It is
not necessary that the victim is inside her house when she was raped.
If after the robbery the woman was brought to a hotel where she was raped. The crimes would be (1) robbery and (2) the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape because she was forcibly taken from her home against her will and with lewd
design. The forcible abduction was a necessary means to commit the crime of rape.
In the crime of robbery with rape, when the main purpose is to commit robbery and rape is also committed, the crime is robbery with
rape. When the purpose is to commit rape but robbery is also committed, there may be two separate crimes of (1) rape and (2) theft or
robbery as the case may be.
In the crime of robbery with rape, the law does not distinguish whether the rape was committed before or after the robbery. It is
sufficient that robbery accompanied rape.
In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, there is no logic in applying Article 48 because robbery is not a necessary means to
commit the crime of rape, nor is rape necessary to commit the crime of robbery.
If there is pardon given to the offended party, it will not alter the criminal liability of the offender because in robbery with rape, the crime
committed is not a crime against chastity but a crime against property. Even under the present amendment which classifies rape as a
crime against persons, the change has no legal effect on the provisions of Article 294 since the special complex crime of robbery with
rape is considered, by express provision of law, a single crime, notwithstanding that there is a plurality of crimes committed.
When by reason or on the occasion of robbery intentional mutilation is committed, the crime is robbery with intentional mutilation.
When by reason or on the occasion of robbery there are serious physical injuries, the crime would be robbery with serious physical
injuries. The special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries is committed when by reason of or the occasion of robbery
the victim became insane, became an imbecile or was seriously injured.
If the injuries sustained are less serious physical injuries, it is covered under paragraph 4.
Page | 129
Criminal Law II
If the injuries are only slight physical injuries, it is covered under the last paragraph.
If the injuries were inflicted after the taking of the personal property had been completed, the serious physical injuries should
be considered as a separate offense. The crimes committed are serious physical injuries and theft.
Under paragraph 1, 2 and 3, the law says “by reason or on occasion of”. This is not found in the other paragraphs. The violence in
these paragraphs may be before, during, and after the taking. In paragraphs 4 and 5, the violence must be before or at least in the
course of or during the taking of the property. It should not be after the taking.
Case: People vs. Villagracia September 14, 1993

The law uses the phrase "when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape" which means that the offender must have the intent
to take the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, and such intent must precede the rape.
In this case, appellants employed violence against and intimidation of persons when they divested the Villasanta spouses of cash and
other valuables. Three of the appellants were armed with short firearms and the other three carried fan knives.
That appellants conspired to commit the detestable acts can be inferred from their behaviors, which revealed their common purpose
and their unity in its execution.
However, the trial court erred in finding the presence of the aggravating circumstance of band. The circumstance that the crime was
committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons was already taken into account when the law imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for such offense.
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a
street, road or alley. – If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been
committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the
passengers’ compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on
a street road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum
period of the proper penalties.
Case: People vs. Fuerta

If the crime of robbery with homicide is committed by a band and in an uninhabited place, the crime is called robbery with homicide.
There is no such crime as robbery with homicide in band. Band is considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
In Article 295, you commit a robbery defined under paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article 294, and it is by a band. It becomes a qualifying
circumstance. It cannot be offset by any ordinary aggravating circumstance.
When robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons becomes qualified:

1. In an uninhabited place
2. By a band
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the offender shall be punished by
the maximum periods of the proper penalties prescribed in Article 294
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. – When more than three armed malefactors take
part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the
commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum period of
the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearm.
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.
A robbery is committed by a band when it is committed by at least four armed malefactors organized with the intention of carrying out
any unlawful design. Their participation in the commission of the crime must be actual. The offender must be a principal by direct
participation. A principal by inducement cannot be convicted of this crime or the aggravating circumstance of band shall be appreciated
against him since the law requires as a condition of its commission the actual participation of the offender in the execution of the crime.
In such a case, the conviction of a principal by inducement will only be limited to his criminal liability as co-conspirator.
Requisites for the liability of the acts of the other members of the band:
1. That he was a member of the band
2. That he was present at the commission of a robbery by that band
3. That the other members of the band committed an assault
4. That he did not attempt to prevent the assault
If there are 6 malefactors but only 2 are armed, there is no robbery by a band.
Page | 130
Criminal Law II
If the robbers conspired to commit robbery only but in the course of the execution of the robbery homicide was committed, all
members of the band will be liable for robbery with homicide. Even if the agreement refers only to the robbery, nonetheless,
when the robbery is committed by a band and a person is killed, any member who was present at the commission of the
robbery who did not do anything to prevent the killing of the victim on the occasion of the robbery shall be held liable for the
crime of robbery with homicide.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. – When by reason or on occasion of an
attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this
Code.
Article 297 provides for the special complex crime of attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide.
When the robbery is attempted or frustrated, Article 294 has no application because the robbery and the homicide must both be
consummated. If the robbery is merely attempted or frustrated but the same resulted to the commission of a consummated homicide,
Article 297 will apply.
Article 297 deals with what is considered as a special complex crime although there is plurality of crimes. Only one crime is deemed
committed since by fiction of law the combination of such crimes must produce only a single crime.
Where the homicide is only attempted or frustrated, Article 297 does not apply. In the same manner where the attempted or frustrated
robbery results in the commission of serious physical injuries, Article 297 has no application. In such cases, the crime shall be treated
under the provisions of Article 48 on ordinary complex crimes. Consequently, the penalty provided for by Article 48 shall now be
observed.
Case: People vs. Dio 130 SCRA 151

Attempted robbery with homicide is committed when the killing of the victim was merely incidental to or an offshoot to the plan to carry
out the robbery which however was not consummated because of the resistance of the deceased.
Whether the robbery is attempted or frustrated, the penalty is the same.

The term homicide as used in Article 297 has a broader meaning. It includes murder, parricide and infanticide. The declaration is not by
any means inferential but has to be so because of the plain and unmistakable language of the law which states: “unless the homicide
committed shall deserve a higher penalty”.
When the robbery is consummated and the homicide is attempted or frustrated:

If the attempted or frustrated homicide was not a necessary means for the commission of robbery, the offender will commit the
separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted homicide.
If it is necessary for the commission of robbery, Article 48 will be applied. There is a complex crime of robbery with attempted
or frustrated homicide.
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. – Any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means
of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document, shall be held guilty of
robbery and punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
Elements:
1. That the offender has intent to defraud another
2. That the offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document
3. That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation
Article 298 Grave Coercion (Article 286)

The element of fraudulent intent is what distinguishes this felony In grave coercion there is no intent to gain
from grave coercion
Such fear is produced by threatening to cause an evil or damage Fear is produced in the minds of the offended party in order to
which is very immediate obtain something from him by threatening to cause him an evil or
damage which is not immediate but remote
Article 299. Robbery in an uninhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. – Any armed person who shall
commit robbery in an uninhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion
temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if –
a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery is committed, by any of the following means:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress;
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window;
Page | 131
Criminal Law II
3. By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools;
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
Or if –
b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos.
When said offenders do not carry arms and the value taken does not exceed 250 pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the
two next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.
If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious
worship, the penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.
Elements of subdivision (a):

1. That the offender entered an inhabited place, or public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship
2. That the entrance was effected by any of the following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority
3. That once inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain
Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress
For robbery under Article 299 to be committed, the robbers must have entered a building.
If a car is parked outside a building and with force, you removed the tires and stereo, the crime of robbery is not robbery but
theft. Although force is used in removing the things in the car, you did not enter any building. A car is not a building.
When the accused broke the show-window without entering the building but merely introduced his hand and abstracted
something, there is no robbery because he did not enter the building.
Entering a house through the window without breaking anything and you took something inside, the crime of robbery is committed
because a window is not intended for entrance or egress. When you make an entry through the window, even if you do not employ any
force as the window is open, the law calls it a constructive force upon things.
The entry is what matters and not the exit. What matters is how the robber got in and not how he got out.
In entering through the window and exiting through the door, there is still robbery. In entering through the door and exiting through the
window, there is no robbery.
Robbery is committed in entering a fire exit door because it is not intended for ordinary ingress and egress.
By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window
Example: The accused used a saw in opening the wall of a store through which they entered and took clothes.
An accused entered a church while it was open and remained until it was closed. While inside, he took valuable objects and
destroyed the lock of the door to get out. Robbery is not committed; the crime committed is only theft. Destroying something as
a way of exit is not covered by robbery under Article 299.
Prying a sliding door from its grove where entrance was effected is not considered as breaking. The words “breaking” imply
more than the mere forcing of a door or a window. The act of removing a sliding door constituted theft and not robbery.
If it is the padlock being destroyed, the crime is theft. The padlock is not part of the door because it is a detachable gadget.
If it is a double-lock that is destroyed, the crime committed is robbery. The door lock is permanently attached to the door.
The door referred to is an outside door and not an inside door of the building or house. It may be a main door or the back door.
The door of the house is open but the bedroom door is locked; you have to break the door to gain entry. The crime of robbery
is not committed under Paragraph (a)(2). The door that should be broken must be an outside door.
By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools
Article 305 – What the term false keys shall include:

Genuine keys stolen from the owner are considered false keys.
Page | 132
Criminal Law II
False key – a key used to enter the house, not the rooms inside the house
By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority
Accused, representing himself to be a detective, were able to enter the establishment and once inside, one of them feigned
taking a revolver from his belt and ordered the victim to take all the money he had. He simulated public authority.
Elements of subdivision (b):

1. That the offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he entered it
2. That the offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, under any of the following circumstances:
a. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery
By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
This assumes a situation where one has already entered the house or the building by not using any force. Nothing was destroyed in
gaining entry. While inside the house, one tries to destroy or break doors inside. The doors mentioned in this paragraph are the doors
inside the house or the building.
In entering without breaking anything and forcibly breaking the lock of a furniture and taking its contents, the crime of robbery is
committed.
By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery
The object must be taken from inside the house to be opened outside.
If the object is found outside of the house or building, and you break it open, the crime is only theft and not robbery.
It is not necessary that the object be actually be broken or opened. It is sufficient that it is taken away from the inside and is
taken outside. It is not the opening which will make it consummated, it is the act of taking it away. It is the intention of opening
and not the actual opening of the receptacle that matters
Article 294 Article 299

The value of the property taken is irrelevant The value of the property taken should be considered in the
determination of what penalty is to be imposed upon the offender
As long as there is violence, the crime is robbery whether the Not every force used upon things will make the taking of the
victim died or was merely injured property robbery
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band. – The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article, if committed in
an uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided therefor.
When the robbery is committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, the robbery becomes qualified.
The place is considered uninhabited when it is not used as a dwelling. It may refer to a building or a house which is not used as a
dwelling, such as a warehouse. If a house is inhabited but its owners or occupants have temporarily left the place for a short vacation,
their casual absence will not make the house uninhabited.
A dependency is a part of the house such as a store constructed in from of the house, but which is connected to the main house or the
building such that if you are inside the store, you have access to any or all parts of the building. They structurally form one single
building. The store adjoins the house.
A garage may also be classified as a dependency. It must be incorporated to the main house or building in such a manner that entry ot
he garage would give an intruder free access to all parts of the house or building. If the garage is maintained as an independent unit or
entity and is used only for such purpose without it having the nomenclature of a house or a building, the forcible entry to the same will
not constitute force upon things as would categorize the act done as robbery.
Force upon things must be employed in order to enter the building or house. If the force upon things is employed not on a building or a
house but on a garage, such force assumes no legal significance as it will convert the act committed to robbery with the use of force
upon things.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies. –
Inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants
thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
All interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns, coachhouses, stables, and other departments, or enclosed places contiguous
Page | 133
Criminal Law II
to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed
dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the terms of the next preceding paragraph, even if
closed, contiguous to the building, and having direct connection therewith.
The term “public building” includes every building owned by the Government or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the
Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Inhabited house – when a house or building is used as a dwelling place; where he gives his family and enjoys the amenities of life; it is
any structure used as shelter, or a ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons. It also refers to the place used as
residence, domicile, or where one stays for comfort and rest.
Requisites to be considered as dependencies:

1. Must be contiguous to the building
2. Must have an interior entrance connected therewith
3. Must form part of the whole
Case: US vs. Ventura 39 Phil 523

A small store located on the ground floor of the house, belonging to the owner of the store, is a dependency of the house, because the
house and the store form one single whole, there being no partition between them and that the inmates in going to the main stairway
have to enter the store which has a door.
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. – Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a
building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, provided that any of the following circumstances is present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress;
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken;
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use if of false keys, picklocks, or other similar tools;
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken;
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere.
When the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
In the cases specified in Article 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of this Code, when the property taken is mail matter or large cattle,
the offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said articles.
Elements:
1. That the offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house, not a public building, or not an
edifice devoted to religious worship
2. That any of the following circumstances was present:
a. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or engress
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken
c. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken open elsewhere
3. That with intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another
Under Article 302, the offender enters a building which is not inhabited and is not being used as a dwelling house, a public building or
an edifice used for religious worship. In entering the building, the entrance is effected through the manners enumerated under Article
302. More often, when robbery is committed, it is either through the use of force upon persons or upon things. This article deals on
other forms of robbery committed without the use of force. When entry into a building is done through an opening not intended for the
purpose and personal belongings are taken therefrom, the crime of robbery is committed even though no force is employed upon
things.
Case: People vs. Jaradilla 55 SCRA 563

The freight car is not a building. The legal significance of this ruling cannot be overemphasized for in this case the offender forcibly
removed the strip of cloth placed at the cover of the door of the freight and thereafter abstracted sacks of sugar contained in the freight
car. The crime committed is only theft and not robbery. Although there was force upon things, the same was not employed against a
building.
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building. – In the cases enumerated in
Article 299 and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower
in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
Page | 134
Criminal Law II
A cereal is for seedling purposes. It does not include hogged rice but may include palay or unhogged palay. If what were taken from the
bodega are sacks of rice, Article 303 is not applicable. Article 302 will be used.
When the law uses “uninhabited place”, it refers to an uninhabited building and its dependencies. If the cereals, fruits or firewood were
taken outside of the building and its dependencies, the crime committed would only be theft even though the taking was done in an
uninhabited place.
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. – Any person who shall, without lawful cause, have in his possession picklocks
or similar tools specially adopted to the commission of the crime of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. If the offender be a locksmith, he shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Two important elements:

1. The possession of picklocks or similar tools must have only one purpose – to use the same for the commission of robbery
2. The possessor has no legal reason or lawful cause to possess the tools in question
Elements:
1. That the offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to the commission of robbery
3. That the offender does not have lawful cause for such possession
Mere possession of things to be used in the commission of a crime, being preparatory acts, are generally not punishable under the
RPC. There is no overt act yet. Under Article 304, mere possession of picklocks would make one criminally liable. Actual use of the
picklocks or tools is not necessary to constitute illegal possession thereof.
The law also prohibits the manufacture or fabrication of such tools. If the manufacturer or maker or locksmith himself is the offender, the
penalty is higher, the crime is qualified.
In the crime of robbery, if the offender used a picklock to enter a building, he cannot be charged of two crimes. The same possession of
the tools is already absorbed in the graver crime of robbery.
Article 305. False keys. – The term “false keys” shall be deemed to include:
1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding article;
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
Section 2. What is carnapping.
Motor vehicle – any vehicle which is motorized using streets which are public and not exclusively for private use
A motorcycle is a motor vehicle
A trisikad is not a motorized vehicle
A tricyboat uses the engine of a boat. There is yet no decided case on whether it is part of the law.
Case: Izon vs. People 107 SCRA 118

Tricycle is deemed a motor vehicle in the contemplation of law. The stealing of which comes within its penal sanction.
If the vehicle uses the streets with or without the required license, the same comes within the protection of the law for the severity of the
offense is not to be measured by what kind of street or highway the same is used but by the nature of the vehicle itself and the case to
which it is devoted.
Elements of carnapping:
1. That there is actual taking of the vehicle
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself
4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof, or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or
intimidation against persons or by using force upon things
In taking your friend’s motorcycle for a joyride, carnapping is committed even if there is no force or violence and intimidation because it
was taken without the consent of your friend, the owner. It is immaterial that there is no actual gain. It is not an element of the crime
such as in the crime of robbery.
Page | 135
Criminal Law II
Amended by RA 7659 Section 20:

Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act,
shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months
and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or
force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the
carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course
of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."
Qualified carnapping: When the owner, the driver or any passenger thereof is killed or is raped
The carnapping and the killing or the rape, as the case may be, may be considered as single or indivisible or a special complex crime
which however is not covered by Article 48 of the RPC. As such, the killing or the rape merely qualifies the crime of carnapping which,
for lack of specific nomenclature, may be known as qualified carnapping or carnapping in the aggravated/qualified form.
“is killed” – No distinction must be made between homicide or murder. Whether it is one or the other, in the course of carnapping or on
the occasion thereof, it makes no difference insofar as the penalty is concerned. It follows that the killing of the driver, passenger or
occupant, whether it be homicide or murder, cannot be treated as a separate offense but may only be considered to qualify the crime of
carnapping.
Case: People vs. Lagat September 14, 2011

The records of this case show that all the elements of carnapping are present and were proven during trial.
The tricycle, which was definitively ascertained to belong to Biag, as evidenced by the registration papers, was found in Lagat and
Palalay’s possession. Aside from this, the prosecution was also able to establish that Lagat and Palalay fled the scene when the Alicia
PNP tried to approach them at the palay buying station. To top it all, Lagat and Palalay failed to give any reason why they had Biag’s
tricycle. Their unexplained possession raises the presumption that they were responsible for the unlawful taking of the tricycle.
In Litton Mills, Inc. v. Sales, we said that for such presumption to arise, it must be proven that: (a) the property was stolen; (b) it was
committed recently; (c) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused; and (d) the accused is unable to explain
his possession satisfactorily. As mentioned above, all these were proven by the prosecution during trial. Thus, it is presumed that Lagat
and Palalay had unlawfully taken Biag’s tricycle. In People v. Bustinera, this Court defined "unlawful taking," as follows:
Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
Lagat and Palalay’s intent to gain from the carnapped tricycle was also proven as they were caught in a palay buying station, on board
the stolen tricycle, which they obviously used to transport the cavans of palay they had stolen and were going to sell at the station. In
Bustinera, we elucidated on the concept of "intent to gain" and said:
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as
the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit
which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken
without the owner’s consent constitutes gain.
The foregoing circumstantial evidence only leads to the conclusion that Lagat and Palalay conspired to kill Biag in order to steal his
tricycle. Direct proof that the two accused conspired is not essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after
their commission of the crime that they acted with a common purpose and design. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution
are consistent with one another and the only rational proposition that can be drawn therefrom is that the accused are guilty of killing
Biag to carnap his tricycle. When a person is killed or raped in the course of or on the occasion of the carnapping, the crime of
carnapping is qualified and the penalty is increased pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6539.
Article 306. Who are brigands – Penalty. – When more than three armed person form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing
robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands.
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period, if the acts committed by them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high penalties.
If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers
or brigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.
Brigandage – a crime committed by more than three armed persons who form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery
in the highway or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by means
of force and violence
Elements:
1. There are at least four armed persons
Page | 136
Criminal Law II
2. They formed a band of robbers
3. The purpose is any of the following:
a. To commit robbery in the highway
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom
c. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose
Band must consist of more than three armed malefactors. In the crime of brigandage, band is a necessary element.
The agroupation is called brigandage which is a crime in itself. There is no need for the band of robbers to execute the object of their
association in order to hold them criminally liable for the crime of brigandage.
The primary object of the law is to prevent the formation of bands of robbers. Hence, if the formed band commits robbery with the use
of force upon persons or things, their criminal liability shall be limited to the commission of such crimes.
If the agreement among more than three armed men is to commit a particular robbery, brigandage is not committed because the latter
must be an agreement to commit robbery in general or indiscriminately.
What separates brigandage from ordinary robbery by a band?

Brigandage Robbery by a band
The purposes are given- the three mentioned in the law The purpose is only to commit robbery, not necessarily in the
highway
The robbery is “to whom it may concern”; it is indiscriminate. The The object or offended party is very specific
person to be victimized is generalized
The mere formation of a band for the purposes mentioned already It is necessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery
constitutes the commission of a crime
If there is a predetermined victim of the robbery, the crime is simple robbery.

Most prosecutors file a case under PD 532
PD 532: The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
PD 532 is very specific: you commit robbery in the highway.
The object of PD 532 is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent
and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another which acts constitute either pricy or highway robbery or brigandage. It
is directed against acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person on Philippine highways and not those
committed against a predetermined or particular victim. Accordingly, a robbery committed in a Philippine highway by persons who are
not members of the prescribed lawless elements or are directed only against a specific person or a preconceived victim, is not a
violation of PD 532.
Case: People vs. Laurente March 29, 1996

We declare at the outset that even granting ex gratia that the established facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that Laurente and his
two co-accused indeed committed the acts charged in the information, Laurente cannot be validly convicted for highway robbery with
homicide under P.D. No. 532. The object of the decree is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another — which acts constitute either
piracy or highway robbery/brigandage — thereby disturbing the peace, order, and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic
and social progress of the people. It is directed against acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person on
Philippine highways, as defined therein, and not those committed against a predetermined or particular victim. Accordingly, a robbery
committed on a Philippine highway by persons who are not members of the proscribed lawless elements or directed only against a
specific, intended, or preconceived victim, is not a violation of P.D. No. 532.
Simply, the information remains a valid information for robbery with homicide under the above provision. The investigating prosecutor's
characterization that it was for highway robbery with homicide is of no moment. On the matter of an accused's right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation, it is elementary that what determines the offense charged is not the characterization made by
the prosecutor who prepared the information, but the allegations in the indictment.
It is settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is imperative that the robbery itself be proven
as conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. In the absence of such proof, the killing of the victim would only be simple
homicide or murder, depending on the absence or presence of qualifying circumstances.
We thus rule that the crime committed by Laurente is homicide under Article 249 of the Revise Penal Code.
Arthur is a drug dependent. In order to sustain his vice, he resorts to unlawful activities. He stood by a dark portion of a
highway. He accosted two young boys who passed by and took their wallets and watches. He is liable for highway robbery.
Ana withdrew money. She was followed by X and Y when she drove towards diversion road. In a junction, X and Y blocked her
path and took her money. They are not liable for brigandage because under the law brigandage is indiscriminate highway
Page | 137
Criminal Law II
robbery. Not only that, but brigandage should be committed by at least 4 armed persons. The victim here was preconceived.
They are liable for robbery with intimidation.
Highway robbery under PD 532 Ordinary robbery on a highway

Committed indiscriminately against persons Committed against a predetermined victim
The offender is a brigand who roams in public highways and When the commission of the robbery is only incidental and the
carries out his robbery in public highways offender is not a brigand
The mere fact that robbery was committed in a Philippine highway does not give rise to highway robbery or brigandage under PD 532.
Just because robbery is committed on a highway, it does not bring about a violation of PD 532. You can prove it by allegations of
incidents in the past that these people always do it on a highway to an undetermined victim.
Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands. – Any person knowingly and in any manner aiding, abetting, or protecting a
band of brigands as described in the next preceding article, or giving them information of the movement of the police or other peace
officers of the Government (or of the forces of the United States Army, when the latter are acting in aid of the Government), or acquiring
or receiving the property taken by such brigands, shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its
minimum period.
It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has performed them knowingly, unless the
contrary is proven.
Article 307 has been severely affected by Section 4 of PD 532. Article 307 is now commonly known as aiding or abetting brigandage.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. – Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without
the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.
Theft – committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
Elements:
1. That there be taking of personal property
“Unlawful taking” or asportation or apoderamiento

Taking is complete upon the material occupation of the thing by the offender and placing it under his control with the ability to dispose it.
In the crime of theft, the law makes use only of the term “taking” and not “taking away”. The taking need not be permanent in character.
Case: Valenzuela vs. People

It is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen. It is not a constitutive element of theft.
Case: People vs. Jaranilla 55 SCRA 563

The non-inclusion of the word “away” is significant because it means that as soon as the culprit takes possession of the thing taken by
him, the crime of theft is already consummated since the law does not require that the thief be able to carry away the thing taken from
the owner.
Case: Jain vs. IAC 1984

The condition sine qua non for theft to be committed is that there must be physical handling of personal property.
Case: People vs. Naval (in Reyes)

The accused was a truck driver who was suspected to be responsible for the loss of bed sheets contained in boxes while the same
were in transit. A detective posed as another truck helper and witnessed how the accused dumped to the ground 1 box containing 120
bed sheets. He was charged with the consummated crime of theft. He maintained he is liable only for attempted or frustrated theft since
he was not able to perform all the acts of execution as provided for by Article 6 of the RPC.
In the legal sense, the consummation of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of the property belonging
to another which is realized by the material occupation of the thing whereby the thief places it under his control and in such a situation
as he could dispose of it at once. The property need not actually be taken away by the accused. It is enough that he has obtained, at
some particular moment, even momentary, complete control and possession of the thing desired, adverse to the right of the lawful
owner.
Page | 138
Criminal Law II
Must the taking be permanent in character?
Case: Villacorte vs. Insurance Commission
The taking even for a joyride is already theft because the offender in taking the car derives utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.
2. That said property belongs to another
Juridical possession of a thing is transferred to another when he receives the thing in trust or on commission or for administration.
Example: Avon dealer who signs a trust receipt
When possession by the offender is under pledge, trust or on commission or for administration and he misappropriates the thing he
received, he cannot be made liable for theft but is liable for the crime of estafa because he has both the physical and the juridical
possession of the property.
The accused received from an Igorot a bar of gold to be examined. While in possession he sold the same and appropriated
the value thereof. The taking is lawful yet he is guilty of theft. The possession by the accused of the gold bar was purely
physical. What was transferred to him was merely the material possession of the property, the owner retained juridical
possession of the thing. (US vs. De Vera)
A bank teller is charged for theft and not estafa if he will steal because he did not acquire juridical possession of the money but
only the material possession. It is qualified theft under Article 310.
In tenancy, one cannot be charged with theft because the person has acquired juridical possession of the property.
In a contract of pledge, the one who got the thing acquires juridical possession over the thing pledged and the proper crime is
estafa, not theft.
When you take the property of someone else but later on realize it is wrong and then return it. The crime is theft in its
consummated stage, even if you returned it.
3. That the taking be done with intent to gain
Intent to gain in the crime of theft is always presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property that belongs to another.
Gain – the acquisition of the thing useful to the purposes of life; it includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or
expected from the act performed
4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner
A attended a mass inside a church and was kneeling down. The thief took his wallet and A felt it but he does not want to
disturb the proceedings in the church. Accused argued there was implied consent. The law uses the word “without the latter’s
consent” and not without the latter’s knowledge. You may have the knowledge that your property is taken but it does that mean
that it has your consent.
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things
If there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, then the crime is already robbery.
4 ways to commit:
1. When with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, ha takes personal
property belonging to another without the latter’s consent
2. When he has found lost property and fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner
It is not necessary that the owner of the lost property be known to the accused. What is important that he knows or has reason to know
that the property was lost and for this fact alone, it is his duty to turn it over to the authorities. If he does otherwise, such as selling it to
another, then the crime of theft is committed.
Essential elements:
1. The time of the seizure of the property or thing
2. That it was a lost property belonging to another
3. That the accused having had the opportunity or chance to return or deliver the lost property to its owner or to the local
authorities, refrained from doing so
The word “lost” is used in the generic sense. It embraces lost by stealing or by any act of a person other than the owner, as well as the
act of the owner or through some casual occurrences.
The felony is not limited to the actual finder. Theft of a lost property may be committed even by a person who is not the actual finder.
Article 719 of the Civil Code. Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return it to its previous possessor. If the latter is
unknown, the finder shall immediately deposit it with the mayor of the city or municipality where the finding has taken place.
Page | 139
Criminal Law II
The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two consecutive weeks in the way he deems best.
If the movable cannot be kept without deterioration, or without expenses which considerably diminish its value, it shall be sold at
public auction eight days after the publication.
Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner having appeared, the thing found, or its value, shall be awarded to
the finder. The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to reimburse the expenses.
3. When he has maliciously damaged the property of another and thereafter removes or makes use of the fruits or object of the
damaged property
4. When he enters an enclosed estate or field belonging to another where trespass is forbidden and without the consent of the
owner, hunts or fishes
Elements:
1. That there is an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another
2. That the offender enters the same
3. That the offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products in the estate or field
4. That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the owner
If the fishing is done in the fishpond or fishery, it is considered as qualified theft.
When there is a color of title to the taking of property: One may disprove theft because of the absence of intent to gain since
the party is claiming ownership.
When you take the property but later on return it, the crime committed is theft in its consummated stage.
RA 7832: Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act
One may steal electricity. This is done by installing e-jumpers and turning back the dials of the electric meter, or fixing the electric meter
to not register the actual electric consumption.
Case: People vs. Relova March 6, 1987

The petitioner also alleges, correctly, in our view, that theft of electricity can be effected even without illegal or unauthorized installations
of any kind by, for instance, any of the following means:
1. Turning back the dials of the electric meter;
2. Fixing the electric meter in such a manner that it will not register the actual electrical consumption;
3. Under-reading of electrical consumption; and
4. By tightening the screw of the rotary blade to slow down the rotation of the same.
When you commit the crime of damaging property, there are two possible things that will happen:
If the intention to damage is malicious, then one will be liable for malicious mischief.
If a goat entered your premises and you shoot the goat, you commit the crime of malicious mischief. In malicious mischief, the
offender destroys the property of another because of hatred, resentment or other evil motive against the owner.
After killing the goat, if you cook it then the crime committed is theft under Article 308 because you are consuming the property
which you have damaged. What is considered as the fruit or object of the crime is the meat of the goat.
Can the crime of theft be committed in the frustrated stage?

Case: Valenzuela vs. People June 21, 2007
The crime of theft cannot be committed in the frustrated stage; it can only be committed in the attempted and consummated stage.
Theft is not a continuing offense, unlike larceny in American rule.
PD 1612: The Anti-Fencing Law
Elements of fencing:
1. The crime of robbery or theft has been committed
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object,
or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another.
Risa is engaged in ukay-ukay. Among the items found in the raid of her store were brand-new LV bags. She was charged with
fencing. The charge will prosper if the prosecution can prove that she knew or should have known that the items were derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Page | 140
Criminal Law II
Are the crimes of robbery and theft separate and distinct from fencing?
The crimes of robbery and theft on the one hand, and fencing on the other, are separate and distinct offenses. Under PD 1612, a fence
could only be prosecuted for and held liable as an accessory as the term is defined under Article 19 of the RPC. The penalty applicable
to an accessory is obviously light and in the rules prescribed in Articles 53, 55 and 57, subject of the qualification set forth in Article 60
thereof.
You cannot invoke double jeopardy. One can be charged for theft or robbery, and another charge may be filed for violation of the Anti-
Fencing Law. The elements are different.
Fence Accessory
A fence is punished as a principal under PD 1612. The penalty is An accessory to robbery or theft under the RPC is punished two
higher degrees lower than the principal
Fencing is malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to Intent is an element of the crime and therefore good faith is a
prove criminal intent of the accused. Good faith is not a defense proper defense
All the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. Corollarily, he could
be prosecuted as such under the RPC or as a fence under PD 1612.
Case: Dizon Pamintuan vs. People 234 SCRA 63

There was a challenge on the constitutionality of the law, that it violates the presumption of innocence.
Element of “knowledge of a particular fact”: When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such
knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
When you are in possession of this item subject of robbery or theft, it is material that it is established that you ought to know or should
have known that this particular object is the proceeds of robbery or theft.
Example: A minor sold to you Michelin tires at a very cheap price
“Should know” – denotes the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact, in performance of his
duty to another, or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists
“Knowledge” – refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact.
Since the court cannot penetrate into the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein, it must determine such
knowledge with care from the overt acts of the person. Given two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court
should choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Is the stolen property indispensable to prove fencing?

Case: Francisco vs. People 434 SCRA 122
The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the testimonies and the
other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing.
Do you have to prove intent to gain?

Intent to gain need not be proved in crimes punishable by special laws because it is malum prohibitum.
Must purchase of stolen articles be proved?

The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to the
presumption of fencing. (Section 5 of PD 1612)
When the property is subject matter of malversation and you received it from a government official, he commits malversation.
You do not become a fence because for PD 1612 to apply, the crime is limited to robbery or theft.
If you are not certain of the ownership of a thing you bought from somebody, to not be liable under PD 1612, you should
secure a clearance or permit to deal in the buy and sell of goods, have it recorded in the police blotter to show good faith.
(Section 6 of PD 1612)
Article 309. Penalties. – Any person guilt of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but
does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the
maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph and one year of each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of
the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 6,000
pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
Page | 141
Criminal Law II
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50
pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.
5. Arresto mayor in its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value dies not exceed five pesos.
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3
of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the
provisions of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the things stolen is not over 5 pesos,
and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support
of himself or his family.
The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the value of the thing stolen, and in some cases (2) the value and also the nature of the property
taken, or (3) the circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime.
Article 310. Qualified theft. – The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those specified in
the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
Theft is qualified:
1. If the theft is committed by a domestic servant
If A stole 100 pesos and is a neighbor, the penalty is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period under Par.4 of Article 309. If A is a kasambahay then the penalty is higher by two degrees. The penalty will be prision
mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence

3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter, or (c) large cattle
Is there a difference on whether or not the mail matter is a registered mail or an ordinary mail?
Case: Antonio Avecilla vs. People June 21, 1992
Whether the mail matter consists of registered mail or ordinary mail, the taking thereof constitutes qualified theft of mail matter.
The allegation that the subject of the taking is a registered letter categorizes the theft as a qualified rather than a simple one. This is
clear from the provision of Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code which states that qualified theft is committed if the property stolen is mail
matter. In this regard, petitioner's contention that not all registered letters are mail matter is incorrect. Under Sec. 1945 of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917, first class mail matter includes letters.
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance
Article 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum. – If the property stolen be any property of the
National Library or of the National Museum, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 50 pesos, or both, unless a
higher penalty should be provided under other provisions of this Code, in which case, the offender shall be punished by such higher
penalty.
Article 312. Occupation or real property or usurpation of real rights in property. – Any person who by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in
addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine of from 50 to 100 per centum for
the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less than 75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Acts punishable:
1. By taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons
2. By usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons
Elements:
1. That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in property
2. That the real property or real rights belong to another
3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or usurping real rights in
property
Page | 142
Criminal Law II
4. That there is intent to gain
Since this is a crime against property, there must be intent to gain. In the absence of intent to gain, the act may constitute grave
coercion only.
Usurpation under Article 312 is committed in the same way as robbery with violence of intimidation of persons. The main difference is
that in robbery, personal property is involved, while in usurpation of real rights, what is involved is real property like land.
The possession of the land or real rights must be done by means of violence or intimidation. If the evidence of the prosecution shows
that the accused entered the premises by means of strategy, stealth or methods other than the employment of violence, no crime is
committed by the offender. There is only the civil case of forcible entry but no criminal case.
Usurpation of real rights and property should not be complexed with Article 48 when violence or intimidation is committed. There is only
one single crime. But, a two-tiered penalty is prescribed to be determined on whether the acts of violence used is akin to that of robbery
in Article 294, grave threats or grave coercion, and an incremental penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the
offender.
It is not correct to state that the threat employed in usurping real property is absorbed in the crime; otherwise, the additional penalty
would be meaningless. The law provides for a two-tiered penalty.
PD 772: The Law on Squatting
Squatting is punished under PD 772. PD 772 was subsequently repealed by RA 8368 also known as The Anti-Squatting Law Repeal
Act of 1997. It was enacted solely for the purpose of expressly repealing squatting under PD 772.
RA 7279: The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992
This law defines who the squatters are:

1. Those who have the capacity or means to pay rent or for legitimate housing, but are squatting anyway
2. All the persons who were awarded lots but sold or leased them out
3. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing, preempting possession by occupying the same
Case: Tuates vs. Bersamin 390 SCRA 458

The repeal of P.D. No. 772 under Section 2 of R.A. No. 8368 is explicit, categorical, definite and absolute. As such, the act that was
penalized by P.D. 772, i.e., squatting, ceases to be criminal under R.A. 8368, and the previous offense is obliterated.
In the same vein, the absolute repeal of P.D. 772 has the effect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with
violation of the old law prior to its repeal. This is because an unqualified repeal of a penal law constitutes a legislative act of rendering
legal what had been previously declared as illegal, such that the offense no longer exists and it is as if the person who committed it
never did so. Specially so, as in the present case where it is unconditionally stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 8368 that: "(A)ll pending
cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act." Obviously, it was the
clear intent of the law to decriminalize or do away with the crime of squatting. Hence, there being no criminal liability, there is likewise
no civil liability because the latter is rooted in the former.
This is not to say, however, that people now have the unbridled license to illegally occupy lands they do not own. R.A. No. 8368 was
unanimously approved by the members of the Senate of the Philippines present on its third reading. The legislature considered it a
major piece of legislation on the country’s antipoverty program as it sought to confront the perennial problem of poverty at its root,
abolish an otherwise inutile and oppressive law, and pave the way for a genuine urban housing and land reform program. Senate
records reveal that it is the manifest intent of the authors of R.A. 8368 to decriminalize squatting but does not encourage or protect acts
of squatting on somebody else’s land. The law is not intended to compromise the property rights of legitimate landowners. Recourse
may be had in cases of violation of their property rights, such as those provided for in Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development
and Housing Act, penalizing professional squatters and squatting syndicates as defined therein, who commit nefarious and illegal
activities; the Revised Penal Code providing for criminal prosecution in cases of Trespass to Property, Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property, and similar violations, and, cases for Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer under the Rules of
Court, as well as civil liability for Damages under the Civil Code.
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. – Any person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces,
or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 100 pesos, or both.
Elements:
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the
boundaries of the same
2. That the offender alters said boundary marks
Page | 143
Criminal Law II
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency. – Any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his creditors, shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor if he be a merchant, and the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period, if he be not a merchant.
Elements of culpable insolvency:

1. That the offender is a debtor; that is, he has obligations due and payable
2. That he absconds with his property
3. That there be prejudice to his creditors
Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required

Real property may be the subject matter of fraudulent insolvency
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
st
1 . The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over
12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;
nd
2 . The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos;
rd
3 . The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over 200 pesos
but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
th
4 . By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases
mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
a. By altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation
to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration;
b. By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by
the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying
having received such money, goods, or other property;
c. By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such
signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud:
a. By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
b. By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
c. By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny, which the offended
party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period
of the penalty.
d. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the
payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
e. By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house and the like without paying therefore, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by
obtaining credit at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false
pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house, or apartment house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein without
paying for his food, refreshment, or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
a. By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document;
b. By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game;
c. By removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document, or any other papers.
Elements of estafa in general:

1. That the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is cause to the offended party or third person
Page | 144
Criminal Law II
The concept of damage under this article does not mean actual or real damage. It may consist in mere disturbance of the property
rights of the offended party. However, the damage must be capable of pecuniary estimation. This requirement is important because in
estafa, the penalty is dependent upon the value of the property embezzled.
The element of damage or prejudice may consist in:

1. The offended party being deprived of his money or property, as result of the defraudation
2. Disturbance in property rights
3. Temporary prejudice
Estafa is a material crime. Since it is material crime, it can be divided into the consummated, attempted or frustrated stages.
There are three ways of committing estafa:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence (estafa with abuse of confidence)
a. By altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to
do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration
Elements (estafa with unfaithfulness):

1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value
2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality
3. That damage or prejudice is caused to another
X paid Y 100,000 for the latter to deliver 50 cavans of palay at 60 kilos each. It turned out that Y delivered 50 cavans at 50
kilos each only. He is liable for estafa with abuse of confidence. He defrauded X because he altered the quantity of the thing
he was under obligation to deliver.
b. By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by the
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of,
or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received
such money, goods, or other property
Elements:
1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender
Demand by the offended party to the offender is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the
accused. It is necessary in this kind of estafa for the money, goods or personal property to have been received by the offender in trust,
or on commission or for administration. Here, it is necessary for the offender must acquire both the material or physical as well as the
juridical possession of the thing received.
Demand is necessary because failure to account upon demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Juridical possession – a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against
the owner.
A bank teller is charged with theft and not estafa for misappropriating money. It is qualified because of abuse of confidence.
X entrusted his watch to Y because he was about to play basketball. Upon receiving it, Y pawned the watch and failed to
return it despite repeated demands. He is liable for estafa because he misappropriated the thing received in trust.
X delivered to Y cartons of ukay-ukay clothes with an understanding that Y will sell them and to remit the proceeds of the sale
or return them if unsold. Y sold all the clothes. Despite demands, he was not able to remit the proceeds because he spent the
money. He is liable for estafa with abuse of confidence. He misappropriated the money which he received on commission. He
received the goods on consignment basis.
Case: Sesbreno vs. CA 240 SCRA 606 January 26, 1995

Philfinance received from Sesbreno money for money market placement. The president of Philfinance issued a post-dated check. On
maturity date, Philfinance failed to deliver back Sesbreno’s money placement with interest earned notwithstanding repeated demands.
Did the president of the corporation incur any liability of estafa by reason of nonpayment of the money market placement?
On the pivotal issue of whether or not private respondent may be held liable for estafa under the facts obtaining in the trial court,
respondent court held that private respondent's liability, if any, is only civil.
Page | 145
Criminal Law II
The Court of Appeals, therefore, correctly ruled that a money market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan and therefore
"nonpayment thereof would not give rise to criminal liability for estafa through misappropriation or conversion." Citing Yam v. Malik, 94
SCRA 30 (1979), the Court of Appeals noted that private respondent or Philfinance was not obliged under the money market
transaction to return the same money he or the corporation had received from petitioner. In fact, the Court of Appeals noted that
petitioner admitted on the witness stand that he had "invested" his money; that "he was not concerned about the same money because
what is important is the same amount will be returned to me plus its earnings, because naturally when you give the money with the
same serial numbers and you entrust it for investment purposes, when it is invested and there are returns, the same money with the
same serial numbers will not be returned to you;" and that private respondent would be "held liable to me in case of their failure to
account" for the investment.
In money market placement, the investor is a lender who loans his money to a borrower through a middleman or dealer. Petitioner here
loaned his money to a borrower through Philfinance. When the latter failed to deliver back petitioner's placement with the corresponding
interest earned at the maturity date, the liability incurred by Philfinance was a civil one. As such, petitioner could have instituted against
Philfinance before the ordinary courts a simple action for recovery of the amount he had invested and he could have prayed therein for
damages.
Deceit is not an essential element of estafa with abuse of confidence. It is also not necessary that the offender should obtain gain.
The phrase “or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same” includes quasi-contracts. It also
includes contracts of bailment such as contracts of deposit, lease or personal property, and commodatum.
Three ways of committing estafa under Article 315 No. 1 (b):

1. By misappropriating the thing received – to own, to take something for one’s own benefit
2. By converting the thing received – using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own
3. By denying that the thing was received
Estafa with abuse of confidence Malversation

In both crimes, the offenders are entrusted with funds or properties
Both are continuing offenses
The funds or property are always private Usually public funds or property
Offender is a private individual or even a public officer who is not Offender is usually a public officer accountable for public funds or
accountable for public funds or property property
The crime is committed by misappropriating, converting or Committed by appropriating, taking or misappropriating, or
denying having received money, goods or other personal property consenting or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any
person to take the public funds or property
c. By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature
in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person.
Elements:
1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank
2. That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender
3. That above the signature of the offended party a document is written by the offender without authority to do so
4. That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the offended party or any third person
The offended party leaves a blank paper with his signature to another with specific instructions to make entries thereon according to the
wishes of the offended party but contrary to the instruction given by the offended party, the accused makes entries in writing which
creates liabilities against the owner of the signature.
If the unauthorized writings were done by a person other than the one to whom the owner of the signature delivered the paper in blank
and it caused damage to the offended party, the crime committed by the third party is not estafa but falsification of a private document.
X and Y agreed that X will borrow books from Y. X signed a paper in blank and asked Y to write above his signature the
names and authors of the books Y lent him. Instead of this, Y wrote a note addressed to Z, the mother of X, to give to Y
money. Y is liable for estafa with abuse of confidence. He took advantage of the signature of X in blank to the damage of X or
his mother.
Elements of estafa by means of deceit:

1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud
3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that it, he was induced to
part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act , or fraudulent means
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages
Page | 146
Criminal Law II
There is no deceit if the complainant was aware of the fictitious nature of the pretense.
Fraud in estafa by means of deceit must be proved with clear and positive evidence.
2. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts (estafa by means of deceit)
a. By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.

1. By using fictitious name
2. By falsely pretending to possess: (a) power, (b) influence, (c) qualifications, (d) property, (e) credit, (f) agency, (g) business or
imaginary transactions
3. By means of other similar deceits
In the prosecution of estafa under 2(a) of Article 315, it is indispensable that the element of deceit consisting in the false statement or
fraudulent representation of the accused be made prior to, before, or at least simultaneously with the delivery of the thing by the
offended party, it being essential that such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive
which induces the complainant to part with the thing.
Case: Celino vs. CA 163 SCRA 97

There is no merit to the petitioner's pretense that the transaction between him and the complainant was one of "joint venture" and that if
he had any liability at all, it is civil in nature. The evidence presented in this case conclusively shows that Ricardo Celino, together with
his two sons, Zosimo (deceased) and Requerido, led the complainant to believe that there was a hidden treasure underneath his lot;
that a dwarf whose spirit supposedly entered the body of Zosimo directed the digging operations; that to obtain said treasure and upon
instructions of the "dwarf," it was necessary for the complainant to give the accused money which amounted to P41,300.00 all in all and
to pray in the church for three (3) consecutive days.
Under the abovestated facts, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the act committed by the petitioner constitutes the crime of estafa defined and punished under Article 315, 2(a) of the RPC.
X convinced A, an American, to place his money in the so-called magic box of X. X assured him that he knows secret prayers
that will double A’s money when he wakes up the following day. When A woke up, X was gone with his money. X is liable for
estafa by means of deceit. He defrauded A by fraudulent acts or false pretenses by pretending to possess power.
Gorio was in dire need of work. He asked Jonathan for help and was assured that he is influential in the city hall. They went to
the city hall and Jonathan entered an office. From the outside, Gorio saw Jonathan making gestures. Jonathan asked money
from Gorio and told him to report to the office the following day. The person from the office said he did not know Jonathan.
Jonathan is liable for estafa by means of deceit. He defrauded Gorio of his money by pretending to possess influence.
b. By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
A jeweler defrauded his client by selling to him a 20-carat gold ring but he changed it with a lesser quality. He is liable for
estafa by means of deceit. He altered the quality of the ring which pertains to his business.
c. By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny, which the offended party
may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty.
d. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that
said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.
Scenario: You issued a check in payment of an existing obligation, inconsideration of which you received something. When the owner
deposited the check to the drawee bank, it bounced because account is closed. There is estafa because there is employment of deceit.
Elements:
1. That the offender postdated a check or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued
2. That the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check
3. That the payee sustained damage
To constitute estafa, the check must be simultaneous to the receipt of the goods or anything of value. The check should not be in the
payment of a pre-existing obligation. The law penalizes the issuance of checks with no funds or insufficient funds only if it were the
immediate consideration of the release of the goods. The check must be issued concurrently with or in exchange for a product or good.
Page | 147
Criminal Law II
General Rule: The accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check he issued and delivered.
Exception: When the check is issued not in payment of an obligation. It must not be promissory notes or guarantees.
Good faith can be a matter of defense.
Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check within 3 days from receipt of notice of
dishonor or insufficiency of funds in the bank. But if the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing debt, there is no estafa.
It is therefore essential that a check be issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation. It must be utilized in order to defraud the
offended party. If the check was issued in payment of a promissory note which had matured, and the check was dishonored, there can
be no estafa. At most, it is a violation of BP 22 and civil liability.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
BP 22 is a special law apart from Article 315 dealing on the issuance of post-dated checks.
Gravamen of BP 22: The act of issuing or making a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment,
and not the nonpayment of an obligation.
Two ways of violating:

1. By making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of the issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check
is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment
Elements:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment
4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or issues a check, by failing to keep sufficient funds
or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing
thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank
Elements:
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of
90 days from the date appearing thereon
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank
What is a check?
Case: Mitra vs. People July 5, 2010
A check is a negotiable instrument that serves as a substitute for money and as a convenient form of payment in financial transactions
and obligations. The use of checks as payment allows commercial and banking transactions to proceed without the actual handling of
money, thus, doing away with the need to physically count bills and coins whenever payment is made.
More particularly, a check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank and payable on demand, under the negotiable instruments law.
Does BP 22 cover a manager’s check and cashier’s check?

Case: New Pacific Timber and Supply Company vs. Seneris 101 SCRA 696
It is a well-known and accepted practice in the business sector that a Cashier's Check is deemed as cash. Moreover, since the said
check had been certified by the drawee bank, by the certification, the funds represented by the check are transferred from the credit of
the maker to that of the payee or holder, and for all intents and purposes, the latter becomes the depositor of the drawee bank, with
rights and duties of one in such situation. Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is equivalent to
acceptance. Said certification "implies that the check is drawn upon sufficient funds in the hands of the drawee, that they have been set
apart for its satisfaction, and that they shall be so applied whenever the check is presented for payment. It is an understanding that the
check is good then, and shall continue good, and this agreement is as binding on the bank as its notes in circulation, a certificate of
deposit payable to the order of the depositor, or any other obligation it can assume. The object of certifying a check, as regards both
parties, is to enable the holder to use it as money." When the holder procures the check to be certified, "the check operates as an
assignment of a part of the funds to the creditors." Hence, the exception to the rule enunciated under Section 63 of the Central Bank
Page | 148
Criminal Law II
Act to the effect "that a check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the
creditor in cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account" shall apply in this case.
Does BP 22 cover accommodation or guarantee check?

Case: Cruz vs. CA 233 SCRA 301
When a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank will generally accept the same regardless of whether it was issued in
payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the term and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum
prohibitum. This point has been made clear by this Court, thus:
It is now settled that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued merely in the form of a
deposit or a guarantee. The enactment in question does not make any distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are
issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. In accordance with the pertinent rule of statutory
construction, inasmuch as the law has not made any distinction in this regard, no such distinction can be made by means of
interpretation or application. Furthermore, the history of the enactment of subject statute evinces the definite legislative intent to make
the prohibition all-embracing, without making any exception from the operation thereof in favor of a guarantee. This intent may be
gathered from the statement of the sponsor of the bill (Cabinet Bill No. 9) which was enacted later into Batas Pambansa Bilang 22,
when it was introduced before the Batasan Pambansa, that the bill was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to
prevent checks from becoming "useless scraps of paper" and to restore respectability to checks, all without distinction as to the purpose
of the issuance of the checks,. The legislative intent as above said is made all the more clear when it is considered that while the
original text of Cabinet Bill No. 9, supra, had contained a proviso excluding from the coverage of the law a check issued as a mere
guarantee, the final version of the bill as approved and enacted by the Committee on the Revision of Laws in the Batasan deleted the
abovementioned qualifying proviso deliberately for the purpose of making the enforcement of the act more effective.
Consequently, what are important are the facts that the accused had deliberately issued the checks in question to cover accounts and
that the checks in question to cover accounts and that the checks were dishonored upon presentment regardless of whether or not the
accused merely issued the checks as a guarantee.
What is the reason why BP 22 was enacted?

Case: Mitra vs. People July 5, 2010
BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law was enacted for the specific purpose of addressing the problem of the continued issuance and
circulation of unfunded checks by irresponsible persons. To stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to the community, BP 22
considers the mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense not only against property but also against public order. The purpose
of BP 22 in declaring the mere issuance of a bouncing check as malum prohibitum is to punish the offender in order to deter him and
others from committing the offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him, and to maintain social order.
Case: Gosiaco vs. Ching April 16, 2009

B.P. Blg. 22 was enacted to address the rampant issuance of bouncing checks as payment for pre-existing obligations. The circulation
of bouncing checks adversely affected confidence in trade and commerce. The State criminalized such practice because it was deemed
injurious to public interests and was found to be pernicious and inimical to public welfare. B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the act of making and
issuing bouncing checks. It is the act itself of issuing the checks which is considered malum prohibitum. The law is an offense against
public order and not an offense against property. It penalizes the issuance of a check without regard to its purpose. It covers all types of
checks. Even checks that were issued as a form of deposit or guarantee were held to be within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.
Can conspiracy be appreciated in violation of BP 22?

Case: Ladonga vs. People 451 SCRA 673
B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary
provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily.
The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application of the provision on principals under
Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of
all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators
are principals.
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere
companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in
or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission
of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
Criminal liability cannot be based on a general allegation of conspiracy, and a judgment of conviction must always be founded on the
strength of the prosecution’s evidence.
Bar question: Bonifacio sold to Antonio a wrist watch for P1000. Antonio took the watch and issued a check for P1000 payable to
Bonifacio. Per agreement, the check was post-dated to January 25, 1986. Antonio called Bonifacio not to encash the check until
January 30. Bonifacio agreed, but on the condition that Antonio will issue another check for additional 200 to cover the interest. On
January 25, 1986, Bonifacio discounted the first check to Carlos for P900. Bonifacio ensured Carlos that the check is good and may be
encashed on the date specified thereon. Carlos presented the check on January 30, but was dishonored by the bank for lack of funds.
Page | 149
Criminal Law II
Carlos immediately notified Bonifacio and Antonio but both failed to make good the check. May Antonio and Bonifacio be held liable
under BP 22?
Antonio is liable under BP 22. All elements are present, the accused draw a check for account or for value. In this case, he issued a
check as payment of the watch. Second, Antonio knew at the time of the issuance that he did not have sufficient funds. Third, the check
was dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds and failure to make good of the check within 5 banking days from the receipt of
notice of dishonor and demand for payment.
Bonifacio, who rediscounted the check, is not liable. Settled is the rule that an endorser is not liable for violation of BP 22; only the
person who issued a check that is not funded is liable.
Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) Violation of BP 22

Under both Article 315 and BP 22, there is criminal liability if the check is drawn for non pre-existing obligation. If the check is drawn for
a pre-existing obligation, the criminal liability that will attach will only be for BP 22 and not Article 315
Crime against property Crime against public interest
The gravamen is the deceit employed It is the issuance of the check
Deceit and damage are material Deceit and damage are immaterial
Knowledge of the drawer of insufficient funds is not required Knowledge of the drawer of insufficiency of funds is required
When you issue a check in payment of an obligation simultaneously with the receiving of the said object or consideration, you may be
liable for two crimes: one for estafa under Article 315 and the other for violation of BP 22. You cannot invoke double jeopardy because
the elements of these crimes are different.
There is prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds when the check was presented within 90 days from the date
appearing on the check and was dishonored.
Exception: When the maker or drawer pays the holder of the check the amount due within 5 banking days, or makes arrangements of
payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 banking days, after receiving notice that said check has not been paid by the
drawee. (Section 2, BP 22)
Case: Tan vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) April 23, 2008
Unless the following elements are shown to have been proven by the prosecution, an accused will not be convicted for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22:
1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for
the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
While issuing of a bouncing check is malum prohibitum, the prosecution is not excused from its responsibility of proving beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense.
Respecting the second element of the crime (dishonored check), the prosecution must prove that the accused knew, at the time of
issuance, that he does not have sufficient funds or credit for the full payment of the check upon its presentment.
The element of “knowledge” involves a state of mind that obviously would be difficult to establish, hence, the statute creates a prima
facie presumption of knowledge on the insufficiency of funds or credit coincidental with the attendance of the two other elements.
In order to create such presumption, it must be shown that the drawer or maker received a notice of dishonor and, within five
banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or arrange for its payment. The above-quoted provision
creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense
are present.
The presumption is not conclusive, however, as it may be rebutted by full payment. If the maker or drawer pays, or makes arrangement
with the drawee bank for the payment of the amount due within the five-day period from notice of the dishonor, he or she may no longer
be indicted for such violation. It is a complete defense that would lie regardless of the strength of the evidence presented by the
prosecution. In essence, the law affords the drawer or maker the opportunity to avert prosecution by performing some acts that would
operate to preempt the criminal action, which opportunity serves to mitigate the harshness of the law in its application.
It is a general rule that only a full payment at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could exonerate one from
criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22 and that subsequent payments can only affect the civil, but not the criminal, liability.
In the present case, PCIB already exacted its proverbial pound of flesh by receiving and keeping in possession the four buses-trust
properties surrendered by petitioner in about mid 1991 and March 1992 pursuant to Section 7 of the Trust Receipts Law, the estimated
value of which was "about P6.6 million." It thus appears that the total amount of the dishonored checks – P1,785,855.75 –, the
undisputed claim of petitioner of a mistaken agreement to pay the exchange differential (which the same checks represented) aside,
was more than fully satisfied prior to the transmittal and receipt of the July 9, 1992 letter of demand. In keeping with jurisprudence, the
Court then considers such payment of the dishonored checks to have obliterated the criminal liability of petitioner.
What is the effect if you fail to deposit check within the 90 day period? Is the 90 day period to deposit the check an element of BP 22?
Case: Nagrampa vs. People 386 SCRA 412
Page | 150
Criminal Law II
No. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of
knowledge of lack of funds to arise. It is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner (accused) from his duty to
maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof.
The only consequence of the failure to present the check for payment within the 90 day period is that there is no prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds. It is now the time of the prosecution to prove that at the time he issued the check, he has
knowledge about the insufficiency of funds.
Notice of Dishonor - notifying the person who issued the check about the dishonor
Importance of notice of dishonor:

Case: Azarcon vs. Gonzales June 29, 2010
In other words, the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and
that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. The
presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not
sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since there would simply be no
way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is thus indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The
notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be in writing. A mere oral notice to
pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.
The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its actual receipt by, the drawer or maker of the check gives the latter the option to
prevent criminal prosecution if he pays the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by
the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the check has not been paid.
Usually, notification is made through registered mail. It has a corresponding return card to be sent to the sender to know that the
receiver has indeed received the notice. Before, this was already enough to be considered as notice.
Prevailing doctrines on notice of dishonor:

Procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor of a check be given the signatory. The absence of a notice of dishonor
necessarily deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude the criminal prosecution.
Case: Rico vs. People 392 SCRA 61

Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as
proof of receipt of the letters claimed to be a notice of dishonor. In fine, the failure of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt
by petitioner of the requisite written notice of dishonor and that he was given at least five banking days within which to settle his account
constitutes sufficient ground for his acquittal.
Case: Cabrera vs. People 407 SCRA 47

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check. The prosecution must prove
actual receipt of notice because the fact of service provided for by law is reckoned from the receipt of such notice of dishonor by the
drawee of the check.
Case: Suarez vs. People 55 SCRA 238 June 19, 2008

The evidence shows that the prosecution proved that a notice of dishonor was sent to petitioner through registered mail. The
prosecution presented a copy of the demand letter and properly authenticated the registry return receipt. However, it is not enough for
the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the petitioner. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to show "that the
drawer of the check received the said notice because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice
of dishonor by the drawee of the check."
A review of the records shows that the prosecution did not prove that the petitioner received the notice of dishonor. Registry return
cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of letters sent through registered mail. Thus, we held:
…it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee. In fact, the registry return
receipt itself provides that ‘[a] registered article must not be delivered to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressee’s written
order, in which case the authorized agent must write the addressee’s name on the proper space and then affix legibly his own signature
below it.
The presentation of the registry card, with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt
that the petitioner received such notice, especially considering that he denied receiving it. As there is insufficient proof that the petitioner
received notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
Can a notice of dishonour be done orally?

Case: Dumagsang vs. CA December 5, 2008
Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the
law, i.e., "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the
notice of dishonor or refusal," a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law.
Page | 151
Criminal Law II
Case: Azarcon vs. Gonzales June 29, 2010

The notice must be in writing a mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice, the lack of a written notice is fatal to the
cause of the prosecution.
Lilius Doctrine – provides the difference between simultaneous obligation from a pre-existing obligation
Case: People vs. Lilius 59 Phil 339
Inasmuch as these last three checks Exhibits B, C, and F were issued in payment of a debt, even granting that the appellant issued
them without sufficient funds to cover the amount thereof, and furthermore, that he acted fraudulently in issuing them, such act does not
constitute the offense of estafa. The appellant obtained nothing under said checks. His debt, for the payment of which said checks were
issued, had been contracted prior to such issuance. Hence the deceit, if there was any in the issuance of the questioned checks, did
not precede the defraudation. On the other hand, the record does not show that the debt had been contracted through fraud.
Simultaneous obligation is an element of estafa. When you issued a check and the check bounced the phrase simultaneous obligation
is an element of estafa, and this connotes that the issuance of the check is used as a means to obtain valuable consideration from the
payee. Deceit is the efficient cause for defraudation. To defraud is to deprive some right, interest or property by deceitful device.
In the issuance of a check in a pre-existing obligation, the drawer derives no particular benefit in return as its consideration had long
been delivered to him before the check was issued. Since the obligation has already been contracted it cannot be said that the payee
parted from his property or the drawer has obtained something of value as a result of the postdating or issuance of a bad check in
payment of a pre-existing obligation.
In the issuance of a check as payment for a pre-existing debt, the drawer derives no material benefit in return as its consideration had
long been delivered to him before the check was issued. In short, the issuance of the check was not a means to obtain a valuable
consideration from the payee. Deceit, to constitute estafa should be the efficient cause of the defraudation. (People vs. Fortuno)
Can a person be both liable for estafa under Article 315 for postdating a check and under BP 22? Can there be double jeopardy?
The filing of a criminal case under BP 22 shall not prejudice any liability arising from a felony admitted under the Revised Penal Code.
(Section 5, BP 22)
Double jeopardy does not attach. You can be both liable under BP 22 and for estafa.
Possible defenses under BP 22:

1. The check issued by a person who was not authorized to collect and receive the same or with no valuable consideration
2. Forgery of signature
3. Full payment
4. No notice of dishonor
5. Prima facie evidence of presumption of knowledge has not been established by the prosecution
6. Prescription of the offense. The prescriptive period for the violation of BP 22 is 4 years reckoned from the lapse of 5 banking
days from the notice of dishonor within which to make good the check
Case: Carino vs. De Castro 553 SCRA 688 April 30, 2008
The checks were issued by respondent without valuable consideration; that petitioner was not authorized to collect rental payments
from respondent; and that consequently, respondent can legally refuse payment on the ground that said checks were issued without
valuable and legal consideration.
Petitioner failed to controvert the Joint-Affidavit executed by the owners of the property that they did not authorize petitioner to lease
their property and to collect rentals thereon. Hence, the checks were issued for a non-existing account or without legal and valuable
consideration.
Case: Ambito vs. People and CA February 13, 2009

In light of the foregoing, petitioners’ contention in the lower court that the subject checks were only issued as mere guarantee and were
not intended for deposit as per agreement with PSI is not tenable. Co-petitioner Basilio Ambito would be liable under B.P. Blg. 22 by the
mere fact that he issued the subject checks, provided that the other elements of the crime are properly proved.
The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly,
procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by the accused. The accused has a
right to demand – and the basic postulates of fairness require – that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by the same
to afford him/her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.
In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given any notice of dishonor
by PSI or by Manila Bank, the drawee bank, when the subject checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds upon presentment for
payment. In fact, all that the OSG can aver regarding this matter is that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito had been notified of the fact of
dishonor since PSI filed a collection case against petitioners more than three (3) years before the same filed the criminal cases before
this Court While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however
with Section 3 of the law, i.e., "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be
explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal," a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction
under the law. The Court has previously held that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to be
Page | 152
Criminal Law II
punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been
notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.
There being no proof that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given any written notice either by PSI or by Manila Bank informing him of the
fact that his checks were dishonored and giving him five (5) banking days within which to make arrangements for payment of the said
checks, the rebuttable presumption that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds has no application in the present case.
Due to the failure of prosecution in this case to prove that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given the requisite notice of dishonor and the
opportunity to make arrangements for payment as provided for under the law, We cannot with moral certainty convict him of violation of
B.P. Blg. 22.
Case: Tan vs. People 349 SCRA 777

In this case, the third and fourth elements of the offense charged were not established or proved.
In the first place, the bank's representative testified that petitioner's account at the time of the presentment of the check she issued was
funded, as she had a credit line to the extent of P25 million, much more than the amount of the check issued.
In the second place, even without relying on the credit line, petitioner's bank account covered the check she issued because even
though there were some deposits that were still uncollected the deposits became "good" and the bank certified that the check was
"funded."
Actually, the check in question was not issued without sufficient funds and was not dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. What was
stamped on the check in question was "Payment Stopped-Funded" at the same time "DAUD" meaning drawn against uncollected
deposits. Even with uncollected deposits, the bank may honor the check at its discretion in favor of favored clients, in which case there
would be no violation of B.P. 22.
In fact, petitioner requested the bank to stop payment of the check for a valid reason, namely, that the account has been paid in cash.
Case: Dy vs. People 571 SCRA 59 November 14, 2008

During the joint pretrial conference of this case, Dy admitted that he issued the checks, and that the signatures appearing on them were
his.29 The facts reveal that the checks were issued in blank because of the uncertainty of the volume of products to be retrieved, the
discount that can be availed of, and the deduction for bad orders. Nevertheless, we must stress that what the law punishes is simply the
issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto.30 If inquiry into
the reason for which the checks are issued, or the terms and conditions of their issuance is required, the public's faith in the stability
and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes will certainly erode.
Undoubtedly, Dy violated B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing FEBTC Check No. 553615. When said check was dishonored for insufficient funds
and stop payment order, petitioner did not pay or make arrangements with the bank for its payment in full within five (5) banking days.
Petitioner should be exonerated, however, for issuing FEBTC Check No. 553602, which was dishonored for the reason DAUD or drawn
against uncollected deposit. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored by the bank because the check deposit
made by petitioner, which would make petitioner's bank account balance more than enough to cover the face value of the subject
check, had not been collected by the bank.
Case: Dreamwork Construction Inc. vs. Janiola 591 SCRA 466 June 30, 2009
Undeniably, the fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to support the issuance of the check/s or that the checks were
issued for valuable consideration does not make up the elements of the crime. Thus, this Court has held in a long line of cases that the
agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22.
Verily, even if the trial court in the civil case declares that the construction agreement between the parties is void for lack of
consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private respondent in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is that private
respondent indeed issued checks which were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. It is this fact that is subject of prosecution
under BP 22.
Case: Lunaria vs. People 570 SCRA 572 November 11, 2008
Petitioner makes much of the argument that the check was not "made" or "drawn" within the contemplation of the law, nor was it for a
consideration. The evidence on record belies these assertions. As correctly held by the CA:
Under the first element, [petitioner] wants Us to believe that he did not draw and issue the check. Citing the Negotiable Instruments
Law, he said that he could not have "drawn" and "issued" the subject check because "it was not complete in form at the time it was
given to [Artaiz]."
At the outset, it should be borne in mind that the exchange of the pre-signed checks without date and amount between the parties had
been their practice for almost a year by virtue of their money-lending business. They had authority to fill up blanks upon information that
a check can then be issued.
It bears repeating that the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant. The law has made the mere act of issuing a
worthless check a malum prohibitum, an act proscribed by legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. In
fact, even in cases where there had been payment, through compensation or some other means, there could still be prosecution for
violation of B.P. 22.
Nevertheless, we note that ultimately, this case was a derivative of the breakdown of petitioner and Artaiz's partnership, which was
precipitated by petitioner being implicated and detained for a murder charge, from which he was subsequently acquitted. Under the
circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind the guidelines set in Administrative Circular No. 132004, we deem the imposition of a
fine alone would best serve the interests of justice, pegged at the maximum amount provided for by law, which is two hundred thousand
Page | 153
Criminal Law II
pesos (P200,000.00), with the proviso that subsidiary imprisonment will be meted out which shall not exceed six months in case of
insolvency or nonpayment.
Is novation a defense under BP 22 or under Article 315 for estafa?

Case: Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Jacinto August 3, 2010
Moreover, it is well settled that the mere act of issuing a worthless check, even if merely as an accommodation, is covered by B.P.
22.[ Thus, this Court has held that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for
violation of B.P. 22. The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check
that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. Section 1 of B.P. 22 enumerates the following elements: (1) the making, drawing,
and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Thus, even if it be subsequently declared that novation took place
between the FWCC and petitioner, respondent is not exempt from prosecution for violation of B.P. 22 for the dishonored checks.
Is stop-payment of check a proper defense?

Case: Chang vs. IAC 146 SCRA 464
The Information sufficiently alleges that CHANG had “issued a postdated check … covering the whole amount of his investment plus
the 30% profit” which he “simultaneously gave and delivered” to REAPORT “with the assurance that said check was fully funded, …
well knowing that said check was not fully funded for which reason the same was dishonored when presented for payment. …”
Case: Vaca and Nieto vs. CA and People November 16, 1998
Petitioners issued a check for 10,000 for the security services of security guards. It was drawn from CBC and deposited in PCIB but
was dishonored. They were guilty of the charge and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and to pay the amount. They pray for
deleting the penalty of imprisonment, and in lieu thereof a fine of increased amount be imposed to them.
B.P. Blg. 22, Sec.1, par. 1 provides a penalty of "imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of
not less than, but not more than double, the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed two hundred thousand pesos, or
both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court." Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who
presumably contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly,
that they had not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have accepted the judgment of the trial court and
applied for probation to evade a prison term. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of
discretion allowed by Sec. 1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of
redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due
regard to the protection of the social order. In this case we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the check
involved is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the petitioners.
Note: BP 22 has not been decriminalized by reason of the Vaca ruling. Henceforth, all trial courts are encouraged to give a penalty of
fine instead of imprisonment to first time offenders.
Case: Susan Go vs. People June 21, 2005

The SC Administrative Circular issued by the court (after the ruling of the Vaca case) serves as a guideline for lower courts. It is still
discretionary upon the court whether to impose a penalty of imprisonment, fine, or both.
Because the Circular merely lays down a rule of preference, it serves only as a guideline for the trial courts. Thus, it is addressed to the
judges, who are directed to consider the factual circumstances of each case prior to imposing the appropriate penalty. In other words,
the Administrative Circular does not confer any new right in favor of the accused, much less those convicted by final judgment.
The competence to determine the proper penalty belongs to the court rendering the decision against the accused. That decision is
subject only to appeal on grounds of errors of fact or law, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Another trial court may not encroach upon this authority. Indeed, SCAC No. 12-2000 necessarily requires a review of all factual
circumstances of each case. Such a review can no longer be done if the judgment has become final and executory.
Case: De Joya vs Jail Warden 417 SCRA 636 December 10, 2003
The petitioner posits that SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and allows
only the imposition of a fine. The trial court was mandated to apply SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 retroactively conformably with
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to cases
already terminated by final judgment.
First. SC Admin. Circular No. 122000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. The circular
applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to cases already terminated by final judgment.
Second. As explained by the Court in SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001, SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule of
preference in the application of the penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. It does not amend B.P. Blg. 22, nor defeat the legislative
intent behind the law. SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely urges the courts to take into account not only the purpose of the law but
also the circumstances of the accused – whether he acted in good faith or on a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence – and
such other circumstance which the trial court or the appellate court believes relevant to the penalty to be imposed.
Page | 154
Criminal Law II
Case: Alferez vs. People January 31, 2011
In this case, the first and third elements of the crime have been adequately established. The prosecution, however, failed to prove the
second element. Because this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates a
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds under the following circumstances.
In this case, the prosecution merely presented a copy of the demand letter, together with the registry receipt and the return card,
allegedly sent to petitioner. However, there was no attempt to authenticate or identify the signature on the registry return card. Receipts
for registered letters and return receipts do not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of
receipt of the letter, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of the registry card with an unauthenticated
signature, does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner received such notice. It is not enough for the
prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check. The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of
said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the
check. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22
cases, there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, for notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or
a duly authorized agent of the addressee. From the registry receipt alone, it is possible that petitioner or his authorized agent did
receive the demand letter. Possibilities, however, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The consistent rule is that penal
statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. The absence of a notice of dishonor
necessarily deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. As there is insufficient proof that petitioner received
the notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
Case: Lim vs. People 368 SCRA 436

Each act of drawing a bouncing check constitutes a violation of BP 22. The rule that there is only one offense when the offender is
moved by one criminal intent or purpose does not apply because the offense of malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is
immaterial. Each act of drawing and issuing a bouncing check constitutes a separate offense.
In the prosecution of BP 22 is it necessary to present a bank representative to testify?

Case: Ecuerco vs. People January 22, 2003
Case: Tadeo vs. People 300 SCRA 744
It is not required much less indispensable for the prosecution to present the drawee bank’s representative as a witness to testify for the
dishonor of check because of insufficiency of funds. Prosecution may present only the complainant as a witness to prove all the
elements of the offense.
Note: If the defense of the accused is perjury, necessarily you have to present the bank representative who is in-charge in examining
the specimen signature of the drawer.
Case: Gidwani vs. People January 15, 2014

Is a SEC Order for the suspension of payment a valid ground not to pay the value of the check? The SC qualified:
However, what the CA failed to consider was that the facts of Tiong were not on all fours with those of the present case and must be
put in the proper context. In Tiong, the presentment for payment and the dishonor of the checks took place before the Petition for
Suspension of Payments for Rehabilitation Purposes was filed with the SEC. There was already an obligation to pay the amount
covered by the checks. The criminal action for the violations of B.P. 22 was filed for failure to meet this obligation. The criminal
proceedings were already underway when the SEC issued an Omnibus Order creating a Management Committee and consequently
suspending all actions for claims against the debtor therein. Thus, in Tiong, this Court took pains to differentiate the criminal action, the
civil liability and the administrative proceedings involved.
In contrast, it is clear that prior to the presentment for payment and the subsequent demand letters to petitioner, there was already a
lawful Order from the SEC suspending all payments of claims. It was incumbent on him to follow that SEC Order. He was able to
sufficiently establish that the accounts were closed pursuant to the Order, without which a different set of circumstances might have
dictated his liability for those checks.
Considering that there was a lawful Order from the SEC, the contract is deemed suspended. When a contract is suspended, it
temporarily ceases to be operative; and it again becomes operative when a condition occurs–or a situation arises–warranting the
termination of the suspension of the contract.
In other words, the SEC Order also created a suspensive condition. When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth takes
place or its effectivity commences only if and when the event that constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled. Thus, at the time
private respondent presented the September and October 1997 checks for encashment, it had no right to do so, as there was yet no
obligation due from petitioner.
When was the petition for the declaration of a state of suspension filed? Was it filed before the presentation of check for payment or
after? It is a valid defense after the petition was filed before the SEC. It cannot be made a defense if the check was issued prior to the
filing of petition.
e. By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house and the like without paying therefore, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at a
hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning
Page | 155
Criminal Law II
or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment, or
accommodation.
3. Through fraudulent means (estafa by means of deceit)
a. By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document
Elements:
1. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document
2. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document
3. That the offended party personally signed the document
4. That prejudice be caused
b. By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game

c. By removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document, or any other papers
Elements:
1. That there be court record, office files, documents or any other papers
2. That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed any of them
3. That the offender had intent to defraud another
Article 316. Other forms of swindling. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period and a fine of not less than
the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter or any third
person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the belief that it was in payment of services rendered or labor
performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action, without express authority from the court or before
the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other manner,
encumber the real property or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation.
Paragraph 1: JP is the owner of a house and lot in Ecoland. He sold it to Carlo with the condition that JP would retain possession of the
property as lessee. While in the possession of the land as a lessee, JP sold it to another person. He is liable for estafa.
Elements:
1. That the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building
2. That the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof
3. That the offender should have executed an act of ownership (selling, leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the real property)
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a third person
Paragraph 2: JP executes a real estate mortgage in favor of Carlo. Unable to pay his mortgage debt to Carlo, JP goes to BJ for a loan
and used the property to secure the loan with the representation that it is free from encumbrance despite the fact of his previous
mortgage in favor of Carlo. BJ, unaware of the previous mortgage, accepted the property as security by way of mortgage. JP is liable
for estafa.
Elements:
1. That the thing disposed of be real property
2. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not
3. That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance
4. That the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another
Paragraph 3: JP is an owner of a ring. He borrows 1k from Carlo with the ring as collateral. Unable to pay his debt on due date, he goes
to Carlo and misrepresents that he has a buyer for the ring and the proceeds of the sale will go to his debt. Carlo returns the ring, but
JP never made good of his undertaking. He is guilty of estafa.
Elements:
1. That the offender is the owner of personal property
Page | 156
Criminal Law II
2. That said personal property is in the lawful possession of another
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor
4. That prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third person
Paragraph 4: JP sues Carlo for a sum of money. After the judgment has been final, a writ of execution is issued to levy the properties of
Carlo. Carlo, in order to avoid the judgment, executes a fictitious deed of sale conveying all his property to another person who has
been dead for 10 years already. Carlo is guilty of estafa.
Paragraph 5: JP engages the services of Carlo as a waiter in his restaurant for 200 pesos a day. Carlo only worked for 5 days but he
made it appear that he worked for 10 days. Carlo committed estafa.
Paragraph 6: JP is charged with murder. To secure his provisional liberty, Carlo offers his real property in QC as property bond. Before
the cancellation of the bond and without the court’s authority, Carlo sells the land. JP failed to appear during his arraignment. The
government proceeds against the land but no property can be levied because as of the meantime the property has already been sold.
The crime committed by Carlo is estafa.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action
2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property or properties
3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner encumbers said real property
4. That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is (a) without express authority from the court, or (b) made before the cancellation
of his bond, or (c) before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him
Article 317. Swindling a minor. — Any person who taking advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor, to his
detriment, shall induce him to assume any obligation or to give any release or execute a transfer of any property right in consideration
of some loan of money, credit or other personal property, whether the loan clearly appears in the document or is shown in any other
form, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of a sum ranging from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the obligation
contracted by the minor.
Elements:
1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor
2. That he induces such minor (1) to assume an obligation, or (2) to give release, or (3) to execute a transfer of any property right
3. That the consideration is (1) some loan of money, (2) credit, or (3) other personal property
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor
The property referred here does not refer to real property but to personal property. Minors do not have the capacity to dispose or
convey real properties without judicial intervention.
If a real property is involved, the crime of swindling a minor is not committed even if the offender succeeds in inducing the minor to deal
with such real property since no damage or detriment is caused against the minor.
Article 318. Other deceits. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more
than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in
the preceding articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the credulity of the public
in any other similar manner, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
Other deceits:
1. By defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles
2. By interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any
other similar manner, for profit or gain
The meaning of other deceits under this article has reference to situations where in fraud or damage to another is done by any form of
deception which is not covered by the preceding article.
Example: Interpreting dreams
John is indebted to Carlo for 100k. To secure the obligation, John mortgages his property to Carlo to secure the obligation.
Upon maturity of the obligation John convinces Carlo to buy the property so he can pay for the mortgage debt, but upon the
presentation of the Deed to the Registry of Deeds he discovered that the property sold to him had been donated to John with
the condition that it cannot be conveyed to another in a period of 8 years, a condition that is known to John at the time he sold
the property. Here John is guilty of the crime of estafa.
Page | 157
Criminal Law II
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. — The penalty or arresto mayor or a fine amounting to twice the value
of the property shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall knowingly remove any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to any province or city
other than the one in which it was located at the time of the execution of the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee, or
his executors, administrators or assigns.
2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of the Chattel
Mortgage Law, without the consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record hereof in the office of
the Register of Deeds of the province where such property is located.
The aim of the law is to protect the mortgagee (the one who gives the loan). People should be encouraged to do business and trade
freely hence the need for sanction in order to gain obedience from would be violators. The law is intended to protect the mortgage
creditors against any laws or inconvenience arising from the wrongful removal or sale of the mortgaged property.

1. By knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time of execution of the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators or assigns
Elements:
1. That personal property is mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law
2. That the offender knows that such property is so mortgaged
3. That he removes the said mortgaged property to any province or city other the one in which it was located at the time of the
execution of the mortgage
4. That the removal is permanent
5. That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or his executors, administrators or assigns to such removal
2. By selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law,
without the consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of the
register of deeds of the province where such property is located
Elements:
1. That personal property is already pledged under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law
2. That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such property, sells or pledges the same or any part thereof
3. That there is no consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds
Example: If you (mortgagor) have executed as a chattel mortgage with Emcor (mortgagee). It will be registered with the registry of
deeds. One of the provisions states that you should not bring the motorcycle outside Davao City while you are still paying the
motorcycle. Then you brought the motorcycle to Dinagat Island. –Clearly your intention here is to remove the mortgage vehicle.
Act No. 1508: Chattel Mortgage Law
Registration of the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds is not necessary in order to render the mortgage valid.
Article 2140 of the Civil Code (subsequent law): requires registration of the mortgage with the ROD in order to make it valid and legal as
a chattel mortgage.
Articles 320 to 326 had been repealed by PD 1613.
Arson – is defined as the intentional or malicious destruction of property by fire. There is arson when any person burns or sets fire to a
property of another or his own property, under circumstances which expose danger to the property of another.
Arson is established by proving the corpus delicti, usually in the form of circumstantial evidence such as the criminal agency, meaning
the substance used, like gasoline, kerosene and other combustible materials which caused the fire. It can also be in the form of
electrical wires, mechanical, chemical or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire; or ashes or traces of such objects which are
found in the ruins of the burned premises.
3 kinds of arson:
1. Simple arson (Section 1, PD 1613)
2. Destructive arson
Destructive arson - when one or more building or edifices consequent to one single act of burning or as a result of simultaneous
burning committed on several or different occasions. (Section 2, PD 1613)
Page | 158
Criminal Law II
3. Other cases of arson (Section 3, PD 1613)
Section 4. Special aggravating circumstances

Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of arson
What are the stages in the commission of arson?

As ruled by the Supreme Court the crime of arson can only be committed in the consummated and attempted stage. It cannot be
committed in the frustrated stage.
The slightest discoloration of a part of the building is already considered as consummated arson. When a person who intends to burn a
structure by collecting and placing rugs soaked in gasoline and place them near the wall of the building, but was discovered that he was
about to set fire is liable for attempted arson.
What is the legal effect if death resulted from the commission of the crime of arson?
The crime committed is still arson. Death is absorbed in the crime of arson but the penalty to be imposed ranges from reclusion
perpetua to death.
Principles to be remembered in arson:

If the crime of arson was employed by the offender as a means to kill the offended party, the crime committed is murder under
Article 248. The burning of the property as the means to kill the victim is what is contemplated by the word “fire” under Article
248 which qualifies the crime to murder.
When the burning of the property was done by the offender only to cause damage but the arson resulted to death of a person,
the crime committed is still arson because the death of the victim is a mere consequence and not the intention of the offender.
There is no complex crime of arson with homicide. What matters in resolving cases involving intentional arson is the criminal
intent of the offender.
There is such a crime as reckless imprudence resulting in the commission of arson. When the arson results from reckless
imprudence and it leads to death, serious physical injuries and damage to the property of another, the penalty to be imposed
shall not be for the crime of arson under PD 1613 but rather, the penalty shall be based on Article 365 of the RPC as a felony
committed by means of culpa.
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. — Any person who shall deliberately cause the property of another any damage
not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
Malicious mischief – is the willful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage due to hate, revenge or other evil
motive
Elements:
1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another
2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction
3. That the act of damaging another’s property be merely for the sake of damaging it (done intentionally or deliberately due to
hate, revenge or other evil motive)
Damage – means not only loss but a diminution of the value of one’s property. It includes defacing, deforming or rendering it useless
for the purpose for which it was made.
If the destruction of the property was due to negligence, it is not considered as malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is done
intentionally due to hate, revenge or other evil motive. The baseline is hate, revenge or other evil motive. It cannot be committed
through negligence since culpa and malice are incompatible.
You killed the cow of your neighbor because you hated it. You commit malicious mischief. If there no malice at all, you will only
be liable civilly. If after killing the cow, you cook it and you start appropriating it for yourself, you are liable for theft.
Two pigs were in the middle of the road. He aimed at both pigs. He is liable for malicious mischief because there was
presence of pleasure or enjoyment.
The accused butchered a cow not belonging to them. One of them said it entered their property. They were convicted for
malicious mischief. They had to right to kill the cow.
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. — Any person who shall cause damage to obstruct the performance of public
functions, or using any poisonous or corrosive substance; or spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; or who cause damage
to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other
thing used in common by the public, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
Page | 159
Criminal Law II
2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the abovementioned amount but it is over 200 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed 200 pesos.
Article 328 is also called as qualified malicious mischief. The crime becomes qualified either because of the nature of the damage
caused to obstruct the public functions or because of the kind of substance used to cause the damage. The crime is still malicious
mischief because the offender has no intent to gain but derives satisfaction from the act because of hate revenge or other evil motive.
Qualified malicious mischief:

1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public
Article 329. Other mischiefs. — The mischiefs not included in the next preceding article shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than 200 pesos, if the amount involved does
not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated.
To fall under this article, it must not be included in Article 328.

The offender here is punished according to the value of the damage caused by the party. If the damage cannot be estimated, the
minimum penalty of arresto menor or a fine of not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed.
Example: Case of a servant releasing a bird because of his hate to the owner
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who shall damage any railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, the penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed, without
prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender for the other consequences of his criminal act.
For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the electric wires, traction cables, signal system and other things pertaining to railways,
shall be deemed to constitute an integral part of a railway system.
The concept of malicious mischief is still present in causing damage to any railway, telegraph or telephone lines. The penalty is
correspondingly increased if the damage has caused the derailment of cars or other accident.
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings. — Any person who shall destroy or damage statues
or any other useful or ornamental public monument shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional
in its minimum period.
Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or ornamental painting of a public nature shall suffer the penalty of arresto menor
or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime
of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into
the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
Crimes involved in the exemption:

1. Theft
2. Swindling or estafa
3. Malicious mischief
Reason for exemption: The law presumes co-ownership of the property between the offender and the offended party.
This article does not apply to strangers who participate in the commission of the crime.
Case: Intestate Estate of Vda. de Carungcong vs. People February 11, 2010
The crime charged is for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. The offender is a Japanese A. His wife is
B who already died. Her parents are X and Y. A already administered the property of B. A is the son-in-law of X and Y.
When B died, did A’s relationship with X and Y already cut? No. Even if B died, the relationship of A being a son-in-law continues. He is
covered under Article 332. However A cannot claim total exemption because the crime also involves falsification. The law only gives
Page | 160
Criminal Law II
exemption to crimes involving simple theft, swindling, or malicious mischief. He may be exempted for estafa but not for falsification. He
cannot claim total exemption under Article 332.
Issue: Is the relationship by affinity created between the husband and the blood relatives of his wife (as well as between the wife and
the blood relatives of her husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus ending the marriage which created such relationship by
affinity? Does the beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru falsification?
The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship by affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage either by
death or divorce which gave rise to the relationship of affinity between the parties. Under this view, the relationship by affinity is simply
coextensive and coexistent with the marriage that produced it. Its duration is indispensably and necessarily determined by the marriage
that created it. Thus, it exists only for so long as the marriage subsists, such that the death of a spouse ipso facto ends the relationship
by affinity of the surviving spouse to the deceased spouse’s blood relatives.
The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity continues even after the death of one spouse when there is a surviving
issue. The rationale is that the relationship is preserved because of the living issue of the marriage in whose veins the blood of both
parties is commingled.
The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains that relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the
deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced children or
not. Under this view, the relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a result of the
death of one of the parties to the said marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit step-
relatives or in-laws, the "tie of affinity" between these people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon
the death of one of the married parties.
After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the two views, we hold that the second view is more consistent with the
language and spirit of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
First, the terminated affinity view is generally applied in cases of jury disqualification and incest.31 On the other hand, the continuing
affinity view has been applied in the interpretation of laws that intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the purpose of the
absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to be beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered under the said provision,
the continuing affinity view is more appropriate.
Second, the language of Article 332(1) which speaks of "relatives by affinity in the same line" is couched in general language. The
legislative intent to make no distinction between the spouse of one’s living child and the surviving spouse of one’s deceased child (in
case of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with respect to his or her parents-in-law)32 can be drawn from Article 332(1) of the Revised
Penal Code without doing violence to its language.
Third, the Constitution declares that the protection and strengthening of the family as a basic autonomous social institution are policies
of the State and that it is the duty of the State to strengthen the solidarity of the family.33 Congress has also affirmed as a State and
national policy that courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family.34 In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family
harmony and obviate scandal. The view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the death of one of the parties to the marriage that
created it is more in accord with family solidarity and harmony.
Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio
pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be
presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private
offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly liable.
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable
language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not
apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa
through falsification.
Since the crime with which respondent was charged was not simple estafa but the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents, Sato cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code in his favor.
The question may be asked: if the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, should he not be absolved also from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public documents? No.
True, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document is required for a proper
conviction for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. That is the ruling in Gonzaludo v. People. It means
that the prosecution must establish that the accused resorted to the falsification of a public document as a necessary means to commit
the crime of estafa.
However, a proper appreciation of the scope and application of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code and of the nature of a complex
crime would negate exemption from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, simply
because the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under Article 332.
Page | 161
Criminal Law II
The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant to address specific crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not affected by the absolutory cause provided
by the said provision. To apply the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of the component crimes of a
complex crime for the purpose of negating the existence of that complex crime is to unduly expand the scope of Article 332. In other
words, to apply Article 332 to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document would be to mistakenly treat the crime
of estafa as a separate simple crime, not as the component crime that it is in that situation. It would wrongly consider the indictment as
separate charges of estafa and falsification of public document, not as a single charge for the single (complex) crime of estafa through
falsification of public document.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of
theft, swindling and malicious mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against
certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of
the right to property is achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and
presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the property right of a family
relation but a paramount public interest.
Exemption laid down under Article 332 is based on filial relationship since as to between the offender and the offended party, there is
presumed to be co-ownership involved. For the exemption to apply in so far as to brothers and sisters, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-
law are concerned, the rule is they must be living together at the time the commission of the crimes of theft, estafa and malicious
mischief.
The term “relatives by affinity in the same line” includes parents-in-law, like mother-in-law and father-in-law, and since the language of
the law is that the offense is caused mutually, it is understood to refer to cases committed under the circumstances enumerated by the
law where the offender and the offended party are in-laws in the same line.
Jurisprudence has included the step-mother, step-father, adoptive father within the term “ascendants by affinity”. An adopted or natural
child shall be considered as a relative included within the term “descendants,” and a concubine or paramour within the term “spouses”.
Common-law spouses are considered in the provision of the article because of their presumed co-ownership of the property involved.
Article 144 of the Civil Code: A man and woman living together living as a husband and wife without the benefit of marriage shall enjoy
the right of co-ownership of the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages or salaries.
Title XI: Crimes against Chastity
Private crimes cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint initiated by the offended party.
The law regards the privacy of the offended party as more important than the disturbance to the order of society for the law gives the
offended party the preference whether to sue or not to sue. But the moment the offended party has initiated the criminal complaint, the
public prosecutor will take over and continue with the prosecution of the offender until the termination of the case.
That is why under Article 344, when the offended party pardons the offender, that pardon will only be valid if it comes before the
prosecution starts. The moment the prosecution starts, the crime has already become public and it is beyond the offended party to
pardon the offender.
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery. - Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently
declared void.
\Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty
next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
Elements:
1. That the woman is married, even if the marriage is subsequently declared void
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married
Two reasons why adultery is made punishable by law:

a. It is a violation of the marital vow, infidelity
b. It paves the way to the introduction of a spurious child into the family.
Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse with the married woman knowing her to be
married. It is a matter of defense for the paramour that he has no knowledge that the woman whom he had sexual intercourse with is a
married woman.
Page | 162
Criminal Law II
At the beginning, he must still be included in the complaint or information regardless of whether he claims he had no knowledge. This is
so because whether he knows the woman to be married or not is a matter of defense and it is up to him to ventilate that in a formal
investigation or a formal trial.
For adultery to exist there must be a marriage, although it be subsequently annulled. There is no adultery if the marriage is void from
the beginning.
Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and completed at the moment of carnal union. Each sexual intercourse
constitutes a crime of adultery. Adultery is not a continuing crime unlike in the crime of concubinage, it is an instantaneous crime.
Madame X is a married woman residing in Butuan City. She met a man, Y, while she was window shopping. She agreed to go
with Y to GenSan, supposedly to come back the next day. When they were in Davao City, they stayed in a motel, having
sexual intercourse here. After that, they proceeded again and stopped at Digos City, where they went to a motel and had
sexual intercourse. There are two counts of adultery committed in this instance: one adultery in Davao City, and another
adultery in Digos City. Even if it involves the same man, each intercourse is a separate crime of adultery.
A private agreement was entered into between the husband and wife for them to separate from bed and board and for each of
them to go for his and her own separate way. Thereafter, the wife had lived with her co-accused in a nearby barangay. The
love affair ultimately embroiled the spouses’ conservative and reputable families in a human drama exposed in legal battles
and whispers of unwarranted gossips. In dismissing the complaint, the Court ruled that while a private agreement between the
husband and the wife was null and void, the same was admissible proof of the express consent given by the condescending
husband to the prodigal wife, a license for her to commit adultery. Such agreement bars the husband from instituting a criminal
complaint for adultery.
After filing the complaint for adultery and while the case is pending trial and resolution by the trial court, the offended spouse must not
have sexual intercourse with the adulterous wife since an act of intercourse subsequent to the adulterous conduct is considered as
implied pardon.
Act which would mitigate the liability in adultery:

Abandonment without justification – husband abandoned the wife without justification and support
Case: US vs. Serrano (in Reyes)

The abandonment without justification is not exempting but only a mitigating circumstance. One who invokes abandonment in the crime
of adultery hypothetically admits criminal liability for the crime charged.
How to prove adultery:

Case: US vs. Feliciano (in Reyes)
It is seldom the case that adultery is established by direct evidence. The legal tenet has been and is still circumstantial and
corroborative evidence as will lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the criminal act of
adultery that has been committed will bring about the conviction for the crime.
The husband caught the wife where the lover was in the process of disrobing her. This is adultery in the attempted stage.
There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense. The crime of adultery may only be committed in the
attempted and consummated stages.
Article 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under
scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty
next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
Elements:
1. That the man must be married
2. The he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place
3. That as regards the woman, she must know him to be married
Acts punished:
1. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
Page | 163
Criminal Law II
If the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, there is no need for proof of sexual intercourse. The conjugal
dwelling is the house of the spouse even if the wife happens to be temporarily absent therefrom. The woman however must be brought
into the conjugal house by the accused husband as a concubine to fall under this article.
If the co-accused was voluntarily taken and sheltered by the spouses in their house and treated as an adopted child being a
relative of the complaining wife, her illicit relations with the accused husband does not make her a mistress.
It is only when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere that “scandalous circumstances” becomes an element of
crime.
2. By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife
“Scandal” – consists in any reprehensible word or deed that offends public conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings of
honest persons and gives occasions to the neighbor’s spiritual damage and ruin.
For the existence of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances, the latter must be
imprudent and wanton as to offend modesty and sense of morality and decency.
When spies are employed to chronicle the activities of the accused and the evidence prove scandalous circumstances are those taken
by detectives, it is obvious that the sexual intercourse done by the offenders was not under scandalous circumstances.
3. By cohabiting with her in any other place
Casual sexual intercourse with a woman in a hotel is not concubinage. A one night stand with another woman will not amount to
concubinage. Likewise, keeping of a mistress in a townhouse procured and furnished by a married man who does not live or sleep with
her in said townhouse does not constitute the crime of concubinage since there is no cohabitation.
Cohabit – it means to dwell together in a manner of husband and wife for some period of time. It can be weeks, months or even years.
It is not a single act of sexual intercourse.
Adultery Concubinage
Committed by a wife who must also be charged together with the Committed by a husband who must be charged together with the
other man concubine
Proof of sexual intercourse is enough The prosecution must prove that the sexual intercourse must be
under scandalous circumstances, or that the husband kept a
mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or cohabited with her in any
other place
The penalty is higher. The penalty for the paramour in adultery is The penalty if lower than that for adultery. The penalty of a
the same as that for the guilty wife. concubine is only destierro.
Destierro – means banishment or only a prohibition from residing within a radius of 25 km from the actual residence of the accused for
a specified length of time. It is not to be considered as imprisonment but for the purposes of academic discussion, is considered as a
penalty.
It has been asked why the penalty for adultery is higher than concubinage when both crimes are infidelities to the marital vows. The
reason given for this is that when the wife commits adultery, there is a probability that she will bring a stranger to the family. When the
husband commits concubinage, this probability does not arise because the mother of the child will always carry the child with her. So,
even if the husband brings with him the child, it is clearly known that the child is a stranger. This is not so in the case of a married
woman who may bring a child to the family under the guise of a legitimate child.
Unlike the crime of adultery, concubinage is a continuing crime.
Who can file the action for adultery or concubinage?

Only the offended spouse can legally file the complaint for adultery or concubinage. They are considered as private crime. They cannot
be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse and nobody else. Unlike the offenses of rape, acts of
lasciviousness, seduction and abduction, there is no provision for the crimes of adultery and concubinage by the parents and
grandparents or guardian of the offended party.
If the case is filed after the marriage is annulled:

The marital status must be present at the time of the filing of the criminal action. The offended spouse must still be married to the
accused spouse at the time of filing of the complaint. Considering that only the legal spouse can file the complaint, the grant of
annulment removes the right to file an action for adultery or concubinage that was committed prior to the annulment.
Page | 164
Criminal Law II
Who must be prosecuted?
The offended party cannot institute the criminal charge without including both guilty parties: the offending spouse and the paramour, or
the husband and mistress, if both are alive.
What is the effect of consent or pardon?

The criminal charge cannot prosper if the offended spouse has consented to the act or pardoned the offenders. Pardon can be express
or implied.
Example of express: The offended party in writing or in affidavit asserts that he or she is pardoning the erring spouse
Example of implied: The offended party continues to live with his spouse even after the commission of the offense
Pardon must come before the institution of the criminal action and both the offenders must be pardoned by the offended party. It is
either you pardon both of them or none at all.
Article 335 has been repealed by RA 8353.
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. – Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under
any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party. – The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed to
punish any other acts of lasciviousness committed by the same persons and the same circumstances as those provided in Articles 337
and 338.
There are two kinds of acts of lasciviousness under the RPC:

1. Under Article 336
Elements:
2. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness of lewdness
3. That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex
4. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation, or
b. When the offended party ids deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented
Lewd – defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous, It signifies the form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that
which is carried on a wanton manner.
Under Article 336, the offended party may be a man or a woman. The crime committed, when the act performed with lewd designs was
perpetrated under circumstances which would have brought about the crime of rape if sexual intercourse was effected, is acts of
lasciviousness. This means that the offended party is either:
1. Under 12 years old; or
2. Being over 12 years of age, the lascivious acts were committed on him or her through violence or intimidation or while the
offended party was deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious
Article 336 may be committed by either sex unlike Article 339.

A lesbian who toyed with the private parts of an 11-year old girl who enjoyed it, since she was given money, is guilty of acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 as the victim is below 12 years old, and had sexual intercourse be possible and done then the act
would be rape.
2. Under Article 339
Elements:
1. That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of good reputation, under 18 years of age but over
12 years, or a sister or descendant regardless of her reputation or age
3. That the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit
The victim is limited only to a woman. The circumstances under which the lascivious acts were committed must be that of qualified
seduction or simple seduction; that is, the offender took advantage of his position of ascendancy over the offended woman either
because he is a person in authority, a domestic, a house help, a priest, a teacher or a guardian, or there was a deceitful promise of
marriage which would never be fulfilled.
Case: Pielago vs. People March 13, 2013
Page | 165
Criminal Law II
In the instant case, the designation of the offense in the Information against Pielago was changed from the crime of acts of
lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 to the crime of rape by sexual assault penalized under Article 266A(2) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. It cannot be said, however, that his right to be properly informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him was violated. This Court is not unaware that the Information was worded, as follows: "x x x commit
an act of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA, a minor being four (4) years old, by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers
to the vagina of AAA, x x x." And, as correctly explained by the CA, the factual allegations contained in the Information determine the
crime charged against the accused and not the designation of the offense as given by the prosecutor which is merely an opinion not
binding to the courts.
There can be no frustration of acts of lasciviousness, rape or adultery because no matter how far the offender may have gone towards
the realization of his purpose, if his participation amounts to performing all the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily produced as a
consequence thereof.
In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the intention of the wrongdoer is not very material. The motive that impelled the accused to
commit the offense is of no moment because the essence of lewdness is in the act itself.
What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. The demarcation line is not
always easy to determine but in order to sustain a conviction for acts of lasciviousness, it is essential that the acts complained of be
prompted by lust or lewd designs and the victim did not consent to nor encouraged the act.
Intent to rape is not a necessary element in the crime of acts of lasciviousness; otherwise there will no crime of attempted rape.
To be guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the acts of lasciviousness must be committed under any of the circumstances, that
had there been sexual intercourse, the crime would have been rape. When circumstances however are such indicating the clear
intention to lie with the offended party, the crime committed would be attempted rape. The determining point whether the crime is acts
of lasciviousness or attempted rape is what the motive of the offender is- if it is to lie on the offended party or not.
Case: People vs. Bailoses (in Reyes)

The accused was convicted of acts of lasciviousness after he compelled the victim to remove her clothes and dance before him and his
guests for her failure to pay her debt and despite demand. While apparently accused was motivated by revenge because of failure to
pay the debt, the actuation of the accused manifested lascivious conduct.
Case: People vs. Gatchalian (in Reyes)

The accused was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness after he placed himself on top of the sleeping victim, kissed her on the breast
and other parts of her body and tried to pull he legs apart. The victim was able to wake up and able to overcome the sexual advances
of the accused. He is liable for acts of lasciviousness.
Article 337. Qualified seduction. – The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, committed by any
person in public authority, priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted
with the education or custody of the woman seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not she be
a virgin or over eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender has carnal knowledge of any of the persons and under
the circumstances described herein.
Seduction – enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or other means of persuasion without use of force
Two kinds of qualified seduction:

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age by certain persons such as persons in authority, priest, teacher,
guardian and the like
Elements:
1. That the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or as a descendant by her ascendant regardless of her age and reputation
Persons liable:
1. Those who abused authority:
Persons in authority
Guardian
Teacher
Page | 166
Criminal Law II
Person who, in any capacity, is charged with the custody or education of the child seduced
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them:
Priest
House servant
Domestic
3. Those who abused their relationship:
Brother who seduced his sister
Ascendant who seduced a descendant
The woman is a virgin in qualified seduction while it is not necessary that a woman be a virgin in simple seduction, it is enough that she
is of good repute.
In qualified seduction, virginity does not refer to physical virginity. It means that the offended party has not had any experience before.
The virginity referred to is not to be understood in a material sense as to exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of a good
reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he had prior intercourse with the complainant, the latter is deemed to be considered a virgin
but if it was established that the woman had carnal relationship with other men, there is no crime of seduction since she is no longer
considered to be a virgin.
Virginity is presumed if the woman is unmarried and of good reputation. Virgin refers to a woman of chaste character.
If there is sufficient evidence that the victim had sexual intercourse with some other man, there can be no qualified seduction.
A person goes to a sauna and finds a descendant and commits sexual intercourse with her, qualified seuction is committed
despite her age.
In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the offended woman is his student. It is enough that the victim is enrolled in
the same school.
Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction. This crime is committed even though no deceit intervened or even if such carnal
knowledge is voluntary on the part of the virgin. This is because in such a case the law takes for granted the existence of deceit as an
integral element of the crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does with simple seduction, taking into account the abuse of
confidence on the part of the agent. Abuse of confidence implies fraud.
The fact that the offended party gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is not a defense. Lack of consent on the part of the
complainant is not an element of the crime.
Domestic – refers to a person usually living under the same roof with the offended party; it includes all those persons residing with the
family and who are members of the same household regardless of whether the stay is temporary or that they may be paying for their
board and lodging. A domestic is not necessarily a house servant.
Case: US vs. Santiago (in Reyes), People vs. Fontanilla 23 SCRA 127
Accused was a Catholic priest. While a 16-year old girl was making her confession, he told her he loved her very much. He was able to
kiss and embrace the girl while professing his intention of marrying her. These amorous advances and words of endearment coming
from the accused started to settle in the mind of the girl bringing fantasy and confusion. She went back to confess. Accused was bale to
lie with her and they had sexual intercourse inside the convent. This was repeated several times with the accused cautioning the girl not
to talk. She became pregnant. Her father found a letter from the priest who offered to be the godfather of the child he fathered. Accused
is guilty of qualified seduction because of taking advantage of abuse of confidence.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lewdness are performed, the crims is acts of lasciviousness under Article 339.
Article 338. Simple seduction. - The seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under
eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Elements:
1. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age
2. That she must be of good reputation, single or widow
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. That it is committed by means of deceit
Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not required in this crime. This crime is usually committed by the accused using deceit. Deceit
generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise to marry. The promise to marry serves as an inducement. The woman must yield to the
promise of marriage or other forms of inducement. The promise of marriage must precede the sexual intercourse.
Page | 167
Criminal Law II
The offender failed to have sexual intercourse with his girlfriend who is over 12 years old but under 18 years of age because
the latter refused as they were still not married. The accused procured the performance of a fictitious marriage and because of
that, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the minor. The offender is guilty of simple seduction.
Article 340. Corruption of minors. - Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to
satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification.
It is not required that the offender is the guardian or the custodian of the minor. It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or
corrupted as the law merely punishes the act of promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of the said minor, and that he
acted in order to satisfy the lust of another.
Article 341. White slave trade. - The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be imposed upon any person
who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any
other for the purpose of prostitution.
Acts punished:
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
2. Profiting by prostitution
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution
Article 342. Forcible abduction. - The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion
temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age.
Elements:
1. That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation
2. That the abduction is against her will
3. That the abduction is with lewd designs
Forcible abduction – it is the taking away of any woman against her will from her house or from the place where she may be for the
purpose of carrying her in another place with the intent to marry or corrupt her, with lewd designs
Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible or consented abduction unlike in rape and seduction. The acts are limited to taking away
from a place the victim but the same is with lewd designs; that is, with unchaste design manifested by kissing and touching the victim’s
private parts.
The element of lewd design, which is essential to the crime of abduction through violence, refers to the intention to abuse the abducted
woman. If such intention is lacking or it does not exist at the time of the taking of the woman, the crime may be illegal detention. But, it
is necessary to establish the unchaste design or the purpose of the offender. It is sufficient that the intent to seduce the girl is present.
The evil purpose of the offender may be established or inferred from the overt acts of the accused.
If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would qualify as forcible abduction; otherwise, it would amount to
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267. Where lewd design was not shown or proven and the victim was deprived of
her liberty, the crime is considered as kidnapping.
If the woman was only brought to a certain place in order to break her will and make her agree to marry the offender, the crime is only
grave coercion because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the woman to marry him and not really to restrain the
woman of her liberty.
If the offended woman is under 12 years old, even if she consented to the abduction, the crime is forcible abduction and not consented
abduction. Where the offended woman is below the age of consent, even though she had gone with the offender through some
deceitful promises revealed upon her to go with him, and they lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage,
forcible abduction is committed with the mere carrying of the woman as long as that intent is shown. Where the man could not possibly
give the woman the benefit of an honorable life, all that the man promised are just machination of lewd design, and therefore the
carrying of the woman is characterized with lewd deign, and would bring about the crime of abduction and not kidnapping. This also
true if the woman is mentally retarded or is deprived of reason.
The lewd design may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts performed by the offender on the woman. Since this crime does not
involve sexual intercourse, if the victim if subject to sexual intercourse then the crime of rape is further committed and the complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape is committed by the offender.
Page | 168
Criminal Law II
If main object of the offender is to rape the victim and forcible abduction was resorted to by the accused in order to facilitate the
commission of the rape, the crime committed is rape. Where the victim was taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of
killing him and not detaining him for any length of time, the crime committed is murder. The taking of the woman may be accompanied
by means of deceit at the beginning then by means of violence and intimidation later, it is still forcible abduction.
It is not necessary that the woman abducted be a virgin. The virginity of the complaining victim is not a determining factor for forcible
abduction to be committed. In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design, to elicit criminal relations with the person abducted
need not be shown, the intent to seduce a girl is already sufficient.
Forcible abduction Illegal detention under Article 267

When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs When the kidnapping is without lewd designs
(intention to abuse the abducted woman)
‘
Where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the defendant to coerce her to marry him, it was held that only
grave coercion was committed and not illegal detention.
Article 343. Consented abduction. – The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, carried out with her
consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Elements:
1. That the offended party must be a virgin
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
3. The taking away of the offended party of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the
offender
4. The taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs
Virginity may be presumed from the fact that the offended woman is unmarried and has been leading a moral life. Virginity or
maidenhood should not be understood in such a matter of fact as to completely exclude a woman who had previous sexual intercourse.
The fact that she had previous sexual intercourse does not remove her virginity; it might be because of rape. It should not render her
unchaste if it was against her will and over her violent objections.
A, a 17-year old student fell in love with a married man. Their intimate relationship was done in seashore. One night, they were
overtaken by a storm and took shelter where they had sexual intercourse. It was exposed to public view after the wife
discovered it and filed a case of consented abduction after they escaped to another town. Accused said A was no longer a
virgin when the sexual intercourse between them took place. The accused is guilty of consent abduction even though at the
time of the sexual intercourse alleged in the information, the woman was no longer a virgin, since it would appear that the
accused was the author of the previous coitus.
The purpose of the law is to punish the offender for causing disgrace and scandal to the family of the offended party. The law does not
punish the offender for the wrong done to the woman since in the eyes of the law she consented to her seduction.
The deceit termed by law as solicitation or cajolery, may be in the form of honeyed promises of marriage. Where the accused by means
of honeyed promises was able to induce the minor to leave her home and was able to deflower her with her consent, the crime
committed is consented abduction.
Is there consented abduction with rape?

Case: People vs. Amante (in Reyes)
A girl was solicited to leave her house by 4 armed men and was forced to have sex with each of them, the crime committed is
consented abduction with rape.
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. - The
crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case,
if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above
named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-
principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
The crime of rape is no longer a private crime since it is now a public crime. It can be prosecuted de oficio.
Page | 169
Criminal Law II
Private crimes Public crimes
Cannot be prosecuted de officio. It cannot be initiated by any Can be prosecuted de officio. It can be instituted by any person
person except the offended party by the filing of an information interested in prosecuting the case. The accusation is usually
initiated by the filing of an information
This includes crimes against chastity
If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her mental faculties, she alone can file the complaint.
If the offended party cannot file the complaint because of her tender age, the same can be filed by her parents or guardian. Guardian
refers to the guardian appointed by the court.
“Shall have consented” – refers to the act prior to the commission of the crime. The offended party gives his or her consent to the future
infidelity of the offending spouse.
The marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action or remits the penalty already given to him.
Marriages contracted must be in good faith for it to be used as a defense to exonerate the accused.
Effects of pardon by the offended party:

1. Pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action in public crimes like estafa, homicide or murder
2. In private crimes which include seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, criminal action is barred if pardon is made
before the institution of the criminal action
In adultery and concubinage, pardon is given to both offenders which may be express or implied.
Pardon by the offended party who is a minor must have the concurrence of parents except when the offended party has no
parents.
Marriage between the offender and the offended party extinguishes criminal liability. (Article 89)
However, the mere fact of marriage with the offended party is not enough. If the offender marries the offended woman without any
intention of performing the duties of a husband as shown by the fact that after the marriage, the accused left her, the marriage would
appear as having been contracted only to avoid punishment, the offended woman can still institute criminal action. That marriage will
not have the effect of extinguishing criminal liability.
Pardon by the offended woman of the offender does not constitute extinguishment of criminal action but serves only as a bar to the
prosecution of the offender. Therefore, that pardon must be instituted before the prosecution is commenced. When it is already
commenced or initiated, pardon by the offended woman will no longer be effective because pardon may preclude prosecution but not
prevent the same.
Case: People vs. Villorente 210 SCRA 647

Since as Jona was only fifteen years old when she agreed to leave her employer's house to go with Charlie and his mother Teresita,
the crime committed was forcible abduction under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code. Jona's virginity may be presumed from the fact
that she was an unmarried barrio girl when the crime was committed. The element of lewd design on the part of Charlie may also be
inferred from the fact that while Jona was then a naive fifteen-year old, Charlie was ten years her senior and although unmarried, was
much wise, in the ways of the world than she was.Charlie's alleged desire to marry Jona is not a defense considering that no marriage
license was presented and parental consent was wanting. Moreover, had Charlie really intended to marry her, he could have gone to
her parents' house considering that he was invited by Jona's uncle to do just that.
Inasmuch as the abduction was proven to have been perpetrated as a necessary means for the commission of the rape, under Art. 48
of the Revised Penal Code, appellants committed the complex crime of abduction with rape for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua
was correctly imposed by the lower court on both appellants.
Significantly, appellants, through their counsel, filed a motion for new trial before this Court on the ground of a new and material
evidence consisting of an Affidavit of Desistance purportedly executed by the complainant and sworn to before the Municipal Mayor of
Kalibo, Aklan. The affidavit states that the case below arose out of a misunderstanding between her and the appellants and that she is
no longer interested in prosecuting this case.
This Court is not impressed by the said document. After completion of the trial and the rendition of judgment convicting the accused, an
affidavit of desistance of the complaining witness has no probative value and is ineffectual to nullify a judgment. The real aggrieved
party in a criminal prosecution is the People of the Philippines whose collective sense of morality, decency and justice has been
outraged. Once filed, tried, and decided, control of the prosecution for the crime of rape is removed from the victim's hands. To warrant
the dismissal of the complaint, the victim's retraction or pardon should be made prior to the institution of the criminal action.
Pardon given by the offended party during the trial of the case is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. Pardon is a matter of
defense which the accused must plead and prove during trial.
Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. – Persons guilty of rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be
sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman.
Page | 170
Criminal Law II
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the same proceeding or in
a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers, or other persons entrusted with the custody of the offended party. -
The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who, by abuse of authority or confidential relationships, shall cooperate
as accomplices in the perpetration of the crimes embraced in chapters, second, third and fourth, of this title, shall be punished as
principals.
Teachers or other persons in any other capacity entrusted with the education and guidance of youth, shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification.
Any person falling within the terms of this article, and any other person guilty of corruption of minors for the benefit of another, shall be
punished by special disqualification from filling the office of guardian.
Title XII: Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child. -
The simulation of births and the substitution of one child for another shall be punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding
1,000 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate child with intent to cause such
child to lose its civil status.
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office, shall cooperate in the execution of
any of the crimes mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also the penalty of
temporary special disqualification.
Acts punished:
1. Simulation of births
Simulation of birth takes place when a woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not and on the day of the supposed delivery,
she takes the child of another and declares the child to be her own. This is done by entering in the birth certificate of the child that the
offender is the alleged mother of the child when in fact the child belongs to another.
People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going through legal adoption is simulation.
If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not the real parents of the child, then simulation of birth
is committed.
If the parents are parties to the simulation by making it appear in the birth certificate that the parents who bought the child are
the real parents, the crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but simulation of birth.
2. Substitution of one child for another
Bill and Monica have a child A. Edward and Diane have a child named B. Sadam with intent to cause loss of any trace of their
respective filiation interchanged A and B without the knowledge of parents. He is guilty of substituting one child for another.
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status
Requisites:
1. The child must be legitimate
2. The offender conceals or abandons such child
3. The offender has the intent to cause such child to lose its civil status
When a child is abandoned, the criminal liability of the offender is determined by his or her intention.
If a woman gave birth to a child and then places the child in front of a church with a letter to take the child. If the purpose of the
woman was merely to free herself from the obligation of feeding and caring for the child, she is liable under Article 276, not
under Article 347.
The purpose of the woman abandoning the child is to preserve the inheritance of the child by a former marriage. Her purpose
is for the child to lose its civil status to not share in the inheritance.
Suppose a child, one day after his birth, was taken to and left in the midst of a lonely forest, and he was found by a hunter who
took him home. What crime was committed by the person who left it in the forest? It is attempted infanticide, as the act of the
offender is an attempt against the life of the child.
Page | 171
Criminal Law II
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall usurp the civil
status of another, should he do so for the purpose of defrauding the offended part or his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.
There must be criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another knowing that he is not entitled thereto.
Civil status – the term includes one’s public station or the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a
certain class. It seems to include one’s profession.
Usurpation is committed by assuming the filiation or the parental or conjugal rights or claim of another person. To be liable for
usurpation of civil status, the offender must have the intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of another. It is qualified when
the purpose of the impersonation is to defraud the offended party or his heirs.
Article 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
Elements:
1. That the offender has been legally married
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead according to the Civil Code
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
Case: Garcia vs. CA January 27, 1997

The crime of bigamy does not fall within the category of private crimes that can be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended
party. The offense is committed not only against the first and second wife but also against the State. It is a public offense.
Bigamy prescribes not on the date of the registration of the second marriage – it does not operate as constructive notice to the public,
ergo the first wife. Prescription begins upon the time that the first wife discovered the subsequent marriage – the actual discovery of the
bigamy by the offended party. Marriage is not a property relation, unlike cases of property registration of titles.
Good faith is a defense in the crime of bigamy.

However, the failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy through reckless imprudence. For
the wife to be considered as dead, one must file a petition of presumptive death before the RTC. But the moment the absentee spouse
reappears, the subsequent marriage will become null and void.
For the crime of bigamy to prosper, the first marriage must be valid. If the first marriage is void from the beginning, such nullity of the
marriage is a defense for the charge of bigamy. If the same is voidable, it is not a defense. When raised as a defense, the accused
should be convicted since unless annulled, the bond of matrimony remains or is maintained.
Even if the accused as plaintiff in a civil case prevails and his first marriage is annulled, such pronouncement has no retroactive effect
as to exculpate him in the bigamy case. Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity for only
competent courts have such authority. Significantly, the civil case for annulment of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial
question as to warrant the suspension of the trial and the proceedings in a criminal case for bigamy.
Two causes that may produce the legal dissolution of the first marriage:
1. Death of one of the contracting parties
1. By a judicial decree annulling a voidable marriage, or a void marriage
The second marriage must have all the essential requisites of a valid marriage and its only infirmity is the existence of the first marriage.
The second spouse is not necessarily liable in bigamy. The language of Article 349 indicates that if the second wife knew of the
previous marriage of the accused, she will be liable for the crime of bigamy but only as an accomplice.
One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses. One cannot clain double jeopardy. The
first is an offense against civil status, which may be prosecuted at the instance of the State; the second is an offense against chastity,
and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the
same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense.
One who, although not yet married before, knowingly consents to be married to one who is already married is guilty of bigamy knowing
that the latter’s marriage is still valid and subsisting.
Bigamy Illegal marriage
Page | 172
Criminal Law II
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The offender must have a Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which are
valid and subsisting marriage. Despite the first marriage’s performed without complying with the requirement of the law, or
existence, he contracts a subsequent marriage. such premature marriages, or such marriage which was
solemnized by one who is not authorized to solemnize the
marriage.
Can bigamy be committed through negligence?

Bigamy can be committed through negligence. The failure of the offender to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the
first wife and enters into a second marriages gives rise to the crime of bigamy. The second marriage must have all the requisites for
validity were it not for the existence of the first marriage.
What is the liability of a person who knowingly acts as witness to a bigamous marriage?
Romy is married to Elsa. Ambo stood as best man during their marriage and godfather of their child. Romy fell in love with
Nelia and married her. Ambo stood as principal witness. Romy is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of
bigamy. Nelia is not liable because she was not aware of the previous marriage of Romy. Had there been any showing that
she was aware of the existence of the previous marriage, she too will be liable as principal of bigamy. Ambo is liable as
accomplice to the crime of bigamy. He had prior knowledge of the first marriage.
Case: Cenon Teves vs. People August 24, 2011

Cenon and Thelma got married in 1992. After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad and would come home only for vacations. While
on vacation, Thelma learned that Cenon married Editha. Danilo, Thelma’s uncle, filed a case of bigamy against Cenon before the RTC
in 2006. The same year, the RTC declared the marriage of Cenon and Thelma as void under Article 36 on psychological incapacity.
Cenon was convicted. Cenon differentiates a previous valid or voidable marriage from a marriage null and void ab initio, and posits that
the former requires a judicial resolution before one can validly contract a second marriage but a void marriage, for the same purpose,
need not be judicially determined.
A declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. Where
the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for the purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis
acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
This court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted, or
else what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
If petitioner’s contention would be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition
for declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a
complaint against him.
Case: Cipriano-Montañez vs. Cipriano, Oct. 22, 2012

Lourdes married Socrates Flores in 1976. While still married to him, she married Silverio Cipriano in 1983. She filed for annulment of
marriage from Socrates on 2001, and granted on 2003. Silverio’s daughter filed a bigamy case against Lourdes. The RTC quashed the
information as the marriage to Socrates was already declared void ab initio in 2003, thus no more marriage to speak of prior to her
marriage to Silverio on 1983. Prosecution argued that bigamy had already been consummated when respondent filed for declaration of
nullity. RTC ruled that since the two marriages were contracted prior to the Family Code, there was no requirement then.
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of
competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration
of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
If both marriages were contracted before the Family Code, the declaration of nullity of marriage is still needed. The Court does not
distinguish whether marriage was before or after the enactment of the Family Code, the parties must still not be permitted to declare for
themselves the validity of the marriage.
Case: Juliano-Llave vs. Republic and Tamano

While the Family Code is silent with respect to the proper party who can file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage prior to A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC, it has been held that in a void marriage, in which no marriage has taken place and cannot be the source of rights, any
interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally without prescription, which may be filed even beyond the lifetime of the
parties to the marriage. Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply, Adib, as one of the children of the deceased who has property
rights as an heir, is likewise considered to be the real party in interest in the suit he and his mother had filed since both of them stand to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.
Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall contract
marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal
impediment.
If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation, or fraud, he shall be punished
by the maximum period of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph.
Page | 173
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That the offender contracted marriage
2. That he knew at the time that:
a. The requirements of the law were not complied with
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment
The offender should not be guilty of bigamy. Otherwise, the crime of illegal marriage shall be deemed absorbed in the crime of bigamy.
Article 351. Premature marriages. – Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one days from the date of the death of her
husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved, if she shall marry before
her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one days after the legal separation.
Persons liable:
1. A widow who married within 301 days from the date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she is pregnant
at the time of his death
2. A woman who, her marriage having been annulled or dissolved, married before her delivery or before the expiration of the
period of 301 days after the date of the legal separation
Article 84 of the Civil Code: No marriage license shall be issued to a widow until after 300 days following the death of her husband,
unless in the meantime she has given birth to a child.
The primary object is to prevent confusion in the affiliation and paternity of the unborn child in as much as the widow might have
conceived and become pregnant with the deceased spouse. The law admits the possibility of the birth of the child taking place 9
months after its inception.
The Supreme Court has already taken into account the reason why such marriage within 301 days is made criminal, that is, because of
the probability that there might be a confusion regarding the paternity of the child who would be born. If this reason does not exist
because the former husband was impotent, or was shown to be sterile such that the woman has had no child with him, that belief of the
woman that after all there could be no confusion even if she would marry within 301 days, may be taken as evidence of good faith and
that would negate criminal intent.
Rep. Romualdo proposed a bill to repeal Article 351: The rationale behind this is to prevent confusion regarding the paternity and
filiation of the child. With the advent of modern medical and scientific technology, it is easier to determine the period of conception of
the child. Thus, Article 351 should be repealed to prevent further discrimination of widows and women, in general. Article 351 is
discriminatory as it curtails the right of a woman to marry under the above circumstances, by penalizing them should they commit any of
those acts. It makes any woman, even those who are beyond childbearing years or medically proven to be incapable of bearing any
children, who marries within 300 days from termination of her marriage whether by death of the first husband, annulment or nullity of
marriage, a criminal.
RA 10655: An Act Repealing Article 351
Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. – Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities
who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law.
If the accused is not authorized, he is liable under Article 177.
Title XIII: Crimes against Honor
Article 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
The law on libel punishes character assassination; it is a limitation on our right to free speech and press freedom. Liberty of speech
does not give immunity to defamatory imputations. The right guaranteed in the fundamental law consists of the right to print what one
chooses, without any previous license, but subject to responsibility for its injurious consequences. The right of a man to be secure
against malicious calumny is just as important as press freedom and free speech.
Two kinds of libel or slander under common law:

1. Libel if the malicious imputation is made in writing
Page | 174
Criminal Law II
2. Slander if it is expressed orally or verbally
Before, there used to be a distinction between calumny, insult and libel.
Defamation – the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It is that which
tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or
opinions about the plaintiff. It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring
him into disrepute.
Libel – a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.
Why is defamation punished?

The enjoyment of private reputation is equivalent to the right to life, liberty and property, which are guaranteed by the Constitution. The
law recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it by slanderous words or libelous publication the
liability to make full compensation of the damage done.
The test of defamatory imputation: It is what the article conveyed to a fair and considerable man that should be considered, not the
intent of the writer. What matters is how the reader perceived the material or what it conveyed to the listener, whether it was malicious
or not. The intention of the offender/writer is not material.
The intent of the anchor does not matter. The test of libelous meaning is not the analysis of a sentence into component phrases with
meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist but the import conveyed to the ordinary reader by the entirety of the language. “The law
cannot shut its eyes to what all the rest of the world can see and let the slanderer disguise his language and wrap up his meaning in
ambiguous giving out, as he will and it shall avail him, because courts will understand the language in whatever form it is used as all
mankind understands it.” The language must be understood in the plain popular sense as the man on the street would understand it.
Elements:
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstance
Examples of libelous statements:

Imputation of a crime: Pedro is a thief
Imputation of a vice: Pedro is a drug addict
Imputation of a defect: Pedro is cross-eyed
Imputation of an act: Pedro does not pay his debts
Imputation of an omission: Pedro did not pay the dentist for the fixing of his teeth
Imputation of condition, status or circumstance: Pedro is a bastard; Pedro is a coward
2. That the imputation must be made publicly
Publication – it is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person or persons.
The delivery of a defamatory writing to a typesetter is sufficient publication. Writing a letter to another person other than the person
defamed is sufficient publication. (Sazon vs. CA)
3. That it must be malicious
Malice – defined as a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response
to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed.
2 kinds of malice:
1. Malice in law – is presumed or inferred from the defamatory character of the imputation.
The presumption of malice attaches to the defamatory statement especially if it appears to be insulting per se (Article 354). The law
presumes that the defamer made the imputation without good cause or justifiable motive.
Proof of malice is not required because it is presumed to exist from the defamatory imputation. Presumption will disappear upon proof
of good intention and justifiable motive.
2. Malice in fact – refers to malice as a fact; the presence and existence of personal ill-will or spite may still appear even if the
statement is not defamatory.
Page | 175
Criminal Law II
Where the defamatory acts imputed refer to the private life of the individual, malice may be presumed from the publication of the
defamatory statement because no one has the right to invade another’s privacy.
Rule of actual malice: Even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public
official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.
The presumption of malice may be rebutted if the accused has shown that:
1. The defamatory imputation is true, in case the law allows proof of the truth of the imputation or allows truth as defense
2. It is published with good intention
3. There is justifiable motive for making it
4. The communication made is privileged
4. That the imputation must be directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead
The offended party must be identifiable as the object of the defamatory statement. It must be shown from the statement that the victim
is identifiable by a third person or even a stranger.
Innuendo – a clause in the indictment or other pleading containing an averment which is explanatory of some preceding word or
statement
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead
Dishonor – disgrace or shame, ignominy

Discredit – loss of credit or reputation, disesteem
Contempt – state of being despised
Praises undeserved can also be considered libelous statements, these are libel or slander in disguise.
Where the comments are worded in praise of the plaintiff, like describing him with qualities which plaintiff does not have or does not
deserve because of the social, political, economic status of the community, which is too well known to all concerned, and which are
intended to ridicule rather than to praise him, the publication is deemed libelous.
Article 354. Requirement for publicity. – Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official
proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of
any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Malice is not presumed in a qualifiedly privileged communication:

1. Private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty
Requisites:
1. That the person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make the communication, or, at least, he
has an interest to be upheld
2. That the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter
3. That the statement in the communication are made in good faith without malice (in fact)
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks of any judicial, legislative or other proceedings
which are not of confidential nature, or of nay statement, report or speech, delivered in said proceedings or of any other act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Requisites to be privileged:
1. That it is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not confidential in nature, or of a
statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a public officer in the exercise of
his functions
2. That it is made in good faith
3. That it is without any comments or remarks
Privileged Communication – a communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an
interest, or in reference to which he has a duty and the person to whom the communication is given has a corresponding interest.
Page | 176
Criminal Law II
2 kinds of privileged communication:
1. Absolute Privileged Communication – are not actionable criminally or civilly even if its author has acted with malice or the
publication was done in bad faith. This class includes:
a. Statements made by members of the Congress when they deliver privilege speeches
b. Utterances made during floor debates
c. Official communication made by public officers in the performance of their duties
d. Allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in their pleadings or motions or during the judicial
proceedings
e. Answers given by witnesses in response to questions propounded on them over the course of the court proceedings
provided such allegations or statements are relevant to the issues and the answers are pertinent to the questions
propounded to said witnesses
2. Conditional or Qualified Privileged Communication – is one which, although containing defamatory imputations, would not
be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith. (Article 354)
A qualified privileged communication must be made with malice (in fact) or bad faith in order to be actionable. An absolute privileged
communication is not actionable even if made in bad faith.
When the defamatory imputation comes under the criteria of an absolute privileged communication, the presumption of malice under
Article 354 does not apply. The presumption of malice, however, comes into play when the defamatory statement is a conditional or
qualified privileged communication. To overcome this presumption of malice in law, the defamer must prove during the proceeding that
the defamatory imputation was committed because of legal, moral and social duty.
Case: Vasquez vs. CA September 15, 1999 (handout)

Case: Brillante vs. CA October 19, 2004 (handout)
Case: Sazon vs. CA 225 SCRA 692 (handout)
Case: Soriano vs. IAC 167 SCRA 222 (handout- multiple publication rule)
Article 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. – A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving,
radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which
maybe brought by the offended party.
The jurisdiction in very libel case belongs to the Regional Trial Court, even if the penalty is only prision correccional.
AC 08-2008 issued by the Supreme Court on January 25, 2008, laid down a rule of preference for the imposition of a fine only rather
than imprisonment in libel cases.
Case: Alexander Adonis vs. Superintendent Tesoro of DAPICOL June 5, 2013

Further, Adonis seeks the retroactive application of Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, citing Fermin v. People, where the Court
preferred the imposition of the fine rather than imprisonment under the circumstances of the case. Administrative Circular No. 08-2008,
was issued on January 25, 2008 and provides the "guidelines in the observance of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in
libel cases." The pertinent portions read as follows:
All courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the foregoing rule of preference set by the Supreme Court on the
matter of the imposition of penalties for the crime of libel bearing in mind the following principles:
1. This Administrative Circular does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for the crime libel under Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each
case, determine whether the imposition of a fame alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose
imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperative of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised
Penal Code provision on subsidiary imprisonment.
A clear reading of the Administration Circular No. 08-2008 and considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the benefits of the
administrative circular cannot be given retroactive effect in Criminal Case No. 48679-2001. It is too late in the day for Adonis to raise
such argument considering that Criminal Case No. 48679-2001 has already become final and executory; and he had, in fact, already
commenced serving his sentence.
Article 356. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine of from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or
the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter, or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such
libel for a compensation or money consideration.
Page | 177
Criminal Law II
1. Threatening another to publish libelous statements concerning him or his parents, relatives by consanguinity, etc.
2. Offering to prevent publication of such statements for a compensation or other monetary consideration
This involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the victim’s fear through threats and intimidation of exposure. The
gravamen of the crime is the intent to extort money or other things of value.
It is blackmailing. In its metaphorical sense, blackmailing may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation
or exposure. Two words are expressive of the crime – hush money.
Article 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine of from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor, or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine,
who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue, and reputation of said person, even
though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or
administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper daily or magazine
2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person
Article 357 is known as the Gag Law.

Gag law – prohibits reporters, editors, writers, etc. from publishing articles containing information or facts regarding the private life of
the victim. The facts are offensive to the honor, virtue or reputation of the victim. These facts must be intimately related to the victim’s
family and home. Occasionally it includes conjugal troubles and quarrels because of infidelity, adultery or crimes involving chastity.
Article 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
Slander – libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is understood as the speaking of base and defamatory words
which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood.
Two kinds of oral defamation:

1. Grave slander – actions of a serious and insulting nature
2. Simple slander – slight insults and defamation not so serious in nature
Factors that determine the gravity of the offense:

1. Upon the expression used
2. Personal relations of the accused and the offended party
3. Circumstances surrounding the case
4. Other factors that would determine the gravity of the crime
Gravity of the oral defamation not only depends on the expression but also on the personal relation of the accused and the offended
party. Other circumstances like the presence of important people where the crime was committed, the social standing and the position
of the offended party are also factors which may influence the gravity of the defamatory imputation named.
Case: Victorio vs. CA 173 SCRA 645

To determine whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, the Court adopted the following guidelines:
. . . We are to be guided by a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other, depending upon,
as Viada puts it, '...upon their sense and grammatical meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the
case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender
at the time.
Thus, in the same case cited where scurrilous words imputed to the offended party the crime of estafa, the Court ruled:
The scurrilous words imputed to the offended party the crime estafa. The language of the indictment strikes deep into the character of
the victim; He 'has sold the union; he 'has swindled the money of the vendees; he 'received bribe money in the amount of P10,000.00 ...
and another P6,000.00'; He 'is engaged in racketeering and enriching himself with the capitalists'; He 'has spent the funds of the union
for his personal use.'
No amount of sophistry will take these statements out of the compass of grave oral defamation. They are serious and insulting. No
circumstances need to be shown to upgrade the slander.
In another case where a woman of violent temper hurled offensive and scurrilous epithets including words imputing unchastity against a
respectable married lady and tending to injure the character of her young daughters, the Court ruled that the crime committed was
grave slander.
Page | 178
Criminal Law II
The language used by the defendant was deliberately applied by her to the complainant. The words were uttered with evident intent to
injure complainant, to ruin her reputation, and to hold her in public contempt, for the sake of revenge. One who will thus seek to impute
vice or immorality to another, the consequences of which might gravely prejudice the reputation of the person insulted, in this instance
apparently an honorable and respectable lady and her young daughters, all prominent in social circles, deserves little judicial sympathy.
Certainly, it is time for the courts to put the stamp of their disapproval on this practice of vile and loud slander.
In a case where the accused, a priest, called the offended party a gangster, in the middle of a sermon, the court affirmed the conviction
of the accused for slight slander. There was no imputation of a crime nor a vice or immorality in said case.
In the instant case, appellant-petitioner imputed the crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer onetime Justice of the Peace and
member of the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, a professor of law and for sometime a president of the Nueva Ecija Bar Association. As
the scurrilous imputation strikes deep into the character of the victim, no special circumstance need be shown for the defamatory words
uttered to be considered grave oral defamation Balite v. People, supra. In addition, the fact that the offended party is a lawyer, the
totality of such words as "kayabang", "tunaw ang utak", "swapang at estapador", imputed against him has the import of charging him
with dishonesty or improper practice in the performance of his duties, hence, actionable per se.
Slander may be done even when the defamatory statement was done in the absence of the offended party. It may be committed even
by talking to one person about another one, and then another has heard it. It becomes slander when the other reports it to the offended
party being talked about.
If words are uttered in the heat of anger, it is still slanderous but of a slight nature.
If utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused leveled a finger at the victim, it is oral defamation.
The word “puta” does not impute that the complainant is a prostitute. It is a common expression of anger or displeasure. It is seldom
taken it its literal sense by the hearer. It is viewed more as a threat on the part of the accused to manifest and emphasize a point.
Article 359. Slander by deed. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a
fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this
title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
Slander by deed is a defamation committed by offender to the complainant through the performance of any act which casts dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person.
Elements:
1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor
2. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party
Two kinds of slander by deed:

1. Simple slander by deed
2. Grave slander by deed
Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed on a serious nature or not depends on the social standing of the offended
party, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc. State of necessity may mitigate or justify the slander by
deed.
The act of slapping a woman who is a teacher in front of the students puts her in dishonor, contempt and ridicule.
If the slander resulted in physical injury but did not need medical attention, the crime is maltreatment which is classified as
slight physical injury.
The accused held a mirror between the legs of complainant. The act constitutes slander by deed.
Norma agreed to marry Vicencio. On the date of the wedding, she did not appear. She was properly charged for slander by
deed. Her justification was that she did not love the man, it constitutes the justifying circumstance of state of necessity.
Unjust vexation Slander by deed

Irritation or annoyance without justification Also an irritation and annoyance but it is also attended by
publicity, dishonor and contempt
Article 360. Persons responsible. – Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication,
shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or
separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of
the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended
Page | 179
Criminal Law II
parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case
such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city
where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case
one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided,
further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That
the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And,
provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been
filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or
city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought
except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.
Persons liable for libel:

1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons who in any way
participated in or have connection with its publication
Article 361. Proof of the truth. – In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears
that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the
defendant shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have
been made against the Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
Proof of truth is admissible:

1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a
public officer
2. When the offended party is a Government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime,
provided, it is related to the discharge of his official duties
The roof of truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay, rumors or suspicion. It must rest upon positive, direct
evidence upon which a definite finding may be made by the Court.
Article 362. Libelous remarks. – Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article
354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.
Article 363. Incriminating innocent person. – Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute
to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act
2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime
3. That such act does not constitute perjury
This crime is called planting of evidence.

If dangerous drugs were planted and you were the source of the evidence, the liability is higher as planting of evidence under the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
A is the enemy of B. A placed a gun under B’s seat in his car. He reported it to the police. B was arrested and the gun
confiscated. He was charged. A planted evidence and incriminated an innocent person under Article 363.
Article 364. Intriguing against honor. – The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed for any
intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or repuration of a person.
The offender aims to blemish the honor or reputation of the person. He uses scheme or plot designs to blemish it. He does not apply
written or spoken words, pictures or caricatures to ridicule his victim. Rather, he uses some ingenious, crafty and secret plot which
produces the desired effect.
Page | 180
Criminal Law II
Where the source of information can be determined and offender passes to another by adopting the information as his own, with the
intent of causing dishonor to the complainant, the crime committed is slander. But where the source of information cannot be
determined, with the offender borrowing the same without subscribing to the truth thereof, the crime would be intriguing against honor.
Intriguing against honor Incriminating innocent persons

Offender resorts to gossips for the purpose of disparaging the Offender performs an act which would incriminate or impute to an
honor or reputation of the offended party innocent person the commission of the crime
Title XIV: Quasi-Offenses
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. – Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall
be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be
punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of the said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case
be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article
sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in
which case the courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed, in the period which
they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which
case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and the maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be cause is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to
the parties such help as may be in his hands to give.
The RPC defines a felony as an act or omission punishable by law. The word “omission” describes the other mode of committing a
felony. It is more commonly known as “culpa” or negligence. It is used to indicate the legal delinquency which results whenever a man
fails to exhibit the care required of those who have control of the agencies involving danger.
Test for determining whether the person was negligent in the doing of an act with injury or damage resulting from the act:
Would a prudent man in the position of the person, to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured?
If so, the law imposes on the doer the duty to refrain from that course of action or to take precaution against such result. Failure to do
so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring the admonition borne of this provision, is the constitutive
fact of negligence. (Picart vs. Smith)
Culpa as a mode of committing a crime and made punishable because of its element of “voluntariness”. The presence of the latter
would make the act performed as being attended by the elements of freedom, intelligence and lack of foresight. Article 365, which
refers to reckless imprudence, expressly states that it “consists in voluntarily but without malice” doing or failing to do an act.
Imprudence – indicates a deficiency of action, failure in precaution

Negligence – indicates a deficiency in perception, failure in advertence
Imprudence or negligence merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. They become punishable only when they result to a
crime.
Kinds of quasi-offenses:
1. Reckless imprudence
Page | 181
Criminal Law II
Elements:
1. That the offender does or fails to do an act
2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary
3. That it be without malice
4. That material damage results
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration:
a. His employment or occupation
b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place
2. Simple imprudence or negligence
Elements:
1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest
When the danger sought to be avoided is manifest or is clear and visible, and the offender fails to exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family, as required by law, to avoid the accident, and the negligence results in the commission of a crime, the crime
committed is reckless imprudence resulting to injury or damage. But, when the danger is not visible or is not manifest, and the offender
fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid the accident, and his negligence results in the commission of a crime, the crime would
only be simple negligence.
The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence. It is against public
policy to invoke the negligence of another to escape criminal liability.
Why are other complaints under this provision filed in the RTC instead of the MTC?
When the driver of the vehicle would abandon his victim or failed to give material assistance to the victim (hit and run cases).
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance – the contributory negligence of the offended/injured party will not defeat the action if it is shown that
the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured
party. At most, such contributory negligence will merely be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Moreover, the defense of
contributory negligence does not apply to criminal cases involving reckless imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of
another to evade the effects of his co-negligence.
A driver entered a “do not enter” street resulting to a car crash. It bears no influence of the criminal liability of the accused. He
will not be relieved of such liability. Despite the admitted fact, the accused who had the right of way had the time and
opportunity to avoid the mishap if he had been sufficiently careful and conscious.
A fire truck which bumped a car on the way to the scene of fire. It has the right of way over all vehicles notwithstanding the fact
that it had responded to a false alarm or is on its way back from a false alarm. (CA ruling)
Page | 182

Crim II Du Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim II Du Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Title I: Crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations

Two ways of committing treason:

Concurrence of two things needed:

2. By adhering to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort

Ways of proving treason:

Adherence may be proved:

Cruelty and ignominy are aggravating circumstances in treason

Are parents/children or husbands/wives required to report the same to the authorities?

The crime is not conditioned on the citizenship of the offender.

Two ways of committing espionage:

b. Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs

The crime is consummated by mere attempt.

Three kinds of piracy:

May be committed in the following manner:

2. Piracy in Philippine waters under PD 532, as amended

PD 532 defines abetting piracy as a crime committed by any person who:

3. Air piracy under RA 6235

Two kinds of mutiny:

Mutiny is qualified the same way as piracy is qualified.

RA 6235: The Anti-Hijacking Law or The Aircraft Piracy Law

Four situations governed:

Hijacking cannot be committed in the attempted stage.

RA 9372: Human Security Act of 2007

1. Any of the crimes listed under RA 9372 is committed

Penalty: 40 years of imprisonment without the benefit of parole

Sec. 17 – Case: Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-Terrorism Council October 5, 2010

Title II: Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State

Classes of arbitrary detention:

2. That he detains a person

Legal grounds for detention:

Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Arbitrary Detention Illegal Detention (Art. 267)

Arbitrary Detention Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)

Arbitrary detention can be committed through imprudence.

Circumstances considered in determining liability of offender:

Case: Soria vs. Desierto January 31, 2005

Rights of the person detained:

Three acts punishable:

Two acts punishable:

Crimes known as violation of domicile:

Three acts punishable:

Two acts punishable:

Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Case: Galvante vs. Casimero April 22, 2008

Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Three acts punished:

Case: Primicias vs. Fugoso 80 Phil 71

Two acts punishable:

Case: German vs. Barangan 135 SCRA 514

RA 9745: Anti-Torture Act of 2009

Section 3 – Definition of torture

Torture has no prescriptive period: Section 45. Torture is a non-prescriptible offense.

Title III: Crimes against Public Order

What is the purpose of rebellion? There are two:

Who are liable for the crime of rebellion or insurrection?

RA 9372: Human Security Act of 2007

Characteristics of coup d’etat:

Rebellion Coup d’etat

Who may commit coup d’etat? Who are liable:

Case: People vs. Hernandez

Does this doctrine still hold true?

Case: Enrile vs. Amin 189 SCRA 573