CRIMINAL LAW 1 PROXIMATE CAUSE V. IMMEDIATE CAUSE V.
REMOTE
Fundamental Principles ....... 2
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW ........................ 2
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA ............................. 2
CRIMINAL LAW V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ..................... 2
STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME .......................... 3
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW ...................................... 3
PENAL LEGISLATION ................................................ 3
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: SUPPLETORY
APPLICATION OF RPC ............................................... 3
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS ................................ 3
SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND
CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL
LAW ................................................................... 4
GENERALITY .......................................................... 4
TERRITORIALITY ..................................................... 4
PROSPECTIVITY ...................................................... 6
LEGALITY .............................................................. 7
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS ............ 7
EQUAL PROTECTION ................................................ 7
DUE PROCESS ........................................................ 7
NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
OR EXCESSIVE FINES ................................................ 7
BILL OF ATTAINDER ................................................. 7
EX POST FACTO LAW ................................................ 7
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ........................ 7
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW ............................... 7
Felonies ................................. 8
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME ............................. 8
FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED ........................... 8
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ......................... 8
INTENTIONAL FELONY V. CULPABLE FELONY ................. 8
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY .................. 9
DOLO ............................................................... 10
LIABILITY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT .. 10
CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL INTENT (GENERAL VS. SPECIFIC
INTENT) .............................................................. 10
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT, DISCERNMENT AND
MOTIVE ................................................................ 11
WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY ............................................... 11
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED ...... 11
CAUSE ................................................................. 12
MISTAKE OF FACT .................................................. 12
CULPA .............................................................. 13
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE CRIMES .............. 14
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME .......................................... 14
PURPOSE OF PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ............. 14
REQUISITES .......................................................... 15
MODIFIED CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME ................. 15
STAGES OF EXECUTION ................................... 15
CLASSIFICATION UNDER ART. 6 ................................ 15
TABLE: DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME ........................... 15
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME ............................ 16
INTERNAL ACTS .................................................... 16
EXTERNAL ACTS .................................................... 16
ATTEMPTED STAGE ................................................ 16
FRUSTRATED STAGE ............................................... 17
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE . 17
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL ......................... 19
CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM
CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY ............................................................. 19
MULTIPLE OFFENDERS (DIFFERENCES, RULES,
EFFECTS) ......................................................... 22
RECIDIVISM ......................................................... 22
HABITUALITY (REITERACION) .................................. 22
QUASI-RECIDIVISM ............................................... 22
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY ....................................... 23
CONTINUING CRIMES ..................................... 23
COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIMES ............................................................ 24
COMPLEX CRIMES ........................................... 25
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES ............................. 25
SPECIAL COMPLEX/COMPOSITE CRIMES ....... 26
Circumstances Affecting
Criminal Liability ................. 27
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ........................ 27
JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE ............... 31
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
ACT OF 2004 (RA 9262) ........................................ 31
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ....................... 32
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (R.A.
9344); ALSO REFER TO CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
(P.D. 603, AS AMENDED) ....................................... 33
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ....................... 35
ORDINARY V. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE 36
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ................ 36
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ................ 37
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE .........40
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. PROVOCATION .................40
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER .......................................40
PERSON IN AUTHORITY AND HIS AGENT ..................... 41
PLEA OF GUILT ..................................................... 41
PLEA TO A LESSER OFFENSE .................................... 41
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ................... 43
GENERIC .......................................................... 44
FRAUD ............................................................. 52
CRAFT .............................................................. 52
DISGUISE ......................................................... 52
QUALIFYING .................................................... 57
DECREE CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/ UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION
OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR
EXPLOSIVES (P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294)
AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE ....................... 57
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(R.A. NO. 9165) ................................................... 57
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ....................60
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE ...................................... 61
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES .............................. 63
Persons Criminally
Liable/Degree of
Participation ........................63
PRINCIPAL ....................................................... 64
COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ..................... 65
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ..................... 66
ACCOMPLICE ................................................... 66
ACCESSORIES .................................................. 66
DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS (P.D. 1829) ................. 68
PUNISHABLE ACTS ................................................ 68
COMPARE WITH ART. 20, RPC (ACCESSORIES EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY) .................................... 69
Penalties ............................. 69
GENERAL PRINCIPLES .................................... 69
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN
THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. NO. 9346) ........................... 70
PURPOSES ...................................................... 70
CLASSIFICATIONS ........................................... 70
MAJOR CLASSIFICATION ......................................... 70
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF PENALTIES .................... 70
DURATION AND EFFECT .................................. 71
PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED .......................... 71
PENALTIES COMMON TO ALL THREE TYPES ................ 75
ACCESSORY PENALTIES ......................................... 75
APPLICATION .................................................. 78
RULES ON THE COMPUTATION
OF PENALTIES ................................................. 78
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
(RA 4103, AS AMENDED) ....................................... 79
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMING THE MAXIMUM AND
MINIMUM SENTENCE ............................................. 79
THREE-FOLD RULE ................................................ 81
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT .................................. 83
EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES .................................................. 87
EXECUTION AND SERVICE .............................. 92
EXECUTION OF PENALTIES ...................................... 92
PROBATION LAW (PD 968, AS AMENDED) ................. 93
GRANT OF PROBATION .......................................... 94
SUSPENSION IN CASE OF INSANITY OR MINORITY ........ 96
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(RA 9165) .......................................................... 97
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (RA
9344); CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (PD 603, AS
AMENDED) .......................................................... 97
RA 9344 COMPARED TO PD 603 ............................ 97
Modification and Extinction of
Criminal Liability ................ 99
TOTAL EXTINGUISHMENT ............................... 99
PARTIAL EXTINGUISHMENT ............................ 99
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME; PRESCRIPTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF SPECIAL LAWS
(ACT NO. 3326) ................................................ 99
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES ........................ 99
PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY ..................... 101
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ............... 101
AMNESTY ....................................................... 102
LAWS IN SC SYLLABUS .................................. 102
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Title I. Crimes against
National Security and the Law
of Nations .......................... 105
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY ......................... 105
ARTICLE 114 - TREASON ....................................... 105
ARTICLE 115 - CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON ...........................................................107
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON ..........................107
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON .............................107
ARTICLE 116 - MISPRISION OF TREASON ...................107
ARTICLE 117 ESPIONAGE .................................... 108
Crimes against the Law of
Nations .............................. 108
ARTICLE 118 - INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR
REPRISALS ........................................................ 108
ARTICLE 119 - VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY ................ 108
ARTICLE 120 - CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE
COUNTRY .......................................................... 109
ARTICLE 121 - FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY ............ 109
ARTICLE 122 - PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE
HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS ..................... 109
ARTICLE 123 - QUALIFIED PIRACY ............................ 110
PD 532: ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY
ROBBERY ........................................................ 110
DEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................... 110
PUNISHABLE ACTS ................................................ 111
RA 6235: ANTI-HIJACKING LAW ...................... 111
PUNISHABLE ACTS ................................................ 111
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 ..... 112
Title II. Crimes against
Fundamental Laws of the
State ................................... 112
ARTICLE 124 - ARBITRARY DETENTION .....................113
ARTICLE 125 - DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED
PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES .......113
ARTICLE 126 - DELAYING RELEASE ...........................113
ARTICLE 127 EXPULSION .....................................113
ARTICLE 128 - VIOLATION OF DOMICILE ................... 115
ARTICLE 129 - SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE
LEGALLY OBTAINED ............................................. 115
ARTICLE 130 - SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES ........................................................ 116
ARTICLE 131 - PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS .................... 116
ARTICLE 132 - INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP 116
ARTICLE 133 - OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS ... 117
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT .................... 117
PERIOD OF DETENTION .......................................... 117
RA 9745: ANTI-TORTURE ACT ....................... 118
PUNISHABLE ACTS ............................................... 118
WHO ARE LIABLE ................................................. 119
Title III. Crimes against Public
Order .................................. 120
CHAPTER I - REBELLION, COUP DETAT,
SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY .......................... 120
ARTICLE 134 - REBELLION /INSURRECTION .............. 120
ARTICLE 134-A - COUP D TAT .............................. 121
ARTICLE 135 - PENALTY FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION
OR COUP D TAT ................................................ 121
ARTICLE 136 - CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
COUP D TAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION ........... 122
ARTICLE 137 - DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES ........................................................ 122
ARTICLE 138 - INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
........................................................................ 122
ARTICLE 139 SEDITION ...................................... 123
ARTICLE 140 - PERSONS LIABLE FOR SEDITION ......... 123
ARTICLE 141 - CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION ...... 123
ARTICLE 142 INCITING TO SEDITION ...................... 123
CHAPTER II - CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION ......................................... 124
ARTICLE 143 - ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING
OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SIMILAR
BODIES .............................................................. 124
ARTICLE 144 - DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS ........ 124
ARTICLE 145 - VIOLATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY ................................. 124
CHAPTER III ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND
ASSOCIATIONS ...............................................125
ARTICLE 146 - ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES ........................125
ARTICLE 147 - ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS .....................125
CHAPTER IV - ASSAULT UPON AND RESISTANCE
AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS ...................126
ARTICLE 148 - DIRECT ASSAULT .............................126
ARTICLE 152 - PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY .......................................126
ARTICLE 149 - INDIRECT ASSAULT .......................... 127
ARTICLE 150 - DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY
CONGRESS, ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES,
SUBCOMMITTEES OR DIVISIONS .............................. 127
ARTICLE 151 - RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF
SUCH PERSONS ................................................... 127
CHAPTER V - PUBLIC DISORDERS ................. 128
ARTICLE 153 - TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF
PUBLIC ORDER ................................................... 128
ARTICLE 154 - UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES ............ 128
ARTICLE 155 - ALARMS AND SCANDALS .................. 128
ARTICLE 156 - DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL .... 129
CHAPTER VI - EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE ..................................................... 129
ARTICLE 157 - EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ..... 129
ARTICLE 158 - EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE
OCCASION OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS,
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES .................. 130
ARTICLE 159 - OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE ......................................................... 130
CHAPTER VII - COMMISSION OF ANOTHER
CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED
FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE .............. 131
ARTICLE 160 - QUASI RECIDIVISM ........................... 131
PD 1866 AS AMENDED BY RA 8294: ILLEGAL POSSESSION
OF FIREARMS ...................................................... 131
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT ............................ 133
Title IV. Crimes against Public
Interest .............................. 134
ACTS OF COUNTERFEITING ............................134
ARTICLE 161 - COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE
SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ........ 134
ARTICLE 162 - USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP ............................... 134
ARTICLE 163 - MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS ...................................................... 135
ARTICLE 164 - MUTILATION OF COINS ...................... 135
ARTICLE 165 - SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE ......................................... 135
ARTICLE 166 - FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER; IMPORTING
AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR FORGED NOTES AND
DOCUMENTS ...................................................... 135
ARTICLE 167 - COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER ... 136
ACTS OF FORGERY ......................................... 136
ARTICLE 168 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF
CREDIT .............................................................. 136
ARTICLE 169 - HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED ............ 136
ACTS OF FALSIFICATION ................................ 137
ARTICLE 170 - FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE
DOCUMENTS ...................................................... 137
ARTICLE 171 - FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER 137
ARTICLE 172 - FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS ........................ 139
ARTICLE 173 - FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE,
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES, AND USE OF
SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES .................................... 141
ARTICLE 174 - FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
CERTIFICATES OF MERITS OR SERVICE, ETC. .............. 141
ARTICLE 175 - USING FALSE CERTIFICATES ............... 141
ARTICLE 176 - MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION .. 141
OTHER FALSITIES ........................................... 142
ARTICLE 177 - USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS ........................................................ 142
ARTICLE 178 - USING FICTITIOUS AND CONCEALING TRUE
NAME ............................................................... 142
ARTICLE 179 - ILLEGAL USE OF
UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA ...................................... 142
ARTICLE 180 - FALSE TESTIMONY
AGAINST A DEFENDANT ........................................ 142
ARTICLE 181 - FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT ....................................................... 143
ARTICLE 182 - FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES ....... 143
ARTICLE 183 - FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION ......................... 143
ARTICLE 184 - OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY
IN EVIDENCE ....................................................... 144
ARTICLE 185 - MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS .. 144
ARTICLE 186 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE .......................................... 144
ARTICLE 187 IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF
GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR
ALLOYS ............................................................. 145
RA 9194 ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT ................ 145
Title V. Crimes Relative to
Opium and Other Prohibited
Drugs ................................. 145
ACTS PUNISHED ................................................. 145
PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS ................ 146
DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS ......................... 147
OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS ................................... 147
Title VI. Crimes against Public
Morals ................................ 148
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS .............. 148
ARTICLE 200 - GRAVE SCANDAL ............................ 148
ARTICLE 201 - IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS AND
INDECENT SHOWS ............................................... 148
ARTICLE 202 - VAGRANCY AND PROSTITUTION ........ 149
RA 10158: AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY,
AMENDING ARTICLE 202 OF THE RPC ..................... 149
P.D. 1602 ANTI-GAMBLING ACT AS AMENDED BY R.A.
9287 ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAME WHICH REPEALED
ARTICLES 195-199 OF THE RPC ............................. 150
RA 9208 (ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT) ....... 151
Title VII. Crimes Committed
by Public Officers .............. 154
CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS ........ 155
ARTICLE 203 - WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS .............. 155
CHAPTER II: MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE
IN OFFICE ....................................................... 155
ARTICLE 204 - KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGMENT ........................................................ 155
ARTICLE 205 - JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE ...................................................... 155
ARTICLE 206 - UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER ...... 155
ARTICLE 207 - MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE ........................................................ 156
ARTICLE 208 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE
AND TOLERANCE ................................................ 156
ARTICLE 209 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR
A SOLICITOR REVELATION OF SECRETS .................. 156
ARTICLE 210 - DIRECT BRIBERY .............................. 157
ARTICLE 211 - INDIRECT BRIBERY ............................ 157
ARTICLE 211-A - QUALIFIED BRIBERY ....................... 158
ARTICLE 212 - CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ..... 158
CHAPTER III: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
AND TRANSACTIONS ..................................... 158
ARTICLE 213 - FRAUD AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY
AND SIMILAR OFFENSES ....................................... 158
ARTICLE 214 - OTHER FRAUDS ............................... 159
ARTICLE 215 - PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS .............. 159
ARTICLE 216 - POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A
PUBLIC OFFICER .................................................. 159
CHAPTER IV: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY ...................................160
ARTICLE 217 - MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION .........160
ARTICLE 218 - FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO
RENDER ACCOUNTS ............................................. 161
ARTICLE 219 - FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE
COUNTRY ........................................................... 161
ARTICLE 220 - ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY ......................................................... 161
ARTICLE 221 - FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY ........................................... 162
ARTICLE 222 - OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING
PROVISIONS ....................................................... 162
CHAPTER V: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
........................................................................ 162
ARTICLE 223 - CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO
EVASION ............................................................ 162
ARTICLE 224 - EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE ........ 162
ARTICLE 225 - ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER ......... 162
ARTICLE 226 - REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS .............................. 163
ARTICLE 227 - OFFICER BREAKING SEAL .................. 163
ARTICLE 228 - OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS ....... 163
ARTICLE 229 - REVELATION OF SECRETS
BY AN OFFICER .................................................... 163
ARTICLE 230 - PUBLIC OFFICERS REVEALING SECRETS OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALSS ......................................... 164
CHAPTER VI: OTHER OFFENSES OR
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS ......... 164
ARTICLE 231 - OPEN DISOBEDIENCE ........................ 164
ARTICLE 232 - DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF
SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED
BY INFERIOR OFFICER ........................................... 164
ARTICLE 233 - REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE .................. 164
ARTICLE 234 - REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE
ELECTIVE OFFICE ................................................ 164
ARTICLE 235 - MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS ........ 165
ARTICLE 236 - ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC
OFFICER ............................................................ 165
ARTICLE 237 - PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
AND POWERS ..................................................... 165
ARTICLE 238 - ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE
OR POSITION ..................................................... 165
ARTICLE 239 - USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS 166
ARTICLE 240 - USURPATION OF
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS ........................................ 166
ARTICLE 241 - USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS 166
ARTICLE 242 - DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION .............................................. 166
ARTICLE 243 - ORDERS OR REQUEST BY EXECUTIVE
OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY .................... 166
ARTICLE 244 - UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS ............. 166
ARTICLE 245 - ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY .............. 166
RA 3019: ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ...... 167
RA 7080: ANTI-PLUNDER ACT ...............................170
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT ............................170
Title VIII. Crimes against
Persons .............................. 170
CHAPTER I DESTRUCTION OF LIFE ................ 171
ARTICLE 246 - PARRICIDE ..................................... 171
ARTICLE 247 - DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES .............................. 171
ARTICLE 248 - MURDER ....................................... 172
TREACHERY ........................................................ 172
FIRE .................................................................. 172
POISON ............................................................. 173
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION ..................................... 173
CRUELTY ............................................................ 173
ARTICLE 249 - HOMICIDE ...................................... 173
ARTICLE 250 - PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER OR HOMICIDE ......................................... 173
ARTICLE 251 - DEATH CAUSED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY .......................................... 174
ARTICLE 252 - PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY .......................................... 174
ARTICLE 253 - GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE ......... 174
ARTICLE 254 - DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS ................. 175
ARTICLE 255 - INFANTICIDE .................................. 175
ARTICLE 256 - INTENTIONAL ABORTION .................. 175
ABORTION VS. INFANTICIDE ................................... 175
ARTICLE 257 - UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION ............... 176
ARTICLE 258 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN
HERSELF OR BY PARENTS ...................................... 176
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE
AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES ............................. 176
ARTICLE 260 - RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A
DUEL ................................................................. 177
ARTICLE 261 - CHALLENGING TO A DUEL .................. 177
CHAPTER II PHYSICAL INJURIES .................... 177
ARTICLE 262 - MUTILATION .................................. 177
ARTICLE 263 - SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES ............. 178
ARTICLE 264 - ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
OR BEVERAGES ................................................... 179
ARTICLE 265 - LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES ...... 179
ARTICLE 266 - SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT ................................................. 179
ARTICLE 266-A - RAPE (AMENDED BY RA 8353) .......180
Title IX. Crimes against
Personal Liberty
and Security ...................... 184
CHAPTER I CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY ..........184
ARTICLE 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION ........................................................ 184
ARTICLE 268 - SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION .............. 186
ARTICLE 269 - UNLAWFUL ARREST ......................... 187
ARTICLE 270 - KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
MINOR .............................................................. 187
ARTICLE 271 - INDUCING A MINOR TO
ABANDON HIS HOME ............................................ 188
ARTICLE 272 - SLAVERY ....................................... 188
ARTICLE 273 - EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR ......... 188
ARTICLE 274 - SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION
IN PAYMENT OF DEBT ........................................... 188
CHAPTER II: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY ......188
ARTICLE 275 - ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF OWN VICTIM ...................... 188
ARTICLE 276 - ABANDONING A MINOR .................... 189
ARTICLE 277 - ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE
OF PARENTS ....................................................... 189
ARTICLE 278 - EXPLOITATION OF MINORS ................ 189
ARTICLE 280 - QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING ...190
ARTICLE 281 - OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS ............... 191
ARTICLE 282 - GRAVE THREATS ............................. 191
ARTICLE 283 - LIGHT THREATS .............................. 192
ARTICLE 284 - BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR .............. 192
ARTICLE 285 OTHER LIGHT THREATS .................... 192
ARTICLE 286 - GRAVE COERCIONS .......................... 192
ARTICLE 287 - LIGHT COERCIONS ........................... 193
ARTICLE 288 - OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS .............. 193
ARTICLE 289 - FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS ........................... 194
CHAPTER III: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS ......................................................... 194
ARTICLE 290 - DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE
OF CORRESPONDENCE .......................................... 194
ARTICLE 291 - REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF
OFFICE ............................................................. 194
ARTICLE 292 - REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS 195
Title X. Crimes against
Property ............................. 195
CHAPTER I: ROBBERY IN GENERAL ............... 195
ARTICLE 293 - WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY .......... 195
ARTICLE 294 - WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION OF
PERSONS .......................................................... 196
ARTICLE 295 - ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND ...................... 197
ARTICLE 296 - DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY
INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF ..................... 197
ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE .................................................. 198
ARTICLE 298 - EXECUTION OF DEEDS THROUGH VIOLENCE
OR INTIMIDATION BY FORCE UPON THINGS .............. 198
ARTICLE 299 - ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP . 199
ARTICLE 300 ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND
BY A BAND ........................................................ 200
ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN UNINHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC
BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THEIR
DEPENDENCIES ................................................. 200
ARTICLE 302 - IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE
BUILDING ......................................................... 200
ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR
FIREWOOD IN AN INHABITED PLACE OR
PRIVATE BUILDING ............................................. 200
ARTICLE 304 - POSSESSION OF PICKLOCK OR SIMILAR
TOOLS .............................................................. 201
ARTICLE 305 - DEFINES FALSE KEYS ....................... 201
CHAPTER 2: BRIGANDAGE
(ARTICLES 306-307) ...................................... 201
ARTICLE 306 - WHO ARE BRIGANDS ....................... 201
ARTICLE 307 - AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF
BRIGANDS ......................................................... 201
CHAPTER 3: THEFT ........................................ 202
ARTICLE 308 - WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT ............ 202
ARTICLE 309 - PENALTIES .................................... 203
ARTICLE 310 - QUALIFIED THEFT ............................ 203
RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW ........................ 203
PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW ..................... 203
PD 704: ILLEGAL FISHING .................................... 204
PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW ...............................204
ARTICLE 311 - THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL
LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM ......................... 204
CHAPTER 4: USURPATION ............................204
ARTICLE 312 - OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY ............ 204
ARTICLE 313 - ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS
....................................................................... 205
CHAPTER 5: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY ........... 205
ARTICLE 314 - FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY ............... 205
CHAPTER 6: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
....................................................................... 205
ARTICLE 315 - ESTAFA ......................................... 205
ARTICLE 316 - OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING AND DECEITS
........................................................................ 211
ARTICLE 317 - SWINDLING OF A MINOR .................... 212
ARTICLE 318 - OTHER DECEITS ................................ 212
CHAPTER 7: CHATTEL MORTGAGE ................ 212
ARTICLE 319 - REMOVAL, SALE, OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY ....................................... 212
CHAPTER 8: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
INVOLVING DESTRUCTION ............................ 213
PD 1613, 1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON .......................... 214
CHAPTER 9 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF ................. 214
ARTICLE 327 - WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE .................... 214
ARTICLE 328 - SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
........................................................................ 215
ARTICLE 329 - OTHER MISCHIEFS ........................... 215
ARTICLE 330 - DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION ................................................ 215
ARTICLE 331 DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,
PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS ....................... 215
CHAPTER 10: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY ........................................................ 215
ARTICLE 332 - EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY .................................. 215
THEFT .............................................................. 215
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON .......................................... 216
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE ..................................... 216
ROBBERY WITH RAPE ........................................... 216
QUALIFIED THEFT (ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE) .............. 216
THEFT (CORPUS DELICTI) ...................................... 216
THEFT; ATTEMPTED OR CONSUMMATED ONLY ........... 216
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (ABSORPTION THEORY
APPLIED) ........................................................... 217
ESTAFA; ESSENCE OF MISAPPROPRIATION ............... 217
ESTAFA (SALE OF JEWELRY; FAILURE TO RETURN) ..... 217
ADDITIONAL NOTES ...................................... 217
THEFT ............................................................. 217
QUALIFIED THEFT ............................................... 217
ESTAFA ............................................................. 217
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW ....................................... 217
Title XI. Crimes against
Chastity ............................. 218
ARTICLE 333 - ADULTERY ..................................... 218
ARTICLE 334 - CONCUBINAGE ............................... 219
ARTICLE 335 RAPE ........................................... 219
ARTICLE 336 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ................ 219
ARTICLE 337 - QUALIFIED SEDUCTION .................... 220
ARTICLE 338 - SIMPLE SEDUCTION ......................... 222
ARTICLE 339 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY ....................... 222
ARTICLE 340 - CORRUPTION OF MINORS ................. 222
ARTICLE 341 - WHITE SLAVE TRADE ........................ 223
ARTICLE 342 - FORCIBLE ABDUCTION ..................... 223
ARTICLE 343 - CONSENTED ABDUCTION .................. 223
ARTICLE 344 - PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE OFFENSES 224
ARTICLE 345: CIVIL LIABILITY ................................ 226
ARTICLE 346 LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS,
TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH THE
CUSTODY OF THE OFFENDED PARTY ........................ 226
RA 9995: ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM
ACT OF 2009 .................................................. 227
Title XIII. Crimes against
Honor .................................233
CHAPTER I: LIBEL .......................................... 233
ARTICLE 353 - DEFINITION OF LIBEL ....................... 233
ARTICLE 354 - REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY ........... 234
ARTICLE 355 - LIBEL BY WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS 235
ARTICLE 356 - THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO
PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION 236
ARTICLE 357 - PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
(GAG LAW) ........................................................ 236
ARTICLE 358 - SLANDER ..................................... 236
ARTICLE 359 - SLANDER BY DEED .......................... 236
ARTICLE 360 - PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL .....237
ARTICLE 361 - PROOF OF TRUTH ............................ 238
ARTICLE 362 - LIBELOUS REMARKS ....................... 238
CHAPTER II: INCRIMINATORY
MACHINATIONS ............................................ 238
ARTICLE 363 - INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON ... 238
ARTICLE 364 - INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR ........... 238

RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses . 241
DISCRIMINATION .......................................... 227
ARTICLE 365 - IMPRUDENCE AND
RA 9208: ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT NEGLIGENCE .................................................. 241
....................................................................... 228

RA 9262: ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND THEIR CHILDREN ................................... 229

Title XII. Crimes against the

Civil Status of Persons .... 230
CHAPTER I: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS .................... 230
ARTICLE 347 - SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF
ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD ................. 230
ARTICLE 348 - USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS .......... 230

CHAPTER II: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES ................ 230

ARTICLE 349 BIGAMY ....................................... 230
ARTICLE 350 - MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAWS ........................................... 231
ARTICLE 351 - PREMATURE MARRIAGE .................... 231
ARTICLE 352 - PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE
CEREMONY ........................................................ 232
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

PAGE 1
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Fundamental Principles Mala in Se Mala Prohibita

execution stages: of execution
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW attempted,
frustrated &
CRIMINAL LAW that branch of public substantive consummated
law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment. [Reyes, citing 12 Cyc. As to persons The principal, Generally, only
129] criminally liable accomplice & the principal is
accessory. liable.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Penalty is Penalty of
Mala in se(evil in itself) A crime or an act that is computed on the offenders is
inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape. basis of whether same whether
th
[Blacks Law Dictionary, 9 Ed.] he is a principal they acted as
offender or mere
Mala prohibita(prohibited evil) An act that is a merely an accomplices or
crime merely because it is prohibited by statute, accomplice or accessories
although the act itself is not necessarily immoral. accessory
th
[Blacks Law Dictionary, 9 Ed.] As to what laws Generally, the Generally,
are violated RPC. special laws.
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita As to division of Penalties may be There is no such
penalties divided into division of
As to nature Wrong from its Wrong because
degrees and penalties.
very nature. it is prohibited
periods.
by law.
As to use of good GF a valid GF is not a (a) Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita.
faith as defense defense, unless defense. (b) In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the act
the crime is the alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
result of culpa offense.
As to WON Criminal intent is Criminal intent (c) Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not
criminal intent is an element. is immaterial, valid defenses in crimes mala prohibita.
an element BUT still (d) When the acts are inherently immoral, they are
requires mala in se, even if punished under special law,
intelligence & like plunder which requires proof of criminal
voluntariness intent. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)]
(e) Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
As to degree of Degree of The act gives (f) A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime
accomplishment accomplishment rise to a crime punishable by a special lawif it is a necessary
of crime is taken into only when ingredient of the felony defined in the Code but a
account for the consummated. special law can never absorb a crime punishable
punishment. under the RPC, because violations of the Revised
As to mitigating They are taken They are not Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a
and aggravating into account in taken into special law. [People v. Rodriguez (1960)]
circumstances imposing penalty account. (g) The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum
prohibitum but a modification of the crime of
As to degree of When there is Degree of
theft of large cattle under the RPC (i.e. there are
participation more than one participation is
special laws which only modify crimes under the
offender, the generally not
RPC therefore still mala in se). [People v.
degree of taken into
Martinada]
participation of account. All
each in the who
CRIMINAL LAW V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
commission is participated in
taken into the act are Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
account. punished to the
same extent. It is substantive. It is remedial.

As to stages of There are three No such stages Prospective in application.

Retroactive in application.

PAGE 2
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure (4) Eclectic/Mixed

(a) Combines both positivist and classical
Exception: If it is favorable thinking.
to the accused. (b) Crimes that are economic and social by
nature should be dealt with ina positivist
Exception To The manner; thus, the law is more
Exception: compassionate.
(1) When the accused is a (c) Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a
habitual delinquent. classical manner; thus, capital punishment.
(Art. 22)
(2) Where the new law Note: The Revised Penal Code today follows the
expressly made mixed or eclectic philosophy.
inapplicable to
pending actions or RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: SUPPLETORY
existing causes of APPLICATION OF RPC
actions. [Tavera v. General rule: RPC provisions supplement the
Valdez] provisions of special laws. [Art. 10, RPC]
Statutory; it is passed by May be promulgated by
Exceptions:
the Legislature. the Legislature (e.g.
(1) Where the special law provides otherwise. [Art.10,
jurisdiction of courts) or
RPC]
the Judiciary (e.g. Rules of
(2) When the provisions of the Code are impossible
Court)
of application, either by express provision or by
necessary implication, as in those instances
STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME where the provisions in question are peculiar to
Art. II, Sec. 5 (1987 Constitution).Declaration of the Code. [Regalado, Criminal Law Prospectus]
Principles and State Policies. The maintenance of
peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and In the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22,
property, and promotion of the general welfare are the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
blessings of democracy. suppletorily. [Ladonga v. People (2005)]

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

(1) The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) - Created
pursuant to Administrative Order No. 94; enacted
January 1, 1932; based on the Spanish Penal Code,
US Penal Code, and Phil. Supreme Court decisions.
(2) Special penal laws and penal Presidential
Decrees issued during Martial Law.
PENAL LEGISLATION
Schools of Thought (PUCE)
(1) Utilitarian Theory
Primary purpose: Protection of society from actual
or potential wrongdoers.
(2) Classical Theory
(a) Primary purpose:Retribution.
(b) Basis of criminal liability: Human free will.
(c) Endeavored to establish a mechanical and
direct proportion between crime and penalty;
there is scant regard to human element.
(3) Positivist Theory
(a) Primary purpose: Reformation;
prevention/correction.
(b) Basis of criminal liability: The sum of the
social, natural and economic phenomena to
which the actor is exposed.
Strict construction against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused
Pro Reo Doctrine Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one
strict to the offender, that interpretation which is
lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and presumption
of innocence of the accused.
Art. III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Const. In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.
Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
Equipoise Rule When the evidence of the
prosecution and the defense are equally balanced,
the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in
obedience to the constitutional presumption of

PAGE 3
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
innocence. [Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People
(1991)]
Spanish text of the RPC prevails overs its English
translation
In the construction or interpretation of the provision
of the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling, because it
was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its
Spanish text. [People v. Manaba (58 Phil 665. 668)]
There are incorrect translations of the Spanish text
into the English text in the RPC.
Retroactive application if favorable to the accused
See Characteristics of Criminal Law, Prospectivity
and Art. 22, RPC.
Prescribed, but undeserved penalties
In case of excessive penalties, the court shall not
suspend the execution of the sentence [par. 2, Art. 5,
RPC]
SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND
CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL
LAW
Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: (PGT)
(1) General
(2) Territorial
(3) Prospective
GENERALITY
General rule: The penal law of the country is binding
on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations. [Art. 14,
NCC]
Exception:
Art. 2, RPC. Except as provided in the treaties or
laws of preferential application xxx.
Art. 14, NCC. xxx subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
(1) Treaty Stipulations
Examples:
(a) Bases Agreement entered into by the Philippines
and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept.
16, 1991.
(b) Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)is an agreement
between the Philippine and US Government
regarding the treatment of US Armed Forces
visiting the Philippines. It was signed on Feb. 10,
1998.
PAGE 4
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Art. V, VFA, which defines criminal jurisdiction over
United States military and civilian personnel
temporarily in the Philippines in connection with
activities approved by the Philippine Government.
The US and Philippines agreed that:
(a) US shall have the right to exercise within the
Philippines all criminal and disciplinary
jurisdiction conferred on them by the military
law of the US over US personnel in RP;
(b) US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
US personnel with respect to offenses, including
offenses relating to the security of the US
punishable under the law of the US, but not
under the laws of RP;
(c) US military authorities shall have the primary
right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel
subject to the military law of the US in relation
to:
(i) Offenses solely against the property or
security of the US or offenses solely against
the property or person of US personnel; and
(ii) Offenses arising out of any act or omission
done in performance of official duty. [Reyes,
The RPC]
Rule on Jurisdiction under the VFA:
(a) If the crime is punishable under Philippine laws
but not under US laws then Philippines has
exclusive jurisdiction.
(b) If the crime is punishable under US laws but not
under Philippine laws then US has exclusive
jurisdiction.
(c) If the crime is punishable under the US and
Philippine laws then there is concurrent
jurisdiction but the Philippines has the right to
primary jurisdiction.
(d) If the crime is committed by a US personnel
against the security and property of the US
alone then US has exclusive jurisdiction.
(2) Laws of Preferential Application
Examples:
(a) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or
slander for any speech in Congress or in any
committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
(b) Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign
State, authorized and received as such by the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of
any such ambassador or minister are exempt from
arrest and imprisonment and whose properties
are exempt from distraint, seizure and
attachment. (R.A. No. 75)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the
proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants
of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and
privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines.
Warship Rule A warship of another country, even
though docked in the Philippines, is considered an
extension of the territory of its respective country.
This also applies to embassies.
(3) Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempt from the
provisions of the RPC:
(1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
(2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister
resident and charges d affaires. (Article 31, Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt
from local prosecution. [See Article 41, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations]
(a) Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not
subject to local jurisdiction.
(b) Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
TERRITORIALITY
Art. 2, RPC embraces two scopes of applications:
(1) Intraterritorial refers to the application of the
RPC within the Philippine territory (land, air and
water).
(2) Extraterritorial refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine
territory.
General rule: Penal laws of the country have force
and effect only within its territory.
(a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its
territory.
(b) The national territory comprises the Philippine
Archipelago [Art. I, 1987 Constitution].
(c) The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes
also its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.[Art. 2, RPC]
(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over land.
(2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
(3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
the atmosphere.
PAGE 5
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Exception:
Extraterritorial Crimes, which are punishable even if
committed outside the Philippine territory [Art. 2,
RPC]
Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard Philippine ship or
airship:
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime
is committed while the ship is treading:
(a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
(b) The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial)
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed
aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters
of another country (i.e. a foreign vessel treading
Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels treading
foreign waters):
(1) French Rule: It is the flag or nationality of the
vessel which determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime violates the peace and order of the host
country.
(2) English Rule: the location or situs of the crime
determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely
relates to internal management of the vessel.
(a) The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
(b) However, these rules are NOT applicable if the
vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed. In these cases, the laws of the
nationality of the ship will always apply.
(c) When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a
foreign country, the nationality of the vessel will
always determine jurisdiction because war vessels
are part of the sovereignty of the country to
whose naval force they belong.
Note: The country of registry determines the
nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A
Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly
the Chinese flag.
International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
(1) Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free and not
subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state,
except for the protection of its national security and
public order.
(2) Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the
atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively
exercise control thereof.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(3) Absolute Theory
The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over
the atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent
passage by aircraft of a foreign country.
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an
aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the Philippine
atmosphere, Philippine criminal law (See Anti-
Hijacking Law) will govern.
Note: The Philippines adopts the Absolute Theory.
Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting and Coins or Currency
Notes in the Philippines
Forgery is committed abroad, and it refers only to
Philippine coin, currency note, obligations and
securities.
Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the above-
mentioned obligations and securities.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction
of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities
into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
counterfeiting of the same, to the economic interest
of the country.
Par. 4: When public officers or employees commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions.
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the
public officials functions:
The crimes which may be committed are:
(i) Direct bribery (A.210)
(ii) Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A)
(iii) Indirect bribery (A.211)
(iv) Corruption (A.212)
(v) Frauds against the public treasury (A.213)
(vi) Possession of prohibited interest (A.216)
(vii) Malversation of public funds or property (A. 217)
(viii) Failure to render accounts (A.218)
(ix) Illegal use of public funds or property (A.220)
(x) Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (A.221)
(xi) Falsification by a public officer or employee
committed with abuse of his official position
(A.171)
(xii) Those having to do with the discharge of their
duties in a foreign country.
The functions contemplated are those, which are,
under the law:
(a) to be performed by the public officer;
(b) in the foreign service of the Phil. government;
PAGE 6
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) in a foreign country.
Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, (Title One, Book 2,
RPC)
Crimes against national security:
(i) Treason (A.114)
(ii) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
(A.115)
(iii) Misprision of treason (A.116)
(iv) Espionage (A.117)
Crimes against the law of nations:
(i) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
(A.118)
(ii) Violation of neutrality (A.119)
(iii) Correspondence with hostile country (A.120)
(iv) Flight to enemys country (A.121)
(v) Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or
in Philippine waters (A.122)
Note: Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion,
coup detat, sedition) committed abroad is under the
jurisdiction of the host country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against
national security and the law of nations. (See R.A.
9372, Human Security Act of 2007).
PROSPECTIVITY
General rule: Acts or omissions will only be subject to
a penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law
has taken effect.
Conversely, acts or omissions which have been
committed before the effectivity of a penal law could
not be penalized by such penal law.
Exception: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect,
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony.
[Art. 22, RPC]
Exception to the Exception:
(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing cause of actions; or
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal. [Art. 22,
RPC]
Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the
new law,
(a) The new law shall be applied,
(b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is made not
applicable to pending action or existing
causes of action.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty
(a) Law in force at the time of the commission
of the offense shall be applied.
(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so
that the act which was penalized under the old
law is no longer punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.
(b) Pending cases are dismissed.
(c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
(4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial
decisions, administrative rulings and
circulars.[Art. 8, Civil Code]
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability
of an act must be reasonably known for the guidance
of society[Peo v. Jabinal].
LEGALITY
Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege There is no
crime when there is no law punishing the same.
Limitation: Not every law punishing an act or
omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
EQUAL PROTECTION
Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the laws.
DUE PROCESS
Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held
to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
OR EXCESSIVE FINES
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
PAGE 7
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines (RA 9346)
Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A.
8177) and the law imposing the death penalty (R.A.
7659) (Sec. 1)
This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion
perpetua for offenses under any act using the
nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the
punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under
any act which does not use the nomenclature of the
RPC (Sec. 2(b))
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Bill of Attainder- a legislative act that inflicts
punishment without trial, its essence being the
substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial
determination of guilt.
EX POST FACTO LAW
Ex Post Facto Law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage
of the law and which was innocent when done,
and punishes such an act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was, when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than
the law required at the time of the commission
of the offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of
a right for something which when done was
lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some
lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty.[Reyes, The Revised Penal Code citing
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.]
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
(a) Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment
of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 19 (1)]
(b) Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms,
e.g. due process, religion, free speech, and
assembly.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
(1) Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is
not criminal.
The general rule is that, if it is proved that the
accused committed the criminal act charged, it will
be presumed that the act was done with criminal
intention. However, it must be borne in mind that the
act from which such presumption springs must be a
criminal act. If the act was not unlawful and was
done in good faith then there is no crime. The act of
a person does not make him a criminal, unless his
mind be criminal. [US v. Catolico]
(2) Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus
An act done by me against my will is not my
act.
(3) El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa Del Mal
Causado - He who is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the evil caused.
(a) This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which
enunciates the doctrine of proximate cause.
(b) He who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether
foreseen or intended or not.
FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent; and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill. [Art. 3, RPC]
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Felonies are classified as follows: (MSG)
(1) According to the manner of their commission
(2) According to the stages of their execution
(3) According to their gravity
Other classifications:
(4) As to count
(5) As to nature
(a) The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring
about a proportionate penalty and equitable
punishment.
(b) The penalties are graduated according to their
degree of severity.
(1) The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all kinds
of felonies.
(2) There are felonies which do not admit of
division.

(1) According to the Manner of Their Commission

Felonies Under Art. 3, they are classified as:

(a) Intentional felonies those committed with
deliberate intent; and
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE, (b) Culpable felonies those resulting from
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
FELONY refers only to violations of the Revised foresight or lack of skill.
Penal Code.
(a) A crime punishable under a special law is not INTENTIONAL FELONY V. CULPABLE FELONY
referred to as a felony. Crime or offense is the
proper term. Intentional Culpable
(b) Importance: There are certain provisions in the Act is malicious. Not malicious.
RPC where the term felony is used, which
means that the provision is not extended to crimes With deliberate intent. Injury caused is
under special laws. unintentional, being just
an incident of another act
OFFENSE A crime punished under a special law is performed without
called a statutory offense. malice.
Has intention to cause an Wrongful act results from
MISDEMEANOR A minor infraction of the law, such as injury. imprudence, negligence,
a violation of an ordinance. lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
CRIME Whether the wrongdoing is punished under
the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the (2) According to the Stages of Their Execution
generic word crime can be used. Under Art. 6, they are classified as:(AFC)
(a) Attempted
(b) Frustrated
(c) Consummated

PAGE 8
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Note: The classification of stages of a felony in Article
6 is true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code.
It does NOT apply to crimes punished under special
laws.
However, even certain crimes which are punished
under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these
stages.
Related to this, classification of felonies as to:
(a) Formal Crimes: Crimes which are consummated in
one instance.
Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under Art. 213
Mere demanding of an amount different from
what the law authorizes him to collect will
already consummate a crime, whether the
taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or
not.
(b) Material Felonies: crimes that have various stages
of execution
(c) Felonies by omission: Crimes which have no
attempted stage.
(d) Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED STAGE: the
essence of the crime is the act itself.
(a) Rape the slightest penetration already
consummates the crime
(b) Arson the slightest burning already renders
the crime complete.
(c) Theft free disposition of the items stolen is
not in any way determinative of whether the
crime of theft has been produced. [Valenzuela
vs. People (2007)]
(3) According to Their Gravity
Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as:
(a) Grave felonies those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their periods are afflictive;
(i) Reclusion perpetua
(ii) Reclusion temporal
(iii) Perpetual or Absolute DQ
(iv) Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
(v) Prision mayor
(vi) Fine more than P6,000
(b) Less grave felonies those to which the law
punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period is correctional;
(i) Prision correccional
(ii) Arresto mayor
(iii) Suspension
(iv) Destierro
(v) Fines equal to or more than P200
(c) Light felonies those infractions of law for
the commission of which
PAGE 9
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(i) the penalty is arresto menor, or a fine not
exceeding P200, or both.
Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is
grave, less grave or light?
(1) To determine
(a) whether these felonies can be complexed or
not;
(b) the prescription of the crime and
(c) the prescription of the penalty.
(2) In other words, these are felonies classified
according to their gravity, stages and the penalty
attached to them.
(a) Take note that when the Revised Penal Code
speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the
definition makes a reference specifically to
Art. 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
(b) Do not omit the phrase In accordance with
Art. 25 because there is also a classification
of penalties under Art. 26 that was not
applied.
(c) This classification of felony according to
gravity is important with respect to the
question of prescription of crimes.
(d) If the penalty is a fine and exactly P200.00, it
is only considered a light felony under Art. 9. If
the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty
or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is
considered a correctional penalty under Art.
26, hence a less grave penalty.
(e) If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art.
26(with respect to prescription of penalties). It
is considered as a correctional penalty and it
prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is
apprehended at any time within ten years, he
can be made to suffer the fine.
(4) As to Count
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
(a) Compound Crime,
(b) Complex crime; and
(c) Composite crime.
(5) As to Nature
(a) Mala in se
(b) Mala prohibita
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Elements of Felonies:
(1) There must be an act or omission (actus
reus/physical act)
Act: Any kind of body movement which tends to
produce some effect in the external world;
includes possession.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Omission: The failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do under the law.
(2) That the act or omission must be punishable by
the RPC.
It is important that there is a law requiring the
performance of an act; if there is no positive duty,
there is no liability.
(3) That the act is performed or the omission
incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
(e) Intent which is a mental process presupposes
the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence.
(f) If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent
will be presumed prima facie. [U.S. v. Apostol]
(g) An honest mistake of fact destroys the
presumption of criminal intent which arises
from the commission of a felonious act.
[People v. Oanis]
(h) Mens rea: "A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful
purpose or criminal intent." [Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889]

DOLO Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is no

Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional
criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom of felony. [Visbal vs. Buban (2003)]
action and intelligence on the part of the offender as
to the act done by him. LIABILITY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT
Exception to the requirement of criminal intent:
Intentional Felonies The act or omission is (a) Felonies committed by CULPA.
performed or incurred with deliberate intent (with (b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA.
malice) to cause an injury to another.
CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL INTENT (GENERAL VS. SPECIFIC
Requisites: (FII) INTENT)
(1) Freedom General Criminal Intent Specific Criminal Intent
(a) Voluntariness on the part of the person who
commits the act or omission. The intention to do The intention to commit a
(b) If there is lack of freedom, the offender is something wrong. definite act.
exempt from liability (i.e., presence of
Presumed from the mere Existence is not
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear)
doing of a wrong act. presumed.
(2) Intelligence The burden is upon the Since the specific intent is
(a) Capacity to know and understand the wrong doer to prove that an element of the crime,
consequences of ones act. he acted without such the burden is upon the
(b) This power is necessary to determine the criminal intent. prosecution to establish
morality of human acts, the lack of which its existence.
leads to non-existence of a crime.
(c) If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is (a) The general criminal intent is presumed from the
exempt from liability. (i.e., offender is an criminal act and in the absence of any general
imbecile, insane or under 15 years of age) intent is relied upon as a defense; such absence
must be proved by the accused.
(3) Criminal Intent (b) Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its
(a) The purpose to use a particular means to existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by
effect a result. the State just as any other essential element.
(b) The intent to commit an act with malice, being (c) This may be shown, however, by the nature of the
purely a mental state, is presumed (but only if act, the circumstances under which it was
the act committed is unlawful).Such committed, the means employed and the motive
presumption arises from the proof of of the accused
commission of an unlawful act. (d) In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent
(c) However, in some crimes, intent cannot be is required.
presumed being an integral element thereof; (e) In certain crimes against property, there must be
so it has to be proven. intent to gain (Art. 293 robbery, Art 308
(d) Example: In frustrated homicide, specific theft).
intent to kill is not presumed but must be (f) Intent to kill is essential in attempted and
proven; otherwise it is merely physical injuries. frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to Art 249),
as well as in murder.

PAGE 10
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(g) In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific intent of
lewd designs must be proved.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT, DISCERNMENT AND
MOTIVE
Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an
aim or purpose of the mind. It establishes the nature
and extent of culpability in intentional felonies.
Discernment is the mental capacity to tell right
from wrong. It is integral to the element of
intelligence, NOT intent.
Motive it is the moving power which impels one to
do an act (ex. vengeance). Generally, it is not an
essential element of a crime; hence, it need not be
proved for purposes of conviction (except in certain
cases enumerated below).
WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(1) When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g.
kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno (1993)])
(2) When there is doubt as to the identity of the
assailant.
(3) When there is the need to ascertain the truth
between two antagonistic versions of the crime.
(4) When the identification of the accused proceeds
from an unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive and not free from doubt.
(5) When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and
when suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of
persons.
(6) When the evidence on the commission of the
crime is purely circumstantial.
(a) Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal
of the accused, especially where there is doubt
as to the identity of the accused. [People v.
Hassan (1988)]
(b) Proof of motive is not indispensable for a
conviction, particularly where the accused is
positively identified by an eyewitness and his
participation is adequately established.
[People v. Delos Santos]
(c) In the crime of murder, motive is not an
element of the offense, it becomes material
only when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive and there is some doubt on
whether the accused had committed it.
[People vs. Galano]
Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of
intent, merely intelligence [People v. Cordova (1993)].
Thus, discernment is necessary whether the crime is
dolo or culpa.
PAGE 11
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
Art. 4. RPC. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended. xxx xxx xxx.
When a person commits a felony with malice, he
intends the consequences of his felonious act.
Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del
mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused).
Requisites:
(1) An intentional felony has been committed.
(a) The felony committed should be one
committed by means of dolo (with malice)
because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of wrongful act
done different from that which he intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special
law because the offender violating a special
law may not have the intent to do an injury to
another.
(c) No felony is committed when:
(i) the act or omission is not punishable by
the RPC,
(ii) the act is covered by any of the justifying
circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender.
Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
without which the result would not have
occurred.
The proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury as a
natural and probable result of the cause which
first acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, as
an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom. [Vda. De
Bataclan v. Medina (1957)]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
PROXIMATE CAUSE V. IMMEDIATE CAUSE V. REMOTE
CAUSE
Proximate cause see definition above.
Immediate cause The last event in a chain of
events, though not necessarily the proximate cause
of what follows.
Remote cause A cause that does not necessarily or
immediately produce an event or injury.
Note: Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of
the mens rea and the actus reus.
Criminal liability for some felonies arises only upon a
specific resulting harm:
(1) Homicide and its qualified forms requires DEATH
of the victim to be consummated.
(2) Estafa: requires that the victim incur damage for
criminal liability for the consummated felony to
arise.
General rule: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for
ALL the natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious
act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended in the following cases:
(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the
victim; injuring one person mistaken for another
(Art. 49 penalty for lesser crime in its maximum
period)
(a) At least two subjects
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no
criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act
is a felony.
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when
offender intending to do an injury to one person
actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on complex
crimes penalty for graver offense in its
maximum period)
(a) There is only one subject.
(b) The intended subject is a different subject, but
the felony is still the same.
(3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater
than that intended (Art. 13 mitigating
circumstance)
PAGE 12
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If As act constitutes sufficient means to carry out
the graver felony, he cannot claim praeter
intentionem.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of
the resulting injury when:
(1) There is an efficient intervening cause or an active
force that intervened between the felony
committed and the resulting injury, and the active
force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
from the felonious act of the accused; or
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of
the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:
(1) The weak or diseased physical condition of the
victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis
or heart disease. [People v. Illustre]
(2) The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as
when a person dies in consequence of an internal
hemorrhage brought on by moving about against
the doctors orders, because of his nervous
condition due to the wound inflicted on the
accused. [People v. Almonte]
(3) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such (a)
the victim not knowing to swim and (b) the victim
being addicted to tuba drinking. [People v. Buhay
and People v. Valdez]
(4) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the
refusal by the injured party of medical attendance
or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor
to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured
person. [U.S. v. Marasigan]
(5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical
treatment, as when the assault took place in anu
outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical
service was not available. [People v. Moldes]
Omission It is inaction, the failure to perform a
positive duty which a person is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or
performing of an act.
Punishable omissions in the RPC:
(1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.
(2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees.
(3) Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in
prosecution of offenses.
(4) Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
(5) Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim.
(6) Art. 276: Abandoning a minor
MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia Facti Excusat) It is a
reasonable misapprehension of fact on the part of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
the person causing injury to another. Such person is
NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal
intent.
(a) Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of
intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the
defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense
in culpable felonies, where there is no intent to
consider.
(b) An honest mistake of fact destroys the
presumption of criminal intent which arises upon
the commission of a felonious act.
Requisites:
(1) That the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
(2) That the intention of the accused in performing
the act should be lawful;
(3) That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused. When
the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a
defense.[People v. Oanis (1993)]
However,mistake of fact is NOT availing in People
v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257),because the police officers
were at fault when they shot the escaped convict
who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his
identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined
to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that
killing the former would be justified)
US v. Ah Chong (1910): A cook who stabs his
roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter
to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in
the area, and after crying out sufficient warnings and
believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held
criminally liable for homicide.
(1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were
really what the houseboy believed? Yes. If it was
really the robber and not the roommate then the
houseboy was justified.
(2) Was the houseboys intention lawful? Yes. He was
acting out of self-preservation.
(3) Was the houseboy without fault or negligence?
Yes. His deliberate intent to defend himself with
the knife can be determined by the fact that he
cried out sufficient warnings prior to the act.
Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to
be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part
which led him to take the facts as they appear to him
and was pressed to take immediate action.
PAGE 13
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CULPA
Culpa The act or omission is not malicious; the
injury caused being simply the incident of another
act performed without malice.
(a) Although there is no intentional felony, there
could be culpable felony.
(b) The element of criminal intent is replaced by
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack
of skill.
Requisites:
(1) Freedom
(2) Intelligence
(3) Negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill
Is culpa merely a mode of committing a crime or a
crime in itself?
(a) AS A MODE
Under Art. 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality
by which a felony may be committed.
Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
FELONY
People vs. Faller (1939): It was stated indirectly that
criminal negligence or culpa is just a mode of
incurring criminal liability.
In this case, the accused was charged with malicious
mischief.
Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under
Article 327. Thus, there is no malicious mischief
through simple negligence or reckless imprudence
because it requires deliberateness.
The Supreme Court pointed out that although the
allegation in the information charged the accused
with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously
and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an
information, covers not only dolo but also culpa
because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.
(b) AS A CRIME
In Art. 365, criminal negligence is an omission which
the article specifically penalizes.
The concept of criminal negligence is the
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing or failing to perform an act.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Art. 365 creates a distinction between imprudence
and negligence; simple or reckless, one might think
that criminal negligence is the one being punished.
Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE
(ART 365)
People v. Buan (1968):The accused was driving a
FELONIES
passenger bus. Allegedly because of his
recklessness, the bus collided with a jeep injuring the
passengers of the latter.
A case was filed against the accused for slight
physical injuries through reckless imprudence for
which he was tried and acquitted.
Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence was filed.
Accused claimed that he was placed in twice in
jeopardy.
Held:
The second case must be dismissed.
(a) Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for the same act.
(b) For the essence of the quasi-offense under Art.
365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an
imprudent act which would be punishable as a
felony.
(c) The law penalizes the negligent act and not the
result.
(d) The gravity of the consequences is only taken into
account to determine the penalty. It does not
qualify the substance of the offense.
As the careless act is single, whether the injurious
result should affect one person or several persons,
the offense remains one and the same, and cannot
be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
Negligence - Indicates deficiency of perception,
failure to pay proper attention, and to use diligence
in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be
caused. Usually involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence - Indicates deficiency of action, failure to
take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
person or damage to property. Usually involves lack
of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence or
imprudence: A man must use his common sense and
exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to
be cautious, careful and prudent.
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE CRIMES
(1) Emergency Rule
(a) A person who is confronted with a sudden
emergency may be left no time for thought so
he must make a speedy decision based largely
upon impulse or instinct.
(b) Importance: cannot be held to the same
conduct as one who has had an opportunity to
reflect, even though it later appears that he
made the wrong decision.
(2) Doctrine Of Last Clear Chance
(a) The contributory negligence of the party
injured will NOT defeat the action if it be
shown that the accused might, by the exercise
of reasonable care and prudence, have
avoided the consequences of the negligence
of the injured party.
(b) Last Clear Chance is a defense by the
defendant in a damage suit against liability by
transferring it to the plaintiff.
(c) Except: The doctrine is not applicable in
criminal cases because the liability is penal in
nature and thus liability cannot be transferred
to the other party. [Anuran v. Buno (1966)]
(d) It is not a case between two parties involved in
an incident but rather between an individual
and the State.
(3) Rule Of Negative Ingredient
(a) This is related to the doctrine of proximate
cause and applicable when certain causes
leading to the result are not identifiable.
(b) This rule states that:
(1) The prosecution must first identify what the
accused failed to do.
(2) Once this is done, the burden of evidence
shifts to the accused.
(3) The accused must show that the failure did
not set in motion the chain of events
leading to the injury [Carillo v. People].
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
PURPOSE OF PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES is to
suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony,
but subjectively, he is a criminal.
PAGE 14
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
REQUISITES:
(1) That the act performed would be an offense
against persons or property.
(2) That the act was done with evil intent.
(3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible,
or that the means employed is either inadequate
or ineffectual.
(4) That the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the RPC
(1) Inherent impossibility: The act intended by the
offender is by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment.
(2) There must be either:
(a) Legal impossibility The intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime.
Legal impossibility would apply to those
circumstances where:
(i) the motive, desire and expectation is to
perform an act in violation of the law;
(ii) there is intention to perform the physical
act;
(iii) there is a performance of the intended
physical act; and
(iv) the consequence resulting from the
intended act does not amount to a crime.
[Intod v. CA]
(b) Physical or factual impossibility Extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation
of the intended crime.
(3) In the Philippines, impossibility of accomplishing
the criminal intent is not merely a defense but an
act penalized in itself.
(4) Since the offender in an impossible crime has
already performed the acts for the execution of
the same, there could be no attempted
impossible crime. There is no frustrated
impossible crime either, because the acts
performed by the offender are considered as
constituting a consummated offense.
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
Elements of Criminal
Impossible Crime
Liability
Lacking due to:
(i) inherent impossibility
Actus Reus (ii) employment of
inadequate means
Mens Rea
Concurrence
Result
Causation
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
MODIFIED CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Intod v. CA (1992):
(a) In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms
and with intent to kill, went to the intended
victims house and after having pinpointed the
latters bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the
said room with bullets, thinking that the intended
victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in
the evening.
(b) It so happened that the intended victim did not
come home that evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time.
(c) Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and
convicted by the trial court for attempted murder.
(d) CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified
the same and held the petitioner liable only for
the so-called impossible crime.
(e) As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor
for the felonious act he committed with intent to
kill: this despite the destruction done to the
intended victims house.
STAGES OF EXECUTION
CLASSIFICATION UNDER ART. 6:
(1) Consummated Felony When all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; the felony is produced.
(2) Frustrated Felony When the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
(3) Attempted Felony When the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Attempted Frustrated Consummated
Intervention other than
own desistance; some
but not all acts of
execution
PAGE 15
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The

(1) INTERNAL ACTS intention of the accused must be viewed from the
(a) Intent, ideas and plans; generally not nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his
punishable. The intention and act must admission.
concur.
(b) Illustration: Ernie plans to kill Bert Attempted and Frustrated Felonies The difference
between the attempted stage and the frustrated
(2) EXTERNAL ACTS stage lies in: whether the offender has performed all
(a) Preparatory Acts the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a
(a) Acts tending toward the crime. felony.
(b) Ordinarily not punished except when
considered by law as independent crimes Attempted Felony Frustrated Felony
(i.e. Art. 304 possession of picklocks)
(c) Proposal and conspiracy to commit a Acts performed
felony are not punishable except when
the law provides for their punishment in Overt acts of execution All acts of execution are
certain felonies. are started finished
(d) These acts do not yet constitute even the BUT BUT
first stage of the acts of execution. Not all acts of execution Crime sought to be
(e) Intent not yet disclosed. are present committed is not achieved
(f) Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to Why
get a knife.
(b) Acts of Execution Due to reasons other than
Due to intervening causes
(a) Usually overt acts with a logical relation the spontaneous
independent of the will of
to a particular concrete offense. desistance of the
the perpetrator
(b) Punishable under the RPC. perpetrator
(c) Illustration: Ernie stabs Bert Position in the timeline

A commission of the felony is deemed commenced Offender is already in the

when the following are present: Offender still in subjective objective phase because
(1) There are external acts. phase because he still has all acts of execution are
(2) Such external acts have a direct connection with control of his acts, already present and the
the crime intended to be committed. including their natural cause of its non-
cause. accomplishment is other
Indeterminate Offense It is one where the purpose than the offenders will
of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its

(1) ATTEMPTED STAGE (a) Marks the commencement of the subjective

Elements:
(a) The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
(b) He does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony;
(c) The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Overt Act Some physical activity or deed, indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more
than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried
to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.
phase:
(b) Subjective phase - That portion of the acts
constituting a crime, starting from the point
where the offender begins the commission of the
crime to that point where he still has control over
his acts including their (acts) natural course
(c) If between those two points, the offender is
stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has
not been passed and it is merely an attempt.
(d) Desistance is an absolutory cause which
negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from committing a
crime.
(e) But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the
desistance was made when acts done by him
already resulted in a felony,

PAGE 16
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(f) The offender will still be criminally liable for the
felony brought about by his act.
(g) What is negated is only the attempted stage, but
there may be other felonies arising from his act.
Note: Desistance is true only in the attempted stage
of the felony.
(a) If the felony is already in its frustrated stage,
desistance will NOT negate criminal liability.
(b) In the attempted stage, the definition uses the
word directly.
(c) The word directly emphasizes the requirement
that the attempted felony is that which is directly
linked to the overt act performed by the offender,
not the felony he has in his mind.
(d) There are some acts which are ingredients of a
certain crime, but which are, by themselves,
already criminal offenses like in the case of
People v. Lamahang (1935) where the act of
removing the panel indicates only at most the
intention to enter, he can only be prosecuted for
trespass and not robbery.
People v. Campuhan (2000):The mother of the 4-
year-old victim caught the houseboy Campuhan in
the act of almost raping her daughter.
The hymen of the victim was still intact. However,
since it was decided in People v. Orita that entry into
labia is considered rape even without rupture and
full penetration of the hymen, a question arises
whether what transpired was attempted or
consummated rape.
Held:
(a) There was only attempted rape.
(b) Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis is
already rape.
(c) Touching should be understood as inherently
part of entry of penis penetration and not mere
touching, in the ordinary sense, of the pudendum.
(d) Requires entry into the labia, even if there be no
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina,
to warrant a conviction for consummated rape.
(e) Where entry into the labia has not been
established, the crime amounts to an attempted
rape.
(f) The prosecution did not prove that Campuhans
penis was able to penetrate victims vagina
because the kneeling position of the accused
obstructed the mothers view of the alleged
sexual contact. The testimony of the victim
herself claimed that penis grazed but did not
penetrate her organ.
(g) There was only a shelling of the castle but no
bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
PAGE 17
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
FRUSTRATED STAGE
Elements:
(a) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
(b) All the acts performed would produce the felony
as a consequence;
(c) But the felony is not produced;
(d) By reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
(1) The end of the subjective phase and the
beginning of the objective phase.
(2) Objective phase the result of the acts of
execution, that is, the accomplishment of the
crime.
(3) If the subjective and objective phases have been
passed there is a consummated felony.
People v. Listerio (2000): Brothers Jeonito and Marlon
were walking when they met a group composed of
men who blocked their path and attacked them with
lead pipes and bladed weapons. One stabbed
Jeonito from behind. Jeonitos brother, Marlon, was
hit on the head.
Held:
(1) The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony
not an attempted offense considering that after
being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a
result of which he lost consciousness and fell.
Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was
already dead and fled.
(2) A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless
the offender, after beginning the commission of
the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his
will, by some outside cause from performing all of
the acts which should produce the crime.
(3) In other words, to be an attempted crime, the
purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a
foreign force or agency which intervenes and
compels him to stop prior to the moment when
he has performed all of the acts which should
produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it
is his intention to perform.
If he has performed all the acts which should result
in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily
desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an
attempt.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE
(1) Rape
(a) The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge.
(b) No matter what the offender may do to
accomplish a penetration, if there was no
penetration yet, it cannot be said that the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(c) We can only say that the offender in rape has
performed all the acts of executionwhen he
has effected a penetration.
(d) Once there is penetration, no matter how
slight it is, the offense is consummated. For
this reason, rape admits only of the attempted
and consummated stages, no frustrated
stage. [People v. Orita]
(2) Arson
(a) One cannot say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed all the
acts of execution which could produce the
destruction of the premises through the use
of fire, unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
(b) The crime of arson is therefore consummated
even if only a portion of the wall or any part
of the house is burned. The consummation of
the crime of arson does not depend upon the
extent of the damage caused. (People v.
Hernandez)
(3) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
(a) The manner of committing the crime requires
the meeting of the minds between the giver
and the receiver.
(b) If there is a meeting of the minds, there is
consummated bribery or consummated
corruption.
(c) If there is none, it is only attempted.
(4) Adultery
(a) This requires the sexual contact between two
participants.
(b) If that link is present, the crime is
consummated;
(5) Physical Injuries
(a) Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
physical injuries is penalized on the basis of
the gravity of the injuries.
(b) There is no simple crime of physical injuries.
There is the need to categorize because there
are specific articles that apply whether the
physical injuries are serious, less serious or
slight.
(c) Thus, one could not punish the attempted or
frustrated stage because one does not know
what degree of physical injury was
committed unless it is consummated.
(6) Theft
(a) Once there is unlawful taking, theft is
consummated.
(b) Either the thing was taken or not.
PAGE 18
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC.
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require any
result do not have a frustrated stage.
Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a
Felony
(1) The manner of committing the crime;
(2) The elements of the crime; and
(3) The nature of the crime itself.
These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint
whether the crime is still in its attempted, frustrated
or consummated stage.
(1) The Manner of Committing the Crime
(a) Formal Crimes - consummated in one
instant, no attempt.
(i) Ex. Slander and false testimony
(ii) There can be no attempt, because
between the thought and the deed,
there is no chain of acts that can be
severed.
(b) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act.
(i) Ex. Flight to enemys country (Art. 121)
and corruption of minors (Art. 340)
(c) Felony by omission
(i) There can be no attempted stage when
the felony is by omission, because the
offender does not execute acts, he
omits to perform an act which the law
requires him to do.
(d) Crimes requiring the intervention of two
persons to commit them are consummated
by mere agreement.
(i) In bribery, the manner of committing
the crime requires the meeting of the
minds between the giver and the
receiver.
(ii) When the giver delivers the money to
the supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act done
by the giver is an attempt.
(e) Material Crimes have three stages of
execution
Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
pivotal in determining the end of the
subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
performs the act in the manner provided for
in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO
HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS
EXECUTION.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(2) The Elements of the Crime
(a) Along with the manner of execution, there
are crimes wherein the existence of certain
elements becomes the factor in determining
its consummation.
(b) In the crime of estafa, the element of damage
is essential before the crime could be
consummated. If there is no damage, even if
the offender succeeded in carting away the
personal property involved, estafa cannot
be considered as consummated.
(c) On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft,
damage or intent to cause damage is not an
element of theft.
(d) What is necessary only is intent to gain, not
even gain is important.
(e) In the crime of abduction, the crucial
element is the taking away of the woman
with lewd designs.
(3) The Nature of the Crime Itself
(a) In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes
involving the taking of human life (parricide,
homicide, and murder),it is indispensable
that the victim be mortally wounded.
(b) Hence, the general rule is that there must
be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only
then that death will follow.
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, RPC).
Requisites of conspiracy:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement.
Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds
of two or more persons.
(2) The agreement pertains to a commission of a
felony.
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon.
Agreement to effect what has been conceived
and determined.
Note: There must be participation in the criminal
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a
person may only make him liable as an accomplice.
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are not punishable.
Exception: They are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
PAGE 19
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Conspiracy to commit -
(a) Treason (Art. 115)
(b) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(c) Insurrection (Art. 136)
(d) Coup dtat, (Art. 136)
(e) Sedition (Art. 141)
(f) Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade, espionage (Art. 186)
(g) Illegal association (Art. 147)
(h) Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)
(i) Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616)
(j) Selected acts under the Dangerous Drugs Acts
(k) Arson
(l) Terrorism (R.A. 9372)
Proposal to commit
(a) Treason (Art. 115)
(b) Coup d etat (Art. 136)
(c) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(d) Inducement not to answer summons, appear or
be sworn in Congress, etc. (Art. 150)
Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards
them as innocent or at least permissible except in
rare and exceptional cases.
CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM
CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
(a) As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually
commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it
being sufficient that two or more persons agree
and decide to commit it.
(b) As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they
commit treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held
liable for it, and the conspiracy which they had
before committing the crime is only a manner of
incurring criminal liability, not a separate
offense.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
General rule: When the conspiracy is established, all
who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity
or quality of his participation is liable equally,
whether conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators
committed some other crime which is not part of the
conspiracy.
Exception to the Exception: When the act constitutes
a single indivisible offense.
Proposal to commit a felony - when the person who
has decided to commit a felony proposes its
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
execution to some other person or persons. [Art. 8,
RPC]
Examples:
(1) Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115) and
(2) proposal to commit coup dtat, rebellion or
insurrection (Art. 136).
Requisites:
(1) That a person has decided to commit a felony;
and
(2) That he proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
There is no criminal proposal when:
(1) The person who proposes is not determined to
commit the felony;
(2) There is no decided, concrete and formal
proposal;
(3) It is not the execution of a felony that is
proposed.
Note: It is not necessary that the person to whom the
proposal is made agrees to commit treason or
rebellion.
(a) Conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or
speculations. [People v. Laurio (1991)]
(b) Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind as it
involves the meeting of the minds and intent of
the malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is
not essential to establish it. [People v. Bello
(2004)]
(c) To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation rather than mere cognizance or
approval of an illegal act is required.
(d) Conspiracy is never presumed; it must be shown
to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself.
(e) Mere presence of a person at the scene of the
crime does not make him a conspirator for
conspiracy transcends companionship. [People v.
Comadre (2004)]
(f) While it is mandatory to prove conspiracy by
competent evidence, direct proof is not essential
to show it it may be deduced from the mode,
method, and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the
accused themselves when such acts point to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest. [People v. Cenahonon
(2007)]
(g) Direct proof is not required, as conspiracy may
be proved by circumstantial evidence. It may be
established through the collective acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission
PAGE 20
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of a felony that all the accused aimed at the
same object, one performing one part and the
other performing another for the attainment of
the same objective; and that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact concerted
and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action and
concurrence of sentiments. [People v. Talaogan
(2008)]
(h) Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy Conspiracy
need not be direct but may be inferred from the
conduct of the parties, their joint purpose,
community of interest and in the mode and
manner of commission of the offense. [People v.
Pangilinan (2003)]
Legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
(a) Not all those present at the crime scene will be
considered conspirators;
(b) Only those who participated in the criminal acts
during the commission of the crime will be
considered co-conspirators;
(c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
(d) In the absence of any previous plan or
agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts directed
against one and the same person is individual
and not collective, and that each of the
participants is liable only for his own acts.
(People v. Bagano)
(e) A conspiracy is possible even when participants
are not known to each other. When several
persons who do not know each other
simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one
is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury
inflicted by any one of them. Everyone will be
liable for the consequences.
(f) One who desisted is not criminally liable. As
pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the
attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only
a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the
preparatory stage.
(g) Do not search for an agreement among
participants. If they acted simultaneously to
bring about their common intention, conspiracy
exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not
consider the degree of participation of each
conspiracy because the act of one is the act of
all. As a general rule, they have equal
responsibility.
(h) In some exceptional situations, having
community of design with the principal does not
prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an
accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

homicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a
minor character. (People v. Nierra)
Distinctions between the liability of a conspirator and
that of a member of a band where the crime
committed is robbery which is attended by other
crimes.
(1) A conspirator is liable only for such other crimes
which could be foreseen and which are the
natural and logical consequences of the
conspiracy. Thus, if the conspiracy is only to rob
the victim, rape is not a foreseeable
consequence. (People v. Castillo)
(2) A member of a band in a robbery cuadrilla, on
the other hand, is liable for all assaults, inclusive
of rape and homicide, where he was present
when these crimes were being committed but he
did not attempt to prevent the same. (Art. 296
(2), RPC).
(3) If both conspiracy to rob and cuadrilla are
present, both rules may apply, in this manner:
(a) If a homicide was committed, the lookout is
liable therefore under the conspiracy theory; (b)
if a rape was committed and the lookout was
present but did not try to prevent it, he will be
liable under the cuadrilla rule; and (c) if the
lookout was not present when the homicide was
committed, he will not be liable for the rape but
he will still be liable for the homicide under the
conspiracy theory.

2 Concepts of How
Stage Legal Requirements Illustration
Conspiracy incurred
A, B, C and D came to an
agreement to commit
rebellion. Their agreement
was to ring about the
rebellion on a certain date.
Even if none of them has
performed the act of
(1) The RPC must specifically punish the
rebellion, there is already
act of conspiring (and proposing)
criminal liability arising
(2) The act MUST NOT BE
from the conspiracy to
ACCOMPLISHED, else the
AS A FELONY Preparatory Mere commit the rebellion.
conspiracy is obliterated and the
IN ITSELF acts agreement
ACT ITSELF IS PUNISHED.
But if anyone of them has
(3) QUANTUM OF PROOF: Conspiracy
committed the overt act of
as a crime must be established
rebellion, the crime of all is
beyond reasonable doubt
no longer conspiracy but
rebellion itself.
This subsists even though
the other co-conspirators
do not know that one of
them had already done the
act of rebellion.
(1) Participants acted in concert or
simultaneously or IN ANY WAY
Three persons plan to rob a
which is indicative of a meeting of
bank. For as long as the
the minds towards a common
conspirators merely entered
criminal goal or criminal objective.
the bank there is no crime
(2) The act of meeting together is not
yet. But when one of them
necessary as long as a common
AS A draws a gun and disarms
Executory Commission objective can be discerned from the
BASIS FOR the security guard, all of
acts of overt act overt acts.
LIABILITY them shall be held liable,
(3) THE ACT MUST BE
unless a co-conspirator was
ACCOMPLISHED, if there is only
absent from the scene of
conspiracy or proposal, THERE IS NO
the crime or he showed up,
CRIME TO BE PUNISHED.
but he tried to prevent the
(4) QUANTUM OF PROOF: Reasonably
commission of the crime.
inferred from the acts of the
offenders when such acts disclose or

PAGE 21
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

2 Concepts of How
Stage Legal Requirements Illustration
Conspiracy incurred
show a common pursuit of the
criminal objective. [People v. Pinto]

MULTIPLE OFFENDERS (DIFFERENCES, RULES, EFFECTS)

Habitual
Recidivism/Reincindencia; Habituality/Reiteracion/ Quasi-Recidivism; Delinquency;
Art. 14 (9) Repetition; Art. 14 (10) Art. 160 Art. 62 (5)
Sufficient that the Before serving or Specified:
offender have been while serving (1) less serious or
previously convicted by Necessary that the offender sentence, the serious physical
Crimes final judgment for shall have served out his offender commits a injuries
committed another crime embraced sentence for the first felony (NOT a (2) robbery
in the same title of the offense crime) (3) theft
Code on the date of his (4) estafa
trial (5) falsification
Period of Before serving or
Within 10 years
time the while serving
No period of time from his last release
crimes are sentence
or conviction
committed
The previous and Offender commits a
Number of The second conviction for
subsequent offenses must felony Guilty the third time
crimes an offense embraced in
NOT be embraced in the or oftener
committed the same title of RPC
same title of the RPC
Imposes the
maximum of the
If not offset by any
penalty for the new An additional
Their mitigating circumstance, Not always an aggravating
offense, and cannot penalty shall be
effects increase the penalty only circumstance
be offset by any imposed
to the maximum
mitigating
circumstance

RECIDIVISM HABITUALITY (REITERACION)

Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as
shown by his inclination to commit crimes
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of the Revised Penal Code. [People v. Lagarto
(1991)]
Requisites:
(1) Offender is on trial for an offense
(2) He was previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime
(3) Both the first and second offenses are embraced
in the same title of the RPC
(4) Offender is convicted of the new offense
Note: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the
time of commission of the crime. [Reyes, The RPC]
Basis: same as recidivism
Requisites:
(1) Accused is on trial for an offense
(2) He previously served sentence
(a) for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, OR
(b) for two or more crimes to which it attaches
lighter penalty than that for the new offense
(3) He is convicted of the new offense
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
Art. 160, RPC. Commission of another crime during
service of penalty imposed for another 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

PAGE 22
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
the same, shall be punished by the maximum period
of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Requisites:
(1) Offender had been convicted of any of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification
(2) After that conviction or after serving his
sentence, he again committed, and, within 10
years from his release or first conviction, he was
again convicted of any of the said crimes for the
second time
(3) After his conviction of, or after serving sentence
for, the second offense, he again committed,
and, within 10 years from his last release or last
conviction, he was again convicted of any of said
offenses, the third time or oftener. [Art. 62, RPC]
Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty: To
render more effective social defense and the
reformation of habitual delinquents (Reyes, quoting
People v. Abuyen)
CONTINUING CRIMES
Continuing crime (continuous or continued) - A single
crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising
from one criminal resolution.
Cuello Calon explains the delito continuado in this
way: When the actor, there being unity of purpose
and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each one
of which, although of a delictual character, merely
constitutes a partial execution of a single particular
delict, such delictual acts is called delito continuado.
Example: One who on several occasions steals wheat
deposited in a granary. Each abstraction constitutes
theft, but instead of imposing on the culprit different
penalties for each theft committed, he is punished
for only one hurto continuado for the total sum or
value abstracted.
Continuing offense - A continuous, unlawful act or
series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and
operated by an unintermittent force, however long a
time it may occupy.
Although there is a series of acts, there is only one
crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be
imposed.
Real or material plurality Continued Crime
There is a series of acts performed by the offender.
PAGE 23
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Each act performed The different acts
constitutes a separate constitute only one crime
crime because each act is because all of the acts
generated by a criminal performed arise from one
impulse criminal resolution.
People v. De Leon (1926): a thief who took from a yard
of a house two game roosters belonging to two
different persons was ruled to have committed only
one crime of theft, because there is a unity of
thought in the criminal purpose of the offender. The
accused was animated by a single criminal impulse.
A continued crime is not a complex crime.
(a) The offender here does not perform a single act,
but a series of acts, and one offense is not a
necessary means for continuing the other.
(b) Hence, the penalty is not to be imposed in its
maximum period.
(a) A continued crime is different from a transitory
crime (moving crime.) in criminal procedure for
purposes of determining venue.
(b) When a transitory crime is committed, the
criminal action may be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality, city or province
wherein any of the essential ingredients thereof
took place.
(c) While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime
where a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave offenses, those cases involving a
series of acts resulting to two or more grave and
less grave felonies, were considered by the
Supreme Court as a complex crime when it is
shown that the act is the product of one single
criminal impulse.
(d) TIP: If confronted with a problem, the Supreme
Court has extended this class of complex crime
to those cases when the offender performed not
a single act but a series of acts as long as it is
the product of a single criminal impulse
People v. Garcia (1980):
(a) The accused were convicts who were members
of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the
other gang.
(b) Some of the accused killed their victims in one
place within the same penitentiary, some killed
the others in another place within the same
penitentiary.
(c) The Supreme Court ruled that all accused
should be punished under one information
because they acted in conspiracy.
(d) The act of one is the act of all.
(e) Because there were several victims killed and
some were mortally wounded, the accused
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
should be held for the complex crime of multiple
homicide with multiple frustrated homicide.
(f) There is a complex crime not only when there is
a single act but a series of acts.
(g) It is correct that when the offender acted in
conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and
prosecuted under one information.
Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill
one person but killed different persons, the Supreme
Court considered this as complex.
Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the
criminals should be punished only once, because
they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal
impulse:
(a) it is necessary to embody these crimes under
one single information.
(b) It is necessary to consider them as complex
crimes even if the essence of the crime does not
fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no
other provision in the RPC.
Applying the concept of the continued crime, the
following cases have been treated as constituting one
crime only:
(1) People v. Tumlos, (1939): The theft of 13 cows
belonging to two different persons committed
by the accused at the same place and period of
time;
(2) People v. Jaranilla, (1974): The theft of six
roosters belonging to two different owners from
the same coop and at the same period of time;
(3) People v. Sabbun, (1964): The illegal charging of
fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time
he collected veterans benefits on behalf of a
client who agreed that attorneys fees shall be
paid out of such benefits. The collections of
legal fees were impelled by the same motive,
that of collecting fees for services rendered, and
all acts of collection were made under the same
criminal impulse.
The Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in
the following cases:
(1) People v. Dichupa, (1961): Two estafa cases, one
which was committed during the period from
January 19 to December, 1955 and the other
from January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts were
committed on two different occasions;
(2) People v. CIV: Several malversations committed
in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to
conceal said offenses committed in August and
October, 1936. The malversations and
falsifications were not the result of one
resolution to embezzle and falsity;
PAGE 24
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In the THEFT cases:
The trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine:
(a) taking of several things,
(b) whether belonging to the same or different
owners,
(c) at the same time and place, constitutes one
larceny only.
Abandoned is the doctrine that the government has
the discretion to prosecute the accused for one
offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are
victims.
Note: The concept of delito continuado has been
applied to crimes under special laws since in Art. 10,
the RPC shall be supplementary to special laws,
unless the latter provides the contrary.
COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIMES
Plurality of Crimes (Concursu de delitos)
(1) Consists of the successive execution
(2) by the same individual
(3) of different criminal acts
(4) for any of which no conviction has yet been
declared.
Philosophy behind plural crimes
Through the concept of plural crimes, several crimes
are treated as one. The purpose of this is to allow
leniency towards the offender, who, instead of being
made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting
crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it
is the penalty for the most serious one and is
imposed in its maximum period.
Note: If by complexing the crime, the penalty would
turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore.
Plurality of Crimes Recidivism
There is no conviction for There must be conviction
any of the crimes by final judgment of the
committed. first or prior offense.
A Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but
of substance under the Revised Penal Code.
Kinds of Plurality of Crimes
(1) Real or Material Plurality
(a) There are different crimes in law as well as
in the conscience of the offender.
(b) In such cases, the offender shall be
punished for each and every offense that he
committed.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(2) Formal or Ideal Plurality
(a) There is but one criminal liability in this kind
of plurality.
(b) Divided into 3 groups:
(i) Complex Crimes - When the offender
commits either of the complex crimes
defined in Art. 48 of the Code.
(ii) Special Complex Crimes - When the law
specifically fixes a single penalty for 2
or more offenses committed.
(iii) Continuing and Continued Crimes - A
single crime consisting of a series of
acts but all arising from one criminal
resolution.
COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 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.
Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.
But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE felonies
must be
(1) the result of a single act, or
(2) an offense must be a necessary means for
committing the other.
Nature of complex crimes
(a) Although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime, in the
eyes of the law; and in the conscience of the
offender.
(b) Even in the case where an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the evil intent
of the offender is only one. Hence, there is only
one penalty imposed for the commission of a
complex crime.
No complex crime when:
(1) Two or more crimes are committed, but not by a
single act;
(2) Committing one crime is not a necessary means
for committing the other (or others). [Monteverde v.
People (2002)]
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
(1) Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
A single act results in two or more grave or less grave
felonies.
Requisites:
(a) That only a single act is performed by the
offender
PAGE 25
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(b) That the single acts produces:
(i) 2 or more grave felonies, or
(ii) 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave
felonies, or
(iii) 2 or more less grave felonies
Single Act Several Acts
Throwing a hand Submachine gun because of
grenade the number of bullets released
A single bullet Firing of the revolver twice in
killing two person succession
Light felonies produced by the same act should be
treated and punished as separate offenses or may be
absorbed by the grave felony.
Illustration:
When the crime is committed by force or violence,
slight physical injuries are absorbed.
So that when an offender performed more than one
act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes,
(i) there is no complex crime at all,
(ii) instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as
many crimes as are committed under separate
information.
Compound crimes under Art. 48 is also applicable to
crimes through negligence. Thus, a municipal mayor
who accidentally discharged his revolver, killing a girl
and injuring a boy was found guilty of complex crime
of homicide with less serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro)
Example of a compound crime:
The victim was killed while discharging his duty as
barangay captain to protect life and property and
enforce law and order in his barrio.
The crime is a complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority.
When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence
how many each killed, there is only a single offense,
there being a single criminal impulse.
(2) Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)
(a) An offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.
(b) In complex crime, when the offender
executes various acts, he must have a single
purpose.
(c) But: When there are several acts performed,
the assumption is that each act is impelled
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
by a distinct criminal impulse, hence each
will have a separate penalty.
Requisites:
(1) That at least two offenses are committed
(2) That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other
(3) That both or all the offenses must be punished
under the same statute.
Note: The phrase necessary means does not mean
indispensable means
No complex crime proper:
(1) Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible
abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape.
(2) Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is
a direct means to commit a grave offense.
(3) No complex crime, when one offense is
committed to conceal the other.
(4) When the offender already had in his possession
the funds which he misappropriated, the
subsequent falsification of a public or official
document involving said offense is a separate
offense.
(5) No complex crime where one of the offenses is
penalized by a special law.
(6) There is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes
(People v. Hernandez; Enrile v. Salazar).
(7) In case of continuous crimes.
(8) When the other crime is an indispensable
element of the other offense.
General rules in complexing crimes:
(1) When two crimes produced by a single act are
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of
two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of
higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
(2) The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for
the most serious crime, the same to be applied in
its maximum period.
(3) When two felonies constituting a complex crime
are punishable by imprisonment and fine,
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment
should be imposed.
(4) Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code
does not provide a definite specific penalty for a
complex crime.
(5) One information should be filed when a complex
crime is committed.
(6) When a complex crime is charged and one
offense is not proven, the accused can be
convicted of the other.
(7) Art. 48 also applies in cases when out of a single
act of negligence or imprudence, two or more
PAGE 26
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
grave or less grave felonies resulted, but only
the first part is applicable, i.e. compound crime.
The second part of Art. 48 does not apply,
referring to the complex crime proper because
this applies or refers only to a deliberate
commission of one offense to commit another
offense.
SPECIAL COMPLEX/COMPOSITE CRIMES
The substance is made up of more than one crime
but which in the eyes of the law is only
(1) a single indivisible offense.
(2) all those acts done in pursuance of the crime
agreed upon are acts which constitute a single
crime.
Special Complex Crimes
(a) Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
(b) Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
(c) Robbery with Arson
(d) Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
(e) Kidnapping with rape
(f) Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
(g) Arson with homicide
When crimes involved cannot be legally complexed:
(1) Malicious obtention or abusive service of search
warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
(2) Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of
prisoners;
(3) Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious
physical injuries;
(4) Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious
physical injuries; and
(5) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275)
and crimes against minors (Art. 276 to 278) with
any other felony.
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Circumstances Affecting
Criminal Liability
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING MITIGATING AGGRAVATING ALTERNATIVE
NO WRONG THERE IS A WRONG THERE IS A FELONY THERE IS A FELONY THERE IS A FELONY
Decreased criminal Increased criminal Increased or decreased
No criminal liability No criminal liability
liability liability liability
With civil liability
No civil liability
Except:
Except: With civil liability With civil liability With civil liability
accident;
state of necessity
insuperable cause

(a) An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of

Imputability is the quality by which an act may be
ascribed to a person as it author or owner. It implies
that the act committed has been freely and
consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to
th doer as his very own
proof rests on the accused who must prove the
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.
(b) There is NO crime committed, the act being
justified. Thus, such persons cannot be
considered criminals.

Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the Par. 1. Self Defense

consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking
the penal and civil consequences of the crime.
Imputability distinguished from responsibility while
imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a
person, responsibility implies that the person must
take the consequences of such a deed.
Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man
cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a
crime unless he is guilty. [Reyes, The RPC]
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
SIX TYPES of Justifying Circumstances:
(1) Self defense
(2) Defense of relatives
(3) Defense of strangers
(4) Avoidance of a greater evil
(5) Fulfillment of duty
(6) Obedience to an order issued for some lawful
purpose..
Justifying Circumstances those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that
such person is deemed not to have transgressed the
law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11, where
the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by
the act.
Basis: Lack of criminal intent
Includes not only the defense of the person or body
of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the
enjoyment of which is protected by law. It includes:
(a) The defense of honor. Hence, a slap on the face is
considered as unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs,
People)
(b) The defense of property rights can be invoked if
there is an attack upon the property although it
is not coupled with an attack upon the person of
the owner of the premises. All the elements for
justification must however be present. (People v.
Narvaez)
Elements: (URL)
(1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to
prevent or repel it.
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
Unlawful aggression
(a) Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR
threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind which is offensive and positively
strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause
harm.
(b) The aggression must constitute a violation of the
law. When the aggression ceased to exist, there
is no longer a necessity to defend ones self.
EXCEPT: when the aggressor retreats to obtain
a more advantageous position to ensure the

PAGE 27
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression
is deemed to continue.
(c) Must come from the person attacked by the
accused.
(d) Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing
circumstance or must have been existing at the
time the defense is made. Once the unlawful
aggression is found to have ceased, the one
making the defense of a stranger would likewise
cease to have any justification for killing, or even
just wounding, the former aggressor. [People vs.
Dijan (2002)]
Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an
agreement to fight and the challenge to fight was
accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of an
agreed time or place is unlawful aggression.
Stand ground when in the right the law does not
require a person to retreat when his assailant is
rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
The reason for the rule is that one flees from an
aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in the
back by the aggressor.
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent
or repel it
Test of reasonableness
The means employed depends upon:
(a) nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor
(b) aggressors physical condition, character, size,
and other circumstances
(c) and those of the person defending himself
(d) the place and occasion of the assault.
Lack of sufficient provocation on part of defender
(a) In case there was a provocation on the part of
the person attacked, the attack should not
immediately precede the provocation for
defense to be valid.
(b) Never confuse unlawful aggression with
provocation.
(c) Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real
and imminent. Unlawful aggression is an
indispensable requisite.
(d) If there is unlawful aggression but one of the
other requisites is lacking, it is considered an
incomplete self-defense which mitigates
liability.
(e) Self-defense includes the defense of ones
rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of
which is protected by law.
(f) Retaliation is different from an act of self-
defense.
PAGE 28
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Retreat of aggressor aggression ceases, except
when retreat is made to take a more advantageous
position to insure the success of the attack, unlawful
aggression continues.
(a) Defense of Honor
People v. Dela Cruz (1935):Accused was found guilty
of homicide for stabbing and killing Rivera.
Prosecution claimed that Dela Cruz and Rivera had a
relationship and that the accused was madly in love
with the deceased and was extremely jealous of
another woman with whom Rivera also had a
relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hand,
that on her way home one evening, Rivera followed
her, embraced and kissed her and touched her
private parts. She didnt know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera
so she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him
in defense of her honor.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife in
repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor. It was a dark night and she could not have
identified Rivera. There being no other means of self-
defense.
People v. Jaurigue (1946):Amado (deceased) has been
courting the accused Avelina in vain. On the day of
the crime, Avelina and Amado were in Church.
Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his hand on
her thigh. Thereafter, Avelina took out her knife and
stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the death of
Amado.
Held: Although the defense of ones honor exempts
one from criminal liability, it must be proved that
there is actual danger of being raped. In this case, 1)
the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people
in the church, including the father of the accused
and other town officials. In light of these
circumstances, accused could not have possibly been
raped. The means employed in defense of her honor
was evidently excessive.
(b) Defense of Property
People vs. Apolinar. This can only be invoked as
justifying circumstance if
(1) Life and limb of the person making the defense
is also the subject of unlawful aggression
(2) Life cannot be equal to property.
People v. Narvaez (1983):Narvaez was taking his rest
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
inside his house when he heard that the wall of his
house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and
Rubia, were fencing the land of the father of the
deceased Fleischer. He asked the group to stop but
they refused. The accused got mad so he got his
shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he
acted in defense of his person and rights.
Held: There was aggression by the deceased not on
the person of the accused but on his property rights
when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of
the fencing. The third element of self-defense is also
present because there was no sufficient provocation
on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when
the deceased where fencing.
However, the second element was lacking. Shooting
the victims from the window of his house is
disproportionate to the physical aggression by the
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense.
Par. 2. Defense of Relatives
Elements:
(1) Unlawful aggression
(a) Unlawful aggression may not exist as a
matter of fact; it can be made to depend
upon the honest belief of the one making
the defense.
(b) Reason: The law acknowledges the
possibility that a relative, by virtue of blood,
will instinctively come to the aid of their
relatives.
(2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to
prevent or repel it
(3) In case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, the one making the defense had no
part therein
Although the provocation prejudices the person
who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender
who took no part therein, because the latter was
prompted by some noble or generous sentiment
in protecting and saving a relative
Basis: It is found not only upon a humanitarian
sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which
impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils,
to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.
Relatives entitled to defense: (SADSAC)
(1) Spouse
(2) Ascendants
(3) Descendants
(4) Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers/Sisters
(5) Relatives by Affinity in the same degree
PAGE 29
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(6) Relatives by Consanguinity w/in the 4th civil
degree
Balunueco v. CA (2003): Of the three (3) requisites of
defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is a
condition sine qua non, for without it any defense is
not possible or justified. In order to consider that an
unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is
necessary that an attack or material aggression, an
offensive act positively determining the intent of the
aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made;a
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not
sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is
punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption
from liability on the ground that it was committed in
self-defense or defense of a relative.
Par. 3. Defense of Strangers
Elements:
(1) Unlawful aggression;
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
(3) The person defending was not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Stranger any person not included in the
enumeration of relatives under [par. 2 of Art. 11]
If the person being defended is a second cousin, it will
be defense of stranger.
Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may
do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly
by and see his companion killed without attempting
to save his life.
Par. 4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil
Elements:
(1) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not
have been produced by the one invoking the
justifying circumstances.
(2) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it
(3) There is no other practical & less harmful means
of preventing it.
General rule: No civil liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in
proportion to the benefit which they have received.
Ty v. People (2004):Ty's mother and sister were
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital. Ty signed
the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment"
in the Contract of Admission. The total hospital bills
of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty
executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
payment of the obligation in installments. To assure
payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated
checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital
which were all dishonored by the drawee bank due to
insufficiency of funds. As defense, Ty claimed that
she issued the checks because of an uncontrollable
fear of a greater injury. She averred that she was
forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her
mother who was being inhumanely treated by the
hospital. She alleged that her mother has
contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged
from the hospital. Ty was found guilty by the lower
courts of 7 counts of violation of BP22.
Held: The court sustained the findings of the lower
courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated. So the defense of an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury is not
applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an
available option to avoid committing a crime. By her
own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or
other forms of security instead of postdated checks
to secure her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be
availing, the greater injury feared should not have
been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the
actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced
checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to pay
her mother's hospital bills.
Par. 5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right
or Office
Elements:
(1) Offender acted in performance of duty or lawful
exercise of a right or office;
(2) That the injury caused or the offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
If the first condition is present, but the second is not
because the offender acted with culpa, the offender
will be entitled to a privileged mitigating
PAGE 30
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
circumstance. The penalty would be reduced by one
or two degrees.
People v. Ulep (2000):Accused-appellant and the
other police officers involved originally set out to
restore peace and order at Mundog Subdivision
where the victim was then running amuck. The victim
threatened the safety of the police officers despite
accused-appellant's previous warning shot and
verbal admonition to the victim to lay down his
weapon.
Held: As a police officer, it is to be expected that
accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to
that point, his decision to respond with a barrage of
gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was
justified under the circumstances. A police officer is
not required to afford the victim the opportunity to
fight back. Neither is he expected when hard
pressed and in the heat of such an encounter at
close quarters to pause for a long moment and
reflect coolly at his peril, or to wait after each blow to
determine the effects thereof. But he cannot be
exonerated from overdoing his duty when he fatally
shot the victim in the head, even after the latter
slumped to the ground due to multiple gunshot
wounds sustained while charging at the police
officers. Sound discretion and restraint dictated that
a veteran policeman should have ceased firing at the
victim the moment he saw the latter fall to the
ground. The victim at that point no longer posed a
threat. Shooting him in the head was obviously
unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with authority
to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it must be
stressed that their judgment and discretion as police
officers in the performance of their duties must be
exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but
within reasonable limits.
Mamagun v. People (2007):A policeman in pursuit of
a snatcher accidentally shot one of the bystanders
who were actually helping him chase the snatcher.
Held: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty,
without more, do not completely justify the
petitioners firing the fetal gunshot at the victim.
True, petitioner, as one of the policemen responding
to a reported robbery then in progress, was
performing his duty as a police officer as well as
when he was trying to effect the arrest of the
suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot
said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in the
absence of the equally necessary justifying
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

circumstance that the injury of offense committed be
the necessary consequence if the due performance of
such duty, there can only be incomplete justification,
a privilege mitigating circumstance under Art. 13 and
69 of the RPC. There can be no quibbling that there
was no rational necessity for the killing of Contreras.
Petitioner could have first fired a warning shot before
pulling the trigger against Contreras who was one of
the residents chasing the suspected robber.
subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in
good faith, without being aware of their illegality,
without any fault or negligence on their part, the act
is not accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the
act be innocent..
JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Justifying Circumstance Exempting Circumstance

People v. Delima (1922):Napilon escaped from the jail It affects the act, not the It affects the actor, not the
where he was serving sentence. Some days actor. act.
afterwards the policeman, Delima, who was looking The act is considered to
for him found him in the house of Alegria, armed have been done within the The act complained of is
with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a bounds of law; hence, actually wrongful, but the
lance. Delima demanded the surrender of the legitimate and lawful in actor is not liable.
weapon but Napilon refused. Delima fired his the eyes of the law.
revolver to impose his authority but the bullet did not
Since the act complained
hit him. The criminal ran away and Delima went after
of is actually wrong, there
him and fired again his revolver this time hitting and Since the act is
is a crime but since the
killing him. considered lawful, there is
actor acted without
no liability.
voluntariness, there is no
Held: The killing was done in the performance of a
dolo or culpa.
duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender and had no right, after evading service of There is a crime, although
his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience there is no criminal, so
with a weapon in his hand, which compelled the There is no criminal or there is civil liability
policeman to resort to such extreme means, which, civil liability. (Except: Art. 12, par. 4 and
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the 7 where there is no civil
circumstance. liability.

Par. 6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful

purpose
Elements:
(1) Order must have been issued by a superior
(2) The order is for some lawful purpose
(3) The means used to carry it out must be lawful
(c) A subordinate is not liable for carrying out an
illegal order of his superior if he is not aware of
the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.
People v. Oanis (1943):Although an officer in making
a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is
reasonably necessary to secure and detain the
offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his
escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect
himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified in
using unnecessary force or in treating him with
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means
when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
People v. Beronilla (1955):Where the accused acted
upon orders of superior officers that the, as military
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
ACT OF 2004 (RA 9262)
Battered Woman Syndrome- refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. Victim-
survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the
woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime,
the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/
psychologists [SECTION 26, RA 9262]

PAGE 31
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by a
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, which is made up of three
phases [People v. Genosa].
(1) First Phase: Tension Building Phase
(a) Where minor battering occurs, it could be a
verbal or slight physical abuse or another
form of hostile behavior.
(b) The woman tries to pacify the batterer
through a show of kind, nurturing behavior,
or by simply staying out of the way.
(c) But this proves to be unsuccessful as it only
gives the batterer the notion that he has the
right to abuse her.
(2) Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident
(a) Characterized by brutality, destructiveness,
and sometimes death.
(b) The battered woman has no control; only
the batterer can stop the violence.
(c) The battered woman realizes that she
cannot reason with him and resistance
would only worsen her condition.
(3) Third Phase: Tranquil Period
(a) Characterized by guilt on the part of the
batterer and forgiveness on the part of the
woman.
(b) The batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his partner and
the woman also tries to convince herself
that the battery will never happen again
and that her partner will change for the
better.
Four Characteristics of the Syndrome:
(1) The woman believes that the violence was her
fault;
(2) She has an inability to place the responsibility
for the violence elsewhere;
(3) She fears for her life and/or her childrens life
(4) She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
omnipresent and omniscient.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
SIX TYPES of Exempting Circumstances:
(1) Imbecility/Insanity
(2) Minority
(3) Accident
(4) Compulsion of irresistible force
(5) Impulse of uncontrollable fear
(6) Insuperable or lawful cause
Exempting circumstances those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
PAGE 32
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
The reason for the exemption lies on the complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent,
or on the absence of negligence on the part of the
accused.
(1) One who acts without intelligence, freedom of
action or intent does not act with malice.
(2) One who acts without intelligence, freedom of
action or fault does not act with negligence.
Par. 1. Insanity or Imbecility
Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age, has a
mental development comparable to that of a child
between 2 and 7 years of age. Exempt in all cases
from criminal liability
Insane - There is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act but capable of
having lucid intervals.
(a) During a lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, is not exempt from
criminal liability.
(b) Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession
and avoidance and must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
Note: There is another school of thought that
believes that insanity, as with other such defenses,
need only be proved to a degree sufficient to raise a
reasonable doubt of guilt.
Evidence of insanity must refer to:
(a) the time preceding the act under prosecution or
(b) at the very moment of its execution.
(1) Insanity subsequent to commission of crime is
not exempting
(2) Feeblemindedness is not imbecility. It is
necessary that there is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
accused be deprived of reason, that there is no
responsibility for his own acts; that he acts
without the least discernment; that there be
complete absence of the power to discern, or
that there be a complete deprivation of the
freedom of the will. [People vs. Formigones]
Cases covered under this article:
(1) Dementia praecox
Note: Cited in OLD cases, but is a term no longer
used by mental health practitioners
(2) Kleptomania: if found by a competent
psychiatrist as irresistible
(3) Epilepsy
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(4) Somnambulism: sleep-walking(People vs. Taneo)
(5) Malignant malaria: which affects the nervous
system
People vs. Dungo:The insanity that is exempting is
limited only to mental aberration or disease of the
mind and must completely impair the intelligence of
the accused.
Two tests of insanity:
(1) The test of COGNITION, or whether the accused
acted with complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the said crime;
(2) The test of VOLITION, or whether the accused
acted in total deprivation of freedom of will.
(People vs. Rafanan)
Juridical Effects of Insanity
(1) If present at the time of the commission of the
crime EXEMPT from liability.
(2) If present during trial proceedings will be
SUSPENDED and accused is committed to a
hospital.
(3) After judgment or while serving sentence
Execution of judgment is SUSPENDED, the
accused is committed to a hospital. The period
of confinement in the hospital is counted for the
purpose of the prescription of the penalty.
Basis: Complete absence of intelligence
Par. 2.& 3. Minority (Superseded by RA 9344)
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (R.A.
9344); ALSO REFER TO CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
(P.D. 603, AS AMENDED)
What is the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System?
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System" refers to a
system dealing with children at risk and children in
conflict with the law, which provides child-
appropriate proceedings, including programs and
services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-
integration and aftercare to ensure their normal
growth and development. [Title V: Juvenile Justice
and Welfare System of RA 9344]
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
Sec. 4 (e), RA 9344."Child in conflict with the law" a
child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws.
(b) Minimum age of criminal responsibility
PAGE 33
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Sec. 6, RA 9344. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or
under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen
(18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment,
in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein
established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws..
(c) Determination of Age [Sec. 7, RA 9344]
Presumption: Minority of child in conflict with the
law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a child in
conflict with the law until s/he is proven to be 18
years old or older.
The age of a child may be determined from:
(1) The childs birth certificate,
(2) Baptismal certificate, or
(3) Any other pertinent documents.
In the absence of these documents, age may be
based on:
(1) Information from the child himself/herself,
(2) Testimonies of other persons,
(3) The physical appearance of the child, and
(4) Other relevant evidence.
In case of doubt as to the childs age, it shall be
resolved in his/her favor.
(d) Exemption from criminal liability
(1) 15 yrs old or below at the time of commission of
offense: ABSOLUTELY EXEMPT from criminal
liability but subject to intervention program
(2) Over 15 yrs old but below 18: EXEMPT from
criminal liability & subject to intervention
program
If acted w/ discernment subject to diversion
program
(3) Below 18 yrs are exempt from:
(a) Status offense
(b) Vagrancy and Prostitution
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(c) Mendicancy (PD1563)
(d) Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
Discernment mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong as determined
by the childs appearance , attitude, comportment
and behavior not only before and during the
commission of the offense but also after and during
the trial. It is manifested through:
(1) Manner of committing a crime Thus, when the
minor committed the crime during nighttime to
avoid detection or took the loot to another town
to avoid discovery, he manifested discernment.
(2) Conduct of the offender The accused shot the
victim with his sling shot and shouted Putang
ina mo.
Note: The exemption from criminal liability shall not
include exemption from civil liability.
Automatic Suspension of Sentence Once the child
who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of
the commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged, the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court
shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application:
Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall
still be applied even if the juvenile is already
eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering
the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
impose the appropriate disposition measures as
provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law. (Sec. 38)
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law - Upon
the recommendation of the social worker who has
custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the case
against the child whose sentence has been
suspended and against whom disposition measures
have been issued, and shall order the final discharge
of the child if it finds that the objective of the
disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law
shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the
commission of the offense, which shall be enforced
in accordance with law. (Sec. 39)
(e) Treatment of child below age of responsibility
[Sec. 20, RA 9344]
PAGE 34
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If it has been determined that the child taken into
custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the
authority which will have an initial contact with the
child has the duty to:
(1) Immediately release the child to the custody of
his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence
thereof, the child's nearest relative.
(2) Shall give notice to the local social welfare and
development officer who will determine the
appropriate programs in consultation with the
child and to the person having custody over the
child.
(3) If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives
cannot be located, or if they refuse to take
custody, the child may be released to any of the
following:
(a) a duly registered nongovernmental or
religious organization;
(b) a barangay official or a member of the
Barangay Council for the Protection of
Children (BCPC);
(c) a local social welfare and development
officer; or when and where appropriate, the
DSWD.
(4) If the child referred to herein has been found by
the Local Social Welfare and Development
Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by
his parents, or in the event that the parents will
not comply with the prevention program, the
proper petition for involuntary commitment
shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social
Welfare and Development Office pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise ,known
as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code".
(f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of RA 9344
Sec. 57. Status Offenses. - Any conduct not
considered an offense or not penalized if committed
by an adult shall not be considered an offense and
shall not be punished if committed by a child
(g) Offenses not applicable to children under Sec. 58
of RA 9344
Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be
exempt from prosecution for the crime of:
(1) vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of
the Revised Penal Code,
(2) mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563,
and
(3) sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No.
1619,
(a) Such prosecution being inconsistent with the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(b) Provided, that said persons shall undergo A threat of future injury is not enough. The
appropriate counseling and treatment program. compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence. or self-defense in equal combat.

Par. 4. Accident Basis: Complete absence of freedom.

Accident - something that happens outside the sway Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear
of our will and, although coming about through
some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of Irresistible force must Uncontrollable fear may
humanly foreseeable consequences. operate directly upon the be generated by a
person of the accused and threatened act directly to
Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is exempt the injury feared may be a a third person such as the
not only from criminal but also from civil liability. lesser degree than the wife of the accused, but
damage caused by the the evil feared must be
Elements: accused. greater or at least equal
(1) A person is performing a lawful act; to the damage caused to
(2) With due care; avoid it.
(3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
Offender uses physical Offender employs
(4) Without fault or intention of causing it.
force or violence to intimidation or threat in
compel another person to compelling another to
Basis: Lack of negligence and intent.
commit a crime. commit a crime.
Par. 5. Irresistible Force
Par. 7. Insuperable or Lawful Causes
Elements:
(1) That the compulsion is by means of physical Insuperable means insurmountable. A cause which
force; has lawfully, morally or physically prevented a
(2) That the physical force must be irresistible; person to do what the law commands.
(3) That the physical force must come from a third
person. Elements:
(1) That an act is required by law to be done;
Note: Before a force can be considered to be an (2) That a person fails to perform such act;
irresistible one, it must produce such an effect on the (3) That his failure to perform such act was due to
individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces some lawful or insuperable cause
him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of
committing the crime. (Aquino, Revised Penal Code) Basis: Lack of intent.

To be exempt from criminal liability, a person
invoking irresistible force must show that the force
exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will but
against his will. [People v. Lising (1998)]
Basis: Complete absence of freedom.
People v. Bandian (1936):A woman cannot be held
liable for infanticide when she left her newborn child
in the bushes without being aware that she had
given birth at all. Severe dizziness and extreme
debility made it physically impossible for Bandian to
take home the child plus the assertion that she didnt
know that she had given birth.

Par. 6. Uncontrollable Fear MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

TWELVE TYPES of Mitigating Circumstances:
Elements:
(1) Incomplete Justification and Exemption
(1) That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil
(2) Under 18 or Over 70 years of age
greater than or at least equal to, that which he is
(3) No intention to commit so grave a wrong
forced to commit;
(4) Sufficient Provocation or Threat
(2) That it promises an evil of such gravity and
(5) Immediate vindication of a grave offense
imminence that the ordinary man would have
(6) Passion or obfuscation
succumbed to it.
(7) Voluntary surrender
(8) Voluntary plea of guilt
(9) Plea to a lower offense

PAGE 35
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(10) Physical defect
(11) Illness
(12) Analogous Circumstances
Mitigating circumstances or causas attenuates are
those which, if present in the commission of the
crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Basis: They are based on the diminution of either
freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the
lesser perversity of the offender. However, voluntary
surrender and plea of guilt which, being
circumstances that occur after the commission of the
offense, show the accuseds respect for the law
(voluntary surrender) and remorse and acceptance of
punishment (plea of guilt), thereby necessitating a
lesser penalty to effect his rehabilitation (based on
the Positivist School)
(a) The circumstances under Article 13 are generally
ordinary mitigating. However, paragraph 1, is
treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance
if majority of the requisites concurred, otherwise,
it will be treated as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69).
(b) Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64.
Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the
rules of imposing penalties under Articles 63
and 64.
TIP: In bar problems, when you are given
indeterminate sentences, these articles are very
important.
ORDINARY V. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Ordinary MC Privileged MC
Can be offset by any Cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance
If not offset by
aggravating The effect of imposing
circumstance, produces upon the offender the
the effect of applying the penalty lower by one or
penalty provided by law two degrees than that
for the crime in its min provided by law for the
period in case of divisible crime.
penalty
Par. 1. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting
Circumstances
The circumstances of justification or exemption
which may give place to mitigation, because not all
the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases
are attendant, are the following:
PAGE 36
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1)
(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2)
(3) Defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3)
(4) State of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4)
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5)
(6) Obedience to the order of superiors (Art. 11, par.
6)
(7) Minority over 15 years of age but below 18 years
of age (Art. 12, par. 3)
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par.4)
(9) Uncontrollable fear (Art. 12 par. 6)
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(a) Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives,
defense of stranger
In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION must always be present. It is an
indispensable requisite.
Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when
(1) unlawful aggression is present
(2) but one or both of the other 2 requisites are not
present in any of the cases referred to in
circumstances number 1, 2 and 3 or Art. 11.
Note: When two of the three requisites mentioned
therein are present, the case must be considered as a
privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in Art.
69 of this Code. (Article 69 requires that a majority of
the conditions required must be present.)
(b) Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance
of greater evil or injury
Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 11:
(1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
(2) That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
(3) That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
(a) Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying
circumstance if all the three requisites
mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 11 are present.
(b) But if any of the last two requisites is lacking,
there is only a mitigating circumstance. The first
element is indispensable.
(c) Incomplete justifying circumstance of
performance of duty
Requisites under par.5, Art. 11:
(1) That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
and
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(2) That the injury caused or offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise
of such right or office.
People v. Oanis (1943): The SC considered one of the
2 requisites as constituting the majority. It seems
that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance
under Art. 13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting
circumstance has 2 requisites only.
Where only one of the requisites was present, Article
69 was applied.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(a) Incomplete exempting circumstance of Accident
Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 12:
(1) A person is performing a lawful act
(2) With due care
(3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident
(4) Without fault or intention of causing it
There is NO SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
because:
nd st th
(1) If the 2 requisite and 1 part of the 4 requisite
are absent, the case will fall under Art. 365
which punishes reckless imprudence.
st nd th
(2) If the 1 requisite and 2 part of the 4 requisite
are absent, it will be an intentional felony (Art. 4,
par. 1).
(b) Incomplete exempting circumstance of
uncontrollable fear.
Requisites under par. 6 of Art. 12:
(1) That the threat which caused the fear was of an
evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which
he was required to commit;
(2) That it promised an evil of such gravity and
imminence that an ordinary person would have
succumbed to it.
Note: If only one of these requisites is present, there
is only a mitigating circumstance.
Par. 2. Under 18 or Over 70 Years of Age
(a) In lowering the penalty:
Based on age of the offender at the time of the
commission of the crime not the age when sentence
is imposed
(b) In suspension of the sentence:
Based on age of the offender (under 18) at the time
the sentence is to be promulgated (See Art. 80, RPC)
(c) Par. 2 contemplates the ff:
PAGE 37
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(i) An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who
acted with discernment.
(ii) An offender fifteen or over but under 18
years of age.
(iii) An offender over 70 years old
Legal effects of various ages of offenders:
(1) 15 and below - Exempting
(2) Above 15 but under 18 years of age, also an
exempting circumstance, unless he acted with
discernment (Art. 12, par. 3 as amended by RA
9344).
(3) Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No.
603 as amended by PD 1179)
(4) 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility.
(5) 70 years or over mitigating, no imposition of
death penalty; if already imposed. Execution of
death penalty is suspended and commuted.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence
Par. 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
(Praeter Intentionem)
There must be a notable disproportion between the
means employed by the offender and the resulting
harm.
(1) The intention, as an internal act, is judged
(a) not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by his
act,
(b) but also by the fact that the blow was or
was not aimed at a vital part of the body;
(c) this includes: the weapon used, the injury
inflicted and his attitude of the mind when
the accused attacked the deceased.
(2) The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
can also be inferred from the subsequent acts of
the accused immediately after committing the
offense, such as when the accused helped his
victim to secure medical treatment.
(3) This circumstance does not apply when the
crime results from criminal negligence or culpa.
(4) Only applicable to offense resulting in death,
physical injuries, or material harm (including
property damage). It is not applicable to
defamation or slander.
(5) This mitigating circumstance is not applicable
when the offender employed brute force.
(6) Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is not
appreciated where the offense committed is
characterized by treachery.
(7) When the victim does not die as a result of the
assault in cases of crimes against persons, the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to
mere physical injuries, but it does not constitute
a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13(3).
People v. Calleto (2002):The lack of "intent" to
commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is
weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the
body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is
inflicted. The fact that the accused used a 9-inch
hunting knife in attacking the victim from behind,
without giving him an opportunity to defend himself,
clearly shows that he intended to do what he
actually did, and he must be held responsible
therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating
circumstance.
People v. Ural (1974): The intention, as an internal act,
is judged not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by his act, but
also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed
at a vital part of the body. Thus, it may be deduced
from the proven facts that the accused had no intent
to kill the victim, his design being only to maltreat
him, such that when he realized the fearful
consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the
victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary.
Basis: Diminution of intent.
Par. 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
Elements:
(1) That the provocation must be sufficient
(2) That it must originate from the offended party
(3) That the provocation must be immediate to the
act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked
Provocation - Any unjust or improper conduct or act
of the offended part capable of exciting, inciting, or
irritating anyone.
Provocation in order to be mitigating must be
SUFFICIENT and IMMEDIATELY preceding the act.
(People v. Pagal)
(1) Sufficient means adequate to excite a person
to commit a wrong and must accordingly be
proportionate to its gravity. (People v. Nabora).
(2) Sufficiency depends upon:
(a) the act constituting provocation
(b) the social standing of the person provoked
(c) the place and time when the provocation is
made.
(3) Between the provocation by the offended party
and the commission of the crime, there should
PAGE 38
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
not be any interval in time. Reason: When there
is an interval of time between the provocation
and the commission of the crime, the
perpetrator has time to regain his reason.
Sufficient provocation as a
Provocation as a
requisite of incomplete
mitigating circumstance
self-defense
It pertains to its absence It pertains to its presence
on the part of the person on the part of the
defending himself. offended party.
(People v. CA, G.R. No.
103613, 2001)
TIP: The common set-up given in a bar problem is
that of provocation given by somebody against
whom the person provoked cannot retaliate; thus the
person provoked retaliated on a younger brother or
on the father. Although in fact, there is sufficient
provocation, it is not mitigating because the one who
gave the provocation is not the one against whom
the crime was committed.
You have to look at two criteria:
(1) If from the element of time,
(a) there is a material lapse of time stated in
the problem and
(b) there is nothing stated in the problem that
the effect of the threat of provocation had
prolonged and affected the offender at the
time he committed the crime
(c) then you use the criterion based on the time
element.
(2) If there is that time element and at the same
time,
(a) facts are given indicating that at the time
the offender committed the crime, he is still
suffering from outrage of the threat or
provocation done to him
(b) then he will still get the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent.
Romera v. People (2004): Provocation and passion or
obfuscation are not 2 separate mitigating
circumstances. It is well-settled that if these 2
circumstances are based on the same facts, they
should be treated together as one mitigating
circumstance. It is clear that both circumstances
arose from the same set of facts. Hence, they should
not be treated as two separate mitigating
circumstances.
Par. 5. Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Elements:
(1) That there be a grave offense done to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degree.
(2) That the felony is committed in vindication of
such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed
between the vindication and the doing of the
grave offense.
(3) The vindication need not be done by the person
upon whom the grave offense was committed
Note: Lapse of time is allowed. The word
immediate used in the English text is not the
correct translation. The Spanish text uses proxima.
Although the grave offense (slapping of the accused
in front of many persons hours before the killing),
which engendered the perturbation of mind, was not
so immediate, it was held that the influence thereof,
by reason of its gravity, lasted until the moment the
crime was committed. (People v. Parana).
The question whether or not a certain personal
offense is grave must be decided by the court, having
in mind
(a) the social standing of the person,
(b) the place and
(c) the time when the insult was made.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and
independently.
People v. Torpio (2004: The mitigating circumstance
of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart
from the circumstance of vindication of a grave
offense. These two circumstances arose from one
and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the
appellant by the accused, so that they should be
considered as only one mitigating circumstance.
Provocation Vindication
It is made directly only to The grave offense may be
the person committing committed against the
the felony. offenders relatives
mentioned by law.
The offense need not be a The offended party must
grave offense. have done a grave offense
to the offender or his
relatives.
The provocation or threat The grave offense may be
must immediately proximate, which admits
precede the act. of an interval of time
PAGE 39
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
between the grave offense
done by the offended
party and the commission
of the crime by the
accused.
It is a mere spite against It concerns the honor of
the one giving the the person.
provocation or threat.
Basis: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness.
Par. 6. Passion or obfuscation (Arrebato y Obcecacion)
Requisites:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produces passion or obfuscation in
him.
(3) That there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind;
and
(4) That said act which produced the obfuscation
was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity. [People v. Alanguilang]
Note: Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful
sentiments.
Passion or obfuscation not applicable when:
(1) The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS.
(2) The act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE.
(4) The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation
arising from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor
of the accused whose relationship with the
woman was illegitimate.
(5) Also, the act must be sufficient to produce such
a condition of mind. If the cause of loss of self-
control is trivial and slight, obfuscation is not
mitigating.
(6) Moreover, the defense must prove that the act
which produced the passion or obfuscation took
place at a time not far removed from the
commission of the crime. [People v. Gervacio,
1968]
(7) Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from
causes existing only in the honest belief of the
offender.
US v. De la Cruz (1912):De la Cruz, in the heat of
passion, killed the deceased who was his querida
(lover) upon discovering her in the act of carnal
communication with a mutual acquaintance. He
claims that he is entitled to the mitigating
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

circumstance of passion or obfuscation and that the Passion/Obfuscation Provocation

doctrine in Hicks is inapplicable.
Passion/obfuscation is Provocation comes from
Held: US v. Hicks is not applicable to the case. In produced by an impulse the injured party.
Hicks, the cause of the alleged passion and which may be caused by
obfuscation of the aggressor was the convict's provocation.
vexation, disappointment and deliberate anger The offense which Must immediately
engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue engenders the precede the commission
to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perturbation of mind need of the crime.
perfect reason to do. In this case, the impulse upon not be immediate. It is
which the defendant acted was the sudden only required that the
revelation that his paramour was untrue to him and influence thereof lasts
his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of until the moment the
another. This was a sufficient impulse in the ordinary crime is committed.
and natural course of things to produce the passion
and obfuscation which the law declares to be one of In both, the effect of the loss of reason and self-
control on the part of the offender.
the mitigating circumstances to be taken into the
consideration of the court..
Par. 7. Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt
Passion and Obfuscation cannot co-exist with:
(1) Vindication of grave offense Two Mitigating Circumstances under This Paragraph:
(1) Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or
Exception: When there are other facts closely his agents;
connected. Thus, where the deceased, had (2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the court
eloped with the daughter of the accused, and prior to the presentation of evidence for the
later when the deceased saw the accused prosecution.
coming, the deceased ran upstairs, there are 2
facts which are closely connected, namely: (1) Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been
elopement, which is a grave offense for the issued is immaterial and irrelevant.
family of old customs, and (2) refusal to deal
with him, a stimulus strong enough to produce VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
passion. The court in People v. Diokno (G.R. No. Requisites:
L-45100), considered both mitigating (1) That the offender had not been actually arrested
circumstances in favor of the accused. (2) That the offender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or to the latters agent
(2) Treachery (People v. Wong) (3) That the surrender was voluntary.

Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent. Criterion is whether or not:

(1) the offender had gone into hiding, and
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE (2) the law enforcers do not know of his
whereabouts.
Passion/Obfuscation Irresistible Force
Mitigating Circumstance Exempting circumstance Note: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
surrender must be spontaneous, made in such a
Cannot give rise to Physical force is a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
physical force because it condition sine qua non. surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
does not involves physical because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) wishes to
force. save them the trouble and expenses that would be
Passion/obfuscation Irresistible force comes necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
comes from the offender from a third person. (Andrada v.People). If none of these two reasons
himself. impelled the accused to surrender, the surrender is
not spontaneous and therefore not voluntary. (People
Must arise from lawful Irresistible force is v. Laurel).
sentiments to be unlawful.
mitigating. (a) The accused must actually surrender his own
person to the authorities, admitting complicity of
PASSION/OBFUSCATION V. PROVOCATION the crime.

PAGE 40
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(b) Merely requesting a policeman to accompany
the accused to the police headquarters is not
voluntary surrender. (People v. Flores)
Effect of Arrest
General rule: Not mitigating when defendant was in
fact arrested. (People v. Conwi)
Exceptions:
(1) But where a person, after committing the
offense and having opportunity to escape,
voluntarily waited for the agents of the
authorities and voluntarily gave up, he is entitled
to the benefit of the circumstance, even if he was
placed under arrest by a policeman then and
there. (People v. Parana)
(2) Where the arrest of the offender was after his
voluntary surrender or after his doing an act
amounting to a voluntary surrender to the agent
of a person in authority. (People v. Babiera;
People v. Parana)
PERSON IN AUTHORITY AND HIS AGENT
Person in authority is one directly vested with
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the
power to govern and execute the laws whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission. A
barrio captain and a barangay chairman are also
persons in authority. (Art. 152, RPC, as amended by
PD No. 299).
Agent of a person in authority is a person, who, by
direct provision of law, or by election or by
competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority. (Art. 152, as
amended by RA 1978).
Time of Surrender - the RPC does not distinguish
among the various moments when the surrender
may occur. (Reyes, Revised Penal Code). The fact that
a warrant of arrest had already been issued is no bar
to the consideration of that circumstance because
the law does not require that the surrender be prior
the arrest. (People v. Yecla and Cahilig).What is
important is that the surrender be spontaneous.
PLEA OF GUILT
Requisites:
(1) That the offender spontaneously confessed his
guilt.
(2) That the confession of guilt was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that is
to try the case; and
PAGE 41
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The extrajudicial confession made by the
accused is not voluntary confession because it
was made outside the court. (People v. Pardo)
(3) That the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
(a) The change of plea should be made at the
first opportunity when his arraignment was
first set.
(b) A conditional plea of guilty is not mitigating.
(c) Plea of guilt on appeal is not mitigating.
(d) Withdrawal of plea of not guilty before
presentation of evidence by prosecution is
still mitigating. All that the law requires is
voluntary plea of guilty prior to the
presentation of the evidence by the
prosecution.
(e) A plea of guilty on an amended information
will be considered as an attenuating
circumstance if no evidence was presented
in connection with the charges made
therein. (People v. Ortiz)
Basis: Lesser perversity of the offender.
PLEA TO A LESSER OFFENSE
Rule 116, sec. 2, ROC At arraignment, the accused,
with the consent of the offended party and
prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to
plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged. After arraignment
but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to
plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing
his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.
People v. Dawaton (2002):Information for murder
was filed against Dawaton. When first arraigned he
pleaded not guilty, but during the pre-trial he offered
to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide but
was rejected by the prosecution. The trial court
sentenced him to death. He avers that he is entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Held: While the accused offered to plead guilty to the
lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with
murder for which he had already entered a plea of
not guilty. We have ruled that an offer to enter a plea
of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as
an attenuating circumstance under the provisions of
Art. 13 of RPC because to be voluntary the plea of
guilty must be to the offense charged.
Also, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor before an accused
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense
necessarily included in the offense charged. The
prosecution rejected the offer of the accused.
Par. 8. Physical Defects
(a) This paragraph does not distinguish between
educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind
persons.
(b) Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is
such as being armless, cripple, or a stutterer,
whereby his means to act, defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings are limited.
(c) The physical defect that a person may have
must have a relation to the commission of the
crime.
(d) Where the offender is deaf and dumb, personal
property was entrusted to him and he
misappropriated the same. The crime
committed was estafa. The fact that he was deaf
and dumb is not mitigating since that does not
bear any relation to the crime committed.
(e) If a person is deaf and dumb and he has been
slandered, he cannot talk so what he did was he
got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the
head. The crime committed was physical
injuries. The Supreme Court held that being a
deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only
way is to use his force because he cannot strike
back in any other way.
Basis: Diminution of freedom of action, therefore
diminution of voluntariness.
Par. 9. Illness
Elements:
(1) That the illness of the offender must diminish
the exercise of his will-power
(2) That such illness should not deprive the offender
of consciousness of his acts.
(a) When the offender completely lost the exercise
of will-power,it may be an exempting
circumstance.
(b) It is said that this paragraph refers only to
diseases of pathological state that trouble the
conscience or will.
(c) A mother who, under the influence of a
puerperal fever, killed her child the day following
her delivery.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent.
PAGE 42
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
People v. Javier (1999): Javier was married to the
deceased for 41 years. He killed the deceased and
then stabbed himself in the abdomen. Javier was
found guilty of parricide. In his appeal, he claims that
he killed his wife because he was suffering from
insomnia for a month and at the time of the killing,
his mind went totally blank and he did not know
what he was doing. He also claims that he was
insane then.
Held: No sufficient evidence or medical finding was
offered to support his claim. The court also took note
of the fact that the defense, during the trial, never
alleged the mitigating circumstance of illness. The
alleged mitigating circumstance was a mere
afterthought to lessen the criminal liability of the
accused.
Par. 10. Analogous Mitigating Circumstances
Any other circumstance of similar nature and
analogous to the nine mitigating circumstances
enumerated in art. 513 may be mitigating.
(1) The act of the offender of leading the law
enforcers to the place where he buried the
instrument of the crime has been considered as
equivalent to voluntary surrender.
(2) Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out
of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to
incomplete state of necessity.
(3) Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to
over 70 years of age mentioned in par. 2. (People
v. Reantillo).
(4) Voluntary restitution of stolen goods similar to
voluntary surrender (People v. Luntao).
(5) Impulse of jealous feelings, similar to passion
and obfuscation. (People v. Libria).
(6) Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to
incomplete justification based on state of
necessity. (People v. Macbul).
(7) Testifying for the prosecution, without previous
discharge, analogous to a plea of guilty. (People
v. Narvasca).
Canta v. People:Canta stole a cow but alleges that he
mistook the cow for his missing cow. He made a calf
suckle the cow he found and when it did, Canta
thought that the cow he found was really his.
However, he falsified a document describing the said
cows cowlicks and markings. After getting caught,
he surrendered the cow to the custody of the
authorities in the municipal hall.
Held: Cantas act of voluntarily taking the cow to the
municipal hall to place it in the custody of authorities
(to save them the time and effort of having to recover
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

the cow) was an analogous circumstance to and cannot be offset by mitigating

voluntary surrender. circumstances such as:
(a) quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
(b) complex crimes (Art. 48)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (c) error in personae (Art. 49)
(d) taking advantage of public position and
Aggravating Circumstances are those membership in an organized/syndicated
circumstances which raise the penalty for a crime in crime group (Art. 62)
its maximum period provided by law applicable to
that crime or change the nature of the crime. Generic Aggravating Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstances Circumstances
Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE there are The effect of a qualifying
no analogous aggravating circumstances. The effect of a generic AC, AC is not only to give the
not offset by any crime its proper and
(a) The aggravating circumstances must be mitigating circumstance, exclusive name but also
established with moral certainty, with the same is to increase the penalty to place the author
degree of proof required to establish the crime which should be imposed thereof in such a situation
itself. upon the accused to the as to deserve no other
(b) According to the Revised Rules of Criminal MAXIMUM PERIOD. penalty than that
Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying specially prescribed by
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in law for said crime.
the Information in order to be considered by the
Court in imposing the sentence. (Rule 110, Sec. 9) The circumstance affects
It is not an ingredient of the nature of the crime
Basis the crime. It only affects itself such that the
(1) the motivating power behind the act the penalty to be imposed offender shall be liable for
(2) the place where the act was committed but the crime remains the a more serious crime. The
(3) the means and ways used same circumstance is actually
(4) the time an ingredient of the crime
(5) the personal circumstance of the offender Being an ingredient of the
The circumstance can be
and/or of the victim crime, it cannot be offset
offset by an ordinary
by any mitigating
mitigating circumstance
Kinds circumstance
(1) GENERIC Those that can generally apply to all
crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, Aggravating circumstances which do not have the
18, 19, and 20 except by means of motor effect of increasing the penalty:
vehicles. A generic aggravating circumstance (1) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
may be offset by a generic mitigating constitute a crime especially punishable by law.
circumstance. (2) Aggravating circumstances which are included
(2) SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particular by the law in defining a crime and prescribing
crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and the penalty therefore shall not be taken into
21. account for the purpose of increasing the
(3) QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of penalty. (Art. 62, par. 1).
the crime. Art. 248 enumerate the qualifying AC (3) The same rule shall apply with respect to any
which qualifies the killing of person to murder. If aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime
two or more possible qualifying circumstances to such a degree that it must of necessity
were alleged and proven, only one would qualify accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62,
the offense and the others would be generic par. 2).
aggravating.
(4) INHERENT Those that must accompany the Aggravating circumstances which are personal to the
commission of the crime and is therefore not offenders.
considered in increasing the penalty to be Aggravating circumstances which arise:
imposed such as evident premeditation in theft, (1) from moral attributes of the offender;
robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage. (2) from his private relations with the offended
(5) SPECIAL Those which arise under special party; or
conditions to increase the penalty of the offense

PAGE 43
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(3) from any personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate the liability of the principals,
accomplices, accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62, par. 3).
Aggravating circumstances which depend for their
application upon the knowledge of offenders.
The circumstances which consist (1) in the material
execution of the act, or (2) in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of
those persons only who had knowledge of them at
the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. (Art. 62, par. 4).
GENERIC
21 Aggravating Circumstances under Art. 14:
(1) Taking Advantage of Public Office
(2) In Contempt of or With Insult to Public
Authorities
(3) With Insult or Lack of Regard Due to Offended
Party by Reason of Rank, Age or Sex
(4) Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious
Ungratefulness
(5) Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The Chief
Executive
(6) Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A Band
(7) On Occasion Of A Calamity
(8) Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure
Impunity
(9) Recidivism
(10) Reiteration or Habituality
(11) Price, Reward Or Promise
(12) Inundation, Fire, Poison
(13) Evident Premeditation
(14) Craft, Fraud Or Disguise
(15) Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken
Defense
(16) Treachery
(17) Ignominy
(18) Unlawful Entry
(19) Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
(20) With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By Motor Vehicle
(21) Cruelty
Par. 1.That advantage be taken by the offender of his
public position
(1) This is applicable only if the offender is a public
officer.
(2) The public officer must:
(a) Use the influence, prestige or ascendancy
which his office gives him
(b) As means by which he realizes his purpose.
(3) The essence of the matter is presented in the
inquiry, did the accused abuse his office in order
to commit the crime?(U.S. v. Rodriguez)
(4) When a public officer
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(a) commits a common crime independent of
his official functions and
(b) does acts that are not connected with the
duties of his office,
(c) he should be punished as a private
individual without this aggravating
circumstance.
(5) Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is
proven that he has failed in his duties as such
public officer, this circumstance would warrant
the aggravation of his penalty. Thus, the fact that
the vice-mayor of a town joined a band of
brigands made his liability greater. (U.S. v.
Cagayan).
(6) The circumstance cannot be taken into
consideration in offenses where taking
advantage of official position is made by law an
integral element of the crime such as in
malversation (Art. 217) or falsification of public
documents under Art. 171.
(7) Taking advantage of public position is also
inherent in the following cases:
(a) Accessories under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring,
concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime); and
(b) Title VII of Book Two of the RPC (Crimes
committed by public officers).
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown.
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or
with insult to the public authorities
Requisites:
(1) That the public authority is engaged in the
exercise of his functions.
(2) That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of
his functions is not the person against whom the
crime is committed.
(3) The offender knows him to be a public authority.
(4) His presence has not prevented the offender
from committing the criminal act.
Public Authority / Person in Authority is a person
directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public
officer who has the power to govern and execute the
laws. The councilor, mayor, governor, barangay
captain, barangay chairman etc. are persons in
authority. (Art. 152, as amended by P.D. 1232)
(a) A school teacher, town municipal health officer,
agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now
considered a person in authority.
(b) Par. 2 is not applicable if committed in the
presence of an agent only such as a police
officer.
PAGE 44
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Agent - A subordinate public officer charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property, such as barrio
policemen, councilmen, and any person who comes
to the aid of persons in authority.(Art. 152, as
amended by BP 873).
Knowledge that a public authority is present is
essential.
(a) Lack of such knowledge indicates lack of
intention to insult public authority.
(b) If crime is committed against the public
authority while in the performance of his duty,
the offender commits direct assault without this
aggravating circumstance.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by
his lack of respect for the public authorities.
People v. Rodil (1981):There is the aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed in
contempt of or with insult to public authorities when
the chief of police was present when the incident
occurred. The chief of police should be considered a
public authority because he is vested with authority
to maintain peace and order over the entire
municipality
Par. 3. That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.
(a) Four circumstances are enumerated in this
paragraph, which can be considered singly or
together.
(b) If all the 4 circumstances are present, they have
the weight of one aggravating circumstance
only.
(c) There must be evidence that in the commission
of the crime, the accused deliberately intended
to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended
party. (People v. Mangsat)
(d) Disregard of rank, age or sex may be taken into
account only in crimes against persons or honor.
(People v. Pugal; People vs. Ga)
(a) Rank of the offended party
(1) Designation or title used to fix the relative
position of the offended party in reference to
others.
(2) There must be a difference in the social
condition of the offender and the offended
party.
(b) Age of the offended party
PAGE 45
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
May refer to old age or tender age of the victim.
(c) Sex of the offended party
(1) This refers to the female sex, not to the male
sex.
(2) The aggravating circumstance is NOT to be
considered in the following cases:
(a) When the offender acted with passion
and obfuscation. (People v. Ibanez)
(b) When there exists a relationship
between the offended party and the
offender. (People v. Valencia)
(c) When the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the
crime. Thus, in rape, abduction, or
seduction, sex is not aggravating.
(People v. Lopez)
(d) Dwelling (Morada)
(1) Building or structure, exclusively used for rest
and comfort.Thus, in the case of People v.
Magnaye, a combination of a house and a
store, or a market stall where the victim
slept is not a dwelling.
(2) This is considered an AC because in certain
cases, there is an abuse of confidence which
the offended party reposed in the offender
by opening the door to him.
(3) Dwelling need not be owned by the
offended party.
(4) It is enough that he used the place for his
peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy.
(5) Dwelling should not be understood in the
concept of a domicile: A person has more
than one dwelling. So, if a man has so many
wives and he gave them places of their own,
each one is his own dwelling. If he is killed
there, dwelling will be aggravating,
provided that he also stays there once in a
while.
(6) If a crime of adultery was committed.
Dwelling was considered aggravating on
the part of the paramour. However, if the
paramour was also residing in the same
dwelling, it will not be aggravating.
(7) The offended party must not give
provocation. (People v. Ambis).
(8) When a crime is committed in the dwelling
of the offended party and the latter has not
given provocation, dwelling may be
appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. Provocation in the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling must
be:
(a) given by the offended party
(b) sufficient, and
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(c) immediate to the commission of the
crime.(People v. Rios, 2000)
(9) It is not necessary that the accused should
have actually entered the dwelling of the
victim to commit the offense: it is enough
that the victim was attacked inside his own
house, although the assailant may have
devised means to perpetrate the assault.
(People v. Ompaid, 1969)
(10) Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of
the staircase and the enclosure under the
house. (U.S. v. Tapan)
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by
the personal circumstances of the offended party and
the place of the commission of the crime.
People vs. Taoan: Teachers, professors, supervisors of
public and duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities, as well as lawyers are persons in
authority for purposes of direct assault and simple
resistance, but not for purposes of aggravating
circumstances in paragraph 2, Article 14.
People v. Tao (2000):Dwelling cannot be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this
case because the rape was committed in the ground
floor of a two-story structure, the lower floor being
used as a video rental store and not as a private
place of abode or residence.
People v. Arizobal (2000): Generally, dwelling is
considered inherent in the crimes which can only be
committed in the abode of the victim, such as
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited
place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors
thereof can commit the heinous crime without
transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile. In
the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an
impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims'
abode when they forced their way in, looted their
houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants
into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by
tying their hands before dragging them out of the
house to be killed.
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:
(1) When both offender and offended party are
occupants of the same house (U.S. v. Rodriguez),
and this is true even if offender is a servant of
the house. (People v. Caliso)
(2) When the robbery is committed by the use of
force things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent. (U.S. v. Cas). But dwelling
is aggravating in robbery with violence or
intimidation of persons because this class or
PAGE 46
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
robbery can be committed without the necessity
of trespassing the sanctity of the offended
partys house. (People v. Cabato)
(3) In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent
or included by law in defining the crime.
(4) When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient
and immediate provocation. (Art. 14 par. 3)
Par. 4.That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness
Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances. If
present in the same case, they must be
independently appreciated.
(a) Abuse of confidence (Abuso de confianza)
(1) That the offended party had trusted the
offender.
(2) That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended
party.
(3) That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.
(a) The confidence between the offender and
the offended party must be immediate and
personal.
(b) It is inherent in malversation (Art. 217),
qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315)
and qualified seduction. (Art. 337).
(b) Obvious ungratefulness
(1) That the offended party had trusted the
offender;
(2) That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended
party;
(3) That the act be committed with obvious
ungratefulness.
(a) The ungratefulness must be obvious: (1)
manifest and (2) clear.
(b) In a case where the offender is a servant, the
offended party is one of the members of the
family. The servant poisoned the child. It
was held that abuse of confidence is
aggravating. This is only true, however, if
the servant was still in the service of the
family when he did the killing. If he was
driven by the master out of the house for
some time and he came back to poison the
child, abuse of confidence will no longer be
aggravating. The reason is because that
confidence has already been terminated
when the offender was driven out of the
house.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by
the means and ways employed.
People v. Arrojado (2001):For the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence to exist, it is
essential to show that the confidence between the
parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give the accused some advantage or make it
easier for him to commit the criminal act. The
confidence must be a means of facilitating the
commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party's belief that the
former would not abuse said confidence.
Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of
the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship
If it is the Malacaang Palace or a church it is
aggravating regardless of whether State or official or
religious functions are being held.
(a) The President need not be in the palace.
(b) His presence alone in any place where the crime
is committed is enough to constitute the AC.
(c) It also applies even if he is not engaged in the
discharge of his duties in the place where the
crime was committed.
(d) Cemeteries are not places dedicated for
religious worship.
Note: Offender must have the intention to commit a
crime when he entered the place. (People v. Jaurigue)
Par. 5
Par. 2
Where public authorities
Contempt or insult to
are engaged in the
public authorities
discharge of their duties
Public authorities are engaged in the performance of
their duties.
Public duty is performed Public duty is performed
in their office outside of their office
The offended party may or The public authority
may not be the public should not be the
authority offended party
As regards the place where the public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must
be some performance of public functions.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by
the place of the commission of the crime, which must
be respected.
PAGE 47
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Par. 6. That the crime be committed in the
(a) night time, or
(b) in an uninhabited place, or
(c) by a band, whenever such circumstances may
facilitate the commission of the offense.
These 3 circumstances may be considered
separately:
(1) when their elements are distinctly perceived and
(2) can subsist independently,
(3) revealing a greater degree of perversity.
Requisites:
(1) When it facilitated the commission of the crime;
or
(2) When especially sought for by the offender to
insure the commission of the crime or for the
purpose of impunity; or
(3) When the offender took advantage thereof for
the purpose of impunity.
(a) Nighttime (Nocturnidad)
The commission of the crime must begin and be
accomplished in the nighttime (after sunset and
before sunrise).
(1) the offender purposely took advantage of
nighttime; or
(2) it facilitated the commission of the offense.
(a) Nighttime by and of itself is not an aggravating
circumstance.
(b) The offense must be actually committed in the
darkness of the night.
(c) When the place is illuminated by light, nighttime
is not aggravating.
(d) Nighttime may be absorbed by treachery
depending on circumstances.
(e) Nighttime need not be specifically sought for
when:
(1) the offender purposely took advantage of
nighttime; or
(2) it facilitated the commission of the offense.
(b) Uninhabited place (Desplobado)
It is determined not by the distance of the nearest
house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in
the place of the commission of the offense, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help.
(a) Solitude must be sought to better attain the
criminal purpose. (People v. Aguinaldo)
(b) The offenders must choose the place as an aid
either (1) to an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs, or (2)
to insure concealment of the offense, that he
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

might thereby be better secured against
detection and punishment. (U.S. v. Vitug).
(c) Band (Cuadrilla)
Band - Whenever more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have
been committed by a band.
There should
(1) Beat least be four persons
(2) At least 4 of them should be armed
(3) and are principals by direct participation.
The rationale for this AC is the debased form of
criminality of one who, in the midst of a great
calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds
to their suffering by taking advantage of their
misfortune and despoiling them.
(a) The offender must take advantage of the
calamity or misfortune.
(b) OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
refers to other conditions of distress similar to
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake or
epidemic.
Basis: To the time of the commission of the crime.

(a) This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in Par. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of
the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. armed men, or persons who insure or afford impunity
(b) This is inherent in brigandage.
(c) The armed men must have acted together in the Requisites:
commission of the crime. (1) That the armed men or persons took indirectly
part in the commission of the crime,
Basis: On the time and place of the commission of (2) That the accused availed himself of their aid or
the crime and means and ways employed. relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
People v. Librando (2000):In this case the trial court
considered nighttime and uninhabited place as just Not applicable -
one aggravating circumstance. (a) When both the attacking party and the party
attacked were equally armed.
Held: The court did not err in considering nighttime (b) When the accused as well as those who
and uninhabited place as just one aggravating cooperated with him in the commission of the
circumstance. The court cited the case of People vs. crime acted under the same plan and for the
Santos where it has been held that if the aggravating same purpose.
circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or (c) Casual presence, or when the offender did not
band concur in the commission of the crime, all will avail himself of their aid nor knowingly count
constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a upon their assistance in the commission of the
general rule although they can be considered crime.
separately if their elements are distinctly perceived
and can subsist independently, revealing a greater Par. 6 Par. 8
degree of perversity. By a band With aid of armed me
Requires more than 3 At least two armed men
People v. Bermas (1999):By and of itself, nighttime is armed malefactors
not an aggravating circumstance; it becomes so only Requires that more than This circumstance is
when: three armed malefactors present even if one of the
1) it is specially sought by the offender; or shall have acted together offenders merely relied on
2) it was taken advantage of by him; or in the commission of an their aid, for actual aid is
3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by offense not necessary
insuring the offenders immunity from capture.
Band members are all Armed men are mere
Also, if treachery is also present in the commission of principals accomplices
the crime, nighttime is absorbed in treachery and
cannot be appreciated as a generic aggravating Aid of armed men includes armed women. [People
circumstance. v. Licop]

Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion Note: Aid of armed men is absorbed by
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or employment of a band.
other calamity or misfortune
Basis: Means and ways of committing the crime.

PAGE 48
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist (reincidencia)
Requisites:
(1) That the offender is on trial for an offense;
(2) That he was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
(3) That both the first and the second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the Code;
(4) That the offender is convicted of the new
offense.
Different forms of repetition or habituality of offender
(a) Recidivism under Article 14 (9)The offender at
the time of his trial for one crime shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of
another embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code.
(b) Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (9)The
offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty.
(c) Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5)The
offender within a period of 10 years from the
date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, is found guilty
of any of the said crimes a third time or another.
(d) Quasi-recidivism under Article 160Any person
who shall ` a felony after having been convicted
by final judgment before beginning to serve
such sentence or while serving such sentence
shall be punished by the maximum period
prescribed by law for the new felony
In recidivism, the crimes committed should be
felonies. There is no recidivism if the crime
committed is a violation of a special law.
What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the
time of the commission of the offense (i.e. there was
already a conviction by final judgment at the time of
the trial for the second crime).
(a) What is required is previous conviction at the
time of the trial.
(b) The best evidence of a prior conviction is a
certified copy of the original judgment of
conviction, and such evidence is always
admissible and conclusive unless the accused
himself denies his identity with the person
convicted at the former trial. (Aquino, Revised
Penal Code)
(c) At the time of the trial means from the
arraignment until after sentence is announced
by the judge in open court.
(d) Recidivism does not prescribe. No matter how
long ago the offender was convicted, if he is
PAGE 49
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in
the same title of the Revised Penal Code, it is
taken into account as aggravating in imposing
the penalty.
(e) Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is
absolute because it only excuses the service of
the penalty, not the conviction. However, if a
person was granted an amnesty, and thereafter
he is convicted of another crime of the same
class as the former crimes, his former conviction
would not be aggravating. According to Art. 89,
amnesty extinguishes not only the penalty but
also its effects.
If the offender has
(1) already served his sentence and
(2) he was extended an absolute pardon,
(a) the pardon shall erase the conviction
including recidivism because there is no
more penalty
(b) so the pardon shall be understood as
referring to the conviction or the effects of
the crime.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by
his inclination to crimes.
People vs. Molina (2000):To prove recidivism, it is
necessary to allege the same in the information and to
attach thereto certified copies of the sentences
rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the trial
court may still give such AC credence if the accused
does not object to the presentation.
People v. Dacillo (2004): In order to appreciate
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is
necessary to allege it in the information and to
attach certified true copies of the sentences
previously meted out to the accused, in accordance
with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty
Requisites:
(1) That the accused is on trial for an offense;
(2) That he previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches:
(a) an equal or
(b) greater penalty, or
(c) for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches
lighter penalty than that for the new
offense; and
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(3) That he is convicted of the new offense. Art. 62, Par. 5 Habitual
Art. 14, Par. 9 Recidivism
Delinquency
In Reiteracion or Habituality, it is essential that the
offender be previously punished; that is, he has release therefrom to the
served sentence. third conviction and so on
Habitual delinquency is a
Par. 10 speaks of special aggravating
It is a generic aggravating
(a) penalty attached to the offense, circumstance, hence it
circumstance which can
(b) not the penalty actually imposed cannot be offset by any
be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
mitigating circumstance.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by Aside from the penalty
his inclination to crimes. prescribed by law for the
If not offset, it would only
crime committed, an
increase the penalty
Par. 9 Recidivism Par. 10 Reiteracion additional penalty shall
prescribed by law for the
be imposed depending
crime committed to its
It is enough that a final It is necessary that the upon whether it is already
maximum period
judgment has been offender shall have served the third conviction, the
rendered in the first out his sentence for the fourth, the fifth and so on
offense. first offense.
The previous and Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly
Requires that the offenses served the sentence for previous conviction/s, or is
subsequent offenses must
be included in the same legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism
not be embraced in the
title of the Code cannot at the same time constitute reiteracion, hence
same title of the Code
the latter cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.
Always to be taken into
consideration in fixing the Not always an If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and
penalty to be imposed aggravating circumstance reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be
upon the accused aggravated by recidivism which can be easily proven.
Rationale is the proven Rationale is the proven
tendency to commit a resistance to Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration
similar offense rehabilitation of a price, reward, or promise

When this Aggravating Circumstance is present,

Art. 62, Par. 5 Habitual
Art. 14, Par. 9 Recidivism there must be 2 or more principals:
Delinquency
(a) the one who gives or offers the price or promise;
Two convictions are At least three convictions and
enough are required (b) the one who accepts it.
The crimes are limited
and specified to: (1) Both of whom are principals to the former,
(a) serious physical because he directly induces the latter to commit
The crimes are not injuries, the crime, and the latter because he commits it.
specified; it is enough that (b) Less serious physical (2) When this AC is present, it affects not only the
they may be embraced injuries, person who received the price or reward, but
under the same title of (c) robbery, also the person who gave it.
the Revised Penal Code (d) theft, (3) The evidence must show that one of the accused
(e) estafa or swindling used money or valuable consideration for the
and purpose of inducing another to perform the
(f) falsification deed. (U.S. v. Gamao).
(4) If without previous promise it was given
There is a time limit of not voluntarily after a crime was committed as an
There is no time limit more than 10 years expression of his appreciation for the sympathy
between the first between every conviction and aid shown by the other accused, it should
conviction and the computed from the first not be taken into consideration for the purpose
subsequent conviction. conviction or release from of increasing the penalty.
Recidivism is punishment thereof to
imprescriptible. conviction computed from The price, reward or promise:
the second conviction or (a) Need not consist of or refer to material things; or

PAGE 50
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(b) That the same were actually delivered,
it being sufficient that the offer made by the
principal by inducement was accepted by the
principal by direct participation before the
commission of the offense.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by
the motivating power itself.
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of
a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin
(a) Unless used by the offender as a means to
accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the
circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be
considered to increase the penalty or to change
the nature of the offense.
(b) When another AC already qualifies the crime,
any of these ACs shall be considered as generic
aggravating circumstance only.
(c) Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson.
(d) Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire, as
when you kill someone, you burn down his house
while the latter is inside, this is murder.
(e) There is no such crime as murder with arson or
arson with homicide. The crime is only murder.
(f) If the intent is to destroy property - the crime is
arson even if someone dies as a consequence.
(g) If the intent is to kill - there is murder even if the
house is burned in the process.
Basis: Means and ways employed.
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident
premeditation
Requisites:
(1) The time when the offender determined to
commit the crime;
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination; and
(3) A sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
allow is conscience to overcome the resolution
of his will.
Evident premeditation implies
(a) a deliberate planning of the act
(b) before executing it.
The essence of premeditation
PAGE 51
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(a) an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and
deliberate
(1) on the meaning and
(2) consequences of what he planned to do,
(b) an interval long enough for his conscience and
better judgment to overcome his evil desire and
scheme. (People v. Durante)
(c) The premeditation must be based upon external
facts, and must be evident, not merely
suspected indicating deliberate planning.
(d) The date and time when the offender
determined to commit the crime is essential,
because the lapse of time for the purpose of the
third requisite is computed from that date and
time.
(e) After the offenders had determined to clung
commit the crime, there must be a manifest
indication that they clung to their determination.
(f) Where conspiracy is directly established, with
proof of the attendant deliberation and selection
of the method, time and means of executing the
crime, the existence of evident premeditation
can be taken for granted. (U.S. v. Cornejo)
(g) Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery,
adultery, estafa, and falsification.
However, it may be aggravating in robbery with
homicide if the premeditation included the
killing of the victim. (People v. Valeriano)
(h) In order that premeditation may exist, it is not
necessary that the accused premeditated the
killing of a particular individual. If the offender
premeditated on the killing of any person
(general attack), it is proper to consider against
the offender the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation, because whoever is killed
by him is contemplated in the premeditation.
[US v. Manalinde, 1909]
Basis: Reference to the ways of committing the crime
because evident premeditation implies a deliberate
planning of the act before executing it.
People v. Salpigao:Evident premeditation is
presumed to exist when conspiracy is directly
established. When conspiracy is merely implied,
evident premeditation cannot be presumed, the
latter must be proved just like any other fact.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
People v. Mondijar(2002):There was no evident
premeditation. For the circumstance of evident
premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution
must present clear and positive evidence of the
planning and preparation undertaken by the
offender prior to the commission of the crime.
Settled is the rule that evident premeditation, like
any other circumstance that qualifies a killing to
murder, must be established beyond reasonable
doubt as conclusively and indubitably as the killing
itself. In the present case, no evidence was presented
by the prosecution as to when and how appellant
planned and prepared for the killing of the victim.
There is no showing of any notorious act evidencing a
determination to commit the crime which could
prove appellant's criminal intent.
People v. Biso (2003): Dario, a black belt in karate,
entered an eatery, seated himself beside Teresita
and made sexual advances to her in the presence of
her brother, Eduardo. Eduardo contacted his cousin,
Biso, an ex-convict and a known toughie in the area,
and related to him what Dario had done to Teresita.
Eduardo and Pio, and 2 others decided to confront
Dario. They positioned themselves in the alley near
the house of Dario. When Dario arrived on board a
taxicab, the four assaulted Dario. Eduardo held, with
his right hand, the wrist of Dario and covered the
mouth of Dario with his left hand. The 2 others held
Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then stabbed Dario
near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo stabbed
Dario and fled with his three companions from the
scene.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. The
prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to
kill Dario and if they did intend to kill him, the
prosecution failed to prove how the malefactors
intended to consummate the crime. Except for the
fact that the appellant and his three companions
waited in an alley for Dario to return to his house, the
prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on the part
of the appellant and his cohorts showing that that
they had clung to any plan to kill the victim.
Par. 14. That craft (astucia), fraud (fraude) or disguise
(disfraz) be employed
(a) Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the
part of the accused.
(b) It is employed as a scheme in the execution of
the crime.
FRAUD
(a) Insidious words or machinations used
(1) to induce the victim
PAGE 52
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) to act in a manner
(b) which would enable the offender to carry out his
design.
CRAFT
Craft and fraud may be
(a) absorbed in treachery if they have been
deliberately adopted as the means, methods or
forms for the treacherous strategy, or
(b) they may co-exist independently where they are
adopted for a different purpose in the
commission of the crime.
Fraud Craft
When there is a DIRECT
The act of the accused
INDUCEMENT by
was done in order NOT
insidious words or
TO AROUSE SUSPICION
machinations
DISGUISE
(a) Resorting to any device to conceal identity.
(b) The test of disguise is
(1) whether the device or contrivance resorted
to by the offender
(2) was intended to or did make identification
more difficult, such as the use of a mask,
false hair or beard.
(c) But if in spite of the use of handkerchief to cover
their faces, the culprits were recognized by the
victim, disguise is not considered aggravating.
Basis: Means employed in the commission of the
crime.
People v. San Pedro:Where the accused pretended to
hire the driver in order to get his vehicle, it was held
that there was craft directed to the theft of the
vehicle, separate from the means subsequently used
to treacherously kill the defenseless driver.
People v. Masilang:There was also craft where after
hitching a ride, the accused requested the driver to
take them to a place to visit somebody, when in fact
they had already planned to kill the driver.
People v. Labuguen (2000):Craft involves intellectual
trickery and cunning on the part of the offender.
When there is a direct inducement by insidious words
or machinations, fraud is present. By saying that he
would accompany the victim to see the cows which
the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure
the victim to go with him.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Par. 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength,
or means be employed to weaken the defense
To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength means
(a) to use purposely excessive force
(b) out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked.
Superiority may arise from
(a) aggressors sex, build, weapon or number
(b) as compared to that of the victim (e.g. accused
attacked an unarmed girl with a knife; 3 men
stabbed to death the female victim).
No advantage of superior strength when
(a) one who attacks is overcome with passion and
obfuscation or
(b) when quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal
blow was struck while victim and accused were
struggling.
Versus by a band:
In the circumstance of abuse of superior strength,
what is taken into account is
(a) not the number of aggressors nor the fact that
they are armed
(b) but their relative physical might vis--vis the
offended party
Means Employed to Weaken Defense
This circumstance is applicable only
(a) to crimes against persons and
(b) sometimes against person and property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
Note: The means used must not totally eliminate
possible defense of the victim, otherwise it will fall
under treachery
Basis: Means employed in the commission of the
crime.
People v. Carpio:There must be evidence of notorious
inequality of forces between the offender and the
offended party in their age, size and strength, and
that the offender took advantage of such superior
strength in the commission of the crime. The mere
fact that there were two persons who attacked the
victim does not per se constitute abuse of superior
strength.
PAGE 53
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
People v. Lobrigas (2002):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.
People v. Barcelon (2002): Abuse of superior strength
was present in the commission of the crime. The
court cited the case of People vs. Ocumen, where an
attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed woman constitutes the circumstance of
abuse of that superiority which his sex and the
weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself.
The disparity in age between the assailant and the
victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates
physical superiority on appellant's part over the
deceased. It did not matter that appellant was "dark"
with a "slim body build" or "medyo mataba." What
mattered was that the malefactor was male and
armed with a lethal weapon that he used to slay the
victim.
People v. Sansaet (2002):Mere superiority in number,
even assuming it to be a fact, would not necessarily
indicate the attendance of abuse of superior
strength. The prosecution should still prove that the
assailants purposely used excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the
persons attacked.
Finally, to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, what should be
considered is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in order to
consummate the offense. To take advantage of
superior strength means to purposely use excessive
force out of proportion to the means available to the
person attacked to defend himself.
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia)
Treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Requisites:
(1) The employment of means of execution that
gave the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate; and
(2) That the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
Employment of means, methods and form in the
commission of the crime:
(a) Which tend directly and specially to
(b) ensure its execution
(c) without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the
means, method or form employed by the offender,
the offended party was not able to put up any
defense.
(a) If the offended party was able to put up a
defense, even only a token one, there is no
treachery.
(b) Instead, some other aggravating circumstance
may be present but it is no longer treachery.
Rules Regarding Treachery
(1) Applicable only to crimes against persons.
(2) Means, methods or forms need not insure
accomplishment or consummation of the crime.
The treacherous character of the means
employed in the aggression does not depend
upon the result thereof but upon the means
itself. Thus, frustrated murder could be
aggravated by treachery.
(3) The mode of attack must be consciously
adopted.
The accused must make some preparation to kill
the deceased in such manner as to insure the
execution of the crime or to make it impossible
or hard for the person attacked to defend
himself or retaliate. (People v. Tumaob)
It must be a result of meditation, calculation or
reflection. (U.S. v. Balagtas)
(4) Treachery cannot be presumed. The suddenness
of the attack does not, of itself, suffice to support
a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to
kill, so long as the decision was made all of a
sudden and the victims helpless position was
accidental. (People v. Lubreo). It must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence. (People v.
Santos).
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Attacks show intention to eliminate risk:
(a) Victim asleep
(b) Victim half-awake or just awakened
(c) Victim grappling or being held.
(d) Attacked from behind
Additional rules:
(a) When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery
must be present in the BEGINNING of the
assault.
(b) When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in
that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that
treachery was present AT THE MOMENT THE
FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
Basis: Means and ways employed in the commission
of the crime.
People vs. Ilagan:Suddenness of the attack does not
by itself constitute treachery in the absence of
evidence that the manner of attack was consciously
adopted by the offender to render the victim
defenceless.
People v. Malejana: Treachery may still be
appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of
danger to his person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Thus, 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.
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation.
People v. Rendaje (2000):To constitute treachery, two
conditions must concur: (1) the employment of
means, methods or manner of execution that would
ensure the offender's safety from any defense or
retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and
(2) the offender's deliberate or conscious choice of
the means, method or manner of execution.
PAGE 54
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
People v. Dumadag (2004): As a general rule, a
sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or
from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was
deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of
depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or
retreat. The rule does not apply if the attack was not
preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of
the appellant on an act made by the victim. In the
present case, it is apparent that the attack was not
preconceived. It was triggered by the appellant's
anger because of the victim's refusal to have a drink
with the appellant and his companions.
Treachery absorbs:
(1) Abuse of superior strength (U.S. v. Estopia)
(2) Use of means to weaken the defense (People v.
Siatong)
(3) Aid of armed men (People v. Ferrera)
(4) Nighttime (People v. Kintuan)
(5) Craft (People v. Malig)
(6) By a band (People v. Ampo-an)
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act
(a) It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral
order, which adds disgrace to the material injury
caused by the crime.
(b) The means employed or the circumstances
brought about must tend to make the effects of
the crime MORE HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE
OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.
(c) Applicable to crimes against chastity, rape, less
serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion
and murder.
(d) Raping a woman from behind is ignominous
because that is not the normal form of
intercourse, it is something which offends the
morals of the offended woman. This is how
animals do it.
Basis: Means employed.
People v. Torrefiel (1947):The novelty of the manner in
which the accused raped the victim by winding
cogon grass around his genitals augmented the
wrong done by increasing its pain and adding
ignominy thereto.
PAGE 55
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
People v. Alfanta (1999):There was ignominy because
the accused not only used missionary position but
also the same position as dogs do. He also inserted
his finger inside her. Although the dog position is
not novel and often been used by couples, there is
ignominy if the sexual act is performed not by
consenting parties.
People v. Cachola (2004):For ignominy to be
appreciated, it is required that the offense be
committed in a manner that tends to make its effect
more humiliating, thus adding to the victim's moral
suffering. Where the victim was already dead when
his body or a part thereof was dismembered,
ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. In
this case, the information states that Victorino's
sexual organ was severed after he was shot and
there is no allegation that it was done to add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act. We cannot,
therefore, consider ignominy as an aggravating
circumstance.
People v. Bumidang (2000): The aggravating
circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into
account if means are employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the offense; or if the crime was committed
in a manner that tends to make its effects more
humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her moral
suffering. It was established that Baliwang used the
flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before
he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the
presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly
show that Baliwang deliberately wanted to further
humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and
compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was
appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in
the presence of her betrothed, or of her husband, or
was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete
nakedness before they raped her.
Par. 18.That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry.
Unlawful Entry when an entrance of a crime a wall,
roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
(a) There is unlawful entry when an entrance is
effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
(b) Unlawful entry must be a means to effect
entrance and not for escape.
(c) There is no unlawful entry when the door is
broken and thereafter the accused made an
entry thru the broken door. The breaking of the
door is covered by paragraph 19.
(d) Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of
trespass to dwelling and robbery with force
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
upon things but aggravating in the crime of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons.
Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the
crime.
Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of the
crime, a wall, roof, floor, door or window be broken
(a) To be considered as an AC, breaking the door
must be utilized as a means to the commission
of the crime.
(b) It is only aggravating in cases where the
offender resorted to any of said means TO
ENTER the house.
(c) If the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of
the place, it is not aggravating.
(d) Because of the phrase as a means to the
commission of a crime, it is not necessary that
the offender should have entered the building.
What aggravates the liability of the offender is
the breaking of a part of the building as a means
to the commission of the crime.
Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the
crime.
Par. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or
other similar means
(a) With the aid of persons under 15 years of age
(5) To repress, so far as possible, the frequent
practice resorted to by professional
criminals of availing themselves of minors
taking advantage of their lack of criminal
responsibility (remember that minors are
given leniency when they commit a crime)
(b) By means of a motor vehicle
To counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit
crime and flee and abscond once the same is
committed.
This circumstance is aggravating only when
used in the commission of the offense.
If motor vehicles are used only in the escape of
the offender, it is not aggravating. It must have
been used to facilitate the commission of the
crime to be aggravating.
Or other similar means the expression should
be understood as referring to
PAGE 56
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(a) MOTORIZED vehicles or
(b) other efficient means of transportation
similar to automobile or airplane.
Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the
crime.
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the
crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission
Requisites:
(1) That the injury caused be deliberately increased
by causing other wrong;
(2) That the other wrong be unnecessary for the
execution of the purpose of the offender.
For it to exist, it must be shown that the accused
enjoyed and delighted in making his victim suffer.
If the victim was already dead when the acts of
mutilation were being performed, this would also
qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his
corpse.
Basis: Ways employed to commit the crime.
Ignominy Cruelty
shocks the moral
physical
conscience of man
refers to the moral effect
of a crime and it pertains refers to the physical
to the moral order, suffering of the victim so
whether or not the victim he has to be alive
is dead or alive
People v. Catian (2002): Catian repeatedly struck
Willy with a "chako" on the head, causing Willy to fall
on his knees. Calunod seconded by striking the
victim with a piece of wood on the face. When Willy
finally collapsed, Sumalpong picked him up, carried
him over his shoulder, and carried Willy to a place
where they burned Willy. The latters skeletal
remains were discovered by a child who was
pasturing his cow near a peanut plantation.
Held: The circumstance of cruelty may not be
considered as there is no showing that the victim was
burned while he was still alive. For cruelty to exist
there must be proof showing that the accused
delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical and
moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
No proof was presented that would show that
accused-appellants deliberately and wantonly
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
augmented the suffering of their victim.
People v. Guerrero (2002): Appellant first severed the
victim's head before his penis was cut-off. This being
the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled out
for it connotes an act of deliberately and sadistically
augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong
not necessary for its commission, or inhumanely
increasing the victim's suffering. As testified to by Dr.
Sanglay, and reflected in her medical certificate,
Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head being
severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the
act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was
perpetrated when the victim was already dead.
QUALIFYING
DECREE CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/ UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION
OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR
EXPLOSIVES (P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294)
AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Acts punished
(1) Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of firearms or
ammunition or instruments used or intended to
be used in the manufacture of firearms or
ammunition
Provided, That no other crime is committed.
(a) If homicide or murder is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.
(b) If the violation of this section is in
furtherance of or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion, or
insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
d'etat.
(2) Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of explosives.
(a) When a person commits any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code or special
laws
(b) with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
devices, which results in the death of any
person or persons,
(c) the use of such explosives, detonation
agents or incendiary devices shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
PAGE 57
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Tampering of firearm's serial number.
(4) Repacking or altering the composition of
lawfully manufactured explosives.
People vs. De Gracia (1994): 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 physical possession but also
constructive possession.
Palaganas vs. Court of Appeals (2006): With the
passage of Republic Act. No. 8294 on 6 June 1997,
the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder homicide
is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating
circumstance and not a generic aggravating
circumstance.
People vs. Ladjaalam (2000):If an unlicensed firearm
is used in the commission of any crime, there can be
no separate offense of simple illegal possession of
firearms.
Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide,
illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an
aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense.
Since direct assault with multiple attempted
homicide was committed in this case, appellant can
no longer be held liable for illegal possession of
firearms.
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(R.A. NO. 9165)
As a qualifying aggravating circumstance
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.
Immunity from prosecution and punishment,
coverage
Sec. 33. Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17, Rule
119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and
the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 or the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991,
any person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15,
and 19, Article II of this Act, who voluntarily gives
information about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8,
10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as well as any
violation of the offenses mentioned if committed by a
drug syndicate, or any information leading to the
whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the
members thereof; and who willingly testifies against
such persons as described above, shall be exempted
from prosecution or punishment for the offense with
reference to which his/her information of testimony
were given, and may plead or prove the giving of
such information and testimony in bar of such
prosecution: Provided, That the following conditions
concur:
(1) The information and testimony are necessary for
the conviction of the persons described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet in the
possession of the State;
(3) Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points;
(4) the informant or witness has not been previously
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,
except when there is no other direct evidence
available for the State other than the information
and testimony of said informant or witness; and
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly and
faithfully comply without delay, any condition or
undertaking, reduced into writing, lawfully
imposed by the State as further consideration for
the grant of immunity from prosecution and
punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed
by such informant or witness who does not appear to
be most guilty for the offense with reference to which
his/her information or testimony were given:
Provided, finally, That there is no direct evidence
available for the State except for the information and
testimony of the said informant or witness.
Sec. 34. Termination of the Grant of Immunity. The
immunity granted to the informant or witness, as
prescribed in Section 33 of this Act, shall not attach
should it turn out subsequently that the information
and/or testimony is false, malicious or made only for
the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way
prejudicing the persons described in the preceding
Section against whom such information or testimony
is directed against. In such case, the informant or
PAGE 58
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
witness shall be subject to prosecution and the
enjoyment of all rights and benefits previously
accorded him under this Act or any other law, decree
or order shall be deemed terminated.
In case an informant or witness under this Act fails or
refuses to testify without just cause, and when
lawfully obliged to do so, or should he/she violate
any condition accompanying such immunity as
provided above, his/her immunity shall be removed
and he/she shall likewise be subject to contempt
and/or criminal prosecution, as the case may be, and
the enjoyment of all rights and benefits previously
accorded him under this Act or in any other law,
decree or order shall be deemed terminated.
In case the informant or witness referred to under
this Act falls under the applicability of this Section
hereof, such individual cannot avail of the provisions
under Article VIII of this Act.
Minor offenders
Sec. 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor
Offender. An accused who is over fifteen (15) years
of age at the time of the commission of the offense
mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more
than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when
judgment should have been promulgated after
having been found guilty of said offense, may be
given the benefits of a suspended sentence, subject
to the following conditions:
(a) He/she has not been previously convicted of
violating any provision of this Act, or of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the
Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal laws;
(b) He/she has not been previously committed to a
Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician;
and
(c) The Board favorably recommends that his/her
sentence be suspended.
While under suspended sentence, he/she shall be
under the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance
of the Board, under such conditions that the court
may impose for a period ranging from six (6) months
to eighteen (18) months.
Upon recommendation of the Board, the court may
commit the accused under suspended sentence to a
Center, or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician
for at least six (6) months, with after-care and
follow-up program for not more than eighteen (18)
months.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
In the case of minors under fifteen (15) years of age
at the time of the commission of any offense
penalized under this Act, Article 192 of Presidential
Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1179 shall apply, without prejudice to the
application of the provisions of this Section.
Sec. 67. Discharge After Compliance with Conditions
of Suspended Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender.
If the accused first time minor offender under
suspended sentence complies with the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board, including
confinement in a Center, the court, upon a favorable
recommendation of the Board for the final discharge
of the accused, shall discharge the accused and
dismiss all proceedings.
Upon the dismissal of the proceedings against the
accused, the court shall enter an order to expunge
all official records, other than the confidential record
to be retained by the DOJ relating to the case. Such
an order, which shall be kept confidential, shall
restore the accused to his/her status prior to the
case. He/she shall not be held thereafter to be guilty
of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by
reason of his/her failure to acknowledge the case or
recite any fact related thereto in response to any
inquiry made of him for any purpose.
Sec. 68. Privilege of Suspended Sentence to be Availed
of Only Once by a First-Time Minor Offender. The
privilege of suspended sentence shall be availed of
only once by an accused drug dependent who is a
first-time offender over fifteen (15) years of age at the
time of the commission of the violation of Section 15
of this Act but not more than eighteen (18) years of
age at the time when judgment should have been
promulgated.
Sec. 69. Promulgation of Sentence for First-Time
Minor Offender. If the accused first-time minor
offender violates any of the conditions of his/her
suspended sentence, the applicable rules and
regulations of the Board exercising supervision and
rehabilitative surveillance over him, including the
rules and regulations of the Center should
confinement be required, the court shall pronounce
judgment of conviction and he/she shall serve
sentence as any other convicted person.
Sec. 70. Probation or Community Service for a First-
Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment. Upon
promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its
discretion, place the accused under probation, even if
PAGE 59
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the sentence provided under this Act is higher than
that provided under existing law on probation, or
impose community service in lieu of imprisonment. In
case of probation, the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance shall be undertaken by the Board
through the DOH in coordination with the Board of
Pardons and Parole and the Probation
Administration. Upon compliance with the
conditions of the probation, the Board shall submit a
written report to the court recommending
termination of probation and a final discharge of the
probationer, whereupon the court shall issue such an
order.
The community service shall be complied with under
conditions, time and place as may be determined by
the court in its discretion and upon the
recommendation of the Board and shall apply only
to violators of Section 15 of this Act. The completion
of the community service shall be under the
supervision and rehabilitative surveillance of the
Board during the period required by the court.
Thereafter, the Board shall render a report on the
manner of compliance of said community service.
The court in its discretion may require extension of
the community service or order a final discharge.
In both cases, the judicial records shall be covered by
the provisions of Sections 60 and 64 of this Act.
If the sentence promulgated by the court requires
imprisonment, the period spent in the Center by the
accused during the suspended sentence period shall
be deducted from the sentence to be served.
Sec. 71. Records to be kept by the Department of
Justice. The DOJ shall keep a confidential record of
the proceedings on suspension of sentence and shall
not be used for any purpose other than to determine
whether or not a person accused under this Act is a
first-time minor offender.
Application/Non application of RPC provisions (Sec.
98, R.A. No. 9165) provisions (Sec. 98) cf. Art. 10, RPC
Sec. 98, RA 9165. Limited Applicability of the Revised
Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended,
shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in
the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided herein shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Art. 10, RPC. Offenses not subject to the provisions of
this Code. Offenses which are or in the future may
be punishable under special laws are not subject to
the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary..
(b) Where relationship is aggravating
Other Aggravating Circumstance
Organized or Syndicated Crime Group (Art. 62, RPC)
Organized or syndicated crime group:
(a) A group of two or more persons
(b) collaborating, confederating or mutually helping
one another
(c) for the purpose of gain in the commission of a
crime.
Special aggravating circumstance
The maximum penalty shall be imposed
(a) if the offense was committed by any person
(b) who belongs to an organized or syndicated
crime group.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
(iii) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line who
committed the crime of theft, malicious
mischief or swindling (estafa) but theres
civil liability. [Art. 332, RPC]
(i) In CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases
where
(a) the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender
(grandson kills grandfather), or
(b) when the offender and the offended
party are relatives of the same level, as
killing a brother, a brother-in-law, a
half-brother or adopted brother.
(ii) When the crime is SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the offended
party is a descendant of the offender,
relationship is AGGRAVATING.
But the serious physical injuries must not be
inflicted by a parent upon his child by
excessive chastisement.

THREE TYPES of alternative circumstances under (iii) When the crime is LESS SERIOUS
Art. 15: PHYSICAL INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL
(1) Relationship INJURIES if the offended party is a relative
(2) Intoxication of a higher degree than the offender
(3) Degree of education/instruction (iv) When the crime is HOMICIDE OR MURDER
if the victim of the crime is a relative of lower
Alternative Circumstances are circumstances which degree.
must be taken in consideration as aggravating or (v) In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY relationship
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the is always aggravating
crime
(c) Where relationship is mitigating
(1) Relationship (BRADSS) (i) In Crimes against property, by analogy to
(a) Spouse the provisions of Art. 332, relationship is
(b) Ascendant mitigating in the crimes of robbery (arts.
(c) Descendant 294-3-2), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent
(d) Legitimate, natural, or adopted Brother or insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321-
Sister 322, 325-326)
(e) Relative by Affinity in the same degree of (ii) When the crime is less serious or slight
the offender physical injuries if the offended party is a
relative of a lower degree than the offender.
(a) Where relationship is exempting
(i) An accessory who is related to the principal
People v. Atop (1998):11-year-old Regina lives with
within the relationship prescribed in Art. 20
her grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband
except if accessory falls within Par. 1 of Art.
of her grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4
19;
counts of rape which was committed in 1993 (2x),
(ii) A legally married person who having
1994 and 1995. The lower court took into account the
surprised his spouse in the act of
Aggravating Circumstance of relationship.
committing sexual intercourse with another
person who shall inflict upon them physical
Held: The law cannot be stretched to include persons
injuries of any other kind (i.e. less serious
attached by common-law relations. In this case,
and slight physical injuries). [Art. 247, RPC]
there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links
Atop to his victim.

PAGE 60
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

People v. Marcos (2001): In order that the alternative (3) Degree of Instruction/ Education
circumstance of relationship may be taken into (a) Refers to the lack of sufficient intelligence
consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, of and knowledge of the full significance of
the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ones act
ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or (b) Being illiterate does not mitigate liability if
adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in crime committed is one which one
the same degree, of the offender.. The rule is that inherently understands as wrong (e.g.
relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons parricide)
as when the offender and the offended party are (c) To be considered mitigating, degree of
relatives of the same level, such as killing a brother. instruction must have some reasonable
connection to the offense.
(2) Intoxication
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
It is only the circumstance of intoxication which There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory circumstances:
(a) if not mitigating, (1) INSTIGATION
(b) is automatically aggravating. (2) PARDON
(3) OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
(a) When mitigating (4) ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF
(1) There must be an indication that EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT (ART. 5)
(a) because of the alcoholic intake of the
offender, Absolutory Causes those where the act committed
(b) he is suffering from diminished self- is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
control. sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
(c) It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink.
(d) Rather it is the effect of the alcohol (1) Instigation
upon the offender which shall be the
basis of the mitigating circumstance.
(2) That offender is Entrapment Instigation
(a) not a habitual drinker and Ways and means are The instigator practically
(b) did not take alcoholic drink with the resorted to for the induces the would-be
intention to reinforce his resolve to purpose of trapping and accused into the
commit crime capturing the lawbreaker commission of the offense
in the execution of his and himself becomes a
(b) When Aggravating: criminal plan co-principal.
(1) If intoxication is habitual
(2) If it is intentional to embolden offender to The law enforcer
commit crime conceives the commission
The means originate from
of the crime and suggests
the mind of the criminal.
to the accused who
People v. Camano (1982):Intoxication is mitigating if carries it into execution.
accidental, not habitual nor intentional, i.e., not
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is A public officer or a
A person has planned or
aggravating if habitual or intentional. To be private detective induces
is about to commit a
mitigating, it must be indubitably proved. A habitual an innocent person to
crime and ways and
drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use commit a crime and
means are resorted to by
of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and would arrest him upon or
a public officer to trap and
confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of after the commission of
catch the criminal.
daily occurrence. Intoxication lessens the individual the crime by the latter.
resistance to evil thought and undermines will- Not a bar to the The accused must be
power making its victim a potential evil doer. In this prosecution and acquitted because the
case, the intoxication of the appellant not being conviction of the offender simply acts as a
habitual and considering that the said appellant was lawbreaker. tool of the law enforcers
in a state of intoxication at the time of the
commission of the felony, the alternative
circumstance of intoxication should be considered
mitigating.

PAGE 61
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Entrapment - Entrapping persons into crime for the
purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions. It is a
scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of
the criminals by being in the actual crime scene.
The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if
they have done the following:
(a) He does not induce a person to commit a crime
for personal gain or is not involved in the
planning of the crime.
(b) Does take the necessary steps to seize the
instrument of the crime and to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
Instigation - The involvement of a law officer in the
crime itself in the following manner:
(a) He induces a person to commit a crime for
personal gain.
(b) Doesnt take the necessary steps to seize the
instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders
before he obtained the profits in mind.
(c) He obtained the profits in mind even through
afterwards does take the necessary steps seize
the instrument of the crime and to arrest the
offenders.
Example of entrapment:
A, a government anti-narcotics agent, acted as a
poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with B, a
suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a
police officer. A then paid B in marked money and
the latter handed over a sachet of shabu. Upon
signal, the cops closed in on B
Example of instigation:
A, leader of an anti-narcotics team, approached and
persuaded B to act as a buyer of shabu and transact
with C, a suspected pusher. B was given marked
money to pay C for a sachet of shabu. After the sale
was consummated, the cops closed in and arrested
both B and C.
People v. Pacis (2002): Yap, an NBI agent, received
information that a Pacis was offering to sell kg of
"shabu." A buy-bust operation was approved. The
informant introduced Yap to Pacis as an interested
buyer. They negotiated the sale of kg of shabu.
Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with the markings
"Yellow Cab". While examining it, Pacis asked for the
payment. Yap gave the "boodle money" to Pacis.
Upon Pacis's receipt of the payment, the officers
identified themselves as NBI agents and arrested
him.
Held: The operation that led to the arrest of
appellant was an entrapment, not instigation. In
entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
PAGE 62
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in
the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation,
instigators practically induce the would-be
defendant into the commission of the offense and
become co-principals themselves. Entrapment is
sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of
apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale
and distribution of illegal drugs.
US v. Phelps (1910): Phelps was charged and found
guilty for violating the Opium Law (Act No. 1761).
Phelps was induced by Smith, an employee of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, into procuring opium,
providing for a venue and making arrangements for
the two of them to smoke opium.
Held: Smith not only suggested the commission of
the crime but also expressed his desire to commit
the offense in paying the amount required for the
arrangements. Such acts done by employees of
government in encouraging or inducing persons to
commit a crime in order to prosecute them are most
reprehensible.
This is an instance of instigation where Smith, the
instigator (who is either a public officer or a private
detective) practically induces the would-be accused
into the commission of the offense.
People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng (1931):
Entrapment is not a case where an innocent person
is induced to commit a crime merely to prosecute
him, but it simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
(2) Pardon
General rule: Pardon does not extinguish criminal
action (Art 23).
Exception: Pardon by marriage between the accused
and the offended party in cases of SEDUCTION,
ABDUCTION, RAPE AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS (Art 344).
(3) Other Absolutory Causes
(a) Spontaneous desistance [Art. 6]
(b) Light felonies not consummated [Art. 7]
(c) Accessories in light felonies
(d) Accessories exempt under Art. 20
(e) Trespass to dwelling to prevent serious
harm to self [Art. 280]
(f) exemption from criminal liability in crimes
against property
(g) Under Article 332, exemptions from
criminal liability for cases of theft, swindling
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
and malicious mischief. There would only be
civil liability.
(h) Death under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)
(i) Under Article 219, discovering secrets
through seizure of correspondence of the
ward by their guardian is not penalized.
(j) Ways on how criminal liability is
extinguished under Art 89.
(4) Acts not covered by Law and in Case of Excessive
Punishment
Art. 5 RPC. Duty of the court in connection with acts
which should be repressed but which are not covered
by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.
1) Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should
be made the subject of legislation.
2) In the same way, the court shall submit to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper,
without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense.
Art. 5 cover two situations:
(1) Where the court cannot convict the accused
because the act he committed is not punishable
under the law, but the court deems it proper to
repress such act.
(a) The proper judgment is acquittal.
(b) The judge must report to the Chief
Executive that said act be made subject of
penal legislation and the reasons therefore.
(2) Where the court after trial finds the accused
guilty, and the penalty prescribed for the crime
appears too harsh considering the conditions
surrounding the commission of the crime,
(a) The judge should impose the law (not
suspend the execution of the sentence).
(b) The most that he could do is recommend to
the Chief Executive to grant executive
clemency.
PAGE 63
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
People v. Veneracion (1995): The law plainly and
unequivocally provides that when by reason or on
the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the
penalty shall be death. Courts are not concerned
with wisdom, efficacy or morality of law. The
discomfort faced by those forced by law to impose
death penalty is an ancient one, but it is a matter
upon which judges have no choice. The Rules of
Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt,
the judges should impose the proper penalty and
civil liability provided for by the law on the accused.
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Circumstances which mitigate the criminal liability of
the offender but not found in Article 13
Illustration:
A kleptomaniac is criminally liable. But he would be
given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance
analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of
suffering from an illness which diminishes the
exercise of his will poser without, however, depriving
him of the consciousness of his act.
An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal
a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an
extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed
mother or the maternal grandparents are concerned,
but not insofar as the father of the child is
concerned. Mother killing her new born child to
conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two
degrees. Since there is a material lowering of the
penalty or mitigating the penalty, this is an
extenuating circumstance.
Persons Criminally
Liable/Degree of
Participation
Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one
person participated in the commission of the crime,
the law looks into their participation because in
punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code
classifies them as:
(a) PRINCIPAL
(b) ACCOMPLICE
(c) ACCESSORY
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(1) This classification is true only under the RPC and
is not applied under special laws, because the
penalties under the latter are never graduated.
(2) (1) Do not use the term principal when the
crime committed is a violation of special law
(use the term offender/s, culprit/s, accused)
As to the liability of the participants in the grave, less
grave or light felony:
(1) When the felony is grave, or less grave, all
participants are criminally liable.
(2) But when the felony is only light, only the
principal and the accomplice are liable. The
accessory is not.
Basis: In the commission of light felonies, the social
wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so small
that penal sanction is deemed not necessary.
PRINCIPAL
(1) By Direct Participation
(2) By Inducement
(3) By Indispensable Cooperation
(1) By Direct Participation
Elements:
(1) That they participated in the criminal resolution;
and
(2) That they carried out their plan and personally
took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.
Those who are liable (participated in the criminal
resolution):
(a) materially execute the crime;
(b) appear at the scene of the crime;
(c) perform acts necessary in the commission of the
offense.
Why one who does not appear at the scene of the
crime is not liable:
(a) his non-appearance is deemed desistance which
is favored and encouraged.
(b) conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the
law specifically provides a penalty therefore.
(c) there is no basis for criminal liability because
there is no criminal participation.
(2) By Inducement
Elements:
(1) That the inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the
crime;
PAGE 64
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) That such inducement be the determining cause
of the commission of the crime by the material
executor.
Two ways of becoming principal by induction:
(1) By directly forcing another to commit a crime by:
(a) Using irresistible force - such physical force
as would produce an effect upon the
individual that despite of all his resistance,
it reduces him to a mere instrument.
(b) Causing uncontrollable fear such fear that
must be grave, actual, serious and of such
kind that majority of men would succumb to
such moral compulsion. The latter must be
such as to leave a reasonable fear for ones
life or limb and not speculative, fanciful or
remote fear.
(2) By directly inducing another to commit a crime
by:
(a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or
promise.
The one giving the price or offering the
reward or promise is a principal by
inducement while the one committing the
crime in consideration thereof is a principal
by direct participation.
(b) Using words of command.
The person who used the words of
command is a principal by inducement
while the person who committed the crime
because of the words command is a
principal by direct participation.
(1) That the one uttering the words of
command must have the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime;
(2) That the one who made the command
must have an ascendancy or influence
over the person who acted;
(3) That the words used must be so direct,
so efficacious, so powerful as to
amount to physical or moral coercion;
(4) That the words of command must be
uttered prior to the commission of the
crime; and
(5) The material executor of the crime has
no personal reason to commit the
crime.
Inducement must be strong enough that the person
induced could not resist.
(a) This is tantamount to an irresistible force
compelling the person induced to carry out the
crime.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(b) Ill-advised language is not enough unless he
who made such remark or advice is a co-
conspirator in the crime committed.
When does a principal by induction become liable?
(a) The principal by induction becomes liable only
when the principal by direct participation
committed the act induced.
(b) The inducement must precede the act induced
and must be so influential in producing the
criminal act that without it, the act would not
have been performed.
What are the effects of acquittal of principal by direct
participation upon the liability of principal by
inducement?
Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-
defendant.
Illustration:
While in the course of a quarrel, a person shouted to
A, Kill him! Kill him! A killed the other person. Is the
person who shouted criminally liable? Is that
inducement? No. The shouting must be an
irresistible force for the one shouting to be liable.
People v. Valderrama (1993): Ernesto shouted to his
younger brother Oscar, Birahin mo na, birahin mo
na! Oscar stabbed the victim.
It was held that there was no conspiracy.
Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of
conspiracy without showing of common design.
Oscar has no rancor with the victim for him to kill the
latter. Considering that Ernesto had great moral
ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being much
older (35 years old) than the latter, who was 18 years
old, and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance,
clothing as well as food and shelter,
Ernesto is principal by inducement.
People v. Agapinay (1990): The one who uttered kill
him, we will bury him while the felonious aggression
was taking place cannot be held liable as principal
by inducement.
Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour, not
a command to be obeyed.
People v. Madall (1990): The son was mauled. The
family was not in good terms with their neighbors.
The father challenged everybody and when the
neighbors approached, he went home to get a rifle.
PAGE 65
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The shouts of his wife here comes another, shoot
him cannot make the wife a principal by
inducement.
It is not the determining cause of the crime in the
absence of proof that the words had great influence
over the husband.
Neither is the wifes act of beaming the victim with a
flashlight indispensable to the killing. She assisted
her husband in taking good aim, but such assistance
merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting.
Considering that it was not so dark and the husband
could have accomplished the deed without his wifes
help, and considering further that doubts must be
resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of the
wife is only that of an accomplice.
(3) By Indispensable Cooperation
Elements:
(3) Participation in the criminal resolution, that is,
there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention immediately
before the commission of the crime charged;
(a) Requires participation in the criminal
resolution
(b) There must be conspiracy
(c) Concurrence is sufficient
(4) Cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act, without which it would
have been accomplished.
(a) Cooperation must be indispensable
(b) If dispensable, accused is only an
accomplice
(c) If cooperation is necessary in the execution
of the offense, accused is considered as a
principal by direct participation.
Cooperation in the commission of the offense to
desire or wish in common a thing. But that common
will or purpose does not necessarily mean a previous
understanding, for it can be explained or inferred
from the circumstances of each case.
COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
This is present when the offenders are criminally
liable in the same manner and to the same extent.
The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.
Principals by direct participation have collective
criminal responsibility. Principals by induction,
except those who directly forced another to commit a
crime, and principals by direct participation have
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

collective criminal responsibility. Principals by criminal intention know about it after the
indispensable cooperation have collective criminal because they themselves principals have reached
responsibilities with the principals by direct have decided upon such the decision and only then
participation. course of action do they agree to
cooperate in its execution
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of Accomplices merely
Conspirators decide that a
criminal purpose and intention immediately before assent to the plan and
crime should be
the commission of the crime, or community of cooperate in its
committed
criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising accomplishment
from different acts directed against one and the Accomplices are merely
same person is individual and not collective, and instruments who perform
Conspirators are the
each of the participants is liable only for the act acts not essential to the
authors of a crime
committed by him. perpetration of the
offense.
The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the Elements:
consummation of the crime. (1) That there be community of design; that is,
(1) If the crime could hardly be committed without knowing the criminal design of the principal by
such cooperation, then such cooperator would direct participation, he concurs with the latter in
be a principal. his purpose;
(2) If the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened (2) That he cooperates in the execution of the
the consummation of the crime, the cooperator offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with
is merely an accomplice. the intention of supplying material or moral aid
in the execution of the crime in an efficacious
The focus is not just on participation but on the way; and
importance of participation in committing the crime. (3) That there be a relation between the acts done
by the principal and those attributed to the
In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or liability. person charged as accomplice.
Apply the doctrine of pro reo.
Principal by Cooperation Accomplice
ACCOMPLICE
Accomplice are persons who, not acting as Cooperation is Cooperation is not
principals, cooperate in the execution of the offense indispensable to the indispensable to the
by previous and simultaneous acts, which are not commission of the act commission of the act
indispensable to the commission of the crime.
ACCESSORIES
They act as mere instruments that perform acts not When accessories are not criminally liable:
essential to the perpetration of the offense. (1) When the felony committed is a light felony
(2) When the accessory is related to the principal as
When is one regarded as an accomplice? (a) spouse
(1) Determine if there is a conspiracy. (b) ascendant, or descendant, or
(2) If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability (c) brother or sister whether legitimate, or
of all will be the same, because the act of one is natural or adopted or
the act of all. (d) where the accessory is a relative by affinity
within the same degree,
What are the other traits of an accomplice?
(1) does not have previous agreement or Unless the accessory himself profited from
understanding; or the effects or proceeds of the crime or
(2) is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct assisted the offender to profit therefrom.
participation.
When one cannot be an accessory:
Conspirator Accomplice (1) he does not know the commission of the crime
(2) he participated in the crime as a principal or an
They know of and join in They know and agree with accomplice
the criminal design the criminal design
Conspirators know the Accomplices come to When an accessory is exempt from criminal liability:
When the principal is his:

PAGE 66
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(1) spouse,
(2) ascendant
(3) descendant
(4) legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
Note: Even if only two of the principals guilty of
murder are the brothers of the accessory and the
others are not related to him, such accessory is
exempt from criminal liability.
When an accessory is NOT exempt from criminal
liability even if the principal is related to him:
If such accessory
(1) profited from the effects of the crime, or
(2) assisted the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime
Other instances when one becomes an accessory:
(1) Accessory as a fence:
Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
(a) One who knowingly profits or assists the
principal to profit by the effects of robbery or
theft (i.e. a fence) is not just an accessory to the
crime, but principally liable for fencing
(b) The penalty is higher than that of a mere
accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.
(c) Mere possession of any article of value which
has been the subject of robbery or theft brings
about the presumption of fencing.
(d) PD 1612 has, therefore, modified Art. 19 of the
RPC.
(2) Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage:
(a) Presidential Decree 532 (Anti-piracy and
Highway Robbery law of 1974)
(b) If the crime was piracy or brigandage under
PD 532, said act constitutes the crime of
abetting piracy or abetting brigandage as
the case may be, although the penalty is
that of an accomplice, not just an accessory,
to the piracy or the brigandage.
(c) Section 4 of PD 532 provides that any
person who knowingly and in any manner
acquires or receives property taken by such
pirates or brigands or in any manner derives
benefit therefrom, shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders in
accordance with the Rules prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code.
(d) It shall be presumed that any person who
does any acts provided in this section has
performed them knowingly, unless the
contrary is proven.
(e) Although Republic Act 7659, in amending
Article 122 of the RPC, incorporated therein
PAGE 67
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the crime of piracy in Philippine territorial
waters and thus correspondingly
superseding PD 532 section 4 of said
Decree, which punishes said acts as a crime
of abetting piracy or brigandage, still stands
as it has not been replaced or modified, and
is not inconsistent with any provision of RA
7659.
(3) Destroying the Corpus Delicti
(a) When the crime is robbery or theft, with
respect to the third involvement of the
accessory, do not overlook the purpose
which must be to prevent discovery of the
crime.
(b) The corpus delicti is not the body of the
person who is killed.
(1) Even if the corpse is not recovered, as
long as that killing is established
beyond reasonable doubt, criminal
liability will arise.
(2) If there is someone who destroys the
corpus delicti to prevent discovery, he
becomes an accessory.
(4) Harboring or Concealing an Offender
In the fourth form or manner of becoming an
accessory, take note that the law distinguishes
between:
A Public Officer harboring, concealing or assisting the
principal to escape
Requisites:
(1) The accessory is a public officer;
(2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of
the principal;
(3) The public officer acts with abuse of his public
functions;
(4) The crime committed by the principal is any
crime, provided it is not a light felony.
A Private Citizen or civilian harboring, concealing or
assisting the principal to escape
Requisites:
(1) The accessory is a private person;
(2) He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of
the author of the crime;
(3) The crime committed by the principal is either
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
Public Officer Civilian
The nature of the crime is The nature of the crime is
immaterial material
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Public Officer Civilian accessory does not meet the required proof beyond
reasonable doubt, then said accused will be
For him to become an acquitted.
accessory, the principal
What is material is that he must have committed the So the criminal liability of an accomplice or accessory
used his public function in crime of treason, does not depend on the criminal liability of the
assisting the escape parricide, murder or principal but depends on the quantum of evidence.
attempt on the life of the
Chief Executive But if the evidence shows that the act done does not
constitute a crime and the principal is acquitted,
then the supposed accomplice and accessory should
PD 1829 (Also Known as
also be acquitted.
Revised Penal Code the Law Penalizing
Obstruction of Justice)
If there is no crime, then there is no criminal liability,
No specification of the whether principal, accomplice or accessory.
Specifies the crimes that
crime to be committed by
should be committed in
the offender in order that DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
case a civilian aids in the
criminal liability be APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF
escape
incurred CRIMINAL OFFENDERS (P.D. 1829)
The offender is the The offender need not
principal or must be even be the principal or What is imposed:
convicted of the crime need not be convicted of (a) Prision correccional in its maximum period, or
charged the crime charged (b) Fine ranging from PhP 1,000 6,000, or
(c) Both
An offender of any crime Upon any person who knowingly or willfully
is no longer an accessory obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
The one who harbored or
but is simply an offender apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
concealed an offender is
without regard to the prosecution of criminal cases through the acts
still an accessory
crime of the person enumerated in Sec. 1
assisted to escape
PUNISHABLE ACTS
(5) Whether the accomplice and the accessory may
be tried and convicted even before the principal is (a) Preventing witnesses from testifying in any
found guilty criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any
There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the offender/s by means of bribery,
accessory and accomplice must be charged together misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
with the principal; if the latter is acquitted, the threats;
accomplice and the accessory shall not be criminally (b) Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing
liable, unless the acquittal is based on a defense any paper, record, document, or object with
which is personal only to the principal. intent to impair its veracity, authenticity,
(a) However, it is not always true that the legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence
accomplice and the accessory cannot be in any investigation of or official proceedings in
criminally liable without the principal being first criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation
convicted. of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(b) Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal (c) Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
Procedure, it is required that all those involved escape of, any persons he knows, or has
in the commission of the crime must be included reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
in the information that may be filed. committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution
The liability of the accused will depend on the and conviction;
quantum of evidence adduced by the prosecution (d) Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose
against the particular accused but the prosecution of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or
must initiate the proceedings against the principal. the execution of a judgment, or concealing his
true name and other personal circumstances for
Even if the principal is convicted, if the evidence the same purpose or purposes;
presented against a supposed accomplice or

PAGE 68
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(e) Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
obstructing the service of process or court orders
or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals offices,
in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
(f) Making, presenting or using any record,
document, paper or object with knowledge of its
falsity and with intent to affect the course or
outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in criminal cases;
(g) Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any
benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
discontinuing, or impeding the prosecution of a
criminal offender;
(h) Threatening directly or indirectly another with
the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honor or property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether
lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person
from appearing in the investigation of, or in
official proceedings in criminal cases;
(i) Giving a false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the victim;
or fabricating information from the data
gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background
information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead
the investigator or the court.
COMPARE WITH ART. 20, RPC (ACCESSORIES EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY)
Ground for exemption under Art. 20
The exemption provide in this article is based on the
ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness
of ones name, which compels one to conceal crimes
committed by relatives so near as those mentioned
in this article.
An accessory is exempt from criminal liability when
the principal is his
(1) Spouse
(2) Ascendant
(3) Descendant
(4) Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree,
Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if
the principal is related to him if he
(a) Profited by the effects of the crime, or
(b) Assisted the offender to profit by the effect of
the crime.
PAGE 69
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The punishable acts in PD 1829, compared to RPC
Art. 20 are prompted by a detestable greed, not by
affection. The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do
not apply to PD 1829.
Penalties
Penalty - is the suffering that is inflicted by the State
for the transgression of a law.
Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:
(1) Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING, without
affecting the integrity of the human personality.
(2) Must be COMMENSURATE to the offense
different crimes must be punished with different
penalties.
(3) Must be PERSONAL no one should be
punished for the crime of another.
(4) Must be LEGAL it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
(5) Must be CERTAIN no one may escape its
effects.
(6) Must be EQUAL for all.
(7) Must be CORRECTIONAL.
Theories justifying penalty:
(1) PREVENTION to suppress danger to the State
(2) SELF-DEFENSE to protect the society from the
threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal.
(3) REFORMATION to correct and reform the
offender.
(4) EXEMPLARITY to serve as an example to deter
others from committing crimes.
(5) JUSTICE for retributive justice, a vindication of
absolute right and moral law violated by the
criminal.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by
law prior to its commission.
(a) This article prohibits the Government from
punishing any person for any felony with any
penalty which has not been prescribed by the
law.
(b) It has no application to any of the provisions of
the RPC for the reason that for every felony
defined in the Code, a penalty has been
prescribed.
(c) REASON: An act or omission cannot be
punished by the State if at the time it was
committed there was no law prohibiting it,
because a law cannot be rationally obeyed
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be
expected to obey an order that has not been
given.
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN
THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. NO. 9346)
RA 9346 expressly repealed RA 8177 or Act
Designating Death by Lethal Injection and RA 7659
or Death Penalty Law
RA 9346 repealed all the other laws imposing death
penalty.
Section 2 states that: In lieu of the death penalty,
the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law
violated does not make use of the nomenclature
of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Bon (2006):Yet in truth, there is no material
difference between imposition and application,
for both terms embody the operation in law of the
death penalty.
Since Article 71 denominates death as an element
in the graduated scale of penalties, there is no
question that the operation of Article 71 involves the
actual application of the death penalty as a means of
determining the extent which a persons liberty is to
be deprived.
Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars the
application of the death penalty, as well as expressly
repeals all such statutory provisions requiring the
application of the death penalty, such effect
necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated
scale of penalties under Article 71.
The court cannot find basis to conclude that Rep. Act
No. 9346 intended to retain the operative effects of
the death penalty in the graduation of the other
penalties in our penal laws.
Munoz cannot enjoin us to adopt such conclusion.
Rep. Act No. 9346 is not swaddled in the same
restraints appreciated by Muoz on Section 19(1),
Article III.
The very Congress empowered by the Constitution to
reinstate the imposition of the death penalty once
thought it best to do so, through Rep. Act No. 7650.
PAGE 70
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Within the same realm of constitutional discretion,
Congress has reversed itself.
It must be asserted that today, the legal status of the
suppression of the death penalty in the Philippines
has never been more secure than at any time in our
political history as a nation.
PURPOSES
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
(1) RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the offense. It
permits society to exact proportionate revenge,
and the offender to atone for his wrongs.
(2) CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as shown
by the rules which regulate the execution of the
penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
(3) SOCIAL DEFENSE shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual delinquents.
CLASSIFICATIONS
MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
(a) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES those expressly
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
(b) ACCESSORY PENALTIES those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalties.
(c) SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES those imposed in lieu
of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment in case
of inability to pay the fine.
Note: Public censure is a penalty,
(a) Thus, it is not proper in acquittal.
(b) However, the Court in acquitting the accused
may criticize his acts or conduct.
Penalties that are either principal or accessory:
(a) Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification,
(b) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
and
(c) Suspension
May be principal or accessory penalties, because
they are formed in the 2 general classes.(Asked 3
times in the Bar Exams)
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF PENALTIES
(1) According to their divisibility:
(a) Divisible
(i) those that have fixed duration
(ii) divisible into three periods.
(b) Indivisible
(i) those which have no fixed duration:
(ii) Death
(iii) Reclusion perpetua
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(iv) Perpetual absolute or special But the civil liability with regard to the interest of the
disqualification injured party is extinguished.
(v) Public censure
PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
(2) According to subject-matter (1) Scale of Principal Penalties
(a) Corporal (death)
(b) Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, (a) Capital punishment: (D)
arresto) (i) Death.
(c) Restriction of freedom (destierro) (b) Afflictive penalties: (RP, RT, PAD, TAD, PSD,
(d) Deprivation of rights (disqualification and TSD, PM)
suspension) (i) Reclusion perpetua,
(e) Pecuniary (fine) (ii) Reclusion temporal,
(iii) Perpetual or temporary absolute
(3) According to their gravity disqualification,
(a) Capital (iv) Perpetual or temporary special
(b) Afflictive disqualification,
(c) Correctional (v) Prision mayor.
(d) Light (c) Correctional penalties: (PC, AM, S, Des)
(i) Prision correccional,
DURATION AND EFFECT (ii) Arresto mayor,
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws (iii) Suspension,
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor (iv) Destierro.
the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual (d) Light penalties: (Am, Pc)
criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article (i) Arresto menor,
62 of this Code, although at the time of the (ii) Public censure.
publication of such laws a final sentence has been (e) Penalties common to the three preceding
pronounced and the convict is serving the same. classes: (F, Bond)
(i) Fine, and
This article states that Penal Laws shall only have (ii) Bond to keep the peace.
retroactive effect if it favors persons guilty of felonies,
who are not considered habitual criminals as defined (2) Scale of Accessory Penalties (PAD, TAD, PSD,
in Article 62. TSD, S, CI, I, F, Pay)

(a) Perpetual or temporary absolute

Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. A disqualification,
pardon of the offended party does not extinguish (b) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of (c) Suspension from public office, the right to vote
this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest and be voted for, the profession or calling.
of the injured party is extinguished by his express (d) Civil interdiction,
waiver. (e) Indemnification,
(f) Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
This article states the extent of a pardon made by proceeds of the offense,
the offended party. Under this article, a pardon does (g) Payment of costs
not extinguish the criminal liability of an offender
except for cases under Article 344 (Prosecution of The following table also contains
the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, DISQUALIFICATION as an afflictive penalty, because
abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness). its different forms can also be imposed as a principal
although it is primarily categorized as an accessory
penalty.

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

Death
Indivisible
(REPEALED)
Death, when not executed (1) PAD
due to pardon or (2) Civil interdiction 30 yrs

PAGE 71
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

commutation from sentence
(REPEALED)
20 years & 1 day to 40 (1) PAD
Reclusion perpetua
years (Indivisible) (2) Civil interdiction for life
(1) Deprivation of public
office, even if by
election
(2) Deprivation of right to
Perpetual absolute
For life vote & be voted for
disqualification (PAD)
(3) Disqualification from
public office held
(4) Loss of retirement
rights
(1) Deprivation of office,
employment,
profession, or calling
Perpetual special
For life affected
disqualification (PSD)
(2) Disqualification from
similar offices or
employments
(1) PAD
12 years & 1 day to 20
Reclusion temporal (2) Civil interdiction for
years
duration of sentence
6 years & 1 day (1) TAD
Prision mayor
to 12 years (2) PSD of suffrage
(1) Deprivation of public
office, even if by
election
(2) Deprivation of right to
Temporary absolute vote & be voted for
6 years & 1 day
disqualification during sentence
to 12 years
(TAD) (3) Disqualification from
public office held
during sentence
(4) Loss of retirement
rights
(1) Deprivation of office,
employment,
Temporary special profession, or calling
6 years & 1 day
disqualification affected
to 12 years
(TSD) (2) Disqualification from
similar offices or
employments

Specific Principal and Accessory Penalties Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
Accessory Penalties:
(1) Afflictive penalties (1) Civil interdiction for life or during the period of
the sentence as the case may be.
(a) Reclusion Perpetua (2) Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as

PAGE 72
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

to the principal penalty, unless the same shall Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
accessory penalties penalties
People v. Gatward (1997): As amended by RA 7659, Entails imprisonment for
the penalty of reclusion perpetua is now accorded a at least 30 years after
defined duration ranging from 20 years and 1 day to Does not appear to have which the convict
40 years. any definite extent or becomes eligible for
duration pardon although the
The Court held that in spite of the amendment maximum period shall in
putting the duration of RP, it should remain as an no case exceed 40 years
indivisible penalty since there was never intent on
the part of Congress to reclassify it into a divisible (b) Reclusion Temporal
penalty.
Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
The maximum duration of reclusion perpetua is not Accessory Penalties:
and has never been 30 years which is merely the (1) Civil interdiction for life or during the period of
number of years which the convict must serve in the sentence as the case may be.
order to be eligible for pardon or for the application (2) Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
of the 3-fold rule (infra). offender shall suffer even though pardoned as
to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
People v. Ramirez (2001): The SC disagrees with the have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
trial court in sentencing appellant "to suffer
imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua." (c) Prision mayor

There was no justification or need for the trial court
to specify the length of imprisonment, because
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty.
The significance of this fundamental principle was
laid down by the Court in People v. Diquit. "Since
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has no
minimum, medium or maximum periods.
Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
Accessory Penalties:
(1) Temporary Absolute Disqualification
(2) Perpetual Special Disqualification from the right
to suffrage which the offender shall suffer
although pardoned as to the principal penalty
unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.

It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any (2) Correctional Penalties

mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the crime. (Art. 63, (a) Prision Correccional
Revised Penal Code)
Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Reclusion Perpetua is imprisonment for life but the Accessory Penalties:
person sentenced to suffer it shall be pardoned after (1) Suspension from public office
undergoing the penalty for thirty (30) years, unless (2) Suspension from the right to follow a profession
by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause, or calling
he shall be considered by the Chief Executive as (3) Perpetual Special Disqualification for the right of
unworthy of pardon (Art. 27, Revised Penal Code)." suffrage, if the duration of the imprisonment
shall exceed 18 months
Distinguished from Life Imprisonment
While life imprisonment may appear to be the (b) Arresto Mayor
English translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it
goes deeper than that. Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Accessory Penalties:
Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua (1) Suspension of right to hold office
(2) Suspension of the right of suffrage during the
Imposed for serious term of the sentence.
offenses penalized by Prescribed under the RPC
special laws
Does not carry with it Carries with it accessory

PAGE 73
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

(1) Suspension from
public office
(2) Suspension from
6 months & 1 day profession or calling
Prision correccional
to 6 years (3) PSD of suffrage, if the
duration of
imprisonment exceeds
18 mos.
(1) Public office
6 months & 1 day
Suspension (2) Profession or calling
to 6 years
(3) Suffrage
Prohibition to enter w/in
6 months & 1 day
Destierro 25-250 km radius from the
to 6 years
designated place
(1) Suspension of right to
1 month & 1 day hold office
Arresto mayor
to 6 months (2) Suspension of the right
of suffrage

(3) Light Penalties This article merely classifies fine and has nothing to
do with the definition of light felony.
(a) Arresto Menor
The court can fix any amount of the fine within the
Duration: 1 day to 30 days limits established by law.
Accessory Penalties:
(1) Suspension of right to hold office The court must consider:
(2) Suspension of the right of suffrage during the (a) The mitigating and aggravating circumstances;
term of the sentence. and
(b) More particularly, the wealth or means of the
(b) Public Censure culprit.
Censure, being a penalty is not proper in acquittal.
When the law does not fix the minimum of the fine,
Penalty Duration Accessories (a) the determination of the amount of the fine to
be imposed upon the culprit
Suspension of (b) is left to the sound discretion of the court,
right to hold (c) provided it shall not exceed the maximum
Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days
office and right authorized by law.
of suffrage
Note: Fines are not divided into 3 equal portions.
Public censure
(b) Bond to Keep the Peace
(4) Penalties common to afflictive, correctional, and
light penalties
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace.
(a) Fine It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give
bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient
Fine is: sureties who shall undertake that such person will
(a) Afflictive more than P6,000 not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and
(b) Correctional P200 to P6,000 that in case such offense be committed they will pay
(c) Light Penalty less than P200 the amount determined by the court in the
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in
the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said
undertaking.

PAGE 74
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
The court shall determine, according to its discretion,
the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as
required he shall be detained for a period which shall
in no case exceed six months, is he shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall
not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
2 ways of giving bond:
(a) The offender must present
2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake that
(a) the offender will not commit the offense
sought to be prevented,
(b) and that in case such offense be committed
they will pay the amount determined by the
court;
(b) The offender must
deposit such amount with the clerk of court to
guarantee said undertaking;
The court shall determine the period of duration
of the bond.
The offender may be detained, if he cannot give
the bond,
(a) for a period not to exceed 6 months if
prosecuted for grave or less grave felony, or
(b) for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for a
light felony.
Bond to keep the peace is different from bail
bond which is posted for the provisional release
of a person arrested for or accused of a crime.
PENALTIES COMMON TO ALL THREE TYPES
Penalty Duration Accessories
Fine
Bond to keep the As determined
peace by the court
ACCESSORY PENALTIES
(1) Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification,
(2) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
(3) Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the profession or calling.
(4) Civil interdiction,
(5) Indemnification/ Forfeiture or confiscation of
instruments and proceeds of the offense,
(6) Payment of costs.
PAGE 75
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(a) Perpetual or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification
Effects:
(1) Deprivation of any public office or employment
of offender;
(2) Deprivation of the right to vote in any election or
to be voted upon;
(3) Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension
Note: Perpetual absolute disqualification is effective
during the lifetime of the convict and even after the
service of the sentence. Temporary absolute
disqualification lasts during the term of the sentence
except (1) deprivation of the public office or
employment; and (2) loss of all rights to retirement
pay or other pension for any office formerly held. (See
Art. 30, par. 3).
Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or
temporary special disqualification for the exercise of
the right of suffrage.
(1) The perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for the exercise of the right of
suffrage
(2) shall deprive the offender perpetually or during
the term of the sentence, according to the nature of
said penalty,
(3) of the right to vote in any popular election for any
public office or to be elected to such office.
(4) Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to
hold any public office during the period of his
disqualification.
Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any
public office, profession or calling, or the right of
suffrage.
The suspension from public office, profession or
calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall
disqualify the offender from holding such office or
exercising such profession or calling or right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office
shall not hold another having similar functions
during the period of his suspension.
Art. 34. Civil interdiction. Civil interdiction shall
deprive the offender during the time of his sentence
of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship,
either as to the person or property of any ward, of
marital authority, of the right to manage his property
and of the right to dispose of such property by any
act or any conveyance inter vivos.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or (c) Civil Interdiction
instruments of the crime. Every penalty imposed for
the commission of a felony shall carry with it the Effects: Deprivation of the following rights:
forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the (1) Parental authority
instruments or tools with which it was committed. (2) Guardianship over the ward
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be (3) Marital authority
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, (4) Right to manage property and to dispose of the
unless they be property of a third person not liable same by acts inter vivos. (Note: The convict can
for the offense, but those articles which are not still dispose his property mortis causa).
subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to the
(b) Perpetual or Temporary Special following principal penalties:
Disqualification (1) Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
(2) Reclusion perpetua
(3) Reclusion temporal
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or
temporary special disqualification. (d) Indemnification or Confiscation of
(1) The deprivation of the office, employment, Instruments or Proceeds of the Offense
profession or calling affected; (1) This is included in every penalty for the
(2) The disqualification for holding similar offices or commission of the crime.
employments either perpetually or during the term (2) The confiscation is in favor of the government.
of the sentence according to the extent of such (3) Property of a third person not liable for the
disqualification. offense is not subject to confiscation.
(4) If the trial court did not order any confiscation of
Effects: For public office, profession or calling: the process of the crime, the government cannot
(1) Deprivation of the office, employment, appeal from the confiscation as that would
profession or calling affected; increase the penalty already imposed.
(2) Disqualification for holding similar offices or
employments during the period of (e) Payment of Costs
disqualification.
Includes:
Effects: For the exercise of right to suffrage: (1) Fees, and
(1) Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected (2) Indemnities, in the course of judicial
in an office; proceedings.
(2) Cannot hold any public office during the period (a) Costs may be fixed amounts already determined
of disqualification. (Art. 31). by law or regulations or amounts subject to a
schedule.
The penalty for disqualification if imposed as an (b) If the accused is convicted; costs may be
accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION and charged against him.
NOT for the withholding of a privilege. (c) If he is acquitted, costs are de officio, meaning
each party bears his own expense.
Note: If temporary disqualification or suspension is (d) No costs shall be allowed against the Republic
imposed as an accessory penalty, the duration is the of the Philippines. (Rule 142, Sec. 1).
same as that of the principal penalty. (e) Whether costs should be assessed against the
accused lie within the discretion of the court.
Suspension from Public Office, the Right to Vote and
Be Voted for, the Right to Practice a Profession or
Calling Accessory Penalty Effects
Deprivation of any public office
Effects: or employment of offender;
(1) Disqualification from holding such office or the
exercise of such profession or right of suffrage Perpetual or Deprivation of the right to vote
during the term of the sentence; Temporary Absolute in any election or to be voted
(2) Cannot hold another office having similar Disqualification upon;
functions during the period of suspension. (Art.
32). Loss of rights to retirement pay
or pension

PAGE 76
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Accessory Penalty Effects
For public office, profession or
calling:
(a) Deprivation of the office,
employment, profession or
calling affected;
(b) Disqualification for holding
similar offices
Perpetual or
employments during the
Temporary Special
period of disqualification;
Disqualification
For the exercise of right to
suffrage:
(a) Deprivation of the right to
vote or to be elected in an
office;
(b) Cannot hold any public
office during the period of
disqualification
Suspension from
Disqualification from holding
Public Office, the
such office or the exercise of
Right to Vote and Be
such profession or right of
Voted for, the Right
suffrage during the term of the
to Practice a
sentence;
Profession or Calling
Cannot hold another office
having similar functions during
the period of suspension.
Deprivation of the following
rights:
(a) Parental authority
(b) Guardianship over the
Civil Interdiction ward
(c) Marital authority
(d) Right to manage property
and to dispose of the same
by acts inter vivos
Indemnification or Forfeiture in favor of the
Confiscation of Government of the proceeds of
Instruments or the crime and the instruments
Proceeds of the or tools with which it was
Offense committed
If the accused be convicted, the
costs may be charged against
him
Payment of Costs
If he be acquitted, costs are de
officio, i.e., each party will bear
his/her own expense
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Measures not considered penalty
Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are not
considered penalties.
The following shall not be considered as penalties:
(1) The arrest and temporary detention of accused
persons, as well as their detention by reason of
insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their
confinement in a hospital.
or (2) The commitment of a minor to any of the
institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the
purposes specified therein.
(3) Suspension from the employment of public office
during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.
(4) Fines and other corrective measures which, in the
exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers,
superior officials may impose upon their
subordinates.
(5) Deprivation of rights and the reparations which
the civil laws may establish in penal form.
Measures not considered penalties:
(1) Preventive detention
(2) Detention for medical causes
(3) Rehabilitation of minors
(4) Preventive suspension from public office
(5) Administrative fines and penalties
(6) Civil law deprivation of rights and reparations
(a) They are not penalties because they are not
imposed as a result of judicial proceedings.
(b) Those mentioned in par. 3 and 4 are merely
preventive measures before conviction of
offenders.
(c) The commitment of a minor mentioned in par. 2
is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the
court in a judgment of conviction.
(d) The imposition of the sentence in such case is
suspended.
The succeeding provisions are some examples of
deprivation of rights established in penal form:
Family Code, Art. 228. Parental authority terminates
permanently:
(1) Upon the death of the parents;
(2) Upon the death of the child; or
(3) Upon emancipation of the child. (327a).
Family Code, Art. 229. Unless subsequently revived
by a final judgment, parental authority also
terminates:
(1) Upon adoption of the child;
(2) Upon appointment of a general guardian;
(3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the
child in a case filed for the purpose;
PAGE 77
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent court
divesting the party concerned of parental authority;
or
(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity
of the person exercising parental authority. (327a).
APPLICATION
General Rules
In case of excessive penalties, the court must still
impose the penalty but it shall recommend
reduction, commutation, or other actions to the Chief
Executive. [Art. 5, RPC]
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by
law prior to its commission.
Nulla poena sine lege. This article prohibits the
Government from imposing punishment to any
person for a felony with any penalty which has not
been prescribed by the law.
In addition, penalties must be individual, i.e., not
shared, and definite, e.g., imprisonment, fine,
imprisonment and fine, imprisonment or fine; but not
imprisonment and/or fine.
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. If the offender
shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the
temporary penalties shall be computed from the day
on which the judgment of conviction shall have
become final.
If the offender be not in prison,
the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of
deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day
that the offender is placed at the disposal of the
judicial authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty.
The duration of the other penalties shall be
computed only from the day on which the defendant
commences to serve his sentence.
RULES ON THE COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES:
(1) WHEN THE OFFENDER IS IN PRISON the
duration of temporary penalties is from the day
on which the judgment of conviction becomes
final.
(2) WHEN THE OFFENDER IS NOT IN PRISON the
duration of penalty consisting in deprivation of
liberty, is from the day that the offender is placed
at the disposal of judicial authorities for the
enforcement of the penalty.
PAGE 78
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) THE DURATION OF OTHER PENALTIES the
duration is from the day on which the offender
commences to serve his sentence
Examples of temporary penalties:
(1) Temporary absolute disqualification
(2) Temporary special disqualification
(3) Suspension
(a) If offender is under detention, as when he is
undergoing preventive imprisonment, Rule No. 1
applies.
(b) If not under detention, because the offender has
been released on bail, Rule No. 3 applies.
Examples of penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty:
(1) Imprisonment
(2) Destierro
(a) When the offender is not in prison, Rule No. 2
applies.
(b) If the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment, Rule No. 3 applies but the
offender is entitled to a deduction of full time or
4/5 of the time of his detention.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted
from term of imprisonment.
Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the
full time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner
agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
except in the following cases:
(a) When they are recidivists or have been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime; and
(b) When upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment
for a period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced
and his case is not yet terminated,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
he shall be released immediately without prejudice
to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
(a) The accused undergoes preventive
imprisonment when the offense charged is
nonbailable, or even if bailable, he cannot
furnish the required bail.
(b) The convict is to be released immediately if the
penalty imposed after trial is less than the full
time or four-fifths of the time of the preventive
imprisonment.
(c) The accused shall be released immediately
whenever he has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment for the
offense charged.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (RA 4103, AS AMENDED)
The Indeterminate Sentence is composed of:
(1) A MAXIMUM taken from the penalty imposable
under the penal code (considering attendant
circumstances)
(2) A MINIMUM taken from the penalty next lower to
that fixed in the code.
Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem valuable
human material and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of liberty and economic
usefulness.
It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an
individual, and second as a member of the
society.
The law is intended to favor the defendant,
particularly to shorten his term of imprisonment,
depending upon his behavior and his physical,
mental and moral record as a prisoner, to be
determined by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence.
The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit
of the law even in crimes punishable with death or
life imprisonment provided the resulting penalty,
after considering the attending circumstances, is
reclusion temporal or less.
ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is expressly
granted to those who are sentenced to imprisonment
exceeding 1 year.
PAGE 79
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Application on the imposed sentence
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMING THE MAXIMUM AND
MINIMUM SENTENCE
(1) It consists of a maximum and a minimum
instead of a single fixed penalty.
(2) Prisoner must serve the minimum before he is
eligible for parole.
(3) The period between the minimum and
maximum is indeterminate in the sense that the
prisoner may be exempted from serving said
indeterminate period in whole or in part.
(4) The maximum is determined in any case
punishable under the RPC in accordance with
the rules and provisions of said code exactly as if
the ISL had never been enacted.
(5) Apply first the effect of privileged mitigating
circumstances then consider the effects of
aggravating and ordinary mitigating
circumstances.
(6) The minimum depends upon the courts
discretion with the limitation that it must be
within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense committed.
Note: A minor who escaped from confinement in the
reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the ISL
because his confinement is not considered
imprisonment.
Coverage
The law does not apply to certain offenders:
(1) Persons convicted of offense punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment (or reclusion
perpetua).
(2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
(3) Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
(4) Those convicted of piracy.
(5) Those who are habitual delinquents (but applies
to recidivists).
(6) Those who shall have escaped from confinement
or evaded service of sentence.
(7) Those who violated the terms of conditional
pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive.
(8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one year.
(9) Those who, upon the approval of the law, had
been sentenced by final judgment.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
suspension.Art. 64. Rules for the application of
penalties which contain three periods.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible
penalty or composed of three different penalties,
each one of which forms a period in accordance with
the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall
observe for the application of the penalty the
following rules, according to whether there are or are
not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
(a) When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
(b) When only a mitigating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
(c) When an aggravating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
(d) When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
(e) When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall:
(i) impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law,
(ii) in the period that it may deem applicable,
(iii) according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
(f) Whatever may be the number and nature of the
aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by
law, in its maximum period.
(g) Within the limits of each period, the court shall
determine the extent of the penalty according to
the number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater and
lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
PAGE 80
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
De la Cruz v. CA (1996): In as much as the amount of
P715k is P693k more than the abovementioned
benchmark of P22k, then adding one year for each
additional P10k,
the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21
days to 8 years of prision mayor minimum would be
increased by 69 years, as computed by the trial
court.
But the law categorically declares that the maximum
penalty then shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion
temporal.
Under the ISL, the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty should be within the range of
the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed
by the Code for the offense committed, which is
prision correccional.
People v. Saley: Under the Indeterminate Sentence
Law,
(a) the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that
which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed" under the Revised
Penal Code,
(b) and the minimum shall be "within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the
offense.
The penalty next lower should be based on the
penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense,
without first considering any modifying circumstance
attendant to the commission of the crime.
The determination of the minimum penalty is left by
law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be
anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower
without any reference to the periods into which it
might be subdivided.
The modifying circumstances are considered only in
the imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
The fact that the amounts involved in the instant
case exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in
the initial determination of the indeterminate
penalty;
Instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous
to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the
maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence.
This interpretation of the law accords with the rule
that penal laws should be construed in favor of the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the
estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum,
the penalty next lower would then be prision
correccional minimum to medium. Thus, the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should
be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and two (2) months.
People v. Campuhan: The penalty for attempted rape
is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable penalty
of death for the offense charged, which is statutory
rape of a minor below seven (7) years.
Two (2) degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the
range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in
the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance,
the maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused shall be taken from the medium period of
reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and (1) day to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months,
while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty
next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the
range of which is from six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
Conditions of parole
Sec. 6: Duty of the prisoner released under this Code:
Report personally to such government officials or
other parole officers appointed by the Board for a
period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining
portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him
or until final release by the Board. If it is shown that
he is a law-abiding citizen and did not violate any
laws of the country, the Board may issue a final
certificate of release which will entitle him to final
release and discharge.
Sec. 8: Violations of the conditions of the parole: If
he/she violates any of the conditions of the parole,
the Board may issue his warrant of arrest. If
captured/arrested, he shall serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for
which he was originally committed unless a new
parole was granted.
PAGE 81
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
THREE-FOLD RULE
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence.
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties,
he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of
the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following
rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their
respective severity shall be followed so that they may
be executed successively or as nearly as may be
possible, should a pardon have been granted as to
the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they
have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the
next preceding paragraph
the respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following scale:
(1) Death,
(2) Reclusion perpetua,
(3) Reclusion temporal,
(4) Prision mayor,
(5) Prision correccional,
(6) Arresto mayor,
(7) Arresto menor,
(8) Destierro,
(9) Perpetual absolute disqualification,
(10) Temporal absolute disqualification.
(11) Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the right to follow a profession
or calling, and
(12) Public censure
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's
sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of
the penalties imposed upon him.
No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals
the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty
years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended).
Outline of the provisions of this Article:
(1) When the culprit has to serve 2 or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
the nature of the penalties will so permit.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(2) Otherwise, the order of their respective severity
shall be followed.
The respective severity of the penalties is as follows:
(1) Death (repealed)
(2) Reclusion perpetua
(3) Reclusion temporal
(4) Prision mayor
(5) Prision correccional
(6) Arresto mayor
(7) Arresto menor
(8) Destierro
(9) Perpetual absolute disqualification
(10) Temporary absolute disqualification
(11) Suspension from public office, the right to vote,
and be voted for, the right to follow profession or
calling, and
(12) Public censure
The penalties which can be simultaneously served
are:
(1) Perpetual absolute disqualification
(2) Perpetual special disqualification
(3) Temporary absolute disqualification
(4) Temporary special disqualification
(5) Suspension
(6) Destierro
(7) Public Censure
(8) Fine and Bond to keep the peace
(9) Civil interdiction
(10) Confiscation and payment of costs
(a) The above penalties, except destierro, can be
served simultaneously with imprisonment.
(b) Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty
cannot be served simultaneously by reason of
the nature of such penalties.
Three-fold Rule: The maximum duration of the
convicts sentence shall not be more than three
times the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
(a) The phrase the most severe of the penalties
includes equal penalties.
(b) The three-fold rule applies only when the convict
has to serve at least four sentences.
(c) All the penalties, even if by different courts at
different times, cannot exceed three-fold the
most severe.
(d) The Rules of Court specifically provide that any
information must not charge more than one
offense.
(e) Necessarily, the various offense punished with
different penalties must be charged under
different informations which may be filed in the
PAGE 82
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
same court or in different courts, at the same
time or at different times.
(f) Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the
penalty.
(g) Indemnity is a penalty.
(h) Court must impose all the penalties for all the
crimes of which the accused is found guilty, but
in the service of the same, they shall not exceed
three times the most severe and shall not
exceed 40 years.
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987): The petitioner
was convicted of violating Section 3(E) of RA No.
3019 aka the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
One of the issues raised by the petitioner concerns
the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which
totals 56 years and 8 days of imprisonment.
He impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule
and insists that the duration of the aggregate
penalties should not exceed 40 years.
Held:
Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the 3-fold
rule as set forth in Art. 70 of the RPC.
This article is to be taken into account not in the
imposition of the penalty but in connection with the
service of the sentence imposed.
Art. 70 speaks of service of sentence, duration of
penalty and penalty to be inflicted.
Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about
the imposition of penalty.
It merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made
to serve more than three times the most severe of
these penalties the maximum which is 40 years.
Where the Penalty Is Not Composed of 3 Periods
Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not
composed of three periods. In cases in which the
penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three
periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in
the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal
portions of time included in the penalty prescribed,
and forming one period of each of the three portions.
Meaning of the Rule
(a) Compute and determine first the 3 periods of
the entire penalty.
(b) The time included in the penalty prescribed
should be divided into 3 equal portions, after
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
subtracting the minimum (eliminate the 1 day)
from the maximum of the penalty.
(c) The minimum of the minimum period should be
the minimum of the given penalty (including the
1 day).
(d) The quotient should be added to the minimum
prescribed (eliminate the 1 day) and the total will
represent the maximum of the minimum period.
(1) Take the maximum of the minimum period,
add 1 day and make it the minimum of the
medium period; then add the quotient to
the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the
medium period and the total will represent
the maximum of the medium period.
(2) Take the maximum of the medium period,
add 1 day and make it the minimum of the
maximum period; then add the quotient to
the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the
maximum period and the total will
represent the maximum of the maximum
period.
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
Art. 38.Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. In
case the property of the offender should not be
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary
liabilities, the same shall be met in the following
order:
(1) The reparation of the damage caused.
(2) Indemnification of consequential damages.
(3) The fine.
(4) The cost of the proceedings.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the
fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary
personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight
pesos, subject to the following rules:
(1) If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional or arresto and fine,
(a) he shall remain under confinement until his
fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is
satisfied,
(b) but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed one-third of the term of the sentence,
(c) and in no case shall it continue for more than
one year, and no fraction or part of a day
shall be counted against the prisoner.
(2) When the principal penalty imposed be only a
fine,
(a) the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed
six months,
PAGE 83
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(b) if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a
grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
(3) When the principal imposed is higher than prision
correccional,
no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
upon the culprit.
(4) If the principal penalty imposed is not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution,
(a) but such penalty is of fixed duration,
(b) the convict, during the period of time
established in the preceding rules,
(c) shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal
penalty consists.
(5) The subsidiary personal liability which the convict
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency
shall not relieve him,
from the fine in case his financial circumstances
should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April
21, 1969).
Subsidiary penalty it is personal liability to be
suffered by the convict who has no property with
which to meet the fine at the rate of one day for each
P8, subject to the rules provided for in Articles 39.
An accused cannot be made to undergo
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to
pay the fine imposed upon him when the
subsidiary imprisonment is not imposed in the
judgment of conviction. (Ramos v. Gonong)
A convict who has property not exempt from
execution sufficient enough to meet the fine
cannot choose to serve the subsidiary penalty.
Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory
penalty.
Rules as to subsidiary imprisonment:
(1) If the penalty imposed is prision correcccional or
arresto and fine subsidiary imprisonment not
to exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence, and in
no case to continue for more than 1 year.
Fraction or part of the day not counted.
(2) When the penalty imposed is fine only
subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed 6
months, if the culprit is prosecuted for grave or
less grave felony, and not to exceed 15 days, if
prosecuted for light felony.
(3) When the penalty imposed is higher than prision
correccional no subsidiary imprisonment.
(4) If the penalty imposed is not to be executed by
confinement, but of fixed duration subsidiary
penalty shall consist in the same deprivations as
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
those of the principal penalty, under the same
rules as in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above.
(5) In case the financial circumstances of the convict
should improve, he shall pay the fine,
notwithstanding the fact that the convict
suffered subsidiary penalty thereof.
No subsidiary penalty in the following cases:
(1) When the penalty imposed is higher than prision
correccional. (Art. 39 par. 3)
(2) For failure to pay the reparation of the damage
caused, indemnification of the consequential
damages, and the costs of the proceedings.
(3) When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty
not to be executed by confinement in a penal
institution and which has no fixed duration.
How to determine penalty to be imposed
General rule: The penalty prescribed by law in
general terms shall be imposed:
(a) Upon the principals
(b) For consummated felony
Exception: The exception is when the penalty to be
imposed upon the principal in frustrated or
attempted felony is fixed by law.
Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower by one
or two degrees corresponding to said acts of
execution is not in proportion to the wrong done, the
law fixes a distinct penalty for the principal in
frustrated or attempted felony.
There are two ways to graduate penalties:
(1) By Degrees, which is affected by the following
factors:
(a) Stage of Execution (consummated,
frustrated, or attempted)
(b) Extent of Participation (principal,
accomplice, or accessory)
(c) Privileged mitigating circumstances
(d) Qualifying circumstances
(e) Indeterminate Sentence Law (minimum,
which is within the range of the penalty
1 lower than the penalty prescribed by the
RPC)
(2) By Periods (for divisible penalties, i.e., penalties
with minimum, medium, and maximum
periods), which is affected by the attendant
ordinary mitigating/aggravating circumstances
PAGE 84
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Principals, Accomplices and Accessories in
Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in
general.
The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of
a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the
commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is
general terms, it shall be understood as applicable
to the consummated felony.
CONSUMMATED
FRUSTRATED
DIAGRAM OF THE APPLICATION
ATTEMPTED
OF ARTS. 50-57:
PRINCIPALS 0 1 2
ACCOMPLICES 1 2 3
ACCESSORIES 2
3
4
0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in
defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the
PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 46.
The other figures represent the degrees to which the
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different
situations anticipated by law.
Exceptions: Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases
where the law expressly prescribes the penalty for
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed
upon accomplices or accessories. (Art. 60).
Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles
50 to 57. The provisions contained in Articles 50 to
57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to
cases in which the law expressly prescribes the
penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories.
A DEGREE is one entire penalty, one whole penalty
or one unit of the penalties enumerated in the
graduated scales provided for in Art. 71.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, etc., enumerated in the
graduated scales of Art. 71 is a degree.
When there is a mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the penalty is lowered or increased by
PERIOD only,
Except when the penalty is divisible and there are
two or more mitigating and without aggravating
circumstances, in which case the penalty is lowered
by degree.
A PERIOD is one of the three equal portions called
the minimum, medium and maximum of a divisible
penalty.
General rule: An accomplice is punished by a penalty
one degree lower than the penalty imposed upon the
principal.
Exceptions:
(a) The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers
and any person who, by abuse of authority or
confidential relationship, shall cooperate as
accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts of
lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors,
white slate trade or abduction. (Art. 346)
(b) One who furnished the place for the
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal
detention. (Art. 268)
General Rule: An accessory is punished by a penalty
two degrees lower than the penalty imposed upon
the principal.
Exceptions:
(a) When accessory is punished as principal
knowingly concealing certain evil practices is
ordinarily an act of the accessory, but in Art. 142,
such act is punished as the act of the principal.
(b) When accessories are punished with a penalty
one degree lower:
(1) Knowingly using counterfeited seal or
forged signature or stamp of the President
(Art. 162).
(2) Illegal possession and use of a false
treasury or bank note (Art. 168).
(3) Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3)
(4) Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties.
For the purpose of graduating the penalties which,
according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon
persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories,
PAGE 85
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the following rules shall be observed:
(1) When the penalty prescribed for the felony is
single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in
degrees shall be that immediately following that
indivisible penalty in the respective graduated
scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
(2) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one
or more divisible penalties to be impose to their
full extent, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that immediately following the lesser of
the penalties prescribed in the respective
graduated scale.
(3) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of one or two indivisible penalties and
the maximum period of another divisible
penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be composed of the medium and minimum
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the
maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty
and the maximum period of that immediately
following in said respective graduated scale.
(4) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of several periods, corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next
lower in degree shall be composed of the period
immediately following the minimum prescribed
and of the two next following, which shall be
taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible;
otherwise from the penalty immediately
following in the above mentioned respective
graduated scale.
(5) When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in
some manner not especially provided for in the
four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by
analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties
upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated
felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and
upon accomplices and accessories.
This article provides for the rules to be observed in
lowering the penalty by one or two degrees:
(a) For the principal in frustrated felony one
degree lower;
(b) For the principal in attempted felony two
degrees lower;
(c) For the accomplice in consummated felony
one degree lower; and
(d) For the accessory in consummated felony two
degrees lower.
The rules provided for in Art. 61 should also apply in
determining the MINIMUM of the indeterminate
penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

The MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty is within (a) Ex. reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM period to
the range of the penalty next lower than that death
prescribed by the RPC for the offense. (b) The MEDIUM and MINIMUM period of the
divisible penalty and the MAXIMUM of that
Those rules also apply in lowering the penalty by one immediately following penalty is the penalty
or two degrees by reason of the presence of next lower in degree.
privileged mitigating circumstance (Arts. 68 and 69),
Death
or when the penalty is divisible and there are two or Penalty for the
Reclusion
more mitigating circumstances (generic) and no principal in
Perpetua
aggravating circumstance (Art. 64). consummated murder
Maximum
Reclusion Medium Penalty for
The lower penalty shall be taken from the graduated Temporal Minimum accomplice; or for
scale in Art. 71. principal in frustrated
Maximum
murder
Prision
The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are: Medium
Mayor
(1) death Minimum
(2) reclusion perpetua
(3) public censure THIRD RULE (b): When the penalty is composed of
one indivisible penalty and the maximum period of a
The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are: divisible penalty.
(1) reclusion temporal (a) Ex. Reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM period to
(2) prision mayor Reclusion perpetua
(3) prision correccional (b) The same rule shall be observed in lowering the
(4) arresto mayor penalty by one or two degrees.
(5) destierro
(6) arresto menor FOURTH RULE: When the penalty is composed of
several periods.
The divisible penalties are divided into three periods: (a) Ex. Prision Mayor in its MEDIUM period to
MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND THE MAXIMUM. Reclusion temporal in its MINIMUM period.
(b) This rule contemplates a penalty composed of at
FIRST RULE: When the penalty is single and least 3 periods.
indivisible. (c) The several periods must correspond to different
(a) Ex. reclusion perpetua divisible penalties.
(b) The penalty immediately following it is reclusion
temporal. Maximum
Reclusion
(c) Thus, reclusion temporal is the penalty next Medium
temporal
lower in degree. Minimum Penalty for the principal
Maximum in the consummated
Prision
SECOND RULE (a): When the penalty is composed of Medium felony
Mayor
two indivisible penalties Minimum Penalty for the
(a) Ex. reclusion perpetua to death Maximum accomplice; or principal
(b) The penalty immediately following the lesser of Prision
Medium in frustrated felony
the penalties, which is reclusion perpetua, is Correccional
Minimum
reclusion temporal.
FIFTH RULE (a): When the penalty has two periods
SECOND RULE (b): When the penalty is composed of Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM and MEDIUM
one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their periods
full extent
(a) Ex. prision correccional to prision mayor Maximum
(b) The penalty immediately following the lesser of Prision
Medium The penalty prescribed
the penalties of prision correccional to prision correccional
Minimum for the felony
mayor is arresto mayor. Maximum
Arresto Mayor Medium The penalty next lower
THIRD RULE (a): When the penalty is composed of
Minimum
two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a
divisible penalty

PAGE 86
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
FIFTH RULE (b): When the penalty has one period.
(a) Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM period
(b) If the penalty is any one of the three periods of a
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that period next following the given
penalty.
(c) The penalty immediately inferior is prision mayor
in its MEDIUM period.
SIMPLIFIED RULES:
The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61 may
be simplified as follows:
(1) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
3 periods, corresponding to different divisible
penalties, the penalty next lower in degree is the
penalty consisting in the 3 periods down in the
scale.
(2) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
2 periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the
penalty consisting in 2 periods down in the
scale.
(3) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
only 1 period, the penalty next lower in degree is
the next period down in the scale.
EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 62.Effect of the attendance of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency.
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and
habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for
the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty
in conformity with the following rules:
(1) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or
which are included by the law in defining a crime
and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be
taken into account for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.
(2) The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime
to such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof.
(3) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or
from his private relations with the offended party,
or from any other personal cause, shall only serve
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices and accessories as to
whom such circumstances are attendant.
(4) The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate
the liability of those persons only who had
PAGE 87
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
the act or their cooperation therein.
(5) Habitual delinquency shall have the following
effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the
culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the
total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the
offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case
exceed 30 years.
(7) For the purpose of this article, a person shall be
deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a
period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener.
What are the effects of the attendance of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances?
(1) Aggravating circumstances which are not
considered for the purpose of increasing the
penalty:
(a) Those that constitute a separate crime
punishable by law.
(b) Those that are inherent in the crime
committed:
(i) Included by law in defining the crime
(ii) Inherent in the crime but of necessity they
accompany the commission thereof
(2) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances that
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
offender to whom such are attendant. Those
arising from:
(a) Moral attributes of the offender
(b) His private relations with the offended party
(c) Any other personal cause
(3) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances that
affect the offenders only who had knowledge of
them at the time of the execution of the act or
their cooperation therein.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
What are the legal effects of habitual delinquency?
Third conviction. The culprit is sentenced to the
penalty for the crime committed and to the
additional penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum period.
Fourth conviction. The penalty is that provided by law
for the last crime and the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
Fifth or additional conviction. The penalty is that
provided by law for the last crime and the additional
penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Note:
(a) In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties
imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years.
(b) The law does not apply to crimes described in Art.
155.
(c) The imposition of the additional penalty on
habitual delinquents are CONSTITUTIONAL
because such law is neither an EX POST FACTO
LAW nor an additional punishment for future
crimes.
(d) It is simply a punishment on future crimes on
account of the criminal propensities of the
accused.
(e) The imposition of such additional penalties is
mandatory and is not discretionary.
(f) Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the
execution because subjectively, the offender
reveals the same degree of depravity or perversity
as the one who commits a consummated crime.
(g) It applies to all participants because it reveals
persistence in them of the inclination to
wrongdoing and of the perversity of character
that led them to commit the previous crime.
Cases where attending aggravating or mitigating
circumstances are not considered in the imposition of
penalties
(1) Penalty that is single and indivisible
(2) Felonies through negligence
(3) When the penalty is a fine
(4) When the penalty is prescribed by a special law.
PAGE 88
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties.
(1) In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty,
(2) it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
may have attended the commission of the deed.
(3) In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties,
(4) the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
(a) When in the commission of the deed there is
present only one aggravating circumstance,
the greater penalty shall be applied.
(b) When there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.
(c) When the commission of the act is attended
by some mitigating circumstances and there is
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
(d) When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of
the act, the court shall reasonably allow them
to offset one another in consideration of their
number and importance, for the purpose of
applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of
such compensation.
Rules for the application of indivisible penalties:
(a) Penalty is single and indivisible
(1) The penalty shall be applied regardless of
the presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
(2) Ex. reclusion perpetua or death
(b) Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties:
(1) One aggravating circumstance present:
HIGHER penalty
(2) No mitigating circumstances present:
LESSER penalty
(3) Some mitigating circumstances present and
no aggravating: LESSER penalty
(4) Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
offset each other
Basis of penalty: number and importance.
People v. Formigones (1950):The penalty applicable
for parricide under Art. 246 of the RPC is composed
only of 2 indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to
death. Although the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstance without
any aggravating circumstance to offset them, Art. 63
of the RPC should be applied. The said article
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
provides that when the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstance and there
is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
contain three periods.
(1) In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods,
(2) whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of three different penalties,
(3) each one of which forms a period in accordance
with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77,
(4) the court shall observe for the application of the
penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
(a) When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose
the penalty prescribed by law in its medium
period.
(b) When only a mitigating circumstances is
present in the commission of the act, they
shall impose the penalty in its minimum
period.
(c) When an aggravating circumstance is present
in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its maximum period.
(d) When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against
the other according to their relative weight.
(e) When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according to the number
and nature of such circumstances.
(f) Whatever may be the number and nature of
the aggravating circumstances, the courts
shall not impose a greater penalty than that
prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
(g) Within the limits of each period, the court
shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances
and the greater and lesser extent of the evil
produced by the crime.
Rules for the application of DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
(1) No aggravating and No mitigating: MEDIUM
PERIOD
(2) One mitigating: MINIMUM PERIOD
(3) One aggravating: (but regardless of the number
of aggravating circumstances, the courts cannot
PAGE 89
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
exceed the penalty provided by law in its
maximum period): MAXIMUM PERIOD
(4) Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
present:
to offset each other according to relative weight
(5) 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating:
one degree lower (has the effect of a privileged
mitigating circumstance)
NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:
(1) indivisible penalties
(2) penalties prescribed by special laws
(3) fines
(4) crimes committed by negligence
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the
requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of
Article 12 are present.
When all the conditions required in circumstances
Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from
criminal liability are not present,
the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty
of a grave felony,
and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if of a less grave felony.
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of accident
(Art. 12 par 4) are not all present:
(a) GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor maximum period
to prision correccional minimum period
(b) LESS GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor minimum
period and medium period
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty lower by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required
to justify the same or to exempt from criminal
liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11
and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions
be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in
the period which may be deemed proper, in view of
the number and nature of the conditions of
exemption present or lacking.
Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is
not wholly excusable:
(a) One or two degrees lower
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
(b) if the majority of the conditions for justification or
exemption in the cases provided in Arts. 11 and 12
are present.
People v. Lacanilao (1988): Incomplete fulfillment of
duty is a privileged mitigating circumstance which
not only cannot be offset by aggravating
circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or
two degrees than that prescribed b law. The
governing provision is Art. 69 of the RPC.
Special rules for certain situations
Complex Crimes
Art. 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.
The rule for complex crimes is to impose the penalty
for the most serious offense in its MAXIMUM period.
Monteverde v. People (2002): Monteverde was
purportedly charged with the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of a commercial
document for allegedly falsifying the document she
had submitted to show that the money donated by
PAGCOR was used and spent for lighting materials
for her barangay.
Held:
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a
complex crime refers to:
(1) the commission of at least two grave or less
grave felonies that must both (or all) be the
result of a single act, or
(2) one offense must be a necessary means for
committing the other (or others).
Using the above guidelines, the acts cannot
constitute a complex crime.
Specifically, the alleged actions showing falsification
of a public and/or a commercial document were not
necessary to commit estafa.
Neither were the two crimes the result of a single act.
People v. Gonzalez: Both of the families of Andres
and that of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of
the Loyola Memorial Park.
Gonzales was driving with his grandson and 3
housemaids, while Andres was driving with his
PAGE 90
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
pregnant wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his
nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law.
At an intersection, their two vehicles almost collided.
Gonzales continued driving while Andres tailed
Gonzales vehicle and cut him off when he found the
opportunity to do so, then got out of his vehicle and
knocked on the appellant's car window.
Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his way
back to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino.
Andres had a shouting match this time with Dino.
Gonzales then alighted from his car and fired a
single shot at the last window on the left side of
Andres' vehicle at an angle away from Andres.
The single bullet fired hit Kenneth, Kevin and Feliber
which caused the latters death.
Held: The rules on the imposition of penalties for
complex crimes under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal
Code are not applicable in this case.
Art. 48 applies if a single act constitutes two or more
grave and less grave felonies or when an offense is a
necessary means of committing another; in such a
case, the penalty for the most serious offense shall
be imposed in its maximum period.
Considering that the offenses committed by the act
of the appellant of firing a single shot are: one count
of homicide, a grave felony, and two counts of slight
physical injuries, a light felony, the rules on the
imposition of penalties for complex crimes, which
requires two or more grave and/or less grave
felonies, will not apply.
People v. Comadre (2004): The underlying philosophy
of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which
follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the
accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of
the crimes committed.
The rationale being, that the accused who commits
two crimes with single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes
are committed by different acts and several criminal
resolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand
grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be considered
only as a single crime in law on which a single
penalty is imposed because the offender was
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows
his lesser degree of perversity.
People v. Delos Santos (2001): Considering that the
incident was not a product of a malicious intent but
rather the result of a single act of reckless driving,
Glenn should be held guilty of the complex crime of
reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide
with serious physical injuries and less serious
physical injuries.
The slight physical injuries caused by Glenn to the
ten other victims through reckless imprudence,
would, had they been intentional, have constituted
light felonies.
Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article
48, they should be treated and punished as separate
offenses.
Separate informations should have, therefore, been
filed.
People v. Velasquez (2000):Velasquez, poked a toy
gun and forced Karen to go with her at his
grandmothers house.
Out of fear and not knowing that the gun that
Velasquez was holding is a mere toy, Karen went
with Velasquez.
Velasquez then raped Karen twice.
The trial court convicted Velasquez of two counts of
rape.
Held: Considering that Velasquez forcibly abducted
Karen and then raped her twice, he should be
convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape and simple rape.
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the
most serious crime which shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Rape is the more serious of the two crimes and is
punishable with reclusion perpetua under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code and since reclusion
perpetua is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
imposed as it is.
The subsequent rape committed by Velasquez can
no longer be considered as a separate complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape but only as a separate
act of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
PAGE 91
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Crimes Different from That Intended
Art. 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.
Either the crime committed be more grave than the
crime intended or the crime intended be more grave
than the crime committed, the penalty to be
imposed should be the penalty for the lesser felony
in its MAXIMUM period.
Except: if the lesser felony constitutes an attempt or
frustration of another felony.
Example: If the crime intended was homicide, but the
crime committed was parricide, the penalty to be
imposed is the penalty for homicide in its MAXIMUM
period.
Impossible Crimes
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to
commit the crime because the means employed or the
aims sought are impossible. When the person
intending to commit an offense has already
performed the acts for the execution of the same but
nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason
of the fact that the act intended was by its nature
one of impossible accomplishment or because the
means employed by such person are essentially
inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the
court, having in mind the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Depending upon the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender, the penalty for
impossible crimes is arresto mayor or fine of P200-
P500.
Plural Crimes (supra)
Additional Penalty for Certain Accessories
Art. 58.Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain
accessories.
Those accessories falling within the terms of
paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code
who should act with abuse of their public functions,
shall suffer the additional penalty of
(a) absolute perpetual disqualification if the
principal offender shall be guilty of a grave
felony, and that
(b) of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall
be guilty of a less grave felony.
Absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal
offender is guilty of a grave felony.
Absolute temporary disqualification if the principal
offender is guilty of a less grave felony.
Where the Offender Is Below 18 Years
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under
eighteen years of age.
When the offender is a minor under eighteen years
and his case is one coming under the provisions of
the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this
Code,
the following rules shall be observed:
(1) Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years
of age, who is not exempted from liability by
reason of the court having declared that he
acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty
shall be imposed, but always lower by two
degrees at least than that prescribed by law for
the crime which he committed.
(2) Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen
years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always
in the proper period.
PD No. 603. ART. 192. Suspension of Sentence and
Commitment of Youthful Offender.
PAGE 92
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) If after hearing the evidence in the proper
proceedings, the court should find that the
youthful offender has committed the acts
charged against him
(2) the court shall determine the imposable penalty,
including any civil liability chargeable against
him.
(3) However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court shall suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the
custody or care of the Department of Social
Welfare, or to any training institution
(4) until he shall have reached twenty-one years of
age or, for a shorter period as the court may
deem proper,
(5) after considering the reports and
recommendations of the Department of Social
Welfare or the agency or responsible individual
under whose care he has been committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation
and supervision
by a representative of the Department of Social
Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other
officer as the court may designate subject to such
conditions as it may prescribe.
(a) Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application for
suspension of sentence is disapproved or if while
in the reformatory institution he becomes
incorrigible in which case he shall be returned to
the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
(b) 9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least 2
degrees lower.
(c) 15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
(d) Except if the act is attended by two or more
mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the
penalty being divisible, a minor over 15 but under
18 years old may still get a penalty two degrees
lower.
(e) Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
EXECUTION AND SERVICE
EXECUTION OF PENALTIES
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed.
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a
final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form
than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly
authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
regulations prescribed for the government of the
institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered
shall be observed with regard to
(a) the character of the work to be performed,
(b) the time of its performance, and other incidents
connected therewith,
(c) the relations of the convicts among themselves
and other persons,
(d) the relief which they may receive, and
(e) their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the
separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at
least into different departments and also for the
correction and reform of the convicts.
(a) The judgment must be final before it can be
executed, because the accused may still appeal
within 15 days from its promulgation.
(b) But if the defendant has expressly waived in
writing his right to appeal, the judgment
becomes final and executory.
See Rules and Regulations to implement RA No.
8177 under Capital Punishment.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor.
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and
arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the
places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be
provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro. Any person sentenced to destierro
shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius
therein specified, which shall be not more than 250
and not less than 25 kilometers from the place
designated.
Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place
designated in the sentence nor within the radius
specified,
which shall not more than 250 and not less than 25
km from the place designated.
If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits
evasion of sentence.
Destierro is imposed:
(a) When the death or serious physical injuries is
caused or are inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (art. 247);
PAGE 93
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(b) When a person fails to give bond for good
behavior (art. 284);
(c) As a penalty for the concubine in the crime of
concubinage (Art. 334);
(d) When after lowering the penalty by degrees,
destierro is the proper penalty.
Art. 88. Arresto menor. The penalty of arresto menor
shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house
of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an
officer of the law,
when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other
reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
Service of the penalty of arresto menor:
(a) In the municipal jail
(b) In the house of the offender, but under the
surveillance of an officer of the law For health or
other good reasons as determined by the court.
In the Matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of Pete
Lagran (2001): The accused was convicted of 3
counts of violating BP22 and was sentenced to
imprisonment of 1 year for each count.
He was detained on Feb. 24, 1999.
On Mar. 19, 2001, he filed a petition for habeas
corpus claiming he completed the service of his
sentence.
Citing Art. 70, RPC, he claimed that he shall serve
the penalties simultaneously.
Thus, there is no more legal basis for his detention.
Held: Art. 70 allows simultaneous service of two or
more penalties only if the nature of the penalties so
permit.
In the case at bar, the petitioner was sentenced to
suffer one year imprisonment for every count of the
offense committed.
The nature of the sentence does not allow petitioner
to serve all the terms simultaneously.
The rule of successive service of sentence must be
applied.
PROBATION LAW (PD 968, AS AMENDED)
Definition of terms (Sec. 3)
Probation a disposition under which a defendant,
after conviction and sentence, is released subject to
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
Probationer a person placed on probation
Probation officer one who investigates for the court
a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or
both.
Purpose (Sec. 2)
(1) Promote the correction and rehabilitation of an
offender by providing him with individualized
treatment.
(2) Provide an opportunity for the reformation of a
penitent offender which might be less probable
if he were to serve a prison sentence.
(3) Prevent the commission of offenses.
Grant of probation, manner and conditions (Sec. 4)
GRANT OF PROBATION
Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial
court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant and upon application by said
defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal,
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the
defendant on probation for such period and upon
such terms and conditions as it may deem best:
Provided, That no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence
imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An
application for probation shall be filed with the trial
court. The filing of the application shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable.
The provisions of Sec. 4 of PD 968, as above
amended, shall not apply to those who have already
filed their respective applications for probation at the
time of the effectivity of this Decree.
Llamado v. CA (1989): In its present form, Section 4
of the Probation Law establishes a much narrower
period during which an application for probation may
be filed with the trial court: after the trial curt shall
have convicted and sentenced a defendant and
within the period for perfecting an appeal.
The provision expressly prohibits the grant of an
application for probation if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of
PAGE 94
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conviction.
Petitioners right to apply for probation was lost
when he perfected his appeal from the judgment of
the trial court.
The trial court lost jurisdiction already over the case.
Salgado v. CA (1990): There is no question that the
decision convicting Salgado of the crime of serious
physical injuries had become final and executory
because the filing by respondent of an application
for probation is deemed a waiver of his right to
appeal.
The grant of probation does not extinguish the civil
liability of the offender.
The order of probation with one of the conditions
providing for the manner of payment of the civil
liability during the period of probation did not
increase or decrease the civil liability adjudged.
The conditions listed under Sec. 10 of the Probation
law are not exclusive.
Courts are allowed to impose practically any term it
chooses, the only limitation being that it does not
jeopardize the constitutional rights of the accused.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado (1996):
While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law is to
save valuable human material, it must not be
forgotten that unlike pardon probation does not
obliterate the crime of which the person under
probation has been convicted.
The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct
involving moral turpitude.
The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer
cannot justify his retention in the government
service.
Conditions of probation (Sec. 10)
Every probation order issued by the court shall
contain conditions requiring that the probationer
shall:
(a) Present himself to the probation officer
designated to undertake his supervision at such
place as may be specified in the order within 72
hours from receipt of the order;
(b) Report to the probation officer at least once a
month at such time and place as specified by
said officer.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) Cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) Meet his family responsibilities;
(c) Devote himself to a specific employment and
not to change said employment without the
prior written approval of the probation officer;
(d) Undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric
examination and treatment and enter and
remain in a specified institution, when required
for that purpose;
(e) Pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational
training;
(f) Attend or reside in a facility established for
instruction, recreation or residence of persons on
probation;
(g) Refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) Abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to
excess;
(i) Permit the probation officer or an authorized
social worker to visit his home and place of work;
(j) Reside at premises approved by it and not to
change his residence without its prior written
approval; or
(k) Satisfy any other condition related to the
rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly
restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his
freedom of conscience.
Criteria of placing an offender on probation (Sec. 8)
In considering whether an offender may be placed pn
probation, the court shall consider all information
relative to the:
(1) character,
(2) antecedents,
(3) environment,
(4) mental, and
(5) physical condition of the offender
(6) available institutional and community resources
Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
(1) The offender is in need of correctional treatment
that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution; or
(2) There is undue risk that during the period of
probation the offender will commit another
crime; or
(3) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the
offense committed.
Disqualified offenders
Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is
intended for offenders who are 18 years of age and
above, and who are not otherwise disqualified by
law.
PAGE 95
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Offenders who are disqualified are those:
(a) Sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) Convicted of subversion or any offense against
the security of the State, or the Public Order;
(c) Who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not more than Two
Hundred Pesos;
(d) Who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree; and
(e) Who are already serving sentence at the time
the substantive provisions of PD 968 became
applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof (Effectivity
clause: PD 968s substantive provisions took
effect on 3 January 1978)
Period of probation (Sec. 14)
(a) The period of probation of a defendant
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not
more than one year shall not exceed 2 years, and
in all other cases, said period shall not exceed 6
years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the
offender is made to serve subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of
probation shall not be less than nor be more
than twice the total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment as computed at the rate
established in Art. 39 of the RPC, as amended.
[Sec. 14]
Question: When is the period for filing of probation?
Answer: Filing period is within the period for
perfecting an appeal.
Question: Where do you file your probation
application?
Answer: Trial Court
Question: Does the law allow the simultaneous filing
of probation and appeal?
Answer: No. Its either you file for probation or you
file for appeal. Only one choice, if you choose one
then you are barred from using the other.
Question: When shall probation be denied?
Answer: Probation shall be denied when:
(1) the offender is in need of correctional treatment
that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution.
(2) there is undue risk that during the probation, the
offender will commit another crime.
(3) probation will deprecate the seriousness of the
offense committed.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Question: What if the offender violates the conditions
of his probation?
Answer: S/He shall serve the penalty imposed for the
offense under which s/he was placed on probation.
Question: How long may a convict be placed on
probation?
Answer:
(1) if the convict is sentence to imprisonment of not
more than one year, probation shall not exceed
two years
(2) if s/he sentenced to more than one year,
probation shall not exceed six years.
(3) if the sentence is only a fine (offender in this
case is made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment),
probation Shall be not less than nor more than
twice the total days of subsidiary imprisonment.
Question: Does the probation law apply to Drug
Traffickers and Pushers?
Answer: NO
Section 24 of RA 9165 (The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act) states that:
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.
Lagrosa vs. People (2003):A person who appeals his
conviction for purposes of reducing the penalty to
that which is within the probationable limit may still
apply for probation.
Arrest of probationer (Sec. 15)
At any time during probation, the court may issue a
warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any serious
violation of the conditions of probation. The
probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
immediately be brought before the court for a
hearing of the violation charged. The defendant may
be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such
case, the provisions regarding release on bail of
persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to
probationers arrested under this provision.
In the hearing, which shall be summary in nature, the
probationer shall have the right to be informed of the
violation charged and to adduce evidence in his
favor. The court shall not be bound by the technical
rules of evidence but may inform itself of all the facts
which are material and relevant to ascertain the
veracity of the charge. The State shall be
represented by a prosecuting officer in any contested
PAGE 96
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
hearing. If the violation is established, the court may
revoke or continue his probation and modify the
conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order
the probationer to serve the sentence originally
imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not
be appealable.
SUSPENSION IN CASE OF INSANITY OR MINORITY
Suspension of the execution and service of the
penalties in case of insanity. (Sec. 79)
When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile
after final sentence has been pronounced, the
execution of said sentence shall be suspended only
with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of
the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of
Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his
sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall
have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of
this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be
observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the
convict is serving his sentence.
Only execution of personal penalty is suspended: civil
liability may be executed even in case of insanity of
convict.
An accused may become insane:
(1) at the time of commission of the crime
exempt from criminal liability
(2) at the time of the trial
court shall suspend hearings and order his
confinement in a hospital until he recovers
his reason
(3) at the time of final judgment or while serving
sentence
execution suspended with regard to the
personal penalty only
Minority
Please refer to succeeding subsection on RA 9344 and
PD 603
Termination of probation; exception (Sec. 16)
After the period of probation and upon consideration
of the report and recommendation of the probation
officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the
terms and conditions of his probation and
thereupon, the case is deemed terminated.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate
to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as
a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for
which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each
be furnished with a copy of such order.
The expiration of the probation period alone does
not automatically terminate probation. Probation is
not coterminous with its period. There must first be
issued by the court, an order of final discharge based
on the report and recommendation of the probation
officer. Only from such issuance can the case of the
probationer be deemed terminated. [Bala v.
Martinez]
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(RA 9165)
Exception:
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 PD
968, as amended. [Sec. 24, RA 9344]
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (RA
9344); CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (PD 603, AS
AMENDED)
See also discussion of RA 9344 under Exempting
Circumstances
Definition of child in conflict with the law (Sec. 4)
Child in conflict with the law a child who is alleged
as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine laws
Child a person under 18 years
Exemption from criminal liability
(1) Child 15 years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense = EXEMPT from
criminal liability
However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program (per Sec. 20 of RA 9344)
(2) Child above 15 years but below 18 years of age
(15 Age of child at time of commission of
offense 18) = EXEMPT from criminal liability
and subjected to intervention program
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
UNLESS the child acted with discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with RA
9344
Exemption from criminal liability herein established
does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
(Sec. 6, RA 9344)
RA 9344 COMPARED TO PD 603
(1) Minimum age of criminal responsibility
PD 603
Sec. 189.EXEMPT from criminal liability:
(a) Child 9 years of age or under at time of
commission of offense
(b) 9 Age of child at time of commission of offense
15 (UNLESS s/he acted with discernment
RA 9344
Child under 15 years of age shall be exempt from
criminal liability, regardless of whether or not s/he
acted with discernment
(2) Discernment
PD 603 (Secs. 189 & 192)
Child over 9 years and under 15 years of age who
acted w/ discernment court shall determine
imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him.
However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court, upon application of the
youthful offender and if it finds that the best interest
of the public as well as that of the offender will be
served thereby, may suspend all further proceedings
and shall commit such minor to the custody or care
of the DSWD or to any training institution operated
by the government, or duly licensed agencies or any
other responsible person, until he shall have reached
21 years of age or, for a shorter period as the court
may deem proper.
RA 9344
Child above 15 years but below 18 years of age who
acted with discernment shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with the Act.
(3) Suspension of sentence
PD 603 (Sec. 193)
No automatic suspension of sentence.
The youthful offender should apply for a suspended
sentence and it is discretionary on the court to
PAGE 97
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
approve the application. The order of the court
denying an application for suspension of sentence
shall not be appealable.
RA 9344
Suspension of sentence is automatic
Juvenile justice and welfare system
Juvenile Justice and Welfare System refers to a
system dealing with children at risk and children in
conflict with the law, which provides child-
appropriate proceedings, including programs and
services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-
integration and aftercare to ensure their normal
growth and development. [Sec. 4(m), RA 9344]
Diversion refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and
treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the
basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological, or educational background without
resulting to formal court proceedings.
Diversion Program refers to the program that the
child in conflict with the law is required to undergo
after he/she is found responsible for an offense
without resorting to formal court proceedings. [Sec.
4(j), RA 9344]
Development of a Comprehensive Juvenile
Intervention Program
(1) A Comprehensive juvenile intervention program
covering at least a 3-year period shall be instituted in
LGUs from the barangay to the provincial level.
(2) The LGUs shall set aside an amount necessary to
implement their respective juvenile intervention
programs in their annual budget.
(3) The LGUs, in coordination with the LCPC, shall
call on all sectors concerned, particularly the child-
focused institutions, NGOs, people's organizations,
educational institutions and government agencies
involved in delinquency prevention to participate in
the planning process and implementation of juvenile
intervention programs. Such programs shall be
implemented consistent with the national program
formulated and designed by the JJWC. The
implementation of the comprehensive juvenile
intervention program shall be reviewed and assessed
annually by the LGUs in coordination with the LCPC.
Results of the assessment shall be submitted by the
provincial and city governments to the JJWC not later
than March 30 of every year. [Sec. 18, RA9344]
PAGE 98
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Community-based Programs on Juvenile Justice and
Welfare
Community-based programs on juvenile justice and
welfare shall be instituted by the LGUs through the
LCPC, school, youth organizations and other
concerned agencies. The LGUs shall provide
community-based services which respond to the
special needs, problems, interests and concerns of
children and which offer appropriate counselling and
guidance to them and their families. These programs
shall consist of three levels:
(a) Primary intervention includes general measures
to promote social justice and equal opportunity,
which tackle perceived root causes of offending;
(b) Secondary intervention includes measures to
assist children at risk; and
(c) Tertiary intervention includes measures to avoid
unnecessary contact with the formal justice
system and other measures to prevent re-
offending. [Sec. 19, RA 9344]
System of Diversion
Children in conflict with the law shall undergo
diversion programs without undergoing court
proceedings subject to the conditions herein
provided:
(a) Where the imposable penalty for the crime
committee is not more than six (6) years
imprisonment, the law enforcement officer or
Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local
social welfare and development officer or other
members of the LCPC shall conduct mediation,
family conferencing and conciliation and, where
appropriate, adopt indigenous modes of conflict
resolution in accordance with the best interest of the
child with a view to accomplishing the objectives of
restorative justice and the formulation of a diversion
program. The child and his/her family shall be
present in these activities.
(b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty
is not more than six (6) years imprisonment, the local
social welfare and development officer shall meet
with the child and his/her parents or guardians for
the development of the appropriate diversion and
rehabilitation program, in coordination with the
BCPC;
(c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime
committed exceeds six (6) years imprisonment,
diversion measures may be resorted to only by the
court. [Sec. 23, RA 9344]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE
Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from
term of imprisonment
Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the
full time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner
agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
except in the following cases:
a. When they are recidivists or have been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime; and
b. When upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment
(a) for a period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged
to which he may be sentenced
(b) and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding
on appeal, if the same is under review.
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment
when the offense charged is nonbailable, or even if
bailable, he cannot furnish the required bail.
The convict is to be released immediately if the
penalty imposed after trial is less than the full time
or four-fifths of the time of the preventive
imprisonment.
The accused shall be released immediately whenever
he has undergone preventive imprisonment for a
period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment for the offense charged.
PAGE 99
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Modification and Extinction of
Criminal Liability
Two kinds of extinguishment of criminal liability:
TOTAL EXTINGUISHMENT
(1) By prescription of crime
(2) By prescription of penalty
(3) By the death of the convict
(4) By Service of sentence
(5) By Amnesty
(6) By Absolute Pardon
(7) By the marriage of the offended woman and the
offender in the crimes of rape, abduction,
seduction and acts of lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
PARTIAL EXTINGUISHMENT
(1) By Conditional Pardon
(2) By Commutation of sentence
(3) For good conduct, allowances which the culprit
may earn while he is serving sentence
(4) By Parole
(5) By Probation
Important: The Supreme Court ruled that re-election
to public office is not one of the grounds by which
criminal liability is extinguished. This is only true in
administrative cases but not in criminal cases.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME; PRESCRIPTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF SPECIAL LAWS (ACT NO. 3326)
Definition: The forfeiture or loss of the right of the
State to prosecute the offender, after the lapse of a
certain period of time.
General rule: Prescription of the crime begins on the
day the crime was committed.
Exception: The crime was concealed, not public, in
which case, the prescription thereof would only
commence from the time the offended party or the
government learns of the commission of the crime.
Difference between Prescription of Crime and
Prescription of the Penalty
Prescription of crime Prescription of the penalty
Forfeiture of the State to Forfeiture to execute the
prosecute after a lapse of final sentence after the
a certain time lapse of a certain time
Question: What happens when the last day of the
prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal
holiday?
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Answer: The information can no longer be filed on
the next day as the crime has already prescribed.
Prescriptive Periods of Crimes
(1) Crimes punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or reclusion
(2) temporal
(3) Afflictive penalties
(4) Correctional penalties
Note: Those punishable by
arresto mayor
Note: When the penalty fixed law
is a compound one
(5) Libel
(6) Oral defamation and slander by
deed
(7) Simple slander
(8) Grave slander
(9) Light offenses
(10) Crimes punishable by fines
a) Fine is afflictive
b) Fine is correctional
c) Fine is light
Note: Subsidiary penalty for
nonpayment not considered
in determining the period
Note: When fine is an
alternative penalty higher
than the other penalty
which is by imprisonment,
prescription of the crime is
based on the fine.
Prescriptive periods under special laws and municipal
ordinances (Act 3763, amending Act 3326)
Offenses punished only by fine or
imprisonment for not more than one 1 year
month or both
Imprisonment for more than one
month, but less than two years
Imprisonment for two years but less
than six years
Imprisonment for six years or more
Offenses under Internal Revenue Law 5 years
Violations of municipal ordinances
Violations of the regulations or
conditions of certificate
convenience by the Public Service
Commission
Note: Not applicable where the special law provides
for its own prescriptive period
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Computation of Prescription of Offenses (Art. 91)
(1) Commences to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents.
(2) Interrupted by the filing of complaint or
20 years
information
(3) It shall commence to run again when such
15 years proceedings terminate without the accused
10 years being convicted or acquitted, or unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not imputable to the
5 years
accused.
Note: Termination must be FINAL as to
The highest
penalty shall amount to a jeopardy that would bar a
subsequent prosecution.
be made a
(4) The term of prescription shall not run when the
basis
1 year offender is absent from the Philippine
archipelago.
6 months (5) For continuing crimes, prescriptive period cannot
2 months begin to run because the crime does not end.
6 months
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
2 months
Definition: The loss or forfeiture of the right of the
15 years government to execute the final sentence after the
10 years lapse of a certain period of time.
2 months
Prescriptive Periods of Penalties
Death and reclusion perpetua 20 years
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Note: If arresto mayor 5 years
Light penalties 1 year
Computation of Prescription of Penalties (Art. 93)
Elements:
(1) Penalty is imposed by final judgment
(2) Convict evaded service of sentence by escaping
during the term of his sentence
(3) The convict who has escaped from prison has
not given himself up, or been captured, or gone
4 years to a foreign country with which we have no
extradition treaty, or committed another crime
8 years (4) The penalty has prescribed because of the lapse
of time from the date of the evasion of service of
12 years
the sentence by the convict.
2 months Period commences to run from the date when the
culprit evaded the service of sentence.
of
2 months
Note: "Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of
Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful
departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody.
Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom [Del
Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002)].
PAGE 100
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

When interrupted: Monsanto v Factoran (1989):

(a) Convict gives himself up (1) Absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the
(b) Is captured convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited
(c) Goes to a foreign country with which we have no by reason of his conviction.
extradition treaty (2) Although pardon restores his eligibility for
(d) Commits any crime before the expiration of the appointment to that office, the pardoned convict
period of prescription must reapply for a new appointment.
Question: What happens in cases where our Conditional Pardon
government has extradition treaty with another If delivered and accepted, it is a contract between the
country but the crime is not included in the treaty? executive and the convict that the former will release
the latter upon compliance with the condition. One
Answer: It would interrupt the running of the usual condition is not again violate any of the penal
prescriptive period. laws of the country.
Question: What is the effect of the acceptance of the Effects of Pardon of the President
convict of a conditional pardon?
Art. 36. Pardon; its effects. A pardon shall not work
Answer: It would interrupt the acceptance of the the restoration of the right to hold public office, or
prescriptive period. the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
restored by the terms of the pardon.
Question: What happens if the culprit is captured but A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit
he evades again the service of his sentence? from the payment of civil indemnity imposed upon
him by the sentence.
Answer: The period of prescription that ran during
the evasion is not forfeited. The period of prescription Effects:
that has run in his favor should be taken into (1) A pardon shall not restore the right to hold
account. public office or the right of suffrage.
Exception: When any or both such rights is or are
PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
(2) It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment
of the civil indemnity. The pardon cannot make
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. A
an exception to this rule.
pardon of the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of
Limitations upon the exercise of pardoning power
this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest
(1) That the power can be exercised only after
of the injured party is extinguished by his express
conviction.
waiver.
Thus in applying for pardon, the convict must
not appeal the judgment of conviction or the
This article states the extent of a pardon made by appeal must be abandoned.
the offended party. Under this article, a pardon does (2) That such power does not extend to cases of
not extinguish the criminal liability of an offender impeachment. (Cristobal v. Labrador).
except for cases under Article 344 (Prosecution of the
crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction,
rape and acts of lasciviousness). Pardon by the Chief Pardon by the Offended
Executive Party
But the civil liability with regard to the interest of the Extinguishes the criminal Does not extinguish
injured party is extinguished. liability of the offender. criminal liability.
Although it may
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE constitute a bar to the
Absolute Pardon prosecution of the: (1)
An act of grace, proceeding from the power crimes of seduction,
entrusted with the execution of the laws. abduction and acts of
lasciviousness by the valid
Exempts the individual from the penalty of the crime marriage of the offended
he has committed. party and the offender;
and (2) in adultery and

PAGE 101
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Pardon by the Chief Pardon by the Offended If an offender was convicted for rebellion and he
Executive Party qualified for amnesty, and so he was given an
amnesty, then years later he rebelled again and
concubinage, by the convicted, is he a recidivist?
express or implied pardon
by the offended spouse. No. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not
Cannot include civil The offended party can only the conviction but also the effects of the
liabilities which the waive the civil liability conviction itself.
offender must pay. which the offender must
pay. Suppose, instead of amnesty, what was given was
absolute pardon, then years later, the offended was
Conditional or Absolute Cannot be conditional
again captured and charged for rebellion, he was
Granted only after the Pardon should be given convicted, is he a recidivist?
conviction. before the institution of
criminal prosecution. Yes. Pardon, although absolute does not erase the
effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses the convict
AMNESTY from serving the sentence. There is an exception to
An act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or this and that is when the pardon was granted when
general pardon for a past offense. the convict had already served the sentence such
that there is no more service of sentence to be
Rarely exercised in favor of a single individual; executed then the pardon shall be understood as
usually extended in behalf of certain classes of intended to erase the effects of the conviction.
persons who are subject trial but have not yet been
convicted. So if the convict has already served the sentence and
in spite of that he was given a pardon that pardon
Erases not only the conviction but the crime itself. will cover the effects of the crime and therefore, if he
will be subsequently convicted for a felony
Difference between Amnesty and Absolute Pardon embracing the same title as that crime, he cannot be
considered a recidivist, because the pardon wipes out
Amnesty Absolute Pardon
the effects of the crime.
Blanket pardon to classes Includes any crime and is
of persons, guilty of exercised individually But if he was serving sentence when he was
political offenses pardoned, that pardon will not wipe out the effects
of the crime, unless the language of the pardon
May still be exercised The person is already absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects
before trial or convicted thereof. Considering that recidivism does not
investigation prescribe, no matter how long ago was the first
Looks backward- it is as if Looks forward- he is conviction, he shall still be a recidivist.
he has committed no relieved from the
offense consequences of the LAWS IN SC SYLLABUS:
offense, but rights not (1) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty
restored unless explicitly in the Philippines (RA 9346)
provided by the terms of (2) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
the pardon Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262)
(3) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA
Both do not extinguish civil liability
9344);
Public act which the court Private act of the (4) Child and Youth Welfare code (PD 603, as
shall take judicial notice President and must be amended)
of pleaded and proved by (5) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/ Unlawful
the person pardoned Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition
Valid only when there is Valid if given either before or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or
final judgment or after final judgment Explosives (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No.
8294)
(6) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon
2002 (R.A. No. 9165)
are not the same. Amnesty erases not only the
conviction but also the crime itself.

PAGE 102
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK ONE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(7) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension

and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders (P.D.
1829)
(8) Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103, as
amended)
(9) Probation Law (PD 968, as amended)
(10) Prescription of Violations of Special Laws (Act
No. 3326)

PAGE 103
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

PAGE 104
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Title I. Crimes against
National Security and the Law
of Nations
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY:
(1) Art. 114: Treason
(2) Art. 115: Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
Treason
(3) Art. 116: Misprision of Treason
(4) Art. 117: Espionage
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
(1) Art. 118: Inciting to War or Giving Motives for
Reprisals
(2) Art. 119: Violation of Neutrality
(3) Art. 120: Correspondence with Hostile Country
(4) Art. 121: Flight to Enemys Country
(5) Art. 122: Piracy in General and Mutiny on the
High Seas or in Philippine Waters
(6) Art. 123: Qualified Piracy
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if
the criminal act or acts were committed outside the
Philippine territorial jurisdiction.
This is one of the instances where the RPC may be
given extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5)
thereof. However, prosecution can proceed only if the
offender is:
(1) within Philippine territory, OR
(2) brought to the Philippines pursuant to an
extradition treaty.
Crimes against national security can be tried only in
the Philippines, as there is a need to bring the
offender here before he can be made to suffer the
consequences of the law.
In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the
offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be
found because the crimes are regarded as
committed against humanity in general.
The acts against national security may be committed
abroad and still be punishable under our law.
General rule: Almost all of these are crimes
committed in times of war.
Exceptions: The following can be committed in times
of peace:
(1) Espionage (Art 117) This is also covered by
Commonwealth Act No. 616 which punishes
conspiracy to commit espionage.
PAGE 105
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals
(Art 118) This can be committed even if the
Philippines is not a participant.
(3) Violation of Neutrality (Art. 119) The
Philippines is not a party to an on-going war.
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
ARTICLE 114 - TREASON
MODE 1: Levying War
Elements:
(1) The offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(3) The offender levies war against the government
MODE 2: Adherence to the Enemy and Giving of Aid
or Comfort
Elements:
(1) The offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(3) That the offender adheres to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government,
committed by a person who owes allegiance to it. It
cannot be committed in the time of peace. There are
two ways of committing treason: (1) By levying war
against the Government and (2) By adhering to the
enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or
comfort. (Reyes, 2008)
To be treasonous, the extent of aid and comfort
given to the enemies must be to render assistance to
them as enemies and not as individuals, in the
furtherance of the enemies hostile designs.
Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of
treason, which in the absence of admission may be
gathered from the nature and circumstances of each
particular case. [People vs. Perez]
Mode 1: Levying War
Requirements:
Levying war requires the concurrence of two things:
(1) that there must be an actual assembling of
men;
(2) for the purpose of executing a treasonable
design by force.
There must be an actual assembling of men. The
mere acceptance of the commission from the
secretary of war of the Katipunan by the accused,
nothing else having been done, was not an overt act
of treason within the meaning of the law. [U.S. vs. De
los Reyes]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The levying of war must be directed against the
government. It must be with intent to overthrow the
government as such, not merely to resist a particular
statute or to repel a particular officer. [Reyes, 2008;
th
citing 3 Whartons Criminal Law, 12 Ed.]
The levying of war must be in collaboration with a
foreign enemy. If the levying of war is merely a civil
uprising, without any intention of helping an external
enemy, the crime is not treason. The offenders may
be held liable for rebellion under Article 135 in
relation to Article 134 of the RPC. [Reyes, 2008]
Mode 2: Adherence to the Enemy
Adherence and giving aid or comfort to the enemy
must concur. Adherence to the enemy means intent
to betray. Aid or comfort means an act which
strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the
conduct of war against the traitors country and an
act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of
the traitors country to resist or to attack the enemy.
[Cramer vs. US]
When there is no adherence to the enemy, the act
which may do aid or comfort to the enemy does not
amount to treason. [Reyes, 2008]
Acceptance of public office and discharge of official
duties under the enemy do not constitute per se the
felony of treason. But when there is adherence to the
enemy, then such constitute treason. [People vs.
Sison]
The term enemies applies only to the subjects of a
foreign power in a state of hostility with the traitors
country. [Reyes, 2008]
The overt act of aid and comfort to the enemy must
be intentional, as distinguished from merely
negligent or undesigned ones. [Cramer vs. US]
When the killings and other common crimes are
charged as overt acts of treason, they cannot be
regarded: (1) as separate crimes, or (2) as complexed
with treason.
Exception: But this rule would not preclude the
punishment of murder or other common crimes as
such, if the prosecution should elect to prosecute the
culprit specifically for these crimes, instead of relying
on them as an element of treason. [People vs. Prieto]
Treason by a Filipino citizen can be committed
outside of the Philippines. Treason by an alien must
be committed in the Philippines.
PAGE 106
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The crime of treason is of such a nature that it may
be committed by one single act, by a series of acts, or
by several series thereof, not only in a single time,
but in different times, it being a continuous crime.
[People vs. Victoria]
Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence
or by the extrajudicial confession of the accused.
Two Ways of Proving Treason
(1)Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same
overt act; or
(2)Confession of accused in open court.[Article 114,
par.2, RPC]
The Two-witness Rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove
the overt act of giving aid or comfort. It is not
necessary to prove adherence. Each of the witness
must testify to the whole overt act; or if it is
separable, there must be two witnesses to each part
of the overt act. [People vs. Escleto]
Adherence may be proved:
(1) By one witness,
(2) From the nature of the act itself, or
(3) From the circumstances surrounding the act.
Adherence need not be proven by two witness
testimonies may be inferred from one witness, or
from the nature of the act itself or other
circumstances [People vs. Adriano]
Reason why Two-witness Rule does not apply to
adherence: Adherence to the enemy is a state of
mind. It is never susceptible of proof by direct
testimony. [Reyes, 2008]
Confession must be made in open court.
Extrajudicial confession or confession made before
the investigators is not sufficient to convict a person
of treason. [Reyes, 2008]
Aggravating Circumstances
Cruelty and ignominy are aggravating circumstances
in treason.
But evident premeditation is not considered as one
since adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to
the enemy is usually a long continued process
requiring requiring reflective and persistent
determination and planning.[People vs. Racaza]
Superior strength and treachery are circumstances
inherent in treason. Treachery is merged in superior
strength. Therefore, they are not aggravating in
treason.[People vs. Adlawan]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The presence of the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, the aid of armed persons to insure or
afford impunity, and deliberately augmenting the
crimes by causing other wrongs not necessary in the
commission thereof are inherent in the crime of
treason and thus shall not be appreciated as
aggravating circumstances. [People vs Victoria]
Defense of Suspended Allegiance and change of
sovereignty are not accepted because:
(1)A citizen owes an absolute and permanent
allegiance to his Government;
(2)The sovereignty of the Government is not
transferred to the enemy by mere occupation;
(3)The subsistence of the sovereignty of the
legitimate Government in a territory occupied by the
military forces of the enemy during the war is one of
the rules of International Law; and
(4)What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of
sovereignty.
In addition to the defense of duress or uncontrollable
fear, lawful obedience to a de facto Government is a
good defense in treason. The Philippine Executive
Commission, as well as the Republic established by
the Japanese occupation army in the Philippines, had
all the characteristics of a de facto Government. [Go
Kim Cham vs. Valdez]
Defense of loss of citizenship by joining the army of
the enemy is not valid. The accused cannot divest
himself of his Philippine citizenship by the simple
expedient of accepting a commission in the military,
naval or air service of such country. If his contention
is sustained, his very crime would be the shield that
would protect him from punishment. [People vs.
Manayao]
ARTICLE 115 - CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) At least two persons come to an agreement to
(a) Levy war against the government; or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort
(3) That person proposes its execution to other
persons
(4) They decide to commit it
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) At least one person decides to
PAGE 107
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(a) Levy war against the government; or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony is not punishable under Article 8.
Exception: Under Article 115, mere conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason is punishable. This is
because, in treason, the very existence of the state is
endangered. [Reyes, 2008]
The two-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason because this is a
separate and distinct offense from that of treason.
[US vs. Bautista]
ARTICLE 116 - MISPRISION OF TREASON
Elements:
(1) Offender owes allegiance to the government,
and is not a foreigner
(2) He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit
treason against the government
(3) He conceals or does not disclose and make
known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province in which he
resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which
he resides
Misprision of treason is a crime that may be
committed only by citizens of the Philippines. It
cannot be committed by a resident alien.
The essence of the crime is that there are persons
who conspire to commit treason and the offender
knew this and failed to make the necessary report to
the government within the earliest possible time.
Article 116 does not apply when the crime of treason
is already committed by someone and the accused
does not report its commission to the proper
authority. The provision only speaks of knowledge of
any conspiracy against the Government of the
Philippines, not knowledge of treason actually
committed by another. The criminal liability arises if
the accused learned of the treasonous activity while
still at the conspiratorial stage because if he learned
of the treason when it had already erupted into an
overt act, then the implication is that the government
is already aware of it.
The offender in misprision of treason is punished as
an accessory to treason. Note that Article 116 does
not provide for a penalty. However, the offender is a
principal in the crime of misprision of treason.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Any person in authority having the equivalent
jurisdiction (of a mayor, fiscal or governor), like a
provincial commander, will already negate criminal
liability.
Blood relationship is always subservient to national
security. Article 20 of the RPC regarding accessories
who are exempt from criminal liability does not apply
in this case because persons found liable for this crime
are not considered accessories, but as principals.
Article 116 is an exception to the rule that mere
silence does not make a person criminally liable. [US
vs. Caballeros]
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
misprision of rebellion.
ARTICLE 117 ESPIONAGE
MODE 1: Entering of establishment to obtain
confidential information regarding defense of the
Philippines
Elements:
(1) That the offender enters a warship, fort, or naval
or military establishment or reservation;
(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.
MODE 2: Disclosing by public officer of confidential
information to a foreign representative
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer;
(2) That he has in his possession the articles, data
or information of a confidential nature relative to
the defense of the Philippines, by reason of the
public office he holds;
That he discloses their contents to a representative
of a foreign nation.
Under paragraph 1 of Article 117, the offender is any
person, whether a citizen or a foreigner, a private
individual or a public officer.
Under paragraph 2, the offender must be a public
officer who has in his possession the information by
reason of the public office he holds.
To be liable under paragraph 1, the offender must
have the intention to obtain information relative to
the defense of the Philippines. It is not necessary
that the information, etc. is obtained. It is sufficient
PAGE 108
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
that the offender has the purpose to obtain any of
them.
Espionage Treason
Not conditioned by the Not conditioned by the
citizenship of the offender citizenship of the offender
May be committed both in Committed only in time of
time of war and in time of war
peace
May be committed in Limited only to two ways
many ways of committing the crime:
levying of war and
adhering to the enemy
giving him aid or comfort
Crimes against the Law of
Nations
ARTICLE 118 - INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
Elements:
(1) Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized
acts
(2) The acts provoke or give occasion for
(a) A war involving or liable to involve the
Philippines; or
(b) Exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals on
their persons or property
This crime is committed in time of peace.
The intention of the offender is immaterial. The law
considers the effects produced by the acts of the
accused. [Reyes, 2008l citing Viada]
Examples [Reyes, 2008]
The raising, without sufficient authorization, of
troops within the Philippines for the service of a
foreign nation against another nation.
The public destruction of the flag or seal of a foreign
state or the public manifestations of hostility to the
head or ambassador of another state.
ARTICLE 119 - VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not
involved
(2) There is a regulation issued by a competent
authority to enforce neutrality
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(3) Offender violates the regulation
Definition of neutrality. A nation or power which
takes no part in a contest of arms going on between
other countries.
ARTICLE 120 - CORRESPONDENCE WITH
HOSTILE COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) It is in time of war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) Offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops
(3) The correspondence is either
(a) Prohibited by the government, or
(b) Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs,
or
(c) Containing notice or information which
might be useful to the enemy.
Definition of Correspondence. Communication by
means of letters which pass between those who have
friendly or business relations.
Even if the correspondence contains innocent
matters, if the correspondence has been prohibited
by the Government, it is punishable.
Prohibition by the Government is not essential in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 120.
Circumstances qualifying the offense under sentence
2, paragraph 3
The following must concur together:
(1)That the notice or information might be useful to
the enemy, and
(2) That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving
such notice or information, the crime amounts to
treason; hence, the penalty is the same as that for
treason. [Reyes, 2008]
ARTICLE 121 - FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) Offender must be owing allegiance to the
government
(3) Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy
country
(4) Going to the enemy country is prohibited by
compete
An alien resident may be guilty of flight to enemy
country. The law does not say not being a
PAGE 109
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
foreigner. Hence, the allegiance contemplated in
this article is either natural or temporary allegiance.
[Reyes, 2008]
Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country
consummates the crime.
ARTICLE 122 - PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY
ON THE HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters
(2) Offenders are neither members of its
complement nor passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either
(a) Attack or seize that vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers
(4) There is intent to gain
Acts Punished in Piracy:
(1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or
in Philippine waters
(2) Seizing the whole or part of its cargo,
complement or passengers while the vessel is on
the high seas or in Philippine waters
Definition of High Seas
The Convention on the Law of the Sea defined it as
parts of the seas that are not included in the
exclusive economic zone, in the territorial seas, or in
the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic
waters of an archipelagic state.
Definition of Piracy
It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done with animo
furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal
hostility. [People vs. Lol-lo]
Mutiny
Definition of Mutiny
It is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or
the raising of commotions and disturbances
Mutiny is punished in Article 122.Mutiny is usually
committed by the other members of the
complement and may be committed by the
passengers of the vessel.
Piracy Mutiny
Persons who attack the Persons who attack the
vessel or seize its cargo vessel or seize its cargo
are strangers to said are members of the crew
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Piracy Mutiny
vessels or passengers
Intent to gain is essential Intent to gain is not
essential. The offenders
may only intend to ignore
the ships officers or they
may be prompted by a
desire to commit plunder.
Abetting Piracy
In Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532, the act
of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a
crime distinct from piracy.
Said section penalizes any person who knowingly
and in any manner aids or protects pirates, such as
giving them information about the movement of the
police or other peace officers of the government, or
acquires or receives property taken by such pirates,
or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of
piracy.
Also, it is expressly provided in the same section that
the offender shall be considered as an accomplice of
the principal offenders and punished in accordance
with the Revised Penal Code.
This provision of PD No. 532 with respect to piracy in
Philippine waters has not been incorporated into the
RPC. Neither may it be considered repealed by RA
7659 since there is nothing in the amendatory law
which is inconsistent with said section.
Apparently, there is still the crime of abetting piracy
in Philippine waters under PD No. 532.
RA 9372
A person who commits an act punishable as piracy
and mutiny under Article 122 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.
ARTICLE 123 - QUALIFIED PIRACY
Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters
(2) Offenders may or may not be members of its
complement, or passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either
(a) Attack or seize the vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment, or personal belongings of its
PAGE 110
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
crew or passengers
(4) The preceding were committed under any of the
following circumstances:
(a) Whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same;
(b) Whenever the pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving
themselves; or
(c) Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape
If any of the circumstances in Article 123 is present,
piracy is qualified.
Paragraph 2 of Article 123 specifically mentions
pirates thereby excluding mutineers from said
paragraph. It would seem, however, that it should be
in paragraph 1 where the word pirates should be
specifically mentioned and not in paragraph 2,
because in paragraph 1, the mutineers, being already
in the vessel, cannot seize the vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same. [Reyes, 2008]
Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere
circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be
punished as separate crimes, nor can they be
complexed with piracy.
Although Article 123 refers to qualified piracy, there
is also the crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is
qualified under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims
without means of saving themselves; or
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape,
murder, homicide, or physical injuries
The first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not
apply to mutiny.
PD 532: ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY
ROBBERY
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms
shall mean and be understood, as follows:
(a) Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all bodies of
water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs,
bays around, between and connecting each of
the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension, and all other waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or legal title, including
territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
(b) Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used for
transport of passengers and cargo from one
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
place to another through Philippine Waters. It
shall include all kinds and types of vessels or
boats used in fishing.
(c) Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road,
street, passage, highway and bridges or other
parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the
Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or
locomotives or trains for the movement or
circulation of persons or transportation of goods,
articles, or property or both.
(d) Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel,
or the taking away of the whole or part thereof
or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders
shall be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
(e) Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of
any person for ransom, extortion or other
unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another by means of violence against
or intimidation of person or force upon things of
other unlawful means, committed by any person
on any Philippine Highway.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 3. Penalties. Any person who commits piracy
or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined,
shall, upon conviction by competent court be
punished by:
(a) Piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are
committed as a result or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed. If rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the
victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon
or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed.
(b) Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall
be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes
are committed during or on the occasion of the
commission of robbery or brigandage, the
PAGE 111
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed. If
kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on
the occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall
be imposed.
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway
robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and
in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway
robbers/brigands, such as giving them information
about the movement of police or other peace officers
of the government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner
derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who
directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy
or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be
considered as an accomplice of the principal
offenders and be punished in accordance with the
Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any
of the acts provided in this Section has performed
knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
RA 6235: ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to
compel a change in the course or destination of an
aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the
control thereof, while it is in flight. An aircraft is in
flight from the moment all its external doors are
closed following embarkation until any of such doors
is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to compel
an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine
territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while
it is within the said territory.
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural
or juridical, to ship, load or carry in any passenger
aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines, and explosive, flammable, corrosive or
poisonous substance or material.
Section 4. The shipping, loading or carrying of any
substance or material mentioned in the preceding
section in any cargo aircraft operating as a public
utility within the Philippines shall be in accordance
with regulations issued by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
SEC. 3.Terrorism. Any person who commits an act
punishable under any of the following provisions of
the Revised Penal Code:
(1) Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the
High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
(2) Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
(3) Article 134-a (Coup detat), including acts
committed by private persons;
(4) Article 248 (Murder);
(5) Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention);
(6) Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction),
(7) or under
(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of
1990);
(3) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy
Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and
Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended
(Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives)
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 and shall suffer the penalty of
forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit
of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as amended.
Who Are Liable
SEC. 4.Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. Persons
who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall
suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of the
crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and
decide to commit the same.
SEC. 5.Accomplice. Any person who, not being a
principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code
or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by
previous or simultaneous acts shall suffer the
PAGE 112
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months
one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.
SEC. 6.Accessory. Any person who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of
the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner: (a) by
profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or
destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
(c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime,
shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day
to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, 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 relatives by affinity
within the same degrees, with the single exception of
accessories falling within the provisions of
subparagraph (a).
Title II. Crimes against
Fundamental Laws of the
State
(1) Art. 124: Arbitrary Detention
(2) Art. 125: Delay in the Delivery Of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities
(3) Art. 126: Delaying Release
(4) Art. 127: Expulsion
(5) Art. 128: Violation of Domicile
(6) Art.129: Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained
and Abuse in the Service of those Legally
Obtained
(7) Art. 130: Searching Domicile Without Witnesses
(8) Art. 131: Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution
of Peaceful Meetings
(9) Art. 132: Interruption of Religious Worship
(10) Art. 133: Offending the Religious Feelings
Crimes under this title are those that violate certain
provisions of the Bill of Rights.
All offenses under this title can only be committed by
public officers except offending the religious feelings
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

under Article 133. In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay

The primary offender in ARTICLES 124-132 is a public
officer acting under supposed exercise of official
functions, albeit illegally.
A private person may be liable under these articles
ONLY WHEN he:
(1) Conspires with a public officer; OR
(2) He becomes an accomplice or accessory to said
crimes
ARTICLE 133 can be committed by EITHER a public
officer OR a private person.
ARTICLE 124 - ARBITRARY DETENTION
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer or employee
(2) That he detains a person
(3) That the detention is without a legal ground.
The Crime of Arbitrary Detention assumes several
forms:
(1) Detaining a person without legal grounds
(Article 124);
(2) Having arrested the offended party for legal
grounds but without warrant of arrest, and the
public officer does not deliver the arrested
person to the proper judicial authority within the
period of 12, 18, or 36 hours, as the case may be
(Article 125); or
(3) Delaying release by competent authority with
the same period mentioned in number 2 (Article
126).
Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held
to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This
is because he is a person in authority vested with
jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his
barangay. [Milo v. Salanga (1987)]
There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the
offended party.
The crime committed is only grave or light threats if
the offended party may still go to the place where he
wants to go, even though there have been warnings.
If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a
person to be able to arrest him and appear not
determined to file a charge against him, the crime is
arbitrary detention through unlawful arrest. [Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law]
A case where a DENR team was invited to Mayor
Astorgas house from 530pm to 230am for dinner
and drinks, does not fall under Arbitrary Detention.
Absent any physical restraint, an element of the said
crime is fear. No record on evidence showed that the
mayor instilled fear into the minds of the DENR team
while they were in the Mayors house.[Astorga v.
People (2004)]
Arrest without warrant is the usual cause of arbitrary
detention.
Difference between Arbitrary Detention, Illegal
Detention and Unlawful Arrest

The detention of a person is without legal ground: (1) Arbitrary Illegal Unlawful
when he has not committed any crime or, at least, Detention Detention Arrest
there is no reasonable ground for suspicion that he Offender Public officer (1) Private Any person
has committed a crime, or (2) when he is not who has person;
suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment authority to OR
requiring compulsory confinement in a hospital. make arrests (2) Public
and detain officer
A public officer is deemed such when he is acting persons who is
within the bounds of his official authority or function. acting in a
private
A police officer who employs force in excess of what capacity
is necessary is acting outside the bounds of his duties or beyond
and is considered acting in his private the scope
capacity.[Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal of his
Law] official
duty
In the crime of arbitrary detention, although the
offender is a public officer, not any public officer can Criminal Violate the Deprive the Accuse the
commit this crime. Only those public officers whose Intent offended offended party offended
official duties carry with it the authority to make an partys of his personal party of a
arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime. constitutional liberty crime he
freedom did not

PAGE 113
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Arbitrary Illegal Unlawful

Detention Detention Arrest Where the invitation comes from a powerful group
composed predominantly of ranking military officers
against commit, and the designated interrogation site is a military
warrantless deliver him camp, the same can be easily taken NOT as a strictly
arrest to the voluntary invitation. It is an authoritative command
proper that one can only defy at ones peril. [Sanchez v.
authority, Demetriou (1993)]
and file the
necessary Detained person should be released when a judge is
charges to not available. [Albior vs. Aguis (2003)]
incriminate
him Waiver of the provisions of Article 125
Before the complaint or information is filed, the
ARTICLE 125 - DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF person arrested may ask for a preliminary
DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL investigation in accordance with Rule 112 of the
AUTHORITIES Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, but he must
Elements: sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee Revised Penal Code in the presence of his counsel.
(2) He detains a person for some legal ground Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail
(3) He fails to deliver such person to the proper and the investigation must be terminated within
judicial authorities within fifteen days from its inception. (Section 7,par. 2, Rule
(a) 12 hours for light penalties 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
(b) 18 hours for correctional penalties
(c) 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties ARTICLE 126 - DELAYING RELEASE
Elements:
This is applicable only when the arrest is without a (1) Offender is a public officer or employee
warrant. But the arrest must be lawful. (2) There is a:
(a) Judicial or executive order for the release of a
At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in prisoner or detention prisoner, OR
the pursuance of a lawful arrest. Detention becomes (b) A proceeding upon a petition for the
arbitrary when the: liberation of such person
(1) Applicable period lapses (3) Offender without good reason delays
(2) Without the arresting officer filing a formal (a) The service of the notice of such order to the
charge with the proper court. prisoner
(b) The performance of such judicial or
The periods stated are counted only when the executive order for the release of the
prosecutors office is ready to receive the complaint prisoner; OR
or information. Nighttime is not included in the (c) The proceedings upon a petition for the
period. release of such person

Delivery means the filing of correct information ARTICLE 127 EXPULSION

with the proper court (or constructive delivery --
Elements:
turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction of
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
the court). The purpose is to determine whether the
(2) He either
offense is bailable or not. (Upon delivery, judge or
(a) Expels any person from the Philippines; OR
court acquires jurisdiction to issue an order of release
(b) Compels a person to change residence
or of commitment of prisoner.) [Sayo v. Chief of Police
(c) Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
(1948)]

The elements of custodial investigation are:
(1) The suspect is deprived of liberty in any
significant manner;
(2) The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement
authorities;
(3) The interrogation is inculpatory in character.
[People v. Tan (1998)]
The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of
expulsion when he ordered certain prostitutes to be
transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due
process since they have not been charged with any
crime. [Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)]

PAGE 114
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The right to return to ones country is not among the
rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
which treats only of the Liberty of Abode and the
right to travel.
However, it is a well-settled view that the right to
return may be considered as a generally accepted
principle of international law and, under the
Constitution, forms part of the law of the land.
However, it is distinct and separate from the right to
travel.
The constitutional guarantees invoked by the
Marcoses are neither absolute nor inflexible for the
exercise of such freedoms has limits and must adjust
to the concerns which involve the public
interest.[Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)]
ARTICLE 128 - VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Acts punished:
(1) Entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof
(2) Searching papers or other effects found therein
without the previous consent of such owner, OR
(3) Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same
Elements COMMON to the three acts:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He is not authorized by judicial order
(a) To enter the dwelling;
(b) To make a search therein for papers or other
effects; or
(c) He refuses to leave, after having
surreptitiously entered such dwelling and
been required to leave the same
Qualifying circumstances:
(1) Night time
(2) Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a
crime are not returned immediately after the
search made by the offender.
RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT: a
public officer, who breaks into the premises, incurs
no liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters said
premises and closes it thereafter, provided that the
officer first gives a notice of arrest.
The public officer should have first given notice of an
arrest.
According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs.
Elamparo (2000), the following are the accepted
exceptions to the warrant requirement:
(1) Search incidental to an arrest;
PAGE 115
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) Search of moving vehicles;
(3) Evidence in plain view;
(4) Stop and frisk;
(5) Customs searches; AND
(6) Consented warrantless search.
[M]ere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop
and frisk."
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him.
Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
(1) The general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the
recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even without probable cause; and
(2) The more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to
take steps to assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
used against the police officer. [Malacat v. CA
(1997)]
Against the will means that the offender ignored
the prohibition of the owner which may be express or
implied as when the door is closed even though not
locked. [Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal
Law]
The offender must be a public officer or employee. If
the offender is a private individual then the crime is
trespass to dwelling under Article 280.
ARTICLE 129 - SEARCH WARRANTS
MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE
SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
Elements of procuring a search warrant without just
cause:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He procures a search warrant
(3) There is no just cause
Elements of exceeding authority or using unnecessary
severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He has legally procured a search warrant
(3) He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary
severity in executing the same.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 130 - SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He is armed with search warrant legally
procured
(3) He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person
(4) The owner, or any members of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
RULE 116: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A search warrant is an order in writing -
(1) Signed by a judge
(2) Directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court
Requisites for issuing a search warrant:
(1) Probable cause, in connection with one specific
offense, to be determined personally by the
judge AFTER examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witness
he may produce
(2) Particular description of:
(a) Place to be searched; AND
(b) Things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines
An officer may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein WHEN these circumstances concur:
(1) He is refused admittance to the place of directed
search;
(2) His purpose is to execute the warrant to liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when
unlawfully detained therein; and
(3) He has given notice of his purpose and authority.
The warrant must direct that it be served in the
daytime. HOWEVER, it can be served at any time of
the day or night WHEN the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to
be searched.
A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from
its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
The officer seizing the property under the warrant
must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence
the search and seizure were made.
In the absence of such occupant, the officer must:
PAGE 116
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) leave a receipt in the place in which he found the
seized property;
(2) In the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality.
ARTICLE 131 - PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
(a) Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal
ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting,
or by dissolving the same
(b) Hindering any person from joining any
lawful association, or from attending any of
its meetings
(c) 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
The government has a right to require a permit
before any gathering can be made. HOWEVER, the
government only has regulatory, NOT
PROHIBITORY, powers with regard to such
requirement.
The permit should state the day, time, and place of
the gathering.
If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer
dictates the place where the meeting is to be held,
this article is VIOLATED.
If in the course of the assembly, which started out
peacefully, the participants committed illegal acts
like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public
officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the
meeting.
Two criteria to determine whether this article would
be violated:
(1) Dangerous tendency rule applied during times
of national unrest such as to prevent coup
detat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule applied during
times of peace. Stricter rule.
ARTICLE 132 - INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion are about to take place or are going on
(3) Offender prevents or disturbs the same
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Circumstances qualifying the offense: if the crime is
committed with violence or threats.
ARTICLE 133 - OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS
Elements:
(1) Acts complained of were performed in a place
devoted to religious worship, OR during the
celebration of any religious ceremony
(2) The acts must be notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful.
In the phrase in a place devoted to religious
worship, it is not necessary that there is a religious
ceremony going on when the offender performs acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
The phrase during the celebration is separated by
the word or from the phrase place devoted to
religious worship, which indicates that the religious
ceremony need not be celebrated in a place of
worship. [Reyes (2008)]
Jurisprudence:
A Catholic priest complained against a group that
passed by the churchyard as they were holding the
funeral rites of a Church of Christ member.
An act is NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE to the religious
feelings when a person:
(1) Ridicules or makes light of anything constituting
religious dogma
(2) Works or scoffs at anything devoted to religious
ceremonies
(3) Plays with or damages or destroys any object of
veneration of the faithful
WON an act is offensive to the religious feelings, is a
question of fact which must be adjudged only
according to the feelings of the Catholics and not
those of other faithful ones. [People v. Baes (1939)]
Laurel Dissent: The determination should NOT be
made to depend upon a more or less broad or
narrow conception of any given religion. Facts and
circumstances should be viewed through an
unbiased judicial criterion. (Note: This later became
the majority decision in People v. Tengson)
The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is
NOT directed at the religious belief itself and there is
no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as to
interrupt a religious ceremony. [People v. Nanoy]
PAGE 117
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
RA 9372 : HUMAN SECURITY ACT
PERIOD OF DETENTION
SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial
Warrant of Arrest. The provisions of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code to the contrary
notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement
personnel, who, having been duly authorized in
writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall, without incurring any
criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said
charged or suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within a period of three (3) days counted
from the moment the said charged or suspected
person has been apprehended or arrested, detained,
and taken into custody by the said police, or law
enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of
those suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the
surveillance under Section 7 and examination of
bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.
The police or law enforcement personnel concerned
shall, before detaining the person suspected of the
crime of terrorism, present him or her before any
judge at the latters residence or office nearest the
place where the arrest took place at any time of the
day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among
other things, to ascertain the identity of the police or
law enforcement personnel and the person or
persons they have arrested and presented before
him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they
have arrested the person and determine by
questioning and personal observation whether or not
the suspect has been subjected to any physical,
moral or psychological torture by whom and why.
The judge shall then submit a written report of what
he/she had observed when the subject was brought
before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction
over the case of the person thus arrested. the judge
shall forthwith submit his/her report within three (3)
calendar days from the time the suspect was
brought to his/her residence or office.
Immediately after taking custody of a person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the
judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension
or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made
during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office
hours, the written notice shall be served at the
residence of the judge nearest the place where the
accused was arrested.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve
(12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to
notify any judge as provided in the preceding
paragraph.
SEC. 19.Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual
or Imminent Terrorist Attack. In the event of an
actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not
be detained for more than three (3) days without the
written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or
regional official of a Human Rights Commission or
judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the
Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals
nearest the place of the arrest. If the arrest is made
during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office
hours, the arresting police or law enforcement
personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the
residence of any of the officials mentioned above
that is nearest the place where the accused was
arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said
officials shall be secured by the police or law
enforcement personnel concerned within five (5)
days after the date of the detention of the persons
concerned: Provided, however, That within three (3)
days after the detention the suspects, whose
connection with the terror attack or threat is not
established, shall be released immediately.
RA 9745: ANTI-TORTURE ACT
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 4. Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act,
torture shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority upon another in
his/her custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion,
disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the
body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching,
kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other
similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled
food, animal or human excreta and other stuff or
substances not normally eaten;
(3) Electric shock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated
rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other
chemical substances on mucous membranes, or
acids or spices directly on the wound(s);
PAGE 118
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water
polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood
until the brink of suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful
bodily position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of
foreign objects into the sex organ or rectum, or
electrical torture of the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of
the body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the
teeth;
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as
sunlight and extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials
placed over the head to the point of asphyxiation;
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession
and/or reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain
symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts
committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect or
confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's
dignity and morale, such as:
(1) Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s) with
bodily harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention
places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or
prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person
deprived of liberty from one place to another,
creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily
executed;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by
the person's family, relatives or any third party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person
naked, parading him/her in public places, shaving
the victim's head or putting marks on his/her body
against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of his/her family;
and
(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological
torture.
Section 5. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. - Other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment refers to a
deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment
not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted
by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against another person in custody, which
attains a level of severity sufficient to cause suffering,
gross humiliation or debasement to the latter. The
assessment of the level of severity shall depend on
all the circumstances of the case, including the
duration of the treatment or punishment, its physical
and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex,
religion, age and state of health of the victim.
Section 6. Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
An Absolute Bight. - Torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as
criminal acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state
of war or a threat of war, internal political instability,
or any other public emergency, or a document or any
determination comprising an "order of battle" shall
not and can never be invoked as a justification for
torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment.
Section 7. Prohibited Detention. - Secret detention
places, solitary confinement, incommunicado or
other similar forms of detention, where torture may
be carried out with impunity. Are hereby prohibited.
In which case, the Philippine National Police (PNP),
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and other
law enforcement. agencies concerned shall make an
updated list of all detention centers and facilities
under their respective jurisdictions with the
PAGE 119
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
corresponding data on the prisoners or detainees
incarcerated or detained therein such as, among
others, names, date of arrest and incarceration, and
the crime or offense committed. This list shall be
made available to the public at all times, with a copy
of the complete list available at the respective
national headquarters of the PNP and AFP. A copy of
the complete list shall likewise be submitted by the
PNP, AFP and all other law enforcement agencies to
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), such list to
be periodically updated, by the same agencies,
within the first five (5) days of every month at the
minimum. Every regional office of the PNP, AFP and
other law enforcement agencies shall also maintain
a similar list far all detainees and detention facilities
within their respective areas, and shall make the
same available to the public at all times at their
respective regional headquarters, and submit a copy.
updated in the same manner provided above, to the
respective regional offices of the CHR.
WHO ARE LIABLE
Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person
who actually participated Or induced another in the
commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment or who
cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall
be liable as principal
Any superior military, police or law enforcement
officer or senior government official who issued an
order to any lower ranking personnel to commit
torture for whatever purpose shall be held equally
liable as principals.
The immediate commanding officer of the unit
concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public
official of the PNP and other law enforcement
agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the
crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that
shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether
directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by
his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or,
owing to the circumstances at the time, should have
known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment shall be
committed, is being committed, or has been
committed by his/her subordinates or by others
within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such
knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective
action either before, during or immediately after its
commission, when he/she has the authority to
prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due
to negligence shall also be liable as principals.
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an
accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment is being committed and without having
participated therein, either as principal or
accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission
in any of the following manner:
(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment;
(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof
in order to prevent its discovery; or(c) By harboring,
concealing or assisting m the escape of the
principal/s in the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the
abuse of the official's public functions.
Title III. Crimes against Public
Order
(1) Article 134 - Rebellion/Insurrection
(2) Article 134-A - Coup d tat
(3) Article 135 - Penalty for Rebellion, Insurrection or
Coup d tat
(4) Article 136 - Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
Coup d tat, Rebellion or Insurrection
(5) Article 137 - Disloyalty of Public Officers or
Employees
(6) Article 138 - Inciting to Rebellion or Insurrection
(7) Article139 Sedition
(8) Article141 - Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
(9) Article142 Inciting to Sedition
(10) Article140 - Persons Liable for Sedition
(11) Article 143 - Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting
of the Congress of the Philippines and Similar
Bodies
(12) Article 144 - Disturbance of Proceedings
(13) Article 145 - Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
(14) Article 146 - Illegal Assemblies
(15) Article 147 - Illegal Associations
(16) Article 148 - Direct Assault
(17) Article 149 - Indirect Assault
PAGE 120
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(18) Article 150 - Disobedience to Summons Issued
by Congress, Its Committees or Subcommittees,
by the Constitutional Commissions, Its
Committees, Subcommittees or Divisions
(19) Article 153 - Tumults and Other Disturbances of
Public Order
(20) Article 151 - Resistance and Disobedience to a
Person in Authority or the Agents of Such
Persons
(21) Article 154 - Unlawful Use of Means of
Publication and Unlawful Utterances
(22) Article 156 - Delivering Persons from Jail
(23) Article 155 - Alarms and Scandals
(24) Article 157 - Evasion of Service of Sentence
(25) Article 159 - Other Cases of Evasion of Service of
Sentence
(26) Article 158 - Evasion of Service of Sentence on
the Occasion of Disorders, Conflagrations,
Earthquakes, or Other Calamities
(27) Article 160 - Quasi Recidivism
CHAPTER I - REBELLION, COUP DETAT,
SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
ARTICLE 134 - REBELLION /INSURRECTION
Elements:
(1) There is a public uprising and taking arms
against the government;
(2) The purpose of the uprising or movement is:
(a) To remove from the allegiance to the
government or its laws the Philippine
territory or any part thereof, or any body of
land, naval, or other armed forces; or
(b) To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives
Rule on Complexing of Rebellion: Rebellion cannot
be complexed with, but absorbs other crimes
committed in furtherance of rebellion. There is no
complex crime of rebellion with murder and other
common crimes.
Jurisprudence:
The doctrine laid down in People v. Hernandez
remains good law. This prohibits the complexing of
rebellion with any other offense committed in the
occasion thereof, either as a means to its commission
or as an unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion. [Enrile v Salazar (1990)]
All crimes, whether punishable under special or
general law, which are mere components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof,
become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes Rebellion vs. Sedition

themselves.[Ponce Enrile v Amin (1990)] Rebellion Sedition
Both motive and overt acts are essential components There must be taking up It is sufficient that the
of the crime of rebellion. If the political motive of a of arms against the public uprising be
supposedly rebellious act cannot be sufficiently government. tumultuous.
proven, the accused should be convicted of the
The purpose is always The purpose may be
common crime (e.g. murder) and not of rebellion.
political. political or social.
Rebellion is not covered by Art. 2 on extraterritorial
jurisdiction. [People v. Lovedioro (1995)] NOTE : When any of the objectives of rebellion is
pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal
Rebellion vs. Insurrection sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form.
Rebellion Insurrection ARTICLE 134-A - COUP D TAT
Object is to completely A movement seeking to Elements:
overthrow and supplant effect some change of (1) Offender is a person or persons belonging to the
the existing government minor importance or to military or police or holding any public office or
prevent the exercise of employment;
governmental authority (2) It is committed by means of a swift attack
with respect to particular accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
matters or subjects strategy or stealth;
(3) The attack is directed against the duly
Rebellion vs. Treason constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
Rebellion Treason communication networks, public utilities or
The levying of war against The levying of war against other facilities needed for the exercise and
the government during the government would continued possession of power;
peace time for any constitute treason when (4) The purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish
purpose mentioned in Art. performed to aid the state power.
134 enemy; it would also
constitute adherence to Persons who may commit coup detat:
the enemy, giving him aid (1) It may be committed singly or collectively
and comfort (2) Requires as a principal offender a member of
the AFP, PNP, or a public officer with or without
Always involves taking up Mere adherence to the civilian support
arms against the enemy giving him aid and
government. comfort The crime of coup detat may be committed with or
without civilian participation.
NOTE: No crime of misprision of rebellion.
Coup detat, when considered as Terrorism
Rebellion vs. Subversion A person who commits an act punishable as coup
Rebellion Subversion detat under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code,
including acts committed by private persons, thereby
Crime against public Crime against national sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
order security extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in
There must be public Being officers and ranking order to coerce the government to give in to an
uprising to overthrow the members of subversive unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of
government groups constitute terrorism.
subversion
ARTICLE 135 - PENALTY FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION
OR COUP D TAT
NOTE: There is no longer a crime of subversion by
virtue of RA 7636, which repealed RA 1700. Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat
(1) The leaders:
(a) Any person who promotes, maintains or
heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
(b) Any person who leads, directs or commands

PAGE 121
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Conspiracy Proposal
when two or more when the person who has
persons come to an decided to rise publicly
agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the
and take arms against government for any of the
government for any of the purposes of rebellion
purposes of rebellion and proposes its execution to
decide to commit it some other person or
persons
others to undertake a coup d'etat;
(2) The participants:
(a) Any person who participates or executes the
commands of others in rebellion or
insurrection;
(b) Any person in the government service who
participates or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking a coup
detat;
(c) Any person not in the government service
who participates, supports, finances, abets
or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat.
(d) If under the command of unknown leaders,
any person who directed the others, spoke
for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name on behalf
of the rebels shall be deemed a leader.
It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never
took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the Government. [US vs. del Rosario]
Mere silence or omission is not punishable in
rebellion. [US vs. Ravidas]
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder
and other common crimes. Acts committed in
furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves
are deemed absorbed in one single crime of
rebellion. [ Enrile vs. Amin (1990)]
ARTICLE 136 - CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
COUP D TAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Mode 1: Conspiracy to commit coup dtat, rebellion or
insurrection
Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement to
swiftly attack or to rise publicly and take arms
against the Government for any of the purposes
of rebellion or insurrection;
(2) They decide to commit it.
PAGE 122
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Mode 2: Proposal to commit coup dtat, rebellion or
insurrection
Elements:
(1) A person has decided to swiftly attack or to rise
publicly and take arms against the Government
for any of the purposes of rebellion or
insurrection;
(2) Such person proposes its execution to some
other person or persons
ARTICLE 137 - DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) Offender commits any of the following acts:
(a) Failing to resist a rebellion by all the means
in their power;
(b) Continuing to discharge the duties of their
offices under the control of the rebels
(c) Accepting appointment to office under
them.
The crime presupposes rebellion committed by other
persons. Offender must not be in conspiracy with the
rebels. Effect of conspiracy: Public officer is himself
guilty of rebellion.
ARTICLE 138 - INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Elements:
(1) Offender does not take arms or is not in open
hostility against the government;
(2) He incites others to the execution of any of the
acts of rebellion;
(3) The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end.
NOTE: There is no crime of inciting to treason.
Inciting to Rebellion vs. Proposal to Commit
Rebellion
Proposal to Commit
Inciting to Rebellion
Rebellion
The offender induces another to commit rebellion.
Rebellion should not be actually committed by the
persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited.
Otherwise, they become principals by inducement in
the crime of rebellion.
The person who proposes There is no need that the
has decided to commit offender has decided to
rebellion. commit rebellion.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Proposal to Commit Sedition vs. Coup detat

Inciting to Rebellion
Rebellion Sedition Coup detat
The person who proposes The act of inciting is done
There is no distinction as Offender belongs to the
the execution of the crime publicly.
to who may commit; a military or police or
uses secret means.
private individual may holding any public office
commit the offense or employment
ARTICLE 139 - SEDITION
Primary purpose is to To seize or to diminish
Elements: disturb public peace state power
(1) Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;
(2) Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other
Sedition vs. Treason
means outside of legal methods;
(3) Purpose is to attain any of the following objects: Sedition Treason
(a) To prevent the promulgation or execution of
any law or the holding of any popular It is the raising of It is the violation by a
election; commotions or subject of his allegiance
(b) To prevent the national government or any disturbances in the State. to his sovereign.
provincial or municipal government or any
public officer from exercising its or his A friction between the Philippine constabulary and
functions, or prevent the execution of an the Manila police escalated and resulted in the
administrative order; deaths of 6 policemen and 2 civilians and in the
(c) To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon serious injuries of 3 civilians.
the person or property of any public officer
or employee; The Court held that unlike the crime of rebellion,
(d) To commit, for any political or social end, common crimes committed in the occasion of
any act of hate or revenge against private sedition are to be appreciated as separate
persons or any social classes; crimes.[People v Cabrera (1922)]
(e) To despoil for any political or social end, any
person, municipality or province, or the ARTICLE 140 - PERSONS LIABLE FOR SEDITION
national government of all its property or (1) The leader of the sedition;
any part thereof. (2) Other person participating in the sedition

Tumultuous: If caused by more than three persons
who are armed or provided with the means of
violence. (Art. 163)
The purpose of this crime is not the overthrowing of
the government but the violation of public peace.
ARTICLE 141 - CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement and
a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to
attain any of the objects of sedition;
(2) They decide to commit it.

Under R.A. 8294, sedition absorbs the use of
unlicensed firearm as an element thereof; hence, it is
not an aggravating circumstance, and the offender
can no longer be prosecuted for illegal possession of
firearm. (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal
Law).
Sedition vs. Rebellion
NOTE: There is no proposal to commit sedition.
ARTICLE 142 INCITING TO SEDITION
Mode 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
of the acts which constitute sedition by means
of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, etc.

Sedition Rebellion Elements:

(1) Offender does not take direct part in the crime of
There must be a public uprising.
sedition;
It is sufficient that the There must be taking up (2) He incites others to the accomplishment of any
public uprising is of arms against the of the acts which constitute sedition by means of
tumultuous. government. speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems,
The purpose of the The purpose of the cartoons, banners, or other representations
offenders may be political offenders is always tending towards the same end.
or social political.

PAGE 123
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Mode 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
tend to disturb the public peace;
Mode 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) Offender does not take part in the crime of
sedition.
(2) He uttered words or speeches and writing,
publishing or circulating scurrilous libels and
that
(a) Tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
officer in conducting the functions of his
office;
(b) Tend to instigate others to cabal and meet
together for unlawful purposes;
(c) Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or
riots; OR
(d) 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.
Considering that the objective of sedition is to
express protest against the government and in the
process creating hate against public officers, any act
that will generate hatred against the government or
a public officer concerned or a social class may
amount to Inciting to Sedition.
Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.
Constitutional Tests relative to seditious words:
Clear and Present Danger Rule: The words must be
of such nature that by uttering them there is a
danger of a public uprising and that such danger
should be both clear and imminent. The danger
must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.
Dangerous Tendency Rule: If the words used tend to
create a danger of public uprising, then those words
could properly be the subject of a penal clause
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the
dramatic play, in view of the time, place, and manner
of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred
and enmity against the American people and the
Government of the US in the Philippines.[US v
Tolentino (1906)]
PAGE 124
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CHAPTER II - CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
ARTICLE 143 - ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING
OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SIMILAR
BODIES
Elements:
(1) There is a projected or actual meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional committees or
divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or
city or municipal council or board;
(2) Offender, who may be any person, prevents such
meetings by force or fraud.
ARTICLE 144 - DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board;
(2) 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.
Complaint may be filed by a member of the
legislative body. One who disturbs may also be
punished for contempt by Congress.
ARTICLE 145 - VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Mode 1: Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to
prevent any member of Congress from
attending the meetings of Congress or of any
of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or
divisions thereof, or from expressing his
opinion or casting his vote;
Elements:
(1) Offender uses force, intimidation, threats or
fraud;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to prevent any
member of Congress from:
(a) Attending the meetings of the Congress or
of any of its committees or constitutional
commissions;
(b) Expressing his opinion; OR
(c) Casting his vote.
Note: Offender in mode 1 is any person
Mode 2: Arresting or searching any member thereof
while Congress is in regular or special session,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

except in case such member has committed a (2) Persons merely present at the meeting, who
crime punishable under the Code by a penalty must have a common intent to commit the
higher than prision mayor. felony of illegal assembly.

Elements: In the first form of illegal assembly, the persons

(1) Offender is a public officer of employee;
(2) He arrests or searches any member of Congress;
(3) Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in
regular or special session;
(4) The member arrested or searched has not
committed a crime punishable under the Code
by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
Parliamentary immunity does not protect members
of Congress from responsibility in accordance with
the disciplinary rules of Congress itself.
1987 Constitution: Members of Congress cannot be
arrested for offenses punishable by a penalty less
than prision mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs), while
Congress is in session. They can be prosecuted after
Congress adjourns.
CHAPTER III ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND
ASSOCIATIONS
ARTICLE 146 - ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
present at the meeting must be armed. But the law
does not require that all the persons present must be
armed. The unarmed persons present at the meeting
are also liable.
Presumptions if a person carried 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.
NOTE: Not all persons present at the meeting of the
first form of illegal assembly must be armed.
ARTICLE 147 - ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
(1) Associations totally or partially organized for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
(2) Associations totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals.

Mode 1: Any meeting attended by armed persons for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving;
(2) The meeting is attended by armed persons;
(3) The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of
the crimes punishable under the Code.
Persons liable for illegal associations:
(1) Founders, directors and president of the
association;
(2) Mere members of the association.
Public Morals: matters which affect the interest of
society and public convenience, not limited to good
customs
Illegal Assemblies vs. Illegal Associations

Mode 2: Any meeting in which the audience, whether Illegal Assembly Illegal Association
armed or not, is incited to the commission There must be an actual Actual meeting not
of the crime of treason, rebellion or meeting or assembly necessary
insurrection, sedition, or assault upon
person in authority or his agents. What is punished are the What is punished is the
meeting and the act of forming or
Elements: attendance therein organizing the association
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of Persons liable: Persons liable:
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving; (1) Organizers or leaders (1) Founders, directors,
(2) The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to of the meeting president
the commission of the crime of treason, (2) Persons present (2) The members
rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct See also: BP 880 - Public Assembly Act of 1985
assault.

Persons liable for illegal assembly:

(1) The organizer or leaders of the meeting;

PAGE 125
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CHAPTER IV - ASSAULT UPON AND RESISTANCE
AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
ARTICLE 148 - DIRECT ASSAULT
Mode 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) Offender employs force or intimidation;
(2) The aim of the offender is to attain any of the
purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the
objects of the crime of sedition;
(3) There is no public uprising.
Mode 2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
employing force or by seriously
intimidating or by seriously resisting any
person in authority or any of his agents,
while engaged in the performance of
official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.
Elements:
(1) Offender makes an attack, employs force, makes
a serious intimidation, or makes a serious
resistance;
(2) The person assaulted is a person in authority or
his agent;
(3) At the time of the assault, the person in
authority or his agent is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, OR that he is
assaulted by reason of the past performance of
official duties;
(4) Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of
his duties.
(5) There is no public uprising.
The first form of direct assault is tantamount to
rebellion or sedition, except that there is no public
uprising.
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed
a person in authority.
Directly vested with jurisdiction means the power
or authority to govern and execute the laws.
Teachers, professors and persons in charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities shall be deemed
persons in authority, in applying the provisions of
Articles 148 and 151. For other purposes, such as to
increase the penalty by reason of the aggravating
circumstances where a person in authority is
involved, the teachers and professors are not persons
in authority.
When the assault results in the killing of that agent
or of a person in authority, the offense committed is
complex crime of direct assault with murder or
homicide. The only time when it is not complexed is
when material consequence is a light felony, that is,
slight physical injury. Direct assault absorbs the
lighter felony.
The force employed need not be serious when the
offended party is a person in authority;
Intimidation or resistance must be serious whether
the offended party is a person in authority OR an
agent of a person in authority
If the public officer is not a person in authority, the
assault on him is an aggravating circumstance in Art.
14, no. 3 (rank). (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law).
There must be however an intent to disregard the
victims rank.
Gabutero was acting in the performance of his duties
[as he was trying to pacify Dollantes who was
causing trouble] as barangay captain when he was
stabbed to death. Thus, the crime committed was
murder with assault upon a person in
authority.[People v. Dollantes (1987)]

ARTICLE 152 - PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF

Classifications of direct assault: simple and qualified.
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY

Assault is qualified when: Agents of a Person

Public Officer (Art. Persons in
(1) There is a weapon employed in the attack in Authority (Art.
207) Authority (Art. 152)
(2) The offender is a public officer 152)
(3) The offender lays hands on a public authority Any person who Any person Any person who, by
takes part in the directly vested direct provision of
Person in authority means any person directly performance of with jurisdiction, law or by election
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or public functions in whether as an or by appointment
as a member of some court or governmental the government. individual or as a by competent

PAGE 126
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Agents of a Person
Public Officer (Art. Persons in
in Authority (Art.
207) Authority (Art. 152)
152)
member of some authority,
court or charged with
governmental maintenance
corporation, board public order
or commission. the protection
security of life
property.
Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools recognized by
government are persons in authority only for purposes
of Art. 152 in relation to Arts. 148 and 151, and in
connection with their duties.
A person in authority includes a barangay chairman
and members of the Lupong Tagapagkasundo as
provided under the Local Government Code. [Boado]
The status as a person in authority being a matter of
law, ignorance thereof is no excuse.
ARTICLE 149 - INDIRECT ASSAULT
Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is the victim of
any of the forms of direct assault defined in
Article 148;
(2) A person comes to the aid of such authority or
his agent;
(3) Offender makes use of force or intimidation
upon such person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent.
Indirect assault can only be committed when a direct
assault is also committed.
Article 152 clothes any person who comes to the aid
of a person in authority with the fiction of an agent of
a person in authority.
Any assault on him on the occasion of his aiding a
person in authority or his agent is indirect assault.
ARTICLE 150 - DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY
CONGRESS, ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES,
SUBCOMMITTEES OR DIVISIONS
Mode 1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey
summons of Congress, its special or
standing committees and subcommittees,
the Constitutional Commissions and its
committees, subcommittees or divisions, or
by any commission or committee chairman
or member authorized to summon
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
witnesses;
Mode 2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under
is affirmation while being before such
the legislative or constitutional body or official;
of
and Mode 3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to
and produce any books, papers, documents, or
and records in his possession, when required by
them to do so in the exercise of their
functions;
Mode 4. By restraining another from attending as a
witness in such legislative or constitutional
body;
Mode 5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or
refusal to be sworn by any such body or
official.
The testimony of a person summoned must be upon
matters into which the legislature has jurisdiction to
inquire.
ARTICLE 151 - RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSONS
Mode 1: Resistance and serious disobedience
Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is engaged in
the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
(2) Offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person in authority or his agent;
(3) The act of the offender is not included in the
provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
Mode 2: Simple disobedience
Elements:
(1) An agent of a person in authority is engaged in
the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
(2) Offender disobeys such agent of a person in
authority;
(3) Such disobedience is not of a serious nature
Resistance and Serious Disobedience
The accused must have knowledge that the person
giving the order is a peace officer. [US vs. Bautista]
The disobedience contemplated consists in the
failure or refusal to obey a direct order from the
authority or his agent.
PAGE 127
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Simple Disobedience
In simple disobedience, the offended party must be
only an agent of a person in authority. The order
must be lawful. The disobedience should not be of a
serious nature.
Serious Disobedience vs. Direct Assault
Serious Disobedience Direct Assault
Person in authority or his The person in authority or
agent must be in actual his agent must be
performance of his duties engaged in the
performance of official
duties or that he is
assaulted
Committed only by Committed in four ways
resisting or seriously (see Art. 148, Mode 2
disobeying a person in above)
authority or his agent
Use of force in resistance There is force employed
is not so serious, as there
is no serious
CHAPTER V - PUBLIC DISORDERS
ARTICLE 153 - TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF
PUBLIC ORDER
Mode 1: Causing any serious disturbance in a public
place, office or establishment;
Mode 2: Interrupting or disturbing performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful
meetings, if the act is not included in Arts.
131 and 132;
Mode 3: Making any outcry tending to incite
rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or public place;
Mode 4: Displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order in
such place;
Mode 5: Burying with pomp the body of a person
who has been legally executed.
Serious disturbance must be planned or intended.
This article applies if the disturbance is not caused
by a public officer; or, if it is committed by a public
officer, he is a participant therein.
Definition of outcry: to shout subversive or
provocative words tending to stir up the people to
obtain by means of force or violence any of the
objects of rebellion or sedition.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If done unconsciously or without intent to incite the
listeners to rise to sedition or rebellion, this article
applies.
If done with intent to commit rebellion or sedition:
The crime is inciting to rebellion or sedition.
Definition of tumultuous: If caused by more than 3
persons who are armed or provided with the means
of violence
Definition of burying with pomp the body of a
person: ostentatious display of a burial
ARTICLE 154 - UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES
Mode 1. 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.
Mode 2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or
to the constituted authorities or praising,
justifying or extolling any act punished by
law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches;
Mode 3: Maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official document or
resolution without proper authority, or
before they have been published officially
Mode 4: Printing, publishing or distributing (or
causing the same) books, pamphlets,
periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear
the real printers name, or which are
classified as anonymous.
To be liable, the offender must know that the news is
false.
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.
ARTICLE 155 - ALARMS AND SCANDALS
Mode 1: Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosive within any
town or public place, calculated to cause
(which produces) alarm or danger;
Mode 2: Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting
PAGE 128
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
offensive to another or prejudicial to
public tranquility;
Mode 3: Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements;
Mode 4: Causing any disturbances or scandal in
public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Art. 153 is not
applicable.
The crime alarms and scandal is only one crime.
Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal; that
one is grave scandal in Article 200.
The essence of the crime is disturbance of public
tranquility and public peace.
Disturbance of serious nature falls under Article 153,
not under paragraph 4 of this article.
Any kind of disturbance of public order where the
circumstance at the time renders the act offensive to
the tranquility prevailing, the crime is committed.
Definition of charivari: includes a medley of
discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant
noises made on kettles, tin, horns, etc. designed to
annoy or insult
NOTE: Calculated to cause should be which
produces alarm and danger according to the correct
translation of the RPC. Hence, the result, and not the
intent, that counts. (Reyes)
ARTICLE 156 - DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Elements:
(1) There is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment;
(2) Offender removes therefrom such person, or
helps the escape of such person.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention
prisoner, he does not incur liability from escaping if
he does not know of the plan to remove him from
jail. But if such prisoner knows of the plot to remove
him from jail and cooperates therein by escaping, he
himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from
jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
If the prisoner removed or whose escape is made
possible by the commission of the crime of delivering
prisoner from jail is a detention prisoner, such
prisoner is not criminally liable. A prisoner is
PAGE 129
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
criminally liable for leaving the penal institution only
when there is evasion of the service of his sentence,
which can only be committed only by a convict by
final judgment.
Offender is usually an outsider. The violation of
Article 156 is committed by a public officer when he
is not the custodian of the prisoner at the time the
prisoner was made to escape. If the offender is a
public officer who had the prisoner in his custody or
charge, he is liable for infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner under Article 223.
If three persons are involved a stranger, the
custodian and the prisoner three crimes are
committed:
(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners [public
officer-custodian];
(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail [stranger];
and
(3) Evasion of service of sentence [prisoner].
Cledera, as the governor, is the jailer of the Province.
Esmeralda is the Assistant Provincial Warden. As
public officials who have the custody or charge of the
prisoner, they cannot be prosecuted under Art. 156.
Art 223 would have applied; however, there is no
sufficient evidence to warrant their prosecution for
infidelity in the custody of prisoner. It is necessary
that the public officer had consented to, or connived
in, the escape of the prisoner under his custody or
charge. [Alberto v. Dela Cruz (1980)]
CHAPTER VI - EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
ARTICLE 157 - EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment;
(2) He is serving sentence which consists in the
deprivation of liberty;
(3) He evades service of his sentence by escaping
during the term of his imprisonment.
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed if
such evasion or escape takes place:
(1) By means of unlawful entry (this should be by
scaling - Reyes);
(2) By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs
or floors;
(3) By using picklock, false keys, disguise, deceit,
violence or intimidation; or
(4) Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Evasion of service of sentence has three forms: If the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours,
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal there will be an additional penalty of 1/5 of the time
establishment under Article 157; still remaining to be served under the original
(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having sentence. In no case shall that penalty exceed six
left the penal establishment because of a months.
calamity, conflagration or mutiny and such
calamity, conflagration or mutiny has been Mutiny is one of the causes which may authorize a
announced as already passed under Article 158; convict serving sentence in the penitentiary to leave
(3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon the jail provided he has not taken part in the mutiny.
under Article 159.
ARTICLE 159 - OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the SENTENCE
prisoner immediately returned is immaterial. It may Elements:
be mitigating, but it will not absolve his criminal (1) Offender was a convict;
liability. (2) He was granted a conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive;
Not applicable to sentence executed by deportation (3) He violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
because the convict was not sentenced to
imprisonment and thereafter broke jail. Violation of conditional pardon is a distinct crime. In
violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the
Not applicable to sentence of destierro since Article violation will amount to this crime only if the
157 refers only to persons who are imprisoned in a condition is violated during the remaining period of
penal institution and completely deprived of their the sentence.
liberty.
Offender must be found guilty of subsequent offense
ARTICLE 158 - EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE
before he can be prosecuted under Article 159.
OCCASION OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS,
[Torres vs. Gonzales]
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES
Elements: If the condition of the pardon is violated when the
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment, who is remaining unserved portion of the sentence has
confined in a penal institution; already lapsed, there will be no more criminal
(2) There is disorder, resulting from liability for the violation. However, the convict maybe
(a) conflagration; required to serve the unserved portion of the
(b) earthquake; sentence, that is, continue serving original penalty.
(c) explosion;
(d) similar catastrophe; or Violation of Conditional Pardon vs. Evasion of
(e) mutiny in which he has not participated; Service of Sentence by Escaping
(3) He evades the service of his sentence by leaving Violation of Conditional Evasion of Service of
the penal institution where he is confined, on the Pardon Sentence
occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny;
(4) He fails to give himself up to the authorities Does not cause harm or An attempt at least to
within 48 hours following the issuance of a injury to the right of evade the penalty inflicted
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing another person nor does it by the courts upon
the passing away of such calamity. disturb the public order; criminals and thus defeat
merely an infringement of the purpose of the law of
Leaving the penal establishment is not the basis of the stipulated terms in either reforming or
criminal liability. What is punished is the failure to conditional pardon punishing them for having
return within 48 hours after the passing of the disturbed the public
calamity, conflagration or mutiny had been order.
announced.

Under Article 158, those who return within 48 hours

are given credit or deduction from the remaining
period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the
original term of the sentence.

PAGE 130
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CHAPTER VII - COMMISSION OF ANOTHER If the violation of this section is in furtherance of or

CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED incident to, or in connection with the crime of
FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
detat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
ARTICLE 160 - QUASI RECIDIVISM element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection,
Elements: sedition, or attempted coup detat.
(1) Offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense; The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
(2) He committed a new felony before beginning to president, manager, director or other responsible
serve such sentence or while serving the same. officer of any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating allow any of the firearms owned by such firm,
circumstance where a person, after having been company, corporation or entity to be used by any
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new person or persons found guilty of violating the
felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or
while serving the same. He shall be punished by the knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be
the new felony. carried outside of their residence in the course of
The first crime for which the offender is serving their employment.
sentence need not be a felony. [People vs. Peralta]
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon
any person who shall carry any licensed firearm
PD 1866 AS AMENDED BY RA 8294: ILLEGAL POSSESSION
outside his residence without legal authority
OF FIREARMS
therefor.
Section 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition
Sec. 2. Presumption of Illegal Manufacture of
or instruments used or intended to be used in the
Firearms or Ammunition. The possession of any
manufacture of firearms or ammunition. The
machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
manufacture of firearms or ammunition, by any
and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos
person whose business or employment does not
(P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who
lawfully deal with the manufacture of firearms or
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
ammunition, shall be prima facie evidence that such
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as
article is intended to be used in the unlawful/illegal
rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of
manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be
Sec. 3.Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
used in the manufacture of any firearm or
disposition or possession of explosives. The
ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was
penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
committed.
reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
any person who shall unlawfully manufacture,
and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall
assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand
be imposed if the firearm is classified as high
grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives,
powered firearm which includes those with bores
including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov
bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter
cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary
such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser
devices capable of producing destructive effect on
calibered firearms but considered powerful such as
contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any
caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and
person.
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic
and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in
no other crime was committed by the person
the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use
arrested.
of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents
or incendiary devices, which results in the death of
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of
any person or persons, the use of such explosives,
an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
circumstance.

PAGE 131
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
allow any of the explosives owned by such firm,
company, corporation or entity, to be used by any
person or persons found guilty of violating the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs
Sec. 3-A. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition,
Disposition, Importation or Possession of a Part,
Ingredient, Machinery, Tool or Instrument Used or
Intended to be Used for the Manufacture,
Construction, Assembly, Delivery or Detonation.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully
manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose,
import or possess any part, ingredient, machinery,
tool or instrument of any explosive or incendiary
device, whether chemical, mechanical, electronic,
electrical or otherwise, used or intended to be used
by that person for its manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation, where the explosive
or incendiary device is capable or is intended to be
made capable of producing destructive effect on
contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any
person.
Provided, That the mere possession of any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument directly
used in the manufacture, construction, assembly,
delivery or detonation of any explosive or incendiary
device, by any person whose business activity, or
employment does not lawfully deal with the
possession of such article shall be prima facie
evidence that such article is intended to be used by
that person in the unlawful/illegal manufacture,
construction, assembly, delivery or detonation of an
explosive or incendiary device.
Provided, however, That a temporary incidental,
casual, harmless or transient possession or control of
any part, machinery, tool or instrument directly used
in the manufacture, construction, assembly, delivery
or detonation of any explosive or incendiary device,
without the knowledge of its existence or character
as part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any explosive or
PAGE 132
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
incendiary device, shall not be a violation of this
Section.
Provided, further, That the temporary, incidental,
casual, harmless, or transient possession or control
of any part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any explosive or
incendiary device for the sole purpose of
surrendering it to the proper authorities shall not be
a violation of this Section.
Provided, finally, That in addition to the instances
provided in the two (2) immediately preceding
paragraphs, the court may determine the absence of
the intent to possess, otherwise referred to as
animus possidendi, in accordance with the facts
and circumstances of each case and the application
of other pertinent laws, among other things, Articles
11 and 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Sec. 3-B. Penalty for the Owner, President, Manager,
Director or Other Responsible Officer of Any Public
or Private Firm, Company, Corporation or Entity.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon the owner, president, manager, director or
other responsible officer of any public or private firm,
company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any explosive or incendiary device or
parts thereof owned or controlled by such firm,
company, corporation or entity to be used by any
person or persons found guilty of violating the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs.
Sec. 3-C. Relationship of Other Crimes with a
Violation of this Decree and the Penalty Therefor.
When a violation of Section 3, 3-A or 3-B of this
Decree is a necessary means for committing any of
the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws, or is in furtherance of, incident to, in
connection with, by reason of, or on occasion of any
of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a
fine ranging from One hundred Thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
Sec. 3-D. Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double
Jeopardy. Subject to the provisions of the Rules of
Court on double jeopardy, if the application thereof is
more favorable to the accused, the conviction or
acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
for violation of this Decree shall be a bar to another
prosecution of the same accused for any offense
where the violation of this Decree was a necessary
means for committing the offense or in furtherance
of which, incident to which, in connection with which,
by reason of which, or on occasion of which, the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
violation of this Decree was committed, and vice
versa.
Sec. 4. Responsibility and liability of Law
Enforcement Agencies and Other Government
Officials and Employees in Testifying as Prosecution
Witnesses. Any member of law enforcement
agencies or any other government official and
employee who, after due notice, fails or refuses,
intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness
for the prosecution of the defense in any proceeding,
involving violations of this Decree, without any valid
reason, shall be punished with reclusion temporal
and a fine of Five hundred Thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) in addition to the administrative
liability he/she may be meted out by his/her
immediate superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of the member of the law
enforcement agency or any other government
employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph
shall be penalized with prision correccional and a
fine of not less than Ten Thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
absolute disqualification from public office if despite
due notice to them and to the witness concerned, the
former does not exert reasonable effort to present
the latter to the court.
The member of the law enforcement agency or any
other government employee mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or
reassigned to any other government office located in
another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of
the case in court. However, the concerned member of
the law enforcement agency or government
employee may be transferred or reassigned for
compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her
immediate superior shall notify the court where the
case is pending of the order to transfer or reassign,
within twenty-four (24) hours from its approval:
Provided, further, That his/her immediate superior
shall be penalized with prision correccional and a
fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
absolute disqualification from public office, should
he/she fail to notify the court of such order to
transfer or reassign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall
be without prejudice to any liability for violation of
any existing law.
Sec. 4-A. Criminal Liability for Planting of
Evidence. Any person who is found guilty of
planting any explosive or incendiary device or any
PAGE 133
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any
explosive or incendiary device, whether chemical,
mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Planting of evidence shall mean the willful act by any
person of maliciously and surreptitiously inserting,
placing, adding or attaching, directly or indirectly,
through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
any explosive or incendiary device or any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any
explosive or incendiary device, whether chemical,
mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise in the
person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of
an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating
incriminating or imputing the commission of any
violation of this Decree.
Sec. 4-D. Types of Chemicals/Accessories Covered.
The chemicals and accessories mentioned in the
preceding Section shall exclusively refer to chlorates,
nitrates, nitric acid and such other chemicals and
accessories that can be used for the manufacture of
explosives and explosive ingredients.
Sec. 5. Tampering of Firearms Serial Number. The
penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully tamper,
change, deface or erase the serial number of any
firearm.
Sec. 6. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
Lawfully Manufactured Explosives. The penalty of
prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify
the composition of any lawfully manufactured
explosives.
Sec. 7. Unauthorized Issuance of Authority to Carry
Firearm and/or Ammunition Outside of Residence.
The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any person, civilian or military, who shall issue
authority to carry firearm and/or ammunition outside
of residence, without authority therefor.
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT (SEE SPECIAL LAWS IN
TITLE I)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Title IV. Crimes against Public
Interest
Acts of Counterfeiting
(1) Article 162 - Using Forged Signature or
Counterfeit Seal or Stamp
(2) Article 161 - Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging
the Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive
(3) Article 164 - Mutilation of Coins
(4) Article 163 - Making and Importing and Uttering
False Coins
(5) Article 165 - Selling of False or Mutilated Coin,
Without Connivance
(6) Article 167 - Counterfeiting, Importing, and
Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
(7) Article 166 - Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or
Other Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing
and Uttering Such False or Forged Notes and
Documents
Acts of Forgery
(1) Article 168 - Illegal Possession and Use of False
Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments
of Credit
(2) Article 169 - How Forgery is Committed
Acts of Falsification
(1) Article 170 - Falsification of Legislative
Documents
(2) Article 171 - Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
(3) Article 172 - Falsification by Private Individual
and Use of Falsified Documents
(4) Article 173 - Falsification of Wireless, Cable,
Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of
Said Falsified Messages
(5) Article 175 - Using False Certificates
(6) Article 174 - False Medical Certificates, False
Certificates of Merits or Service, etc.
(7) Article 176 - Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for Falsification
Other Falsities
(1) Article 177 - Usurpation of Authority or Official
Functions
(2) Article 179 - Illegal Use of Uniforms and Insignia
(3) Article 178 - Using Fictitious and Concealing
True Name
(4) Article 180 - False Testimony Against a
Defendant
(5) Article 181 - False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant
(6) Article 182 - False Testimony in Civil Cases
(7) Article 184 - Offering False Testimony in
PAGE 134
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Evidence
(8) Article 183 - False Testimony in Other Cases and
Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
(9) Article 185 - Machinations in Public Auctions
(10) Article 186 Monopolies and Combinations in
Restraint of Trade
(11) Article 187 Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of
Gold, Silver, or other Precious Metals or their
Alloys.
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or
falsity to the public. Deceit perpetrated upon the
public is the act being punished.
ACTS OF COUNTERFEITING
ARTICLE 161 - COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE
SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Acts punished: Forging the
(1) Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines;
(2) Signature of the President;
(3) Stamp of the President.
When the signature of the president is forged, the
crime committed is covered by this provision and not
falsification of public document.
Intent to use is necessary. Actual use, however, is not
required, as long as the forger intended to use it.
ARTICLE 162 - USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
Elements:
(1) The great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited
OR the Signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person;
(2) Offender Knew of the counterfeiting or forgery;
(3) He Used the counterfeit seal or forged signature
or stamp.
Remember:
Offender under this article should not be the forger.
Otherwise, he will be penalized under Article 161. The
participation of the offender is in effect that of an
accessory.
Although the general rule is that he should be
punished by a penalty of two degrees lower, under
Article 162 he is punished by a penalty only one
degree lower.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
ARTICLE 163 - MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS
Elements:
(1) There be False or counterfeited coins;
(2) Offender either made, imported or uttered such
coins;
(3) In case of uttering such false or counterfeited
coins, he Connived with the counterfeiters or
importers.
To utter is to pass counterfeited coins. It includes
delivery or the act of giving them away. A
counterfeited coin is uttered when it is paid, when
the offender is caught counting the counterfeited
coins preparatory to the act of delivering them, even
though the utterer may not obtain the gain he
intended [Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain]
To import fake coins means to bring them into port.
The importation is complete before entry at the
Customs House [US vs. Lyman]
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
A. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the
Central Bank of the Philippines;
B. Coins of the minor coinage of the
Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
C. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
The counterfeiting of foreign currency is punishable,
regardless of whether or not it is still in official
circulation. The reason behind this is not only the
harm that it may cause to the public in case it goes
into circulation again, but also the possibility that the
counterfeiter may later apply his trade to the making
of coins in actual circulation. [People vs. Kong Leon]
ARTICLE 164 - MUTILATION OF COINS
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.
The first acts of falsification or falsity include:
(1) Counterfeiting
(2) Forgery
(3) Falsification
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there
are two crimes that may be committed:
(1) Counterfeiting coins
(2) Mutilation of coins
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Requisites of Mutilation under the RPC:
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust
abstracted from the coin;
(3) It has to be a coin.
Mutilation means to take off part of the metal
either by filling it or substituting it for another metal
of inferior quality.
Since the coins before were made of silver and/or
other precious metal, shaving the metal from the
coins became a practice. Hence, the coins intrinsic
value is diminished.
This is the only article that requires that the
mutilated coin be legal tender.
Foreign coins are covered in this article.
Deliberate intent arises only when the offender
collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated
coin.
ARTICLE 165 - SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
Mode 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; and
(3) Knowledge.
Mode 2: Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin,
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
Elements:
(1) Actually uttering; and
(2) Knowledge.
Possession prohibited in this article is not only actual
and physical possession, but also that of a
constructive one, or the subjection of the thing to
ones control. The possessor should not be the
counterfeiter, mutilator or importer of the coins.
As long as the offender has knowledge that the coin
is false or mutilated, there is no need for him to
connive with the counterfeiter or mutilator.
ARTICLE 166 - FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER; IMPORTING
AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR FORGED NOTES AND
DOCUMENTS
PAGE 135
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Acts punished
(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 false or forged obligations or
notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.
Forging: By giving any treasury or bank note, or any
instrument payable to bearer, or to order the
appearance of a true and genuine document.
Falsification: By erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering by any means, the figures,
letters, words, or signs contained therein.
The instrument is payable to bearer:
(1) When expressed to be so payable
(2) When payable to a person named therein or
bearer
(3) When payable to the order of a fictitious or non-
existing person, and such fact was known to the
person making it so payable
(4) When the name of the payee does not purport to
be the name of any person
(5) When the only or last endorsement is an
endorsement in blank.
Reason for this is that the forging tends to bring such
documents into discredit and the offense produces a
lack of confidence on the part of the holders of said
documents to the prejudice of society and of the
State.
ARTICLE 167 - COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
Elements:
(1) There is an Instrument payable to order or other
document of credit not payable to bearer;
(2) Offender either Forged, imported or uttered
such instrument;
(3) In case of uttering, he Connived with the forger
or importer.
An instrument is payable to order where it is drawn
payable to the order of a specified person or to him
or his order.
This covers instruments or other documents of credit
issued by a foreign government or bank.
Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain
integrity of the currency and thus insure the credit
standing of the government.
PAGE 136
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is
the forger.
ACTS OF FORGERY
ARTICLE 168 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF
CREDIT
Elements:
(1) Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other
obligation and security:
(a) Payable to bearer, or any instrument
payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is
(b) Forged or falsified by another person;
(2) Offender Knows that any of those instruments is
forged or falsified;
(3) He either
(a) Uses any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
(b) Possesses with intent to use any of such
forged or falsified instruments.
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it, taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.
Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone is
not a criminal offense.
Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime
when the offender is in possession of false or falsified
notes or obligations. [People vs. Sendaydiego, (1978)]
The accused must have knowledge of the forged
character of the note.
ARTICLE 169 - HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
(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.
Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.
For possession of false treasury or bank note to
constitute a criminal offense, it must be with intent
to use.
The essence of forgery is giving a document the
appearance of a true and genuine document.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

ARTICLE 171 - FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,

Not any alteration of a letter, number, figure or EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
design would amount to forgery. At most, it would Elements:
only be frustrated forgery. (1) Offender is a Public officer, employee, or notary
public;
Forgery can be committed through the use of (2) He Takes advantage of his official position;
genuine paper bills that have been withdrawn from (3) He falsifies a document by committing any of
circulation, by giving them the appearance of some the following acts:
other true and genuine document. [People vs. (a) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
Galano] signature or rubric;
(b) Causing it to appear that persons have
ACTS OF FALSIFICATION participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
ARTICLE 170 - FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE
(c) Attributing to persons who have
DOCUMENTS
participated in an act or proceeding
Elements: statements other than those in fact made
(1) There is a Bill, resolution or ordinance enacted by them;
or approved or pending approval by either (d) Making untruthful statements in a narration
House of the Legislature or any provincial board of facts;
or municipal council; (e) Altering true dates;
(2) Offender Alters the same; (f) Making any alteration or intercalation in a
(3) He has No proper authority therefor; genuine document which changes its
(4) The alteration has Changed the meaning of the meaning;
documents. (g) Issuing in an authenticated form:
(i) A document purporting to be a copy of
The writing must be: an original document
(1) complete in itself; and (ii) When no such original exists, or
(2) capable of extinguishing an obligation or (iii) Including in such a copy a statement
creating rights; or contrary to, or different from, that of the
(3) capable of becoming evidence of the facts genuine original;
stated therein. (h) Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
Five classes of falsification: registry, or official book.
(1) Falsification of legislative documents;
st
(2) Falsification of a document by a public officer, 1 Element: Persons Liable under this Article
employee or notary public; Under this article, only a public officer, employee or
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial notary public, or ecclesiastical minister can be the
documents by a private individual; offender.
(4) Falsification of a private document by any
person; The ecclesiastical minister is liable with respect to
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and any record or document that its falsification may
telephone messages. affect the civil status of persons.
nd
Falsification vs Forgery 2 Element: Offender Take Advantage of his Official
Forgery Falsification Position
Offender takes advantage of his official position in
As used in Article 169, The commission of any of falsifying a document when:
forgery refers to the the 8 acts mentioned in (1) He has the duty to make or prepare, or intervene
falsification and Article 171 on legislative in the preparation of the document; or
counterfeiting of treasury (only the act if making (2) He has the official custody of the document he
or bank notes or any alteration) public or falsifies.
instruments payable to official, commercial or
rd
bearer or to order private documents or 3 Element: Offender Falsifies a Document
wireless or telegraph A document is any written statement by which a
messages. right or status is established or an obligation is
extinguished.

PAGE 137
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third

PAR 1: Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, person is immaterial in falsification of a public
signature or rubric. document. [Siquian vs. People]
2 ways of committing falsification under this
paragraph: There can be falsification by omission. An assistant
(1) Counterfeiting, which is imitating any bookkeeper is guilty of falsification by intentionally
handwriting, signature or rubric not putting a record in his personal account of chits
(a) There should be an intent to imitate, or an and destroyed them so he could avoid paying the
attempt to imitate same. [People vs. Dizon]
(b) Two signatures, the genuine and the forged,
should bear some resemblance. PAR 5: Altering true dates
(2) Feigning, which is simulating a signature, (1) The date must be essential
handwriting or rubric out of one which does not (2) The alteration of the date must affect the
actually exist. veracity of the documents or the effects thereof
(such as dates of birth, marriage, or death).
PAR 2: Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did PAR 6: Making any alteration or intercalation in a
not in fact so participate. genuine document which changes its meaning
Two Requisites: Four Requisites:
(1) Offender caused it to appear in a document that (1) There be an alteration (change) or intercalation
a person/s participated in an act or proceeding. (insertion) on a document.
(2) Such person/s did not in fact participate. (2) It was made on a genuine document.
(3) Alteration or intercalation has changed the
PAR 3: Attributing to persons who have participated in meaning of the document.
an act or proceeding statements other than those in (4) Change made the document speak something
fact made by them false.
Three Requisites:
(1) Person/s participated in an act or proceeding PAR 1 PAR 2 PAR 3 PAR 4
(2) Such person/s made statements in that act or
May be a May be a May be a May be a
proceeding
genuine genuine genuine genuine
(3) Offender, in making a document, attributed to
(later (later (later (later
such person/s statements other than those they
falsified) or falsified) or falsified) or falsified) or
in fact made.
an entirely an entirely an entirely an entirely
fabricated fabricated fabricated fabricated
PAR 4: Making untruthful statements in a narration of
document document document document
facts
Four Requisites:
(1) Offender makes in a document statements in a
narration of facts PAR 5 PAR 6 PAR 7 PAR 8
(2) He has a legal obligation to disclose truth of
facts May be a There must There must There must
(3) Facts narrated are absolutely false genuine be a be a be a
(4) Perversion of truth in the narration was made (later genuine genuine genuine
with the wrongful intent of injuring a third falsified) or document document document
person. an entirely
fabricated
There must be narration of facts, not conclusion of document
law. There should be a legal obligation to disclose
the truth. [Beradio vs. CA]
Change or insertion must affect the integrity or
The person making the narration of facts must be effects of the document. Furthermore, the alteration
aware of the falsity of facts narrated by him. The should make the document speak something false.
narration of facts must be absolutely false. If there is Otherwise, it would merely be a correction.
some colorable truth in such statements, crime of
falsification is not deemed to have been committed.

PAGE 138
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
PAR 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 a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original
Falsification in this paragraph cannot be committed
by a private individual, or by a notary public, or by a
public officer, who does not take advantage of his
official position.
This is because authentication of a document can
only be made by the custodian or the one who
prepared and retained a copy of the original.
(1) Purporting to be a copy of the original when no
such original exists.
(2) Including a copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original.
A private person who cooperates with a public officer
in the falsification of a public document is guilty of
the crime and incurs the same liability and penalty.
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a
person in authority or notary public has taken
part;
(a) A document created, executed or issued
(b) By a public official
(c) In response to the exigencies of the public
service,
(d) Or in execution of w/c public official
intervened.
(2) Official document in the execution of which a
public official takes part;
(a) A document issued by a public official in the
exercise of the functions of his office. It falls
within the larger class called public
documents.
(b) A document required by a bureau to be
filled by its officers for purposes of record
and information is a public document.
(3) Commercial document or any document
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) A deed or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a notary
public or other persons legally authorized. -
Private document in the execution of which only
private individuals take part.
The element of damage is not necessary because it is
the interest of the community which is intended to be
guaranteed.
The character of the offender and his faithfulness to
his duty is mainly taken into consideration.
PAGE 139
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Public and Private writings under the Rules of Court:
The following are public documents:
(1) Written official acts, or records, of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers
(2) Documents acknowledged before a notary
public except last will and testaments
(3) Public records kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered
therein.
All other writings are private.
After an investigation, a group of public officers were
caught and convicted of falsifying cash vouchers.
On appeal the SC held that cash vouchers are NOT
commercial documents because they are not
documents used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate credit transactions nor they are
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or
other commercial law.
Rather, they are private documents which have been
defined as:
(1) Deeds or instruments executed by a private
person
(2) Without the intervention of a public notary or of
other person legally authorize,
(3) By which some disposition or agreement is
proved, evidenced or set forth.[People v.
Batulanon (2007)]
ARTICLE 172 - FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
Mode 1: Falsification of public, official or commercial
document by a private individual;
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Private individual OR Public
officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
(2) He committed any act of Falsification (Art.
171);
(3) The falsification was committed in a public,
official, or commercial Document or letter of
exchange.
Mode 2: Falsification of private document by any
person;
Elements:
(1) Offender committed any of the acts of
Falsification except Article 171(7), that is,
(a) Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
exists, or
(b) Including in such a copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original;
(2) Falsification was committed in any Private
document;
(3) Falsification causes Damage to a third party or
at least the falsification was committed with
intent to cause such damage.
Mode 3: Use of falsified document.
Elements in introducing in a judicial proceeding
(1) Offender Knew that the document was falsified
by another person;
(2) The False document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or
2);
(3) He Introduced said document in evidence in any
judicial proceeding.
Elements in use in any other transaction
(1) Offender Knew that a document was falsified by
another person;
(2) The False document is embraced in Articles 171
or 172 (1 or 2);
(3) He Used such document;
(4) The use caused Damage to another or at least
used with intent to cause damage.
In the falsification of public or official documents, it is
not necessary that there be present the idea of gain
or the intent to cause damage. This is because the
principal thing punished is the violation of public
faith and destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.
The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third
person is not necessary when the falsified document
is a public document. [Siquian vs People]
NOTE: This statement applies as well to commercial
documents, because as to this kind of document, a
credit is sought to be protected. [Reyes]
Since damage is not an element of falsification of a
public document, it could be complexed with estafa,
theft or malversation as a necessary means to
commit the latter crimes.
There is no crime of falsification of private document
through negligence or imprudence.
If the document is intended by law to be part of the
public or official record, the falsification, although it
was private at the time of falsification, it is regarded
as falsification of a public or official document.
PAGE 140
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Falsification through imprudence implies lack of
such intent, thus there is no crime of falsification of a
private document through negligence or
imprudence.
The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to
be the author of the falsification. [People vs.
Manansala]
The presumption also holds if the use was so closely
connected in time with the falsification and the user
had the capacity of falsifying the document. [People
vs. Sendaydiego]
There is no crime of estafa through falsification of a
private document. Both crimes, separately, require
the element of damage, which each of the two
should have its own.
The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit should
not be the very same damage caused by the
falsification of the private document.
In this case, the petitioners are charged under Article
171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the RPC. Petitioners
Regidor and Zapatos, as Mayor, and Member and
Temporary Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod, respectively, made it appear that
private complainants, among others, participated in
the Sangguniang Panglungsod sessions when they
did not in fact so participate, and issued, in
authenticated forms, the assailed resolutions
purporting to be copies of original documents when
no such originals exist.
SC held that all the elements of the offense
punishable under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of
the RPC are present in this case.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle in the law
on public officers that administrative liability is
separate from and independent of criminal liability.
A simple act or omission can give rise to criminal,
civil or administrative liability, each independently of
the others. This is known as the threefold liability
rule.
Thus, absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar
to an administrative prosecution, and vice-versa.
In this criminal prosecution, the dismissal of the
administrative cases against the petitioners will not
necessarily result in the dismissal of the criminal
complaints filed against them.[Regidor v. People of
the Phils & Sandiganbayan (2009)]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 173 - FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE,
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES, AND USE OF
SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
Mode 1: Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message;
Elements:
(1) Offender is an 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
message;
(2) He utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
Mode 2: Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone
message;
Elements:
(1) Offender is an 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
message;
(2) He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
Mode 3: Using such falsified message.
Elements:
(1) Offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or
telephone message
(a) Was falsified by an officer or employee of
the government or an officer or employee of
a private corporation,
(b) Engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message;
(2) He used such falsified dispatch;
(3) The use resulted in the prejudice of a third party
or at least there was intent to cause such
prejudice.
The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in
the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable,
telegraph or telephone message.
A private individual cannot be a principal by direct
participation in falsification of telegraphic dispatches
under Article 173, unless he is an employee of a
corporation engaged in the business of sending or
receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone messages.
But a private individual can be held criminally liable
as principal by inducement.
PAGE 141
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 174 - FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
CERTIFICATES OF MERITS OR SERVICE, ETC.
Persons liable
(1) Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate (it must refer to the illness or injury of
a person);
Note: The crime here is false medical certificate by a
physician.
(2) Public officer who issues a false certificate of
merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
Note: The crime here is false certificate of merit or
service by a public officer.
(3) Private person who falsifies a certificate falling
within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions.
Note: The crime here is false medical certificate by a
private individual or false certificate of merit or
service by a private individual.
ARTICLE 175 - USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
Elements:
(1) The following Issues a false certificate:
(a) Physician or surgeon, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false
Medical certificate;
(b) Public officer issues a false certificate of
Merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
(c) Private Person falsifies a certificate falling
within the 2 preceding subdivisions.
(2) Offender Knows that the certificate was false;
(3) He Uses the same.
When any of the false certificates mentioned in Article
174 is used in the judicial proceeding, Article 172 does
not apply, because the use of false document in
judicial proceeding under Article 172 is limited to those
false documents embraced in Articles 171 and 172.
ARTICLE 176 - MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
Acts punished:
(1) Making or introducing into the Philippines any
stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification;
(2) Possession with intent to use the instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification
made in or introduced into the Philippines by
another person.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
As in Article 165, the possession contemplated here
is constructive possession. The implements
confiscated need not form a complete set.
OTHER FALSITIES
ARTICLE 177 - USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS
Mode 1: Usurpation of authority. (no connection with
the office represented)
The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing
oneself to be an officer is sufficient. It is not
necessary that he perform an act pertaining to a
public officer.
Elements:
(1) Offender knowingly and falsely Represents
himself;
(2) As an Officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.
Mode 2: Usurpation of official functions. (excess of
authority)
In usurpation of official functions, it is essential that
the offender should have performed an act
pertaining to a person in authority or public officer, in
addition to other requirements.
Elements
(1) Offender Performs any act;
(2) Pertaining to any person in authority or public
officer of the Philippine government or any
foreign government, or any agency thereof;
(3) Under Pretense of official position;
(4) Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
The offender should have:
(1) represented himself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any agency of the government;
or
(2) performed an act pertaining to a person in
authority or public officer.
Article 177 may be violated by a public officer.
ARTICLE 178 - USING FICTITIOUS AND CONCEALING TRUE
NAME
Mode 1: Using fictitious name
Elements:
(1) Offender uses a name other than his real name;
(2) He uses the fictitious name publicly;
PAGE 142
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to evade
the execution of a judgment or to cause damage
[to public interest Reyes].
Mode 2: Concealing true name
Elements:
(1) Offender conceals his true name and other
personal circumstances;
(2) Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
Use of Fictitious Name Concealing True Name
Element of Publicity Publicity not necessary
Purpose is to conceal a Merely to conceal identity.
crime, evade execution of
judgment, cause damage)
If the purpose is for causing damage, it must be
damage to public interest.
If it is damage to private interest, the crime will be
estafa under Art 315 2(a).
ARTICLE 179 - ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA
Elements:
(1) Offender makes Use of insignia, uniforms or
dress;
(2) The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an
Office not held by such person or a class of
persons of which he is not a member;
(3) Said insignia, uniform or dress is Used publicly
and improperly.
Exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a
colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of people is sufficient.
RA 75 also punishes using the use of uniform,
decoration or regalia of a foreign state by people not
entitled to do so.
RA 493 punishes wearing an insignia, badge, or
emblem of rank of the members of the AFP or
constabulary.
ARTICLE 180 - FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
Elements:
(1) There is a Criminal proceeding;
(2) Offender Testifies falsely under oath against the
defendant therein;
(3) Offender who gives false testimony Knows that it
is false.
(4) Defendant against whom the false testimony is
given is either acquitted or convicted in a Final
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
judgment.
The witness who gave the false testimony is liable
even if his testimony was not considered by the
court.
False Testimony: 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.
False testimony is punished because of its tendency
to prejudice defendant.
Three forms of false testimony:
(1) False testimony in criminal cases under Article
180 and 181;
(2) False testimony in civil case under Article 182;
(3) False testimony in other cases under Article 183.
Articles 180 184 punish the acts of making false
testimonies because such acts seriously expose
society to miscarriage of justice.
ARTICLE 181 - FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT
Elements:
(1) A person Gives false testimony;
(2) In Favor of the defendant;
(3) In a Criminal case.
The testimony need not in fact be beneficial to the
defendant. It is not necessary that the testimony
should directly influence the decision of acquittal, it
being sufficient that it was given with the intent to
favor the accused.
Conviction or acquittal of defendant in the principal
case is not necessary.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the
mistake is not false testimony.
Penalty for false testimony against the accused is
based on the sentence imposed or if accused is
acquitted; that for testimony favorable to the
accused is based on the imposable penalty. The
rationale for the difference is the measure of the
wrong occasioned by the injustice in each case, i.e.
the undeserved sentence and the imposable penalty
avoided, respectively.
ARTICLE 182 - FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
Elements:
(1) Testimony Given in a civil case;
PAGE 143
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) Testimony Relates to the issues presented in
said case;
(3) Testimony is False;
(4) Offender Knows that testimony is false;
(5) Testimony is Malicious
(6) And given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in said case.
Falsity of testimony must first be established.
Art. 182 does not apply in special proceedings. These
are covered by 183 under other cases.
Pending the determination of the falsity of the
subject testimonies in the civil case, the criminal
action for false testimony must perforce be
suspended.
ARTICLE 183 - FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
Acts Punished
(1) By falsely Testifying under oath;
(2) By Making a false affidavit.
Note: The false testimony should not be in a judicial
proceeding. [Diaz vs. People]
Elements of perjury:
(1) Offender Makes a statement under oath or
executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
(2) The statement or affidavit is made Before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
(3) Offender makes a Willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the statement or
affidavit;
(4) The sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is Required by law, that is, it is made for a
legal purpose.
The statement should be outside the coverage of art
180-181.
Oath: Any form of attestation by which a person
signifies that he is bound by conscience to perform
an act faithfully and truthfully.
Affidavit: Sworn statement in writing; declaration
in writing, made upon oath before an authorized
magistrate or officer.
There could be no perjury through negligence or
imprudence. This is because of the requirement that
the assertion of a falsehood be made willfully and
deliberately. Hence, good faith or lack of malice is a
defense in perjury.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
It is not necessary that there be a law requiring the
statement to be made under oath, as long as it is
made for a legal purpose.
Perjury is a crime other than false testimony in
criminal cases or false testimony in civil cases, which
are perversions of truth in judicial proceedings.
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other
than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings. [US vs. Estrada]
Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who
knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned does testify under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. [US vs.
Ballena] Subornation of perjury is not expressly
penalized in the RPC; but the direct induction of a
person by another to commit perjury may be
punished under Article 183 in relation to Article 17.
ARTICLE 184 - OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender Offers in evidence a false witness or
testimony;
(2) He Knows that the witness or the testimony was
false;
(3) The offer is made in any Judicial OR Official
proceeding.
Offer of evidence begins at the moment a witness is
called to the stand and interrogated by counsel. The
witness must testify.
ARTICLE 185 - MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Mode 1: Soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part in any
public auction;
Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Solicits any gift or a promise from any
of the bidders;
(3) Such gift or promise is the Consideration for his
refraining from taking part in that public
auction;
(4) Offender has the Intent to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing auctioned.
Mode 2: Attempting to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice.
PAGE 144
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Attempts to cause the bidders to stay
away from that public auction;
(3) It is Done by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice;
(4) Offender had the Intent to cause the reduction
of the price of the thing auctioned.
The crime is consummated by:
(1) Mere solicitation of gift or promise as
consideration for not bidding, or
(2) By mere attempt to cause prospective bidders to
stay away from an auction.
ARTICLE 186 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Mode 1: Combination to prevent free competition in the
market
Elements:
(1) Entering into any contract or agreement;
OR taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise;
(2) In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market
Mode 2: Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market
Elements:
(1) Monopolizing any merchandise or object of
trade or commerce; OR
(2) Combining with any other person or persons
to monopolize said merchandise or object in
order to alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of any
other artifice to restrain free competition in
the market
Mode 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
Elements:
(1) Person liable: (1) manufacturer, (2)
producer, (3) processor, or (4) importer of
any merchandise or object of commerce
(2) Crime committed by: (1) combining, (2)
conspiring, or (3) agreeing with any person
(3) Purpose: (1) to make transactions prejudicial
to lawful commerce, or (2) to increase the
market price of any merchandise or object
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
of commerce manufactured, produced,
processed, assembled, or imported into the
Philippines.
Theory of the law: Competition, not combination,
should be the law of trade
Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.
If the offense affects any food substance or other
article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial
steps are taken.
When offense is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and directors or managers
are liable.
ARTICLE 187 IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF
GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR
ALLOYS
Elements:
(1) Offender imports, sells or disposes of any of
those articles or merchandise (i.e. gold, silver,
other precious metals or their alloys)
(2) The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness
or quality of said metals or alloys
(3) Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or
marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys.
Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary.
Article 187 does not apply to manufacturer of
misbranded articles he would be liable for estafa
under Art. 315(2)(b).
RA 9194 ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
'Covered transaction' is a transaction in cash or other
equivalent monetary instrument involving a total
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day.
'Suspicious transaction' are transactions with covered
institutions, regardless of the amounts involved,
where any of the following circumstances exist:
"1. there is no underlying legal or trade obligation,
purpose or economic justification;
"2. the client is not properly identified;
"3. the amount involved is not commensurate with
the business or financial capacity of the client;
"4. taking into account all known circumstances, it
may be perceived that the clients transaction is
structured in order to avoid being the subject of
reporting requirements under the Act;
PAGE 145
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
"5. any circumstance relating to the transaction
which is observed to deviate from the profile of the
client and/or the clients past transactions with the
covered institution;
"6. the transaction is in any way related to an
unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is
about to be, is being or has been committed; or
"7. any transaction that is similar or analogous to any
of the foregoing."
"SEC. 4.Money Laundering Offense. Money
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity as herein defined are transacted,
thereby making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
transacts or attempts to transact said monetary
instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property involves the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act
as a result of which he facilitates the offense of
money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act to
be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money
Laundering Council(AMLC), fails to do so."
Title V. Crimes Relative to
Opium and Other Prohibited
Drugs
A. Acts Punished
B. Penalties for Unlawful Acts:
C. Definition of Important Terms:
D. Other Important Points.
NOTE: Art 190-194 were repealed by RA 6425,
known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972. RA No.
9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drug Act of 2002 in turn repealed RA No. 6425
ACTS PUNISHED
(1) Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemical
(Sec. 4)
(2) Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5)
(3) Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. (Sec. 6)
(4) Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or
Resort(Sec. 7)
(5) Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 8)
(6) Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. (Sec. 9)
(7) Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. (Sec. 10)
(8) Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 11)
(9) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 12)
(10) Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties,
Social Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 13)
(11) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings(Sec. 14)
(12) Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15)
(13) Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof. (Sec.
16)
(14) Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of
Transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 17)
(15) Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous
Drugs(Sec. 18)
(16) Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs (Sec.
19)
PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS:
(1) The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) - Those acts which include or
involve any dangerous drugs (Sections 4, 5, 6, 8,
11, 16 and 19)
(2) The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00)
(a) Those acts which involve any controlled
precursor and essential chemical(Sections 4,
5, 6, 8, 9 and 10)
(b) Anyone who acts as a "protector/coddler" of
any violator of the provisions under sections
4, 5, 6, 8 and 16
(c) Sections 7, 10, 16, 17.
(3) The maximum penalty provided for under
sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 16 shall be imposed upon
any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities
prescribed in those sections.
(4) Any person charged under any provision of this
Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall
not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-
bargaining. Section 23, Article II, RA 9165
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 24, Article II, RA 9165]
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. [Section 25, Article II,
RA 9165]
The maximum penalties of the unlawful acts
provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in addition
to absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office, if those found guilty of such unlawful
acts are government officials and employees.
[Section 28, Article II, RA 9165]
Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity,
shall suffer the penalty of death. [Section 29, Article
II, RA 9165]
In case any violation of this Act is committed by a
partnership, corporation, association or any juridical
entity, the partner, president, director, manager,
trustee, estate administrator, or officer who consents
to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held
criminally liable as a co-principal. [Section 30, Article
II, RA 9165]
In addition to the penalties prescribed in the
unlawful act committed, any alien who violates such
provisions of this Act shall, after service of sentence,
be deported immediately without further
proceedings, unless the penalty is death. [Section 31,
Article II, RA 9165]
Accessory Penalties: A person convicted under this
Act shall be disqualified to exercise his/her civil
rights such as but not limited to:
(1) the rights of parental authority or guardianship,
either as to the person or property of any ward

PAGE 146
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(2) the rights to dispose of such property by any act
or any conveyance inter vivos,
(3) and political rights such as but not limited to,
(4) the right to vote and be voted for.
(5) Such rights shall also be suspended during the
pendency of an appeal from such conviction.
[Section 35, Article II, RA 9165]
32 possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale
thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity of
the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in
the sale and which are probably intended for some
future dealings or use by the seller. [People v.
Lacerna]
Art. 36 (f), concerning mandatory drug testing for all
persons charged with crimes is declared
unconstitutional because it violates the right against
self-incrimination.
Art 36 (g), concerning mandatory drug testing for
candidates for public office is also
unconstitutional.[SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board]
DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS
Dangerous drugs: include those listed
(1) in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by
the 1972 Protocol, and
(2) in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single
Convention on Psychotropic Substances as
enumerated in the attached annex which is an
integral part of this Act. [Section 3 (j), RA 9165]
Chemical Diversion: The sale, distribution, supply or
transport of legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures, or in
concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged
in the manufactured of any dangerous drugs, and
shall include packaging, labelling, or concealment of
such transaction.
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals:
Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 188 UN
Convention Against Illicit traffic in Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances.
OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS
May a drug dependent who is found guilty of the use of
dangerous drugs voluntarily submit himself for
treatment and rehabilitation? Yes. The drug
dependent may, by himself/herself or through
his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within
PAGE 147
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply
to the Board or its duly recognized representative, for
treatment and rehabilitation of the drug
dependency.
Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth
the matter to the Court which shall order that the
applicant be examined for drug dependency (Section
54, Article VIII, RA 9165).
Is there also compulsory confinement? Yes.
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the
contrary, any person determined and found to be
dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon petition
by the Board or any of its authorized representative,
be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in any
Center duly designated or accredited for the
purpose.
A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to
be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may
be filed by any person authorized by the Board with
the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where
such person is found. (Section 61, Article VIII, RA
9165).
How long will the drug dependent be confined for
treatment and rehabilitation? Confinement in a Center
for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed one
(1) year, after which time the Court, as well as the
Board, shall be apprised by the head of the
treatment and rehabilitation center of the status of
said drug dependent and determine whether further
confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
dependent and his/her family or the community
(Section 54, Article VIII, RA 9165).
How will a drug dependent who is under the voluntary
submission program and is finally discharged from
confinement in the Center be exempt from criminal
liability?
(1) He/she has complied with the rules and
regulations of the center, the applicable rules
and regulations of the Board, including the
after-care and follow-up program for at least
eighteen (18) months following temporary
discharge from confinement in the Center
(2) He/she has never been charged or convicted of
any offense punishable under this Act, the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended; the Revised Penal Code,
as amended; or any special penal laws
(3) He/she has no record of escape from a Center
(4) He/she poses no serious danger to
himself/herself, his/her family or the community
by his/her exemption from criminal liability
(Section 55, Article VIII, RA 916)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
What are the functions of the Dangerous Drugs Board?
(1) Be the policy-making and strategy-formulating
body in the planning and formulation of policies
and programs on drug prevention and control.
(2) Develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated,
unified and balanced national drug abuse
prevention and control strategy.
(3) Be under the Office of the President. (Section 77,
Article IX, RA 9165)
What is the PDEA? The PDEA is the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency. It serves as the implementing
arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board. It shall be
responsible for the efficient and effective law
enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical as provided in this Act. (Section 82, Article
IX, RA 916)
Title VI. Crimes against Public
Morals
CHAPTER I: Gambling and Betting
(1) Gambling (Art 195)
(2) Importation, sale and possession of lottery
tickets or advertisements (Art 196)
(3) Betting in sports contests (Art 197)
(4) Illegal betting on horse races (Art 198)
(5) Illegal cockfighting (Art 199)
CHAPTER II: Offenses against Decency and Good
Customs
(1) Grave Scandal (Art 200)
(2) Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions (Art 201)
(3) Vagrancy and prostitution (Art 202)
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
ARTICLE 200 - GRAVE SCANDAL
Elements:
(1) Offender performs an act or acts;
(2) Such act or acts be highly scandalous as
offending against decency or good customs;
(3) The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly
falling within any other article of this Code; and
(4) The act or acts complained of be committed in a
public place or within the public knowledge or
view. (Reyes).
Decency: means proprietary of conduct; proper
observance of the requirements of modesty, good
taste, etc.
PAGE 148
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Customs: established usage, social conventions
carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval of any violation thereof.
Grave Scandal: consists of acts which are offensive to
decency and good customs which, having committed
publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons
who have accidentally witnessed the same.
The acts must be performed in a public place or
within the public knowledge or view. If it is
committed in a private place, the crime of grave
scandal is not committed.
In conducts involving lasciviousness, it is grave
scandal only where there is mutual consent. (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
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 some
other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Grave
scandal is a crime of last resort.
ARTICLE 201 - IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS
Acts punished (as amended by PD No. 960, 969)
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim
doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
(2) The authors of obscene literature, published
with their knowledge in any form,
(3) The editors publishing such literature;
(4) The owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
(5) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, 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:
(a) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
(b) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the
market for violence, lust or pornography;
(c) offend any race, or religion;
(d) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited
drugs; and
(e) are contrary to law, public order, morals,
good customs, established policies, lawful
orders, decrees and edicts
(6) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which
are offensive to morals.
MORALS: imply conformity with the generally
accepted standards of goodness or rightness in
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
conduct or character, sometimes, specifically, to
sexual conduct.
Offense in any of the forms mentioned in the article
is committed only when there is publicity
The test of obscenity:
(1) The test is objective.
(2) It is more on the effect upon the viewer and not
alone on the conduct of the performer.
(3) If the material has the tendency to deprave and
corrupt the mind of the viewer then the same is
obscene and where such obscenity is made
publicly, criminal liability arises.
(4) As long as the pornographic matter or exhibition
is made privately, there is no crime committed
under the Revised Penal Code because what is
protected is the morality of the public in general.
Jurisprudence:
Postcards of Philippine inhabitants in native attire
were not obscene because the aggregate judgment
of the community, and the moral sense of the people
were not shocked by those pictures. They were not
offensive to chastity but merely depicted persons as
they actually lived. [People v Kottinger (1923)]
The reaction of the public during the performance of
a dance by one who had nothing to cover herself
with, except nylon patches over her breasts and too
abbreviated pair of nylon panties to interrupt her
stark nakedness should be made the gauge in the
determination of whether the dance or exhibition
was indecent or immoral. [People v Aparici (1955)]
An actual exhibition of the sexual act can have no
redeeming featureno room for art. Therefore, it is a
clear and unmitigated obscenity. [People v Padan
(1957)]
ARTICLE 202 - VAGRANCY AND PROSTITUTION (SEE RA
10158)
Persons Liable:
(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 trampling 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 and 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
PAGE 149
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
place belonging to another without any lawful or
justifiable purpose; and
(5) Prostitutes.
Prostitutes: women who, for money or profit
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct
Dissolute: lax, unrestrained, immoral
Ruffian: brutal, violent, lawless persons
Pimp: One who provides gratification for the lust of
others
Even millionaires or one who has more than enough
for his livelihood can commit vagrancy by habitually
associating with prostitutes, pimps, ruffians, or by
habitually lodging in houses of ill-repute. The
purpose of the law is not simply to punish a person
because he has no means of livelihood; it is to
prevent further criminality.
Any person found wandering in an estate belonging
to another whether public or private without any
lawful purpose also commits vagrancy, unless his
acts constitutes some other crime in the Revised
Penal Code.
The term prostitution is applicable to a woman who
for profit or money habitually engages in sexual or
lascivious conduct.
A man, if he engages in the same conduct sex for
money is not a prostitute, but a vagrant.
In law, the mere indulging in lascivious conduct
habitually because of money or gain would amount
to prostitution, even if there is no sexual intercourse.
Virginity is not a defense.
Habituality is the controlling factor; it has to be more
than one time.
There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy. One who
conspires with a woman in the prostitution business
like pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of clients are
guilty of the crime under Article 341 for white slavery.
See Special Law: PD 1563 (Mendicancy Law of 1978)
RA 10158: AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY,
AMENDING ARTICLE 202 OF THE RPC
SECTION 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is
hereby, amended to read as follows:
Article 202.Prostitutes; Penalty. For the purposes
of this article, women who, for money or profit,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
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 correctional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the
discretion of the court.
SEC. 2.Effect on Pending Cases. All pending cases
under the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised
Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by
this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of this
Act.
SEC. 3.Immediate Release of Convicted Persons.
All persons serving sentence for violation of the
provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code
on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall
be immediately released upon effectivity of this Act:
Provided, That they are not serving sentence or
detained for any other offense or felony.
Under the Mendicancy Law of 1978 (PD 1563),
(1) one who has no visible and legal means of
support, or lawful employment
(2) and who is physically able to work but neglects
to apply himself to some lawful calling
(3) and instead uses begging as a means of living,
(4) is a mendicant.
Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms
directly to mendicants, exploited infants and minors
on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall
be punished by a fine.
P.D. 1602 ANTI-GAMBLING ACT AS AMENDED BY R.A.
9287 ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAME WHICH REPEALED
ARTICLES 195-199 OF THE RPC
Sec. 2.Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the
following terms shall mean:
a) Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal
gambling activity which uses numbers or
combinations thereof as factors in giving out
jackpots.
b) Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that involves
the combination of thirty-seven (37) numbers against
thirty-seven (37) numbers from number one (1) to
thirty seven (37) or the combination of thirty-eight
(38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of
local lottery where bets are placed and accepted per
combination, and its variants.
PAGE 150
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
c) Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the
winning combination is derived from the results of
the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion
or any result thereof based on any fictitious Jai Alai
game consisting of ten (10) players pitted against
one another, and its variants.
d) Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where the
winning combination is derived from the last two (2)
numbers of the first prize of the winning
Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the
weekly draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office (PCSO), and its variants.
e) Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants
thereof). - Any person who places bets for
himself/herself or in behalf of another person, or any
person, other than the personnel or staff of any
illegal numbers game operation.
f) Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game
Operation. - Any person, who acts in the interest of
the maintainer, manager or operator, such as, but
not limited to, an accountant, cashier, checker,
guard, runner, table manager, usher, watcher, or any
other personnel performing such similar functions in
a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or any other
place where an illegal numbers game is operated or
conducted.
g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador"
or variants thereof). - Any person who collects,
solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her principal
for any illegal numbers game who is usually in
possession of gambling paraphernalia.
h) Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor
("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any person who
exercises control and supervision over the collector
or agent.
i) Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person
who maintains, manages or operates any illegal
number game in a specific area from whom the
coordinator, controller or supervisor, and collector or
agent take orders.
j) Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who finances
the operations of any illegal numbers game.
k) Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends or
provides protection, or receives benefits in any
manner in the operation of any illegal numbers
game.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Punishable Acts
Sec. 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who
participates in any illegal numbers game shall suffer
the following penalties:
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days
to ninety (90) days, if such person acts as a bettor;
b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years
and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if such person acts
as a personnel or staff of an illegal numbers game
operation;
The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any
person who allows his vehicle, house, building or
land to be used in the operation of the illegal
numbers games.
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years
and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such person acts
as a collector or agent;
d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if such person
acts as a coordinator, controller or supervisor;
e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to ten (10) fourteen (14) years, if
such person acts as a maintainer, manager or
operator; and
f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14)
years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years, if such
person acts as a financier or capitalist;
g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, if such
person acts as protector or coddler.
Sec. 4. Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia or
Materials. - The possession of any gambling
paraphernalia and other materials used in the illegal
numbers game operation shall be deemed prima
facie evidence of any offense covered by this Act.
Sec. 5. Liability of Government Employees and/or
Public Officials. - a) If the collector, agent,
coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer,
manager, operator, financier or capitalist of any
illegal numbers game is a government employee
and/or public official, whether elected or appointed
shall suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
Three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five million
pesos (P5,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office.
PAGE 151
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In addition to the penalty provided in the
immediately preceding section, the accessory
penalty of perpetual disqualification from public
office shall be imposed upon any local government
official who, having knowledge of the existence of
the operation of any illegal numbers game in his/her
jurisdiction, fails to abate or to take action, or
tolerates the same in connection therewith.
b) In the case of failure to apprehend perpetrators of
any illegal numbers game, any law enforcer shall
suffer an administrative penalty of suspension or
dismissal, as the case may be, to be imposed by the
appropriate authority.
Sec. 6.Liability of Parents/Guardians. - The penalty
of imprisonment from six (6) months and one (1) day
to one (1) year or fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any parent, guardian or person exercising
moral authority or ascendancy over a minor, ward or
incapacitated person, and not otherwise falling
under any of the foregoing subsections, who induces
or causes such minor, ward or incapacitated person
to commit any of the offenses punishable in this Act.
Upon conviction, the parent, guardian or person
exercising moral authority or ascendancy over the
minor, ward or incapacitated person shall be
deprived of his/her authority over such person in
addition to the penalty imposed.
Sec. 7.Recidivism. - The penalty next higher in
degree as provided for under Section 3 hereof shall
be imposed upon a recidivist who commits any of the
offenses punishable in this Act.
RA 9208 (ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT)
Section 4.Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be
unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to
commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or
receive a person by any means, including those done
under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act No.
6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for
marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated,
for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling,
or trading them to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography;
(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a
person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud,
deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the
purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person;
and
(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in
armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.
Section 5.Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. -
The following acts which promote or facilitate
trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be
used any house, building or establishment for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,
tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration
stickers and certificates of any government agency
which issues these certificates and stickers as proof
of compliance with government regulatory and pre-
departure requirements for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement, publication,
printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means,
including the use of information technology and the
internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or
fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of
clearances and necessary exit documents from
government agencies that are mandated to provide
PAGE 152
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
pre-departure registration and services for departing
persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and
local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports
who are in possession of unissued, tampered or
fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport,
travel documents, or personal documents or
belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of
trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the
country or seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies; and
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise,
or make use of, the labor or services of a person held
to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor,
or slavery.
Section 6.Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The
following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic
Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority
over the trafficked person or when the offense is
committed by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage
in prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or
law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Section 7.Confidentiality. - At any stage of the
investigation, prosecution and trial of an offense
under this Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors,
judges, court personnel and medical practitioners, as
well as parties to the case, shall recognize the right
to privacy of the trafficked person and the accused.
Towards this end, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors and judges to whom the complaint has
been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure a
fair and impartial proceeding, and after considering
all circumstances for the best interest of the parties,
order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or
trial. The name and personal circumstances of the
trafficked person or of the accused, or any other
information tending to establish their identities and
such circumstances or information shall not be
disclosed to the public.
In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted
behind closed-doors, it shall be unlawful for any
editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of
printed materials, announcer or producer in case of
television and radio, producer and director of a film
in case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing
tri-media facilities or information technology to
cause publicity of any case of trafficking in persons.
Section 10.Penalties and Sanctions. - The following
penalties and sanctions are hereby established for
the offenses enumerated in this Act:
(a) Any person found guilty of committing any of the
acts enumerated in Section 4 shall suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of
not less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but
not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
(b) Any person found guilty of committing any of the
acts enumerated in Section 5 shall suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not
less than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00);
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking
under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million
pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00);
(d) Any person who violates Section 7 hereof shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years
and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00);
PAGE 153
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(e) If the offender is a corporation, partnership,
association, club, establishment or any juridical
person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
owner, president, partner, manager, and/or any
responsible officer who participated in the
commission of the crime or who shall have knowingly
permitted or failed to prevent its commission;
(f) The registration with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and license to operate of the
erring agency, corporation, association, religious
group, tour or travel agent, club or establishment, or
any place of entertainment shall be cancelled and
revoked permanently. The owner, president, partner
or manager thereof shall not be allowed to operate
similar establishments in a different name;
(g) If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be
immediately deported after serving his sentence and
be barred permanently from entering the country;
(h) Any employee or official of government agencies
who shall issue or approve the issuance of travel exit
clearances, passports, registration certificates,
counseling certificates, marriage license, and other
similar documents to persons, whether juridical or
natural, recruitment agencies, establishments or
other individuals or groups, who fail to observe the
prescribed procedures and the requirement as
provided for by laws, rules and regulations, shall be
held administratively liable, without prejudice to
criminal liability under this Act. The concerned
government official or employee shall, upon
conviction, be dismissed from the service and be
barred permanently to hold public office. His/her
retirement and other benefits shall likewise be
forfeited; and
(i) Conviction by final judgment of the adopter for
any offense under this Act shall result in the
immediate rescission of the decree of adoption.
Section 11.Use of Trafficked Persons. - Any person
who buys or engages the services of trafficked
persons for prostitution shall be penalized as
follows:
(a) First offense - six (6) months of community
service as may be determined by the court and a fine
of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); and
(b) Second and subsequent offenses - imprisonment
of one (1) year and a fine of One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00).
Section 17.Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. -
Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall not be
penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of
trafficking enumerated in this Act or in obedience to
the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. In
this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the
intended exploitation set forth in this Act shall be
irrelevant.
Note Sec. 17: Persons trafficked (including
prostitutes) are exempt from criminal liability.
Note also: Under RA 9208, persons who hire
trafficked persons are criminally liable. Not so in Art
202 RPC.
Title VII. Crimes Committed
by Public Officers
Chapter 1: Preliminary Provisions
(1) Article 203 - Who Are Public Officers
Chapter 2: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office
(1) Article 204 - Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgment
(2) Article 205 - Judgment Rendered Through
Negligence
(3) Article 206 - Unjust Interlocutory Order
(4) Article 207 - Malicious Delay in the
Administration of Justice
(5) Article 208 - Prosecution of Offenses;
Negligence and Tolerance
(6) Article 209 - Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or
a Solicitor - Revelation of Secrets
(7) Article 210 - Direct Bribery
(8) Article 211 - Indirect Bribery
(9) Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery
(10) Article 212 - Corruption of Public Officials
(11) Article 214 - Other Frauds
Chapter 3: Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
Transactions
(1) Article 213 - Fraud against the Public Treasury
and Similar Offenses
(2) Article 215 - Prohibited Transactions
(3) Article 216 - Possession of Prohibited Interest by
a Public Officer
Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds and
Properties
(1) Article 217 - Malversation of Public Funds or
Property - Presumption of Malversation
(2) Article 218 - Failure of Accountable Officer to
Render Accounts
PAGE 154
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Article 219 - Failure of a Responsible Public
Officer to Render Accounts Before Leaving the
Country
(4) Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public Funds or
Property
(5) Article 221 - Failure to Make Delivery of Public
Funds or Property
(6) Article 222 - Officers Included in the Preceding
Provisions
Chapter 5: Infidelity of Public Officers
(1) Article 223 - Conniving With or Consenting to
Evasion
(2) Article 224 - Evasion through Negligence
(3) Article 225 - Escape of Prisoner under the
Custody of a Person Not a Public Officer
(4) Article 226 - Removal, Concealment, or
Destruction of Documents
(5) Article 227 - Officer Breaking Seal
(6) Article 228 - Opening of Closed Documents
(7) Article 229 - Revelation of Secrets by an Officer
(8) Article 230 - Public Officers Revealing Secrets of
Private Individuals
Chapter 6: Other Offenses and Irregularities by Public
Officers
(1) Article 231 - Open Disobedience
(2) Article 232 - Disobedience to the Order of
Superior Officer When Said Order Was
Suspended by Inferior Officer
(3) Article 233 - Refusal of Assistance
(4) Article 234 - Refusal to Discharge Elective Office
(5) Article 235 - Maltreatment of Prisoners
(6) Article 236 - Anticipation of Duties of a Public
Officer
(7) Article 237 - Prolonging Performance of Duties
and Powers
(8) Article 238 - Abandonment of Office or Position
(9) Article 239 - Usurpation of Legislative Powers
(10) Article 240 - Usurpation of Executive Functions
(11) Article 241 - Usurpation of Judicial Functions
(12) Article 242 - Disobeying Request for
Disqualification
(13) Article 243 - Orders or Request by Executive
Officer to Any Judicial Authority
(14) Article 244 - Unlawful Appointments
(15) Article 245 - Abuses against Chastity.
Remember:
This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal
Code may be given extra-territorial application under
Article 2 (5) thereof.
Crimes under this title can be committed by public
officers or a non-public officer, when the latter
become a conspirator with a public officer, or an
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

accomplice, or accessory to the crime. The public him for decision;

officer has to be the principal. (3) Judgment is unjust;
(4) The judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Defense: Mere error in good faith.
ARTICLE 203 - WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS
An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law or
Requisites: is not supported by the evidence, or both.
(1) Taking part in the performance of public
functions in the government; There must be positive evidence imputing an unjust
(2) Performing in said government or in any of its judgment; presumption will not suffice.
branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, or any rank or class; The offense refers only to a judgment of an individual
(3) His authority to take part in the performance of judge in his court, and not to the judgment rendered
public functions or to perform public duties in a collegial court by the members thereof [In Re:
must be Wenceslao Laureta (1987)]
(a) By direct provision of the law;
(b) By popular election; or Before a criminal action against a judge for violation
(c) By appointment by competent authority. of Articles 204 and 205 can be entertained, there
must be a trial or authoritative judicial declaration
The term public officers embraces every public that his decision or order is really unjust which may
servant from the highest to lowest. result from either an action of certiorari or
prohibition in a higher court. [De Vera v. Pelayo
Officers and employees of government owned and (2000)]
controlled corporations included but not those of a
sequestered corporation. ARTICLE 205 - JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
The better rule is that GOCCs created by law are Elements:
covered while GOCCs registered with the SEC (1) Offender is a judge;
(including sequestered companies) are not. (2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted to
[Macalino v. Sandiganbayan] him for decision;
(3) The judgment is manifestly unjust;
The more recent case of People v. Sandiganbayan (4) It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
held that, based on RA 8249, presidents, directors, ignorance.
trustees, and managers of all GOCCs, regardless of
type, are subject to the jurisdiction of the A manifestly unjust judgment is one which is so
Sandiganbayan when they are involved in graft and manifestly contrary to law that even a person having
corruption. basic knowledge of the law cannot doubt the
injustice. Abuse of discretion or mere error of
CHAPTER II: MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE judgment, not punishable.
IN OFFICE
The Supreme Court held that a judgment is said to
Malfeasance Doing of an act which a be unjust when it is contrary to the standards of
(see Arts 210 and public officer should not conduct prescribed by law.
211) have done
Misfeasance (see Improper doing of an act The test to determine whether an order or judgment
Arts 204 to 207) which a person might is unjust may be inferred from the circumstances
lawfully do that it is contrary to law or is not supported by
Nonfeasance (see Failure of an agent to evidence. [Louis Vuitton SA v. Judge Villanueva]
Art 208) perform his undertaking for
the principal ARTICLE 206 - UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Elements:
ARTICLE 204 - KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
(1) Offender is a judge;
JUDGMENT
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
Elements: (a) Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
(1) Offender is a judge; order or decree; or
(2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted to (b) Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory

PAGE 155
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
If the order leaves something to be done in the trial
court with respect to the merits of the case, it is
interlocutory. If it does not, it is final.
The unjust interlocutory order must have been issued
by the judge with deliberate intent to cause damage
to the party concerned.
ARTICLE 207 - MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) There is a proceeding in his court;
(3) He delays in the administration of justice;
(4) The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate
intent to inflict damage on either party in the
case.
Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the
delay is sought to favor one party to the prejudice of
the other.
Mere delay without malice is not a felony under this
provision.
ARTICLE 208 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE
AND TOLERANCE
Mode 1. Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law;
Mode 2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or officer of the law
who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses;
(2) There is a 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) Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent
to favor the violator of the law.
This crime can only be committed by a public officer
whose official duty is to prosecute offenders. Ex.
Chief of police, barrio captain and fiscal.
The crime committed by the law violator must be
proved first. [US v. Mendoza]
Also known as prevaricacion.
PAGE 156
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 209 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR
A SOLICITOR REVELATION OF SECRETS
Elements:
(1) Causing damage to his client, either
(a) By any malicious breach of professional
duty;
(b) By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
(2) Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional capacity (damage is
not necessary);
(3) Undertaking the defense of the opposing party
in the same case, without the consent of his first
client,
(a) after having undertaken the defense of said
first client, or
(b) after having received confidential
information from said client.
When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his
employment or inexcusable negligence or ignorance,
there must be damage to his client.
Communications made with prospective clients to a
lawyer with a view to engaging his professional
services are already privileged even though the
client-lawyer relationship did not eventually
materialize.
The confidential matters or information must be
confided to the lawyer in the latters professional
capacity.
Mere malicious breach without damage is not a
violation of Article 209; at most he will be liable
administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or
disbarment under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Modes of Commission:
(1) Maliciously causing damage to his client
through a breach of his professional duty.
Note: The breach of professional duty must be
malicious. If it is just incidental, it would not give
rise to criminal liability, although it may be the
subject of administrative discipline;
(2) Through gross ignorance, causing damage to
the client;
(3) Inexcusable negligence;
(4) Revelation of secrets learned in his professional
capacity;
(5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in
a case without the consent of the first client
whose defense has already been undertaken.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The Supreme Court held that not all information
received by counsel from client is classified as
privileged.
A distinction must be made between confidential
communications relating to past crimes already
committed, and future crimes intended to be
committed by the client. [People v. Sandiganbayan]
ARTICLE 210 - DIRECT BRIBERY
Mode 1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present; an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his
official duties;
Mode 2. 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;
Mode 3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from
doing something which is his official duty
to do, in consideration of gift or promise.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer within the scope of
Article 203;
(2) Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
(3) Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or
present received by the public officer
(a) With a view to committing some crime; or
(b) In consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime, but the
act must be unjust; or
(c) To refrain from doing something which it is
his official duty to do.
(4) The act which offender agrees to perform or
which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.
The crime of bribery has no frustrated stage. If one
party does not concur, then there is no agreement
and not all the acts necessary to commit the crime
were present.
Temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.
Bribery exists when the gift is:
(1) voluntarily offered by a private person;
(2) solicited by the public officer and voluntarily
delivered by the private person;
(3) solicited by the public officer but the private
person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer perform
his functions (here the crime by the giver does
PAGE 157
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
not fall under corruption of public officials due
to the involuntariness of the act).
In the FIRST MODE of bribery, actual receipt of the
gift is not necessary.
An accepted offer or promise of a gift is sufficient.
However, if the offer is not accepted, only the person
offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of
a public officer.
In the SECOND MODE of bribery, the gift must be
accepted by the public officer.
The GIFT must have a value or capable of pecuniary
estimation. It could be in the form of money, property
or services. It cannot consist of a mere offer or
promise of a gift.
If the act required of the public officer amounts to a
crime and he commits it, he shall be liable for the
penalty corresponding to the crime.
The THIRD MODE of bribery and prevaricacion (art
208) are similar offenses, both consisting of
omission of an act required to be performed.
In direct bribery however, a gift or promise is given in
consideration of the omission. This is not necessary
in prevaricacion.
Direct bribery does not absorb Art. 208 (dereliction
of duty). See Qualified Bribery (211-A)
Police Sergeant Malfrosque asked and accepted
money in exchange for the recovery of the reported
stolen gas tanks to the owners.
This made him liable under the 2nd mode of Art 210
since in the act of returning the gas tanks to the
owners does not constitute a crime; he demanded
money and said act was in connection with the
performance of his duty as a policeman. [People v.
Malfrosque (2004)]
ARTICLE 211 - INDIRECT BRIBERY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He accepts gifts;
(3) The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.
The principal distinction between direct and indirect
bribery is that in the former, the officer agrees to
perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration
of the gift or promise.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
In the latter case, it is not necessary that the officer
do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift
offered by reason of his office.
If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in
favor of the giver which is unfair to the others, the
crime continues to be indirect bribery.
Precisely the evil of indirect bribery is in its tendency
to produce future, unspecified, and unwarranted
favors from the official.
This is always in the consummated stage. There is
no attempted much less frustrated stage in indirect
bribery.
There must be clear intention on the part of the
public officer:
(1) to take the gift offered and
(2) consider the property as his own for that
moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other
sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is
not sufficient to convict the officer.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons
giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas are
liable under PD 46.
ARTICLE 211-A - QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
(2) He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death;
(3) Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting
in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
present.
The crime of qualified bribery may be committed
only by public officers entrusted with enforcement
(those whose official duties authorize them to arrest
or prosecute offenders).
The penalty is qualified if the public officer is the one
who asks or demands such present.
If the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion
perpetua and/or death had the offender been
arrested or the crime prosecuted, the crime is direct
bribery.
The dereliction of the duty punished under Article
208 of the Revised Penal Code is absorbed in
Qualified Bribery.
PAGE 158
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan expanded the meaning
of official duties. It included those which may be in
ones capacity to perform by reason of his office.
ARTICLE 212 - CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Elements:
(1) Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts
or presents to a public officer;
(2) 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.
The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of
the promise.
The act may or may not be accomplished.
CHAPTER III: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
AND TRANSACTIONS
ARTICLE 213 - FRAUD AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY
AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
Mode 1 Entering into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or making
use of any other scheme, to defraud the
government, 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;
Mode 2 Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law, in collection
of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
Mode 3 Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially, in the collection
of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
Mode 4 Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
provided by law, in the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts.
Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury (par.1):
(1) That the offender is a public officer
(2) That he should have taken advantage of his
public 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 use of
any other scheme with regard to:
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(a) Furnishing supplies
(b) The making of contracts
(c) The adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds
Consummated by merely entering into agreement
with any interested party or speculator or by merely
making use of other scheme to defraud the
government.
It is not necessary that the Government is actually
defrauded by the reason of the transaction
Elements of Illegal Exactions (par.2.):
(1) That the offender is a public officer entrusted
with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and
other imports;
(2) He is guilty of the following acts or omissions:
(a) Demanding directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums of different from or larger
than those authorized by law;
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt as
provided by law, for ay sum of money
collected by him officially; or
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
object of a nature different from that
provided by law
This can only be committed principally by a public
officer whose official duty is to collect taxes, license
fees, import duties and other dues payable to the
government.
Mere demand of a larger or different amount is
sufficient to consummate the crime. The essence is
the improper collection (damage to government is
not required).
The act of receiving payment due the government
without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal
exaction even though a provisional receipt has been
issued. What the law requires is a receipt in the form
prescribed by law, which means official receipt.
If sums are received without demanding the same, a
felony under this article is not committed. However,
if the sum is given as a sort of gift or gratification, the
crime is indirect bribery.
When there is deceit in demanding a greater fee than
those prescribed by law, the crime committed is
estafa and not illegal exaction.
Illegal exaction may be complexed with malversation
if illegal exaction was committed as a necessary
means to commit malversation.
PAGE 159
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are
not covered by the article. The NIRC or the Revised
Administrative Code is the applicable law.
ARTICLE 214 - OTHER FRAUDS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He takes advantage of his official position;
(3) He commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Article 315 to 318 (estafa, other
forms of swindling, swindling a minor, other
deceits).
Additional penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification, apart from the penalties
imposed in Arts 315-318.
ARTICLE 215 - PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
Elements:
(1) Offender is an appointive public officer;
(2) He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in
any transaction of exchange or speculation;
(3) The transaction takes place within the territory
subject to his jurisdiction;
(4) He becomes interested in the transaction during
his incumbency.
Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation
are: buying and selling stocks, commodities, land etc
wherein one hopes to take advantage of an expected
rise or fall in price
Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is
simple investment and not a violation of the article.
However, regularly buying securities for resale is
speculation.
The offender may also be held liable under RA 3019
Sec 3(i).
ARTICLE 216 - POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A
PUBLIC OFFICER
Persons liable:
(1) Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contract or business in which it
was his official duty to intervene;
(2) Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants
who, in like manner, took part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or
property in the appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they had acted;
(3) Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the estate.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Fraud is not necessary. Intervention must be by
virtue of the public office held.
The basis here is the possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may place his own
interest above that of the government or party he
represents.
CHAPTER IV: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ARTICLE 217 - MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
Mode 1. Appropriating public funds or property;
Mode 2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
Mode 3. Consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property; and
Mode 4. Being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property.
Elements common to all modes:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
(3) Those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable;
(4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
Malversation is also called embezzlement.
The public officer must have official custody or the
duty to collect or receive funds due the government,
or the obligation to account for them.
It is not necessary that the offender profited for as
long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty
of safekeeping public funds or property. He is liable
for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise
misappropriated by another.
It can be committed either with malice or through
negligence or imprudence. This is one crime in the
Revised Penal Code where the penalty is the same
whether committed with dolo or through culpa.
The nature of the duties of the public officer, not the
name of the office, is controlling. The funds or
property must be received in an official capacity.
Otherwise, the crime committed is estafa.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If the public officer is not accountable for the funds
or property but someone else is, the crime
committed is theft or qualified theft if there is an
abuse of confidence.
Returning the malversed funds is not exempting, it is
only mitigating.
A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation by another can be held
liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation
Demand as well as damage to the government are
not necessary elements
A private person may also commit malversation
under the following situations:
(1) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing
malversation;
(2) When he has become an accomplice or
accessory to a public officer who commits
malversation;
(3) When the private person is made the custodian
in whatever capacity of public funds or property,
whether belonging to national or local
government, and he misappropriates the same;
(4) When he is constituted as the depositary or
administrator of funds or property seized or
attached by public authority even though said
funds or property belong to a private individual.
Technical malversation (Article 220) is not included
in the crime of malversation.
Presumption of misappropriation: When a demand is
made upon an accountable officer and he cannot
produce the fund or property involved, there is a
prima facie presumption that he had converted the
same to his own use. There must be indubitable
proof that thing unaccounted for exists.
Audit should be made to determine if there was
shortage. Audit must be complete and trustworthy.
If there is doubt, presumption does not arise.
The accused incurred shortage (P1.74) mainly
because the auditor disallowed certain cash
advances the accused granted to employees. But on
the same date that the audit was made, he partly
reimbursed the amount and paid it in full three days
later.
The Supreme Court considered the circumstances as
negative of criminal intent. The cash advances were
made in good faith and out of good will to co-
employees which was a practice tolerated in the
PAGE 160
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

office. There was no negligence, malice, nor intent to Demand for accounting is not necessary. It is also not
defraud. [Quizo v. Sandiganbayan] essential that there be misappropriation because if
present, the crime would be malversation.
Estafa with Abuse of
Malversation (Art. 217) ARTICLE 219 - FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
Confidence (Art. 315)
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE
Funds or property usually Funds/property are COUNTRY
public always private
Elements:
Offender is usually a public Offender is a private (1) Offender is a public officer;
officer who is accountable for individual or even a (2) He is an accountable officer for public funds or
the public funds/property public officer who is property;
not accountable for (3) He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the
public funds/property Philippine Islands without securing a certificate
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by from the Commission on Audit showing that his
appropriating, taking, or misappropriating, accounts have been finally settled.
misappropriating/consenting converting, or denying
or through abandonment or having received money, The act of leaving the country must be unauthorized
negligence, permitting any goods or other or not permitted by law.
other person to take the personal property
public funds/property The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible
No element of damage. There is damage. or accountable officers from leaving without first
liquidating their accountability. It is not necessary
Demand not necessary. There is a need for that they really misappropriated public funds.
prior demand.
ARTICLE 220 - ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
A routine government audit was conducted in Wa- PROPERTY
Acons office and it was discovered that the sacks of Elements:
rice entrusted to him for safekeeping were missing. (1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) There are public funds or property under his
Art 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the administration;
accused actually appropriated, took, or (3) Such fund or property were appropriated by law
misappropriated public funds or property; instead, a or ordinance;
presumption, though disputable and rebuttable, was (4) He applies such public fund or property to any
installed upon demand by any duly authorized public use other than for which it was
officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly appropriated for.
forthcoming any public funds or property which said
officer is accountable for should be prima facie Illegal use of public funds or property is also known
evidence that he had put such missing funds or as technical malversation. The term technical
properties to personal use. [People v. Wa-Acon malversation is used because in this crime, the fund
(2006)] or property involved is already appropriated or
earmarked for a certain public purpose.
ARTICLE 218 - FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO
RENDER ACCOUNTS
Regardless of damage or embarrassment to the
Elements: public service.
(1) Offender is public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom by resignation or any Technical malversation
other cause; Malversation (Art. 217)
(Art. 220)
(2) He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property; The offender The public officer applies
(3) He is required by law or regulation to render misappropriates public the public funds or
account to the Commission on Audit, or to a funds or property for his property under his
provincial auditor; own personal use, or administration to another
(4) He fails to do so for a period of two months after allows any other person to public use different from
such accounts should be rendered. take such funds or that for which the public
property for the latters fund was appropriated by
own personal use. law or ordinance.

PAGE 161
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 221 - FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Mode 1. Failing to make payment by a public officer
who is under obligation to make such
payment from government funds in his
possession;
Mode 2. 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.
Elements:
(1) Public officer has government funds in his
possession;
(2) He is under obligation to either:
(a) make payment from such funds;
(b) to deliver any property in his custody or
under his administration
(3) He maliciously fails to make the payment or
refuses to make delivery.
(4) He maliciously fails to make the payment.
ARTICLE 222 - OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING
PROVISIONS
(1) Private individual who, in any capacity, have
charge of any national, provincial or municipal
funds, revenue, or property
(2) Administrator or depositary of funds or property
that has been attached, seized or deposited by
public authority, even if owned by a private
individual.
Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term
administrator. A judicial administrator in charge of
settling the estate of the deceased is not covered by
the article.
Private property is included, provided it is (1)
attached, (2) seized or (3) deposited by public
authority.
CHAPTER V: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
ARTICLE 223 - CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO
EVASION
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
(4) He was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latters escape. (shall consent to the escape).
PAGE 162
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Classes of prisoners involved
(1) Those who have been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty;
(2) Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in
custody for any crime or violation of law or
municipal ordinance.
This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in
the officers house or utilizes the prisoners services
for domestic chores.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be
delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed
by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
ARTICLE 224 - EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He is charged with the conveyance or custody of
a prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escapes through negligence.
This covers only positive carelessness and definite
laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance
of duties.
The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not
afford complete exculpation.
The liability of an escaping prisoner:
(1) If he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable
for evasion of service (Art. 157)
(2) If he is a detention prisoner, he does not incur
criminal liability (unless cooperating with the
offender).
ARTICLE 225 - ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a private person;
(2) The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him;
(3) The prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
(4) Offender consents to the escape, or that the
escape takes place through his negligence.
If the offender who aided or consented to the
prisoners escaping from confinement, whether the
prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not
the custodian, the crime is delivering prisoners from
jail under Article 156.
The party who is not the custodian but who
conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner
to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of
the prisoner.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Art. 225 not applicable if a private person was the
one who made the arrest and he consented to the
escape of the person he arrested.
Policeman Rodillas escorted detained prisoner Sacris
to the court. After the court adjourned he let her eat
lunch with her family, permitted her to go to the
ladies washroom unescorted and after her escape,
did not report it immediately to his superiors, instead
he went around looking for her.
SC held that he is guilty of the crime in Art 224 for
being negligent in the performance of his duties
which made the escape of Sacris possible. [People v.
Rodillas]
ARTICLE 226 - REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Revelation Of Secrets By An Removal, Concealment or
Officer (Art. 229) Destruction of Documents
(Art. 226)
The papers contain secrets The papers do not contain
and therefore should not secrets but their removal is
be published, and the for an illicit purpose.
public officer having
charge thereof removes
and delivers them
wrongfully to a third
person.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document
or papers;
(3) Said document or papers should have been
entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
office;
(4) Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party
or to the public interest has been caused.
Can only be committed by the public officer who is
made the custodian of the document in his official
capacity.
If the officer was placed in possession of the
document but it is not his duty to be the custodian
thereof, this crime is not committed.
The document must be complete and one by which a
right could be established or an obligation could be
extinguished.
If the writings are mere forms, there is no crime.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Damage to public interest is necessary. However,
material damage is not necessary.
Removal is consummated upon taking or secreting
away of the document from its usual place. It is
immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the
offender has been accomplished.
This could cover failure on the part of the post office
to forward the letters to their destination.
Damage in this article may consist in mere alarm to
the public or in the alienation of its confidence in any
branch of the government service.
ARTICLE 227 - OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He is charged with the custody of papers or
property;
(3) These papers or property are sealed by proper
authority;
(4) He breaks the seal or permits them to be
broken.
In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not
be given a literal meaning. Even if actually, the seal
was not broken, because the custodian managed to
open the parcel without breaking the seal.
The element of damage is not required.
ARTICLE 228 - OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) Any closed papers, documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody;
(3) He opens or permits to be opened said closed
papers, documents or objects;
(4) He does not have proper authority.
The act should not fall under 227. Damage also not
necessary
ARTICLE 229 - REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER
Mode 1. Revealing any secrets known to the
offending public officer by reason of his
official capacity;
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He knows of a secret by reason of his official
capacity;
(3) He reveals such secret without authority or
justifiable reasons;
(4) Damage, great or small, is caused to the public
PAGE 163
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
interest.
Mode 2. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and
which should not be published.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He has charge of papers;
(3) Those papers should not be published;
(4) He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a
third person;
(5) The delivery is wrongful;
(6) Damage is caused to public interest.
Espionage is not contemplated in this article since
revelation of secrets of the State to a belligerent
nation is already defined in Art 117 and CA 616.
Secrets must affect public interest. Secrets of private
persons are not included.
Charge: means custody or control. If he is merely
entrusted with the papers and not with the custody
thereof, he is not liable under this article.
If the papers contain secrets which should not be
published, and the public officer having charge
thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a
third person, the crime is revelation of secrets.
On the other hand, if the papers do not contain
secrets, their removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity
in the custody of documents.
Damage is essential to the act committed.
ARTICLE 230 - PUBLIC OFFICERS REVEALING SECRETS OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He knows of the secrets of a private individual by
reason of his office;
(3) He reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
Revelation to one person is sufficient.
When the offender is a public attorney or a solicitor,
the act of revealing the secret should not be covered
by Art 209.
Damage to private individual is not necessary.
The reason for this provision is to uphold faith and
trust in public service.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CHAPTER VI: OTHER OFFENSES OR
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
ARTICLE 231 - OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
Elements:
(1) Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
(2) There is a judgment, decision or order of a
superior authority;
(3) 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) He, without any legal justification, openly
refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or
order, which he is duty bound to obey.
ARTICLE 232 - DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF
SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED
BY INFERIOR OFFICER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) An order is issued by his superior for execution;
(3) He has for any reason suspended the execution
of such order;
(4) His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order;
(5) Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
This does not apply if the order of the superior is
illegal.
ARTICLE 233 - REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) A competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation towards
the administration of justice or other public
service;
(3) Offender maliciously fails to do so.
The request must come from one public officer to
another. If he receives consideration therefore,
bribery is committed.
But mere demand will fall under the prohibition
under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Applies whether or not serious damage to the public
interest was committed.
ARTICLE 234 - REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
Elements:
PAGE 164
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(1) Offender is elected by popular election to a

ARTICLE 236 - ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC
public office;
OFFICER
(2) He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
duties of said office; Elements:
(3) There is no legal motive for such refusal to be (1) Offender is entitled to hold a public office or
sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office. employment, either by election or
appointment;
Once an individual is elected to an office by the will (2) The law requires that he should first be
of the people, discharge of duties becomes a matter sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
of duty, not only a right. This only applies for elective, (3) He assumes the performance of the duties
not appointive officers. and powers of such office;
(4) He has not taken his oath of office and/or
ARTICLE 235 - MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS given the bond required by law.
Elements:
ARTICLE 237 - PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
AND POWERS
(2) He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
prisoner; Elements:
(3) He maltreats such prisoner in either of the (1) Offender is holding a public office;
following manners: (2) The period provided by law, regulations or
(a) By overdoing himself in the correction or special provision for holding such office, has
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner already expired;
under his charge either (3) He continues to exercise the duties and powers
(i) By the imposition of punishment not of such office.
authorized by the regulations;
(ii) By inflicting such punishments (those The offenders here can be those suspended,
authorized) in a cruel and humiliating separated, declared over-aged, or dismissed.
manner;
(b) By maltreating such prisoners to extort a ARTICLE 238 - ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner. Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
This is committed only by such public officer charged (2) He formally resigns from his position;
with direct custody of the prisoner. (3) His resignation has not yet been accepted;
(4) He abandons his office to the detriment of the
Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries public service.
or damage caused.
For the resignation to be formal, it has to be in
If the public officer is not the custodian of the written form.
prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the crime is
physical injuries. The offense is qualified when the purpose of the
abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties of
The offended party can either be a convict by final preventing, prosecuting, punishing any of the crimes
judgment or a detention prisoner. To be considered a falling within Title One and Chapter One of Title
detention prisoner, the person arrested must be Three of book two of the RPC.
placed in jail even for just a short while.
Abandonment of Office or
Dereliction of Duty
The maltreatment does not really require physical Position
(Art. 208)
injuries. Any kind of punishment not authorized or (Art. 238)
although authorized if executed in excess of the Committed by any public Committed only by public
prescribed degree. officer officers who have the duty
to institute prosecution for
If the maltreatment was done in order to extort the punishment of
confession, the penalty is qualified to the next higher violations of the law
degree.
There is actual Public officer does not
See: Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. 9372) abandonment through abandon his office but

PAGE 165
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Abandonment of Office or
Dereliction of Duty The disobedient officer is liable even if the
Position
(Art. 208) jurisdictional question is resolved in his favor.
(Art. 238)
resignation to evade the merely fails to prosecute a ARTICLE 243 - ORDERS OR REQUEST BY EXECUTIVE
discharge of duties violation of the law. OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

ARTICLE 239 - USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

Elements:
(1) Offender is an executive officer;
Elements: (2) He addresses any order or suggestion to any
(1) Offender is an executive or judicial officer; judicial authority;
(2) That he: (3) The order or suggestion relates to any case or
(a) makes general rules or regulations beyond business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction
the scope of his authority; or of the courts of justice.
(b) attempts to repeal a law; or
(c) suspends the execution thereof. The purpose is to maintain the independence of the
judiciary from executive dictations.
Arts 239-241 punish interference by public officers of
the executive or judiciary with the functions of ARTICLE 244 - UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
another department of government to keep them
within legitimate confines of their respective Elements:
jurisdictions. (1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He nominates or appoints a person to a public
Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of office;
powers. (3) Such person lacks the legal qualifications
therefore;
ARTICLE 240 - USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
(4) Offender knows that his nominee or appointee
lacks the qualification at the time he made the
Elements: nomination or appointment.
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) That he: This can also be covered by RA 3019.
(a) assumes a power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or Recommending, knowing that the person
(b) obstructs the executive authorities in the recommended is not qualified is not a crime.
lawful exercise of their powers.
There must be a law providing for the qualifications
ARTICLE 241 - USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS of a person to be nominated or appointed to a public
Elements: office.
(1) Offender is an officer of the executive branch of
the government; ARTICLE 245 - ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
(2) That he: Mode 1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
(1) assumes judicial powers, or advances to a woman interested in matters
(2) obstructs the execution of any order or pending before the offending officer for
decision rendered by any judge within his decision, or with respect to which he is
jurisdiction. required to submit a report to or consult
with a superior officer;
ARTICLE 242 - DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION Mode 2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
Elements: advances to a woman under the offenders
(1) Offender is a public officer; custody;
(2) A proceeding is pending before such public
officer; Mode 3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
(3) There is a question brought before the proper advances to the wife, daughter, sister or
authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not relative within the same degree by affinity of
yet decided; any person in the custody of the offending
(4) He has been lawfully required to refrain from warden or officer.
continuing the proceeding;
(5) He continues the proceeding. Elements:

PAGE 166
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He solicits or makes immoral or indecent
advances to a woman;
(3) Such woman is
(a) interested in matters pending before the
offender for decision, or with respect to which he
is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer; or
(b) under the custody of the offender who is a
warden or other public officer directly charged
with the care and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest; or
(c) the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the
same degree by affinity of the person in the
custody of the offender.
The crime is consummated by mere proposal.
The mother of the person in the custody of the public
officer is not included but the offender may be
prosecuted under the Section 28 of RA 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
If the offender were not the custodian, then crime
would fall under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Solicit: means to propose earnestly and persistently
something unchaste and immoral to a woman. The
advances must be immoral or indecent.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is
sexual intercourse.
Abuse against chastity is not absorbed in rape
because the basis of penalizing the acts is different
from each other
RA 3019: ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
Section 2.Definition of terms. As used in this Act,
that term
(a) "Government" includes the national government,
the local governments, the government-owned and
government-controlled corporations, and all other
instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the
Philippines and their branches.
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt
service receiving compensation, even nominal, from
the government as defined in the preceding
subparagraph.
PAGE 167
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family, in
behalf of himself or of any member of his family or
relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a
family celebration or national festivity like Christmas,
if the value of the gift is under the circumstances
manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
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:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated
by competent authority or an offense in connection
with the official duties of the latter, or allowing
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the Government
and any other part, wherein the public officer in his
official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit,
for himself or for another, from any person for whom
the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any
Government permit or license, in consideration for
the help given or to be given, without prejudice to
Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family
accept employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
(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 inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act within
a reasonable time on any matter pending before him
for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly,
from any person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the
purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue
advantage in favor of or discriminating against any
other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or
takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from
having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board,
panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes
against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against
those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license,
permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not so
qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of its
authorized release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs
(b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer
the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or
urging the divulging or untimely release of the
PAGE 168
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
confidential information referred to in subparagraph
(k) of this section shall, together with the offending
public officer, be punished under Section nine of this
Act and shall be permanently or temporarily
disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the
Government.
Section 4.Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It
shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family
or close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material
or pecuniary advantage from any other person
having some business, transaction, application,
request or contract with the government, in which
such public official has to intervene. Family relation
shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity
or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close
personal relation" shall include close personal
friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy
which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to
induce or cause any public official to commit any of
the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Section 5.Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be
unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree,
of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-
President of the Philippines, the President of the
Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in
any business, transaction, contract or application
with the Government: Provided, That this section
shall not apply to any person who, prior to the
assumption of office of any of the above officials to
whom he is related, has been already dealing with
the Government along the same line of business, nor
to any transaction, contract or application already
existing or pending at the time of such assumption of
public office, nor to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of
the official or officials concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules
or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act
lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the
exercise of a profession.
Section 6.Prohibition on Members of Congress. It
shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the
Congress during the term for which he has been
elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary
interest in any specific business enterprise which will
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
be directly and particularly favored or benefited by
any law or resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted by the Congress during the
same term.
The provision of this section shall apply to any other
public officer who recommended the initiation in
Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or
resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest
during his incumbency.
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of
Congress or other public officer, who, having such
interest prior to the approval of such law or
resolution authored or recommended by him,
continues for thirty days after such approval to retain
such interest.
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 our 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 of the unexplained wealth is
completed.
Section 9.Penalties for violations.
(a) any public officer or private person committing
any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished
with imprisonment for not less than six years and
one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual
disqualification from public office, and confiscation
or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any
prohibited interest and unexplained wealth
PAGE 169
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other
lawful income.
Any complaining party at whose complaint the
criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of
conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in
the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in
favor of the Government, the amount of money or
the thing he may have given to the accused, or the
fair value of such thing.
(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions
of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five
thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding
one year six months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.
The violation of said section proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause
for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no
criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
Section 13.Suspension and loss of benefits.
Any incumbent public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under
this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code or for any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property whether as a
simple or as complex offense and in whether stage of
execution and mode of participation, is pending in
court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be
convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all
retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if
he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement
and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to
receive during suspension, unless in the meantime
administrative proceedings have been filed against
him.
In the event that such convicted officer, who may
have already been separated from the service, has
already received such benefits he shall be liable to
restitute the same to the Government.
Section 14.Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of
small or insignificant value offered or given as a
mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship
according to local customs or usage, shall be
excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice
or prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful
trade or occupation by any private person or by any
public officer who under the law may legitimately
practice his profession, trade or occupation, during
his incumbency, except where the practice of such
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
profession, trade or occupation involves conspiracy
with any other person or public official to commit any
of the violations penalized in this Act.
RA 7080: ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
Section 1. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act,
the term
a) Public Officer means any person holding any
public office in the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election
or contract.
b) Government includes the National Government,
and any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
c) Person includes any natural or juridical person,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof,
acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of
the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form
of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project
or by reason of the office or position of the public
officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including promise of
future employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
PAGE 170
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense
and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
people and the Republic of the Philippines.
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder;
Penalties - Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses,
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least Seventy-five million
pesos (P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime
of plunder and shall be punished by life
imprisonment with perpetual absolute
disqualification from holding any public office. Any
person who participated with said public officer in
the commission of plunder shall likewise be
punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree
of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by
the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-
gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares of
stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT
(Refer to Title I)
Title VIII. Crimes against
Persons
Chapter I: Destruction of Life
(1) Article 246 Parricide
(2) Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries Under
Exceptional Circumstances
(3) Article 248 Murder
(4) Article 249 Homicide
(5) Article 250 - Penalty for Frustrated Parricide,
Murder or Homicide
(6) Article 251 - Death Caused in Tumultuous Affray
(7) Article 252 - Physical Injuries Caused in
Tumultuous Affray
(8) Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide
(9) Article 254 - Discharge of Firearms
(10) Article 255 Infanticide
(11) Article 256 - Intentional Abortion
(12) Article 257 - Unintentional Abortion
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(13) Article 258 - Abortion Practiced by the Woman
Herself or by Parents
(14) Article 259 - Abortion by a Physician or Midwife
and Dispensing of Abortives
(15) Article 260 - Responsibility of Participants in a
Duel
(16) Article 261 - Challenging to a Duel
Chapter II: Physical Injuries
(1) Article 262 Mutilation
(2) Article 263 - Serious Physical Injuries
(3) Article 264 - Administering Injurious Substances
or Beverages
(4) Article 265 - Less Serious Physical Injuries
(5) Article 266 - Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment
(6) Article 266-A - Rape (amended by RA 8353)
About this Title: The essence of crimes involves the
taking of human life, destruction of the fetus, or
inflicting injuries.
CHAPTER I DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
ARTICLE 246 - PARRICIDE
Elements:
(1) Person is killed;
(2) Deceased is killed by the accused;
(3) Deceased is the
(a) legitimate/illegitimate father
(b) legitimate/illegitimate mother
(c) legitimate/illegitimate child
* should not be less than 3 days old,
otherwise crime is infanticide
(d) other legitimate ascendant
(e) other legitimate descendant
(f) legitimate spouse.
Essential element: relationship of offender with the
victim; except for spouses, only relatives by blood
and in direct line. Hence, adopted are not included.
[Reyes]
Supreme Court ruled that Muslim husbands with
several wives can be convicted of parricide only in
case the first wife is killed.
Parricide when the penalty shall not be reclusion
perpetua to death:
(1) Reckless or simple imprudence (Art. 365)
(2) Parricide by mistake (Art. 49)
(3) Parricide under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)
A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide, is not guilty of
PAGE 171
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
parricide but only homicide or murder, as the case
may be.
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. Ergo, the fact of the
relationship should be alleged in the information.
[People vs. Dalag]
Since the accuseds relationship to the victim is not
alleged in the information, she can be convicted of
murder only. Relationship can be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance onlyl. [People v.
Jumawan]
ARTICLE 247 - DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Elements:
(1) 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
sexual intercourse with another person;
(2) 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;
(3) He has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that she
has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse.
Living with parent(s) is understood to be in their
own dwelling.
If done in a motel, article does not apply.
Surprise means to come upon suddenly and
unexpectedly.
Immediately thereafter: there is no set time as
jurisprudence has held 1 hour or even 4 hours as
immediately thereafter. However, the act done
must be a direct result of the outrage of the
cuckolded spouse, and a continuous act from the
moment of the surprising.
Article does not apply: If the surprising took place
before any actual sexual intercourse could be done.
Destierro for killer spouse is not so much a penalty as
it is meant to protect him from acts of reprisal by
relatives of dead spouse. This is because law regards
the act done in 247 as a lawful action.
No criminal liability when less serious or slight
physical injuries are inflicted.
Does this article apply even if the daughter is
married? Although the article does not use the word
unmarried, this article applies only when the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
daughter is single because while under 18 and single,
she is still under parental authority. If she is married,
her husband alone can claim the benefits of this
article.
Evidence of the victims promiscuity is
inconsequential to the killing. The offender must
prove that he actually surprised his wife and [her
paramour] in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the
man during or immediately thereafter. [People v.
Puedan]
The killing must be the direct result of the outrage
suffered by the cuckolded husband.
Although about one hour had passed between the
time the accused discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the time the latter
was actually killed, it was held that Article 247 was
applicable, as the shooting was a continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is
not murder.
Two other persons suffered physical injuries as they
were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot
the victim. A complex crime of double frustrated
murder was not committed as the accused did not
have the intent to kill the two victims. Here, the
accused did not commit murder when he fired at the
paramour of his wife. No aberratio ictus because he
was acting lawfully. [People v. Abarca]
ARTICLE 248 - MURDER
Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Accused killed him;
(3) Killing attended by any of the following
2 2
qualifying circumstances (EPIC SW AT)
(a) 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;
(b) in consideration of a price, reward or
promise;
(c) 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;
(d) on occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
PAGE 172
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
(e) with evident premeditation;
(f) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse.
(4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If
there are more than one alleged in the information
for murder, only one will qualify the killing to murder
and the other circumstances will be taken as generic
aggravating circumstance.
Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in
Art. 248 must be alleged in the information. When
the other circumstances are absorbed or included in
one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as generic aggravating.
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill
becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the victim
did not die to determine if the felony is physical injury
or attempted or frustrated homicide.
TREACHERY
The essence of treachery is that the offended party
was denied the chance to defend himself because of
the means, methods, deliberately adopted by the
offender and were not merely incidental to the
killing.
Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified by
treachery.
Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and
comprehended by the circumstance of treachery or
forms part of treachery.
FIRE
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is considered.
If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to
kill and fire was only used as a means to do so, the
crime is only murder.
If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to
destroy property with the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally, somebody within the premises is killed,
the crime is arson with homicide, a single indivisible
crime penalized under Article 326, which is death as
a consequence of arson.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Intending
to make fun of a mentally-disabled person, Pugay
poured gasoline on the latter while Samson set him
on fire. The victim died.
There was no animosity between the two accused
and the victim such that it cannot be said that they
resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part of their
fun making but because their acts were felonious,
they are criminally liable. [People v. Pugay and
Samson]
POISON
Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in
murder by poison only if the offender has the intent
to kill the victim by use of poison.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Act of the offender manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination to kill his victim.
Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward or
promise, if without the premeditation the inductor
would not have induced the other to commit the act
but not as regards the one induced.
Pariseo Tayag was shot dead by several policemen in
the course of their pursuit to get his fan knife.
Although it has not been shown which of the
policemen fired the fatal shot each should be held
guilty of murder since they are in conspiracy to effect
the death of the victim. [People v. Buensuceso (1984)]
CRUELTY
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating
circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim be
alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted and,
therefore, there must be evidence to that effect.
Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty, any act that would
amount to scoffing or decrying the corpse of the
victim will qualify the killing to murder.
ARTICLE 249 - HOMICIDE
Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Offender killed him without any justifying
circumstances;
(3) Offender had the intention to kill, which is
presumed;
(4) Killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide
or infanticide.
PAGE 173
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating
circumstance in homicide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death
resulted. Evidence of intent to kill is important only in
attempted or frustrated homicide.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent
to kill. In physical injuries, there is none. However, if
as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim
died, the crime will be homicide because the law
presumes intent to kill and punishes the result, and
not the intent of the act. The accused will, however,
be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong.
Physical injuries sufficient to cause death are one of
the essential elements of frustrated homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is
brought about by a lawful act performed with proper
care and skill and without homicidal intent, there is
no liability.
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through
imprudence.
Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on
prescription but erroneously used a highly poisonous
substance. When taken by the patient, the latter
nearly died. Accused is guilty only of reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
The element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is
incompatible with negligence or imprudence. [People
v. Castillo]
ARTICLE 250 - PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER OR HOMICIDE
Courts may impose a penalty:
(1) 2 degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder,
or homicide
(2) 3 degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder,
or homicide.
For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the
courts, in view of the facts f the case, may impose a
penalty lower by one degree than that imposed
under Art. 50.
Art. 50 provides that the penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon a
principal in a frustrated felony. Thus, under Art. 50,
the court can impose a penalty of TWO DEGREES
LOWER for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
For attempted parricide, homicide, or murder, the
courts, in view of the facts of the case may impose a
penalty by one degree than that imposed under Art.
51.
Art. 51 provides that the penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principal in an attempted felony. Thus, under Art.
250, the court can impose a penalty of THREE
DEGREES LOWER for attempted parricide, murder,
or homicide.
NOTE: Any attempt on, or conspire against, the life
of the Chief Executive of the Philippines or that of
any member of his family, or against the life of any
member of his cabinet or that of any member of the
latters family, shall suffer the penalty of death.
ARTICLE 251 - DEATH CAUSED IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements:
(1) There are several persons;
(2) They do not compose groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking
each other reciprocally;
(3) These several persons quarreled and assaulted
one another in a confused and tumultuous
manner;
(4) Someone was killed in the course of the affray;
(5) It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased;
(6) The person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.
Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused
manner to an extent that it would not be possible to
identify who the killer is if death results, or who
inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or
persons who used violence are known.
Who are liable?
(a) The person or persons who inflicted the serious
physical injuries
(b) If it is not known who inflicted the serious
physical injuries on the deceased, all persons
who used violence upon the person of the victim
are liable.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
The crime would be murder or homicide.
If nobody could still be traced to have employed
violence upon the victim, nobody will answer.
The crimes committed might be disturbance of
public order, or if participants are armed, it could be
PAGE 174
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
tumultuous disturbance, or if property was
destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
ARTICLE 252 - PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements:
(1) There is a tumultuous affray;
(2) A participant or some participants thereof
suffered serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature only;
(3) The person responsible thereof cannot be
identified;
(4) All those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are
known.
Unlike in Article 251, the injured party in this article
must be one or some of the participants in the affray.
All those who appear to have used violence shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
provided for the serious physical injuries inflicted. For
less serious physical injuries, the penalty is arresto
mayor from five to fifteen days.
Physical injury should be serious or less serious.
No crime of physical injuries resulting from a
tumultuous affray if the physical injury is only slight.
Slight physical injury is considered as inherent in a
tumultuous affray.
ARTICLE 253 - GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
Mode 1: Assisting another to commit suicide,
whether the suicide is consummated or
not;
Mode 2: Lending his assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of doing the
killing himself.
Giving assistance to suicide means giving means
(arms, poison, etc.) or whatever manner of positive
and direct cooperation (intellectual aid, suggestions
regarding the mode of committing suicide, etc.).
If the person does the killing himself, the penalty is
similar to that of homicide, which is reclusion
temporal.
The relation of the offender to the person
committing suicide is not material, the law does not
distinguish. Hence, penalty would be the same if the
offender is the father, mother or child.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
There can be no qualifying circumstance because the
determination to die must come from the victim.
The person attempting suicide is not liable. Reason:
He should be pitied, not punished.
This does not contemplate euthanasia or mercy
killing where the crime is murder. (if without consent;
with consent, covered by Article 253). Euthanasia is
not lending assistance to suicide. In euthanasia, the
victim is not in a position to commit suicide.
A doctor who resorts to euthanasia of his patient
may be liable for murder. But if the patient himself
asks to be killed by his doctor, this Article applies.
ARTICLE 254 - DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Elements:
(1) Offender discharges a firearm against or at
another person.
(2) Offender has no intention to kill that
person.
No crime if firearm is not discharged. It is essential
for prosecution to prove that the discharge of firearm
was directed precisely against the offended party.
The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was
not pointed at the offended party when it fired, as
long as it was initially aimed by the accused at or
against the offended party
If there is intention to kill, it may be classified as
attempted parricide, murder, or homicide.
No presumed intent to kill if the distance is 200
meters.
There is a special complex crime of illegal discharge
of firearm with serious or less serious physical
injuries.
ARTICLE 255 - INFANTICIDE
Elements:
(1) A child was killed by the accused;
(2) The deceased child was less than 3 days
old.
If the offender is the parent and the victim is less
than three days old, the crime is infanticide and not
parricide.
The fact that the killing was done to conceal her
dishonor will not mitigate the criminal liability
anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing
the child is not mitigating in parricide.
PAGE 175
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of the
child are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
concealing the dishonor. Concealment of dishonor is
not an element of infanticide. It merely lowers the
penalty.
A stranger who cooperates in the perpetration of
infanticide committed by the mother or grandparent
on the mothers side, is liable for infanticide, but he
must suffer the penalty prescribed for murder.
If the child is abandoned without any intent to kill
and death results as a consequence, the crime
committed is not infanticide but abandonment under
Article 276.
No crime of infanticide is committed when the child
was born dead, or although born alive, it could not
sustain an independent life when it was killed.
ARTICLE 256 - INTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
administered, or that the accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant woman;
(3) As a result of the use of violence or drugs or
beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or
after having been expelled therefrom;
(4) The abortion is intended.
Ways of committing intentional abortion
(1) Using any violence upon the person of the
pregnant woman;
(2) Acting, but without using violence, without the
consent of the woman. (By administering drugs
or beverages upon such pregnant woman
without her consent.)
(3) Acting (by administering drugs or beverages),
with the consent of the pregnant woman.
ABORTION vs. INFANTICIDE
Abortion Infanticide
Fetus could not sustain Fetus could sustain an
independent life. No independent life after
legal viability. separation from the
mothers womb.
If the mother as a consequence of abortion suffers
death or physical injuries, you have a complex crime
of murder or physical injuries and abortion.
In intentional abortion, the offender must know of
the pregnancy because the particular criminal intent
is to cause an abortion.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and
someone performs an abortion upon her, he is liable
for an impossible crime if the woman suffers no
physical injury.
If she dies or suffers injuries, the crime will be
homicide, serious physical injuries, etc.
Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is
expelled is viable and, therefore, not dead as
abortion did not result despite the employment of
adequate and sufficient means to make the pregnant
woman abort.
ARTICLE 257 - UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is used upon such pregnant woman
without intending an abortion;
(3) The violence is intentionally exerted;
(4) Result of violence fetus dies, either in the
womb or expelled therefrom.
Unintentional abortion requires physical violence
inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by a third
person upon the pregnant woman, without intention
to cause the abortion.
If the pregnant woman aborted because of
intimidation, the crime committed is not
unintentional abortion because there is no violence;
the crime committed is light threats.
If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her
husband, the crime committed is the complex crime
of parricide with unlawful abortion.
Unintentional abortion may be committed through
negligence as it is enough that the use of violence be
voluntary.
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of
self-defense, and there is no knowledge of the
womans pregnancy, there is no liability.
Jose is declared guilty of the crime of unintentional
abortion through reckless imprudence for having
bumped a calesa which resulted in a pregnant
woman bumping her abdomen against the wall of
the calesa and eventually led to an abortion. [People
v. Jose]
Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the
immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not
sufficient proof to show an intent to cause abortion.
PAGE 176
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The accused must have merely intended to kill the
victim but not necessarily to cause abortion.
The accused is liable for complex crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion for it was merely
incidental to the killing. [People v. Salufrania (1988)]
For the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to be
held committed, the accused must have known of
the pregnancy. [People v. Carnaso]
ARTICLE 258 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN
HERSELF OR BY PARENTS
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
(2) Abortion is intended;
(3) Abortion is caused by
(a) The pregnant woman herself;
(b) Any other person, with her consent; or
(c) Any of her parents, with her consent for the
purpose of concealing her dishonour.
If the purpose of abortion is to conceal dishonor,
mitigation applies only to pregnant woman and not
to parents of pregnant woman, unlike in infanticide.
If the purpose of parents is not to conceal dishonor,
the crime is intentional abortion.
Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if
purpose is to conceal dishonor.
No mitigation for parents of pregnant woman even if
the purpose is to conceal dishonor. The penalty for
the parents in this case is the same as the penalty for
a pregnant woman committing abortion, without the
purpose of concealing dishonor.
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE
AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
(2) The abortion is intended;
(3) Offender, who must be a physician or midwife,
caused or assisted in causing the abortion;
(4) Said physician or midwife took advantage of his
or her scientific knowledge or skill.
The penalties provided for intentional abortion shall
be imposed in the maximum period for physicians
and midwives violating this article.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Reason: heavier guilt in making use of their
knowledge for the destruction of human life, when it
should be used only for its preservation.
If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the
life of the mother, there is no liability.
Elements (for pharmacists):
(1) The offender is a pharmacist;
(2) There is no proper prescription from a physician;
(3) The offender dispenses any abortive.
Article punishes a pharmacist who merely dispenses
with an abortive without the proper prescription of a
physician.
It is not necessary that the pharmacist knows that
the abortive would be used to cause an abortion.
What is punished is the dispensing of the abortive
without the proper prescription. It is not necessary
that the abortive be actually used either.
If pharmacist knew that the abortive would be use for
abortion, her would be liable as an accomplice in the
crime of abortion.
ARTICLE 260 - RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A
DUEL
Mode 1: Killing ones adversary in a duel;
Mode 2: Inflicting upon such adversary physical
injuries;
Mode 3: Making a combat although no physical
injuries have been inflicted.
Persons 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.
Duel is a formal or regular combat previously
consented to by 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 to settle some antecedent quarrel.
Persons 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
There is no such crime nowadays because people hit
each other even without entering into any pre-
conceived agreement. This is an obsolete provision.
PAGE 177
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If these are not the conditions of the fight, it is not a
duel in the sense contemplated in the Revised Penal
Code.
It will be a quarrel and anyone who killed the other
will be liable for homicide or murder, as the case may
be.
ARTICLE 261 - CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
Mode 1. Challenging another to a duel;
Mode 2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge
to a duel;
Mode 3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for
having refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel.
Persons Responsible under Art. 261:
(1) Challenger
(2) Instigators
If one challenges another to a duel by shouting
Come down, Olympia, let us measure your prowess.
We will see whose intestines will come out. You are a
coward if you do not come down, the crime of
challenging to a duel is not committed.
What is committed is the crime of light threats under
Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code.[People v. Tacomoy]
CHAPTER II PHYSICAL INJURIES
ARTICLE 262 - MUTILATION
Mode 1. Intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of
some essential organ for reproduction;
(Mutilation)
Elements:
(1) There be a castration, that is, mutilation of
organs necessary for generation, such as the
penis or ovarium;
(2) The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately
Mode 2. 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. (Mayhem).
Intent to mutilate must be established. If there is no
intent, the crime is only serious physical injury.
The offender must have the intention to deprive the
offended party of a part of his body. If there is no
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
such intention, the crime will be serious physical
injuries.
MUTILIATION the lopping or clipping off of some
part of the body
CASTRATION - intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction
MAYHEM - intentionally making other mutilation
other than some essential organ for reproduction
and to deprive him of that part of the body
ARTICLE 263 - SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Modes of Commission:
(1) By wounding;
(2) By beating;
(3) By assaulting; or
(4) By administering injurious substance. (Art. 264)
Levels of Penalty: When the injured person, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted
(1) becomes insane, imbecilic, impotent or blind
(2) loses the use of speech or the power to hear or
to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, afoot, an arm,
or a leg;
(3) loses the use of any such member;
(4) becomes incapacitated for the work in which he
was theretofore habitually engaged, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;
(5) becomes deformed; or
(6) loses any other member of his body;
(7) loses the use thereof; or
(8) becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance
of the work in which he was habitually engaged
for more than 90 days in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
(9) becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days (but must not be more than 90
days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted.
In physical injuries, there must not be intent to kill,
otherwise the crime is frustrated/attempted murder
or homicide as the case may be.
Impotence under first type means an inability to
copulate. It is used synonymously with sterility.
Penalty under the first type is one degree higher
when the victim is under 12 years of age.
Blindness under the second type must be of two
eyes. If there is loss of one eye only, the serious
physical injuries is of the second type.
Loss of power to hear under the second type must be
of both ears. If hearing in only one ear is lost, it falls
under the third type.
PAGE 178
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Loss of the use of hand, or incapacity for work under
the second type, must be permanent.
All the body parts mentioned in the second type are
principal members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.)
The third type covers any other part of the body
which is not a principal member of the body.
Deformity physical ugliness, permanent and
definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous and
visible.
Elements of deformity:
(a) physical ugliness,
(b) permanent and definite abnormality, and
(c) it must be conspicuous and visible. All these
elements must concur.
Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which
cannot be repaired by the action of nature. Loss of
both outer ears is a deformity. Loss of the lobule of
the ear is a deformity. Loss of index and middle
fingers only is either deformity or loss of a member,
not a principal one, of his body or use of the same.
Loss of power to hear of right ear only is loss of use
of other part of body.
Illness when the wound inflicted did not heal with a
certain period of time.
Note that under serious physical injuries of the fourth
type, illness or incapacity is required, NOT medical
attendance.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the work in which he
was theretofore habitually engaged
Must the injured party have an avocation at the time
at the time of the injury? YES, insofar as these two
paragraphs are concerned.
Incapacity therefore must related to a certain kind of
work only.
However, in paragraph 4, incapacity for any kind of
work is acceptable, because the phrase incapacity
for labor is used.
Injury requiring hospitalization for more than thirty
days is serious physical injuries under paragraph 4.
When the category of the offense of serious physical
injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity
for labor, there must be evidence of the length of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
that period; otherwise, the offense is only slight
physical injuries.
Lessening of efficiency due to injury is NOT
incapacity.
Distinguished from mutilation: In mutilation, the
body parts should have been purposely and
deliberately lopped or clipped off. This intention is
not present in serious physical injuries.
ARTICLE 264 - ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
OR BEVERAGES
Elements:
(1) Offender inflicted upon another any serious
physical injury;
(2) It was done by knowingly administering to him
any injurious substance or beverages or by
taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity;
(3) He had no intent to kill.
Physical Injuries vs. Attempted or Frustrated homicide
Physical Injuries Attempted or Frustrated
homicide
The offender inflicts Attempted homicide may
physical injuries. be committed, even if no
physical injuries are
inflicted.
Offender has no intent to The offender has an intent
kill the offended party to kill the offended party.
The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated
crime of physical injuries is because this felony is
defined by the gravity of the injury. It is a crime of
result. As long as there is no injury, there can be no
attempted or frustrated stage thereof.
Classification of physical injuries:
(1) Between less serious physical injuries and
serious physical injuries, you do not consider the
period of medical treatment. You only consider
the period when the offended party is rendered
incapacitated for labor.
(2) 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.
(3) Deformity requires the concurrence of the
following conditions:
(a) The injury must produce ugliness;
(b) It must be visible;
PAGE 179
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) The ugliness will not disappear through
natural healing process.
Illustration:
(1) Loss of molar tooth This is not deformity as it
is not visible.
(2) Loss of permanent front tooth This is
deformity as it is visible and permanent.
(3) Loss of milk front tooth This is not deformity as
it is visible but will be naturally replaced.
Serious physical injuries is punished with higher
penalties in the following cases:
(1) If it is committed against any of the persons
referred to in the crime of parricide under Article
246;
(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying murder
attended its commission.
See Special Law: RA 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)
See Special Law: RA 9745 (The Anti-Torture Law)
ARTICLE 265 - LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Elements:
(1) Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10
days or more (but not more than 30 days), or
needs medical attendance for the same period
of time;
(2) The physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.
Qualified as to penalty
(1) A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to
arresto mayor, when
(a) There is a manifest intent to insult or offend
the injured person; or
(b) There are circumstances adding ignominy
to the offense.
(2) A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is
either:
(a) The offenders parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers; or
(b) Persons of rank or person in authority,
provided the crime is not direct assault.
ARTICLE 266 - SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT
Mode 1. Physical injuries incapacitated the
offended party for labor from 1-9 days,
OR required medical attendance during
the same period;
Mode 2. Physical injuries which did not prevent
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

the offended party from engaging in his otherwise unconscious;

habitual work or which did not require (c) By means of fraudulent machination or
medical attendance; grave abuse of authority;
(d) When the woman is under 12 years of age
Mode 3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without (Statutory Rape) or is demented.
causing any injury.
Mode 2: Rape Through Sexual Assault
This involves even ill-treatment where there is no
sign of injury requiring medical treatment. Elements:
(1) Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment (2) The act of sexual assault is committed by any of
which is a form of slight physical injuries. the following means:
(a) By inserting his penis into another person's
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the mouth or anal orifice; or
person slapped, or to humiliate or embarrass the (b) By inserting any instrument or object into
offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is the genital or anal orifice of another person;
slander by deed. (3) The act of sexual assault is accomplished under
any of the following circumstances:
Between slight physical injuries and less serious (a) By using force or intimidation; or
physical injuries, not only the healing duration of the (b) When the woman is deprived of reason or
injury will be considered but also the medical otherwise unconscious; or
attendance required to treat the injury. (c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; or
So the healing duration may be one to nine days, but (d) When the woman is under 12 years of age or
if the medical treatment continues beyond nine days, demented.
the physical injuries would already qualify as less
serious physical injuries. Classification of rape
(1) Traditional Rape
The medical treatment may have lasted for nine (a) Offended party is always a woman
days, but if the offended party is still incapacitated (b) Offender is always a man.
for labor beyond nine days, the physical injuries are
already considered less serious physical injuries. (2) Sexual assault
(a) Rape can now be committed by a man or a
Where there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only woman, that is, if a woman or a man uses
slight physical injuries. an instrument on anal orifice of male, she or
he can be liable for rape.
In the absence of proof as to the period of the (b) Inserting a finger inside the genital of a
offended partys incapacity for labor or of the woman is rape through sexual assault
required medical attendance, the crime committed is within the context of object.
slight physical injuries.
Penalties
See Special Law: RA 7610 (Special Protection of Traditional Rape Sexual Assault
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and In general: Reclusion In general: Prision
Discrimination Act) perpetua mayor
(A) Committed:
ARTICLE 266-A - RAPE (AMENDED BY RA 8353) (1) with the use of a deadly weapon; or
Mode 1: Rape through sexual intercourse without (2) by 2 or more persons
consent of the woman: (Traditional Rape) Reclusion perpetua to Prision mayor to
death reclusion temporal
Elements: (B) Victim becomes insane by reason or on the
(1) Offender is a man; occasion of rape
(2) Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; Reclusion perpetua to Reclusion temporal
(3) Such act is accomplished under any of the death
following circumstances: (C) Rape is attempted & homicide is committed by
(a) By using force, threat or intimidation; reason or on the occasion thereof
(b) When the woman is deprived of reason or is Reclusion perpetua to Reclusion temporal to

PAGE 180
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

death reclusion perpetua

(D) Rape is consummated & homicide is committed by Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8353
reason or on the occasion thereof (a special complex
crime) parents, grandparents or
Death Reclusion perpetua guardian if the woman
Committed with any of the ff. aggravating was a minor or
circumstances: incapacitated
(1) On the VICTIM: Marriage of the victim w/ Marriage extinguishes
(a) victim is under 18 yrs. old, & the offender is a one of the offenders the penal action only as
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, benefits not only the to the principal (the
relative by consanguinity or affinity w/in the principal but also the person who married the
rd
3 civil degree, or the common law spouse accomplices and victim), and cannot be
of the parent of the victim accessories extended to co-
(b) victim is under the custody of the police / principals in case of
military authorities / law enforcement MULTIPLE RAPE
agency Marital rape NOT Marital rape recognized
(c) victim is a religious and such legitimate recognized
vocation is known by the offender before or
at the time of rape Complete penetration is NOT necessary. The
(d) victim is a child below 7 yrs. old slightest penetrationcontact with the labiawill
(e) victim suffered permanent or physical consummate the rape.
mutilation or disability by reason or on the
occasion of rape Rape must have specific intent or lewd design.

(2) On the OFFENDER: A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a

(a) Offender is afflicted with a sexually
transmissible disease & the virus / disease is
transmitted to the victim
(b) Offender is a member of the AFP / PNP /
any law enforcement agency / penal
institution, & took advantage of his position
(c) Offender knew of the pregnancy of the
offended party at the time of the
commission of rape
(d) Offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder, & / or physical handicap
of the offended party at the time of the
commission of rape
RD
(3) On 3 PERSONS: Rape is committed in full
view of the of the spouse, parent, any of the
rd
children, or other relatives w/in the 3 civil
degree of consanguinity
Old Anti-Rape Law vs. RA 8353
Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8353
knife on her neck. Only a portion of his penis entered
her vagina because the victim kept on struggling
until she was able to escape. The accused was
convicted of frustrated rape.
There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in
rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his
purpose, all the essential elements of the offense
have been accomplished. [People v. Orita]
The accused had his pants down and was on top of
the 4-year old child when the childs mother arrived.
Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury
and the victims hymen was intact.
For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the
vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external
layer of the vagina without the intent to enter the
same cannot be construed as slight penetration.

Crime against chastity Crime against persons Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE.
nd
May be committed by a Under the 2 type,
man against a woman sexual assault may be Conviction does not require a medico-legal finding of
only committed by ANY any penetration on the part of the woman.
PERSON against ANY
PERSON Force employed against the victim of the rape need
PRIVATE CRIME May be prosecuted even not be of such character as could be resisted. When
Complaint must be filed if the woman does not the offender has an ascendancy or influence over the
by the woman or her file a complaint girl, it is not necessary that she put up a determined

PAGE 181
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
resistance. A rape victim does not have the burden of
proving resistance.
Rape by means of fraudulent machinations and
grave abuse of authority absorbs the crime of
qualified and simple seduction.
Statutory Rape is the rape of a woman who is below
12 years of age. In statutory rape, the under twelve
years old victim is conclusively presumed incapable
of giving consent to sexual intercourse with another.
[People v. Negosa, GR No. 142856-57, Aug. 25, 2003]
Statutory rape is consummated when the victim is
below 12 yrs. old. Victims consent is immaterial.
Offenders knowledge of the victims age is
immaterial in statutory rape.
Carnal knowledge of a child below 12 yrs. old even if
she is engaged in prostitution is still considered
statutory rape. [People v. Campuhan]
A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the
intellectual capacity of a 9, was repeatedly raped by
the accused.
The accused was found guilty of raping a woman
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, and
was also held liable for rape under the provision that
pertains to a victim under 12 notwithstanding the
victims actual age.
Age requirement was subsequently amended to refer
also to mental age.
Incestuous rape refers to rape committed by an
ascendant of the offended woman. [People v. Atento]
Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape
with the penalty of death.
The information filed against him does not allege his
relationship with the victim, his daughter, thus, it
CANNOT be considered as a qualifying
circumstance. Special qualifying circumstances have
to be alleged in the information for it to be
appreciated.
The case was reopened and the judgment is
modified from death to reclusion perpetua. [People v.
Gallo]
A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law. To
effectively prosecute the accused for the crime of
rd
rape committed by a relative by affinity w/in the 3
civil degree, it must be established that:
PAGE 182
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) the accused is legally married to the victims
sister; and
(2) the victim and the accuseds wife are full or half-
blood siblings.
Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape, there
must be clearer proof of relationship and in this case,
it was not adequately substantiated. [People v.
Berana]
Unconscious or Deprived of Reason
Deprived or reason or unconscious mean that the
victim has no will to give consent intelligently and
freely. The inquiry should likewise determine whether
the victim was fully informed of all considerations so
as to make a free and informed decision regarding
the grant of consent.
Whether the complaint stated that the victim was
fast asleep or half-asleep or drowsy or semi-
conscious is not determinative of the crime of rape.
For he who lies with a woman while the latter is in a
state of being drowsy is guilty of rape. Drowsiness is
defined as the state of being drowsy, i.e., ready to fall
asleep or half-asleep. [People v. Siarza, Jr., GR No. L-
117682, Aug. 18, 1997]
Rape through Sexual Assault
The insertion of appellants fingers constituted
consummated rape through sexual assault under RA
8353. The contact of the males penis with the
womans vagina is referred to as rape with sexual
intercourse, while the sexual abuse under par.2 of
Art.266-A, RPC is categorized as rape through
sexual assault. In People vs. Soriano [G.R. Nos
142779-95, 388 SCRA 140], it was ruled that the
appellant is guilty of Rape through Sexual Assault
when he inserted his finger into the vagina of the
victim. [People v. Palma, GR No. 148869-74, Dec. 11,
2003]
Insertion of penis into the mouth of a 10-year old boy
is Rape by Sexual Assault punished under par.2,
Article 266-A, RPC. [Ordinario v. People, et al., GR No.
155415, May 20, 2004]
Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of
rape:
(1) Any physical overt act manifesting resistance
against the act of rape in any degree from the
offended party; or
(2) Where the offended party is so situated as to
render him/her incapable of giving his consent
Rape shield rule: Character of the offended woman is
immaterial in rape.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole
testimony of the offended woman.
When several persons conspired to rape a single
victim, each shall be liable for the rape committed
personally by him, as well as those committed by the
others.
An accused may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a
woman, provided, a man is charged together with
her.
What Determines the Number of Times the Victim
was Raped?
Appellant ejaculated twice during the time that he
consummated the rape. Appellant did not withdraw
his penis to insert it again into the vagina or to touch
the labia majora and the labia minora when he
ejaculated the second time. It is not the number of
times that appellant ejaculated but the penetration
or touching that determines the consummation of
the sexual act. Thus appellant committed only one
count of rape.[People v. Ferrer, GR No. 142662, Aug.
14, 2001; People v. Orilla, GR No. 148939-40, Feb. 13,
2004]
Effect of Pardon
(1) Subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
(2) When the legal husband is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty, provided that their
marriage is NOT VOID ab initio.
Jurisprudence on TITLE EIGHT:
Frustrated Homicide
By invoking self-defense, accused, in fact, admitted
that he inflicted injuries on the victim. The burden of
proving with clear and convincing evidence the
justifying circumstances to exculpate him from
criminal liability was thereby shifted to him. [De Leon
v. People (2007)]
Homicide
Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix
wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial
court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which
proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in
PAGE 183
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
issue may be established by inference. At times,
resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since
to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases,
result in setting felons free and deny proper
protection to the community.
All the circumstances must be consistent with one
another, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent
with the hypothesis that he is innocent.
Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can be upheld, provided that the circumstances
proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person. [Salvador v. People (2008)]
Murder
Murder is committed by any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), kills another, if the killing is
committed with treachery.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to himself.
The killing occurred at around two oclock in the
morning, an hour when generally people are asleep
and the victim was shot at the back. [People v. Bohol
(2008)]
Qualified Rape
There is qualified rape when the facts alleged in the
Information and the facts proven in court establish
the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship. [People v. Abellano (2007)]
A stepfather, who exercises moral and physical
ascendancy over his stepdaughter, need not make
any threat against her because the latter is cowed
into submission when gripped with the fear of
refusing the advances of a person she customarily
obeys.
Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room
adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping, or
even in a room shared with other people. There is no
rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.
[People v. Glivano (2008)]
Rape
Physical resistance need not be established in rape
when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
submits against her will to the rapists lust because
of fear for her life or personal safety.
The force, violence or intimidation in rape is a relative
term, depending not only on the age, size, and
strength of the parties but also on their relationship
with each other. Because of the victims
youthfulness, coupled with the fact that the assailant
is her stepfather, it was easy for her to believe that
appellant would make good his threat to kill her
should she resist. [People v. Tuazon (2007)]
Rape
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states
the elements of the offense and the acts or
omissions constitutive thereof.
The precise time or date of the commission of an
offense need not be alleged in the complaint or
information, unless it is an essential element of the
crime charged. In rape, it is not.
The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the
precise time when the rape takes place has no
substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the
date or time need not be stated with absolute
accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or
information states that the crime has been
committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission. [People v. Domingo
(2007)]
Rape BY a Minor
The accused at the time of the commission of the
offense was only 13 years old and it occurred prior to
RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006.
The subsequently enacted law should be construed
to retroact in favor of the accused. While the latter is
now 25 years old as of this decision, he is still
exculpated from criminal liability.
However, RA 9344 does not relieve the minor of civil
liability arising from the offense. [Ortega v. People
(2008)]
See Also:
(1) RA 9262: Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children
(2) RA 9775: Anti-Child Pornography Law
(3) RA 8049: Anti-Hazing Law
(4) RA 7610: Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse
(5) RA 9344: Juvenile Justice and Welfare act
(6) PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code
PAGE 184
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(7) RA 9372: Human Security Act
Title IX. Crimes against
Personal Liberty and Security
Chapter I: Crimes against Liberty
(1) Article 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention
(2) Article 268 - Slight Illegal Detention
(3) Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest
(4) Article 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to Return a
Minor
(5) Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon His
Home
(6) Article 272 Slavery
(7) Article 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor
(8) Article 274 - Services Rendered Under
Compulsion in Payment of Debt
Chapter II: Crimes against Security
(1) Article 275 - Abandonment of Persons in Danger
and Abandonment of Own Victim
(2) Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor
(3) Article 277 - Abandonment of Minor by Person
Entrusted With Custody; Indifference of Parents
(4) Article 278 - Exploitation of Minors
(5) Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
(6) Article 281 - Other Forms of Trespass
(7) Article 282 - Grave Threats
(8) Article 283 - Light Threats
(9) Article 284 - Bond for Good Behavior
(10) Article 285 - Other Light Threats
(11) Article 286 - Grave Coercions
(12) Article 287 - Light Coercions
(13) Article 288 - Other Similar Coercions
(14) Article 289 - Formation, Maintenance, and
Prohibition of Combination of Capital or Labor
through Violence or Threats
Chapter III: Discovery and Revelation of Secrets
(1) Article 290 - Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence
(2) Article 291 - Revealing Secrets with Abuse of
Office
(3) Article 292 - Revelation of Industrial Secrets
CHAPTER I CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
ARTICLE 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
Elements: (PICK)
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
(3) The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
(4) In the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present:
(a) The kidnapping lasts for more than 3
days;
(b) it is committed simulating public
authority;
(c) Any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are
made; or
(d) The person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.
The essential element of kidnapping is the
deprivation of the offended partys liberty under any
of the four instances enumerated. But when the
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom, it is not necessary that one or any
of circumstances enumerated be present.
2
Qualifying Circumstances: (r kt)
(1) Purpose is to extort ransom.
(2) When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention.
(3) When the victim is raped.
(4) When victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts.
The offenders here are private individuals or public
officers acting in their private capacity. If they are
public officers, they are covered by the crimes under
Title 2.
When a public officer conspires with a private person
in the commission of any of the crimes under Title IX,
the crime is also one committed under this title and
not under Title II.
The purpose is immaterial when any of the
circumstances in the first paragraph of Art. 267 is
present.
Definition of ransom: It is the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
captured person or persons, a payment that releases
a person from captivity.
When the kidnapping was done to extort ransom, it
is not necessary that one or any of circumstances
enumerated be present.
PAGE 185
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Actual demand for ransom not necessary, as long as
it can be proven that the kidnapping was done for
the purpose of extorting money.
In the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom, ransom
means money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person
that would release him from captivity. No specific
form of ransom is required to consummate the
felony as long as the ransom was intended as a
bargaining chip in exchange for the victims freedom.
Whether or not ransom is actually paid to or received
by the perpetrator is of no moment. [People v.
Jatulan, GR No. 171653, April 24, 2007]
Essential: There be actual confinement or restriction
of the person of the offended party. It is not
necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure,
as long as he is deprived, in any manner, of his
liberty.
It suffices that there be actual or manifest restraint
on the person or liberty of the victim. Accused were
guilty of kidnapping although the victim was found,
at the time of her rescue, outside of the house where
she was brought, talking to the house owner who
was the uncle of the accused. Her failure to attempt
to escape was explained by her to be due to her fear
and threats of the accused to kill her should she do
so. In kidnapping, it is not necessary that the
offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict
her freedom of locomotion. [People v. Cortez, et al.,
GR No. 131619-20, Feb 1, 2000]
The victims lack of consent is also a fundamental
element of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
The involuntariness of the seizure and detention is
the very essence of the crime. Although the victim
may have inceptually consented to go with the
offender to a place, but the victim is thereafter
prevented, with the use of force, from leaving the
place where he was brought to with his consent and
is detained against his will, the offender is still guilty
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. [People
v. Pickrell, GR No. 120409, Oct. 23, 2003]
When detention is illegal: It is not ordered by
competent authority nor permitted by law.
Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder:
When the victim dies or is killed as a consequence of
the detention, which is covered by the last paragraph
of Art. 267 as amended.
Forcible abduction: If a woman is transported from
one place to another by virtue of restraining her of
her liberty, and that act is coupled with lewd designs.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Serious illegal detention: If a woman is transported
just to restrain her of her liberty. There is no lewd
design or lewd intent.
Grave coercion: If a woman is carried away just to
break her will, to compel her to agree to the demand
or request by the offender.
Illegal detention Arbitrary detention
Committed by a private Committed by public
individual who unlawfully officer or employee who
deprives a person of his detains a person without
liberty legal ground
Crime against personal Crime against the
liberty fundamental laws of the
State
Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot
be inferred that the latters purpose was to actually
detain or deprive the victim of his liberty, the
subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute
the crime of kidnapping. The demand for ransom did
not convert the crime into kidnapping, since no
deprivation of liberty was involved. [People v Padica
(1993)]
The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victims liberty coupled with the intent of the
accused to effect it. [People v Luartes (1999)]
The duration of the detention even if only for a few
hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. [People v Pavillare (2000)]
Physical detention is not necessary. It is enough that
the victim is under the complete control of the
perpetrators as in this case when the Japanese victim
had to rely on his abductors for survival after he was
tricked into believing that the police was after him.
It was also held in this case that keeping a person as
collateral for payment of an obligation is kidnapping.
[People v. Tomio]
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act (R.A.) 7659 warranting the imposition
of the death penalty, are as follows:
(1) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the
victim of his liberty;
(2) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and
(3) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom
for the release of the victim.
PAGE 186
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is
necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is
sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for
extorting ransom even if none of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present
in its perpetration. [People v. Cenahonon (2007)]
Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No.
7659 (AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR
THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS
AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES) in the following respects:
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it shall
have lasted for more than three days, instead of
five days as originally provided;
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or
detained was a minor and the offender was
anyone of the parents, the latter has been
expressly excluded from the provision. The
liability of the parent is provided for in the last
paragraph of Article 271;
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267, which
states: 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.
(4) The amendment introduced in our criminal
statutes the concept of "special complex crime"
of kidnapping with murder or homicide.
(5) It 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.
ARTICLE 268 - SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
Elements: (PrIKO)
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprives him of his liberty.
(3) The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;
(4) The crime is committed without the attendance
of any of the circumstances enumerated in
Article 267.
This felony is committed if any of the five
circumstances in the commission of kidnapping or
detention enumerated in Article 267 is not present.
The penalty is lowered if:
(1) The offended party is voluntarily released within
three days from the start of illegal detention;
(2) Without attaining the purpose;
(3) Before the institution of the criminal action.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which
provides that voluntary release will only mitigate
criminal liability if crime was slight illegal detention.
If serious, it has no effect.
The liability of one who furnishes the place where the
offended party is being held captive is that of a
principal and not of an accomplice.
ARTICLE 269 - UNLAWFUL ARREST
Elements: (ADU)
(1) Offender arrests or detains another person;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to
the proper authorities;
(3) The arrest or detention is not authorized by law
or there is no reasonable ground therefor.
(unauthorized).
This felony consists in making an arrest or detention
without legal or reasonable ground for the purpose
of delivering the offended party to the proper
authorities.
Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating
innocent persons by the offenders planting evidence
to justify the arrest a complex crime results, that is,
unlawful arrest through incriminatory machinations
under Article 363.
If the arrest is made without a warrant and under
circumstances not allowing a warrantless arrest, the
crime would be unlawful arrest.
If the person arrested is not delivered to the
authorities, the private individual making the arrest
incurs criminal liability for illegal detention under
Article 267 or 268.
If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary
detention under Article 124.
If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, but the
public officer delays delivery of the person arrested
to the proper judicial authorities, then Article 125 will
apply.
Note: This felony may also be committed by public
officers.
Unlawful Arrest vs. Delay in the Delivery of Detained
Persons
Delay in The Delivery of Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)
Detained Persons (Art. 125)
Detention is for some Detention is not
legal ground. authorized by law.
PAGE 187
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Delay in The Delivery of Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)
Detained Persons (Art. 125)
Crime is committed by Committed by making an
failing to deliver such arrest not authorized by
person to the proper law
judicial authority within a
certain period.
ARTICLE 270 - KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
MINOR
Elements: (EF)
(1) Offender is entrusted with the custody of a
minor person (whether over or under seven
years but less than 18 years of age)
(2) He deliberately fails to restore the said
minor to his parents or guardians
If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the
kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Article
267.
The essential element which qualifies the crime of
kidnapping a minor under Art. 270 is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor.
If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does
not apply; Articles 270 and 271 apply.
If the taking is with the consent of the parents, the
crime in Article 270 is committed.
What is punished is the deliberate failure of the
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians.
The deliberate failure to return a minor under ones
custody constitutes deprivation of liberty.
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
necessarily included in kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of a minor under Article 267(4). [People v.
Generosa]
Where a minor child was taken by the accused
without the knowledge and consent of his parents,
the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
under Article 267, not kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Article 270. [People v. Mendoza]
Art. 270 distinguished from Art. 267
Art. 270 Art. 267
Offender is entrusted The offender is not
with the custody of the entrusted with the
minor custody of the minor.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 271 - INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME
Elements: (LI)
(1) A minor (whether over or under seven years
of age) is living in the home of his parents or
guardians or the person entrusted with his
custody;
(2) Offender induces said minor to abandon
such home.
Inducement must be (a) actual, and (b) committed
with criminal intent
The minor should not leave his home of his own free
will.
What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a
minor to abandon his home of his guardian, and it is
not necessary that the minor actually abandons the
home.
Father or mother may commit the crimes in Art. 170
and 171 where they are living separately and the
custody of the minor children is given to one of them.
ARTICLE 272 - SLAVERY
Elements: (PE)
(1) Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a
human being;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to enslave such
human being.
This is committed if anyone shall purchase, kidnap,
or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving
him.
The penalty is increased if the purpose of the
offender is to assign the offended party to some
immoral traffic.
If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is to
enslave the offended party, slavery is committed.
The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in
the business of prostitution. If he is, the crime is
white slave trade under Article 341.
The employment or custody of a minor with the
consent of the parent or guardian, although against
the childs own will, cannot be considered
involuntary servitude.
But where is proven that the defendant was obliged
to render service in plaintiffs house as a servant
PAGE 188
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
without remuneration whatever and to remain there
so long as she has not paid her debt, there is slavery.
See Special Law: RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking of
Person Act of 2003)
ARTICLE 273 - EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
Elements: (RARage)
(1) Offender retains a minor in his services;
(2) It is against the will of the minor;
(3) It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of
a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the custody of such
minor.
The existence of indebtedness constitutes no legal
justification for holding a person and depriving him
of his freedom to live where he wills.
ARTICLE 274 - SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION
IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Elements: (CAP)
(1) Offender compels a debtor to work for him,
either as a household servant or farm laborer;
(2) It is against the debtors will;
(3) The purpose is to require or enforce the payment
of a debt.
See Special Law: RA 9231 (Anti-Child Labor Act of
2003)
Service under Compulsion distinguished from
Exploitation of Child Labor
Service under Compulsion Exploitation of Child
Labor
Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor
whether the victim is a
minor or not
The debtor himself is the The minor is compelled
one compelled to work to render services for the
for the offender supposed debt of his
parents or guardian
Limited to household Service is not limited
work or farm labor
CHAPTER II: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
ARTICLE 275 - ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF OWN VICTIM
MODE 1: Failing to render assistance to any person
whom the offender finds 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.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

The ruling that the intent to kill is presumed from the

Elements: (UWOF) death of the victim of the crime is applicable only to
(1) The place is not inhabited; crimes against persons, and not to crimes against
(2) Accused found there a person wounded or in security, particularly the crime of abandoning a
danger of dying; minor under Art. 276.
(3) Accused can render assistance without
ARTICLE 277 - ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
detriment to himself;
ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
(4) Accused fails to render assistance.
MODE 1: Delivering a minor to a public institution
MODE 2: Failing to help or render assistance to or other persons without the consent of
another whom the offender has the one who entrusted such minor to the
accidentally wounded or injured; (FA) care of the offender or, in the absence of
that one, without the consent of the
MODE 3: By failing to deliver a child, under seven proper authorities;
years of age, whom the offender has Elements:
found abandoned, to the authorities or to (1) Offender has charge of the rearing or education
his family, or by failing to deliver him to a of a minor;
safe place. (SAD). (2) He delivers said minor to a public institution or
other persons;
Does not apply: When a person intentionally wounds (3) The one who entrusted such child to the
another and leaves him in an uninhabited place. offender has not consented to such act; or if the
one who entrusted such child to the offender is
Immaterial: That the offender did not know that the absent, the proper authorities have not
child is under seven years. consented to it.

ARTICLE 276 - ABANDONING A MINOR MODE 2. Neglecting his (offenders) children by

Elements: (SCAN) not giving them the education which
(1) Offender has the custody of a child; their station in life requires and
(2) The child is under seven years of age; financial condition permits.
(3) He abandons such child;
(4) He has no intent to kill the child when the latter Elements:
is abandoned. (1) Offender is a parent;
(2) He neglects his children by not giving them
education;
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
(3) His station in life requires such education and
(1) When the death of the minor resulted from such
his financial condition permits it.
abandonment; or
(2) If the life of the minor was in danger because of
the abandonment. Obligation to educate children terminates, if the
mother and children refuse without good reason to
The purpose in abandoning the minor under his live with the accused.
custody is to avoid the obligation of taking care of
said minor. Failure to give education must be due to deliberate
desire to evade such obligation. If the parents cannot
A permanent, conscious and deliberate give education because they had no means to do so,
abandonment is required in this article. There must then they will not be liable under this article.
be an interruption of the care and protection the
ARTICLE 278 - EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
minor needs by reason of his age.
Mode 1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of
Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death of age to perform any dangerous feat of
the child. balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any person;
When there is intent to kill, this article does not
apply. The purpose in abandoning the minor must be Mode 2. Employing children under 16 years of age
to avoid the obligation of taking care of said minor who are not the children or descendants
of the offender in exhibitions of acrobat,
gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-

PAGE 189
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
animal tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;
Mode 3. Employing any descendant under 12
years of age in dangerous exhibitions
enumerated in the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being engaged in
any of the said callings;
Mode 4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
gratuitously to any person following any
of the callings enumerated in paragraph
2, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar,
the offender being an ascendant,
guardian, teacher or person entrusted in
any capacity with the care of such child;
Mode 5. Inducing any child under 16 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 or to
accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any person.
Circumstance qualifying the offense:
(1) If the delivery of the child to any person
following any of the calling of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus
manager or to any habitual vagrant or beggar is
made in consideration of any price,
compensation or promise, the penalty is higher.
(2) The offender is engaged in a kind of business
that would place the life or limb of the minor in
danger, even though working for him is not
against the will of the minor.
Nature of the Business: this involves circuses which
generally attract children so they themselves may
enjoy working there unaware of the danger to their
own lives and limbs.
Age: Must be below 16 years. Article 278 has no
application if minor is 16 years old and above, but the
exploitation will be dealt with by RA 7610.
If the employer is an ascendant, the crime is not
committed, unless the minor is less than 12 years
old.
If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries
as a result of a violation of Article 278, Article 279
provides that there would be additional criminal
liability for the resulting felony.
PAGE 190
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 280 - QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Elements (PrEA)
(1) Offender is a private person;
(2) He enters the dwelling of another;
(3) Such entrance is against the latters will.
DWELLING: This is the place that a person inhabits.
It includes the dependencies which have interior
communication with the house.
It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling
of the person; hence, a persons room in a hotel may
be considered a dwelling.
It also includes a room where one resides as a
boarder.
If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown,
trespass 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 whom
he subsequently injured if there was a struggle, the
crime committed will be trespass to dwelling and
frustrated homicide or physical injuries, or if there
was no injury, unjust vexation.
If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry
that is presumed to be against the will of the
occupant (example, entry through a window).
It is not necessary that there be a breaking.
Against the will: This means that the entrance is,
either expressly or impliedly, prohibited or the
prohibition is presumed.
Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass. The
prohibition to enter may be made at any time and
not necessarily at the time of the entrance.
To prove that an entry is against the will of the
occupant, it is not necessary that the entry should be
preceded by an express prohibition, provided that
the opposition of the occupant is clearly established
by the circumstances under which the entry is made,
such as the existence of enmity or strained relations
between the accused and the occupant.
Offender is public officer: crime is violation of domicile.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Qualified Trespass to
No overt act of the crime intended to be committed: Other Forms of Trespass
Dwelling
Crime is trespass to dwelling. (Art. 281)
(Art. 280)

Examples of trespass by means of violence: the owner or caretaker

(1) Pushing the door violently and maltreating the thereof
occupants after entering. Prohibition to enter is Prohibition to enter must
(2) Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the door express or implied be manifest
latch of a closed room was fastened. The cutting
of the fastenings of the door was an act of ARTICLE 282 - GRAVE THREATS
violence.
(3) Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of the Mode 1. Threatening another with the infliction
house immediately after entrance upon his person, honor or property or
that of this family of any wrong
Examples of trespass by means of intimidation: amounting to a crime and demanding
(1) Firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting money or imposing any other condition,
to force their way into a house. even though not unlawful, and the
(2) The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of the offender attained his purpose;
house upon gaining an entrance
Elements:
In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact or (1) That the offender threatens another person with
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the infliction upon the latters person, honor or
the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is violation property, or upon that of the latters family, of
of possession or the fact of having caused injury to any wrong.
the right of the possession. [Marzalado v. People] (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
ARTICLE 281 - OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS unlawful.
(4) That the offender attains his purpose.
Elements:
(1) Offender enters the closed premises or the Mode 2. Making such threat without the offender
fenced estate of another; attaining his purpose;
(2) The entrance is made while either of them is
uninhabited; Mode 3. Threatening another with the infliction
(3) The prohibition to enter is manifest; upon his person, honor or property or
(4) The trespasser has not secured the permission that of his family of any wrong
of the owner or the caretaker thereof. amounting to a crime, the threat not
being subject to a condition.
Premises: signifies distinct and definite locality. It
may mean a room, shop, building or definite area, Elements:
but in either case, locality is fixed. (1) That the offender threatens another person with
the infliction upon the latters person, honor or
Qualified Trespass vs. Other Forms of Trespass property, or upon that of the latters family, of
Qualified Trespass to any wrong.
Other Forms of Trespass
Dwelling (2) That such wrong amounts to a crime.
(Art. 281)
(Art. 280) (3) That the threat is not subject to a condition.
Offender is a private The offender is any person
person Qualifying Circumstance: If threat was made
(1) in writing OR
Offender enters a Offender enters closed (2) through a middleman.
dwelling premises or fenced estate
Place entered is inhabited Place entered is It is essential that there be intimidation.
uninhabited
It is not necessary that the offended party was
Act constituting the crime It is the entering the present at the time the threats were made. It is
is entering the dwelling closed premises or the sufficient that the threats came to his knowledge.
against the will of the fenced estate without
owner securing the permission of

PAGE 191
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

When consummated: As soon as the threats came to

the knowledge of the offended party.

As the crime consists in threatening another with ARTICLE 284 - BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
some future harm, it is not necessary that the When a person is required to give bail bond:
offended party was present at the time the threats (1) When he threatens another under the
were made. It is sufficient that the threats, came to circumstances mentioned in Art. 282.
the knowledge of the offended party. (2) When he threatens another under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 283.
The crime of grave threats is consummated as soon
as the threats come to the knowledge of the person Bond for Good Behavior distinguished from Bond to
threatened. Keep the Peace
Threats made in connection with the commission of Bond for Good Behavior Bond to Keep the Peace
other crimes are absorbed by the latter.
Applicable only to grave Not made applicable to
threats and light threats any particular case
The offender in grave threats does not demand the
delivery on the spot of the money or other personal If offender fails to give If the offender fails to give
property demanded by him. When threats are made bail, he shall be bond, he shall be
and money is taken on the spot, the crime may be sentenced to destierro detained for a period not
robbery with intimidation. exceeding 6 months (if
prosecuted for grave/less
The penalties for the first two types of grave threats grave felony) or not
depend upon the penalties for the crimes threatened exceeding 30 days (light
to be committed. One degree lower if the purpose is felony)
attained and two degrees lower if the purpose is not NOT a distinct penalty A distinct penalty
attained.
ARTICLE 285 OTHER LIGHT THREATS
If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty
is fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Mode 1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
500 pesos. drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless
it be in lawful self-defense;
In the first two types, if the threat is made in writing
or thorough a middleman, the penalty is to be Mode 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of
imposed in its maximum period. anger, with some harm constituting a
crime, without persisting in the idea
The third type of grave threats must be serious and involved in his threat;
deliberate; the offender must persist in the idea
involved in his threats. The threat should not be Mode 3. Orally threatening to do another any
made in the heat of anger, because such is punished harm not constituting a felony.
under Article 285.If the condition is not proved, it is
grave threats of the third type. Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the
offender must show that he did not persist in the
ARTICLE 283 - LIGHT THREATS idea involved in the threat.
Elements:
(1) Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong; Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made in
(2) The wrong does not constitute a crime; the heat of anger, may be other light threats.
(3) There is a demand for money or that other
condition is imposed, even though not unlawful; If the threats are directed to a person who is absent
(4) Offender has attained his purpose or, that he and uttered in a temporary fit of anger, the offense is
has not attained his purpose. only other light threats.

ARTICLE 286 - GRAVE COERCIONS

The harm threatened must not be in the nature of
crime and there is a demand for money or any other Mode 1. Preventing another, by means of
condition is imposed, even though lawful. violence, threats or intimidation, from
doing something not prohibited by law;
Blackmailing may be punished under this article.

PAGE 192
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Mode 2. Compelling another, by means of
violence, threats or intimidation, to do
something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
Elements:
(1) 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) The prevention or compulsion be effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and
(3) 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.
Purpose of the Law: To enforce the principle that no
person may take the law into his hands, and that our
government is one of law, not of men.
Arises only if the act which the offender prevented
another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance.
If a person prohibits another to do an act because
the act is a crime, even though some sort of violence
or intimidation is employed, it would not give rise to
grave coercion. It may only give rise to threat or
physical injuries, if some injuries are inflicted.
In case of grave coercion where the offended party is
being compelled to do something against his will,
whether it be wrong or not, the crime of grave
coercion is committed if violence or intimidation is
employed in order to compel him to do the act.
A public officer who shall prevent by means of
violence or threats the ceremonies or manifestations
of any religion is guilty of interruption of religious
worship (Art. 132).
Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of a
legislative body is liable under Art. 143.
Any person who shall use force or intimidation to
prevent any member of Congress from attending the
meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or casting
his vote is liable under Art. 145.
The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is
employed to seize anything belonging to the debtor
of the offender. It is light coercion under Art. 287.
The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent
danger and the threatened damage, compared to
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the damage arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater. (Art. 432, Civil Code)
Neither the crime of threats nor coercion is
committed although the accused, a branch manager
of a bank made the complainant sign a withdrawal
slip for the amount needed to pay the spurious dollar
check she had encashed, and also made her execute
an affidavit regarding the return of the amount
against her better sense and judgment. The
complainant may have acted reluctantly and with
hesitation, but still, it was voluntary. [Lee v. CA]
ARTICLE 287 - LIGHT COERCIONS
Elements:
(1) Offender must be a creditor;
(2) He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
(3) The seizure of the thing be accomplished by
means of violence or a display of material force
producing intimidation;
(4) The purpose of the offender is to apply the same
to the payment of the debt.
Deals with light coercions wherein violence is
employed by the offender who is a creditor in seizing
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt.
Unjust Vexation: Any act committed without violence,
but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent
person amounts to light coercion. It should include
any human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm would, however,
unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.
Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave coercion
by the absence of violence.
ARTICLE 288 - OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS
Mode 1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permitting the forcing or
compelling of the laborer or employee of
the offender to purchase merchandise of
commodities of any kind from him;
Elements:
(1) Offender is any person, agent or officer of any
association or corporation;
(2) He or such firm or corporation has employed
laborers or employees;
(3) He forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits to be forced or compelled,
any of his or its laborers or employees to
purchase merchandise or commodities of any
kind from him or from said firm or corporation.
PAGE 193
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Mode 2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee
by means of tokens or object other than
the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by
such laborer or employee.
Elements:
(1) Offender pays the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him by means of tokens
or object;
(2) Those tokens or objects are other than the legal
tender currency of the Philippines;
(3) Such employee or laborer does not expressly
request that he be paid by means of tokens or
objects.
General rule: wages shall be paid in legal tender and
the use of tokens, promissory notes, vouchers,
coupons or any other forms alleged to represent
legal tender is absolutely prohibited even when
expressly requested by the employee. (Section 1, Rule
VIII, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code)
No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere with
the freedom of any employee to dispose of his
wages. He shall not in any manner force, compel,
oblige his employees to purchase merchandise,
commodities or other property from the employer or
from any other person. (Art. 112, Labor Code.)
ARTICLE 289 - FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
Elements:
(1) 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) The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent
coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or
lockout of employers.
Repealed by the Labor Code.
CHAPTER III: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS
ARTICLE 290 - DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE
OF CORRESPONDENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a private individual or even a public
officer not in the exercise of his official function;
(2) He seizes the papers or letters of another;
(3) The purpose is to discover the secrets of such
another person;
PAGE 194
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(4) Offender is informed of the contents of the
papers or letters seized.
This is a crime against the security of ones papers
and effects. The purpose must be to discover its
effects. The act violates the privacy of
communication.
The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes
the provision of the first and second paragraph
thereof inapplicable to parents, guardians, or
persons entrusted with the custody of minors placed
under their care or custody, and to the spouses with
respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
The teachers or other persons entrusted with the
care and education of minors are included in the
exceptions.
Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and
unjust vexation:
(1) If the act had been executed with intent of gain,
it would be estafa;
(2) If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to
defraud, but only to cause damage to anothers,
it would merit the qualification of damage to
property;
(3) If the intention was merely to cause vexation
preventing another to do something which the
law does not prohibit or compel him to execute
what he does not want, the act should be
considered as unjust vexation.
Relevant Special Penal Law: RA 4200 (ANTI WIRE
TAPPING ACT)
ARTICLE 291 - REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF
OFFICE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a manager, employee or servant;
(2) He learns the secrets of his principal or master in
such capacity;
(3) He reveals such secrets.
An employee, manager, or servant who came to
know of the secret of his master or principal in such
capacity and reveals the same shall also be liable
regardless of whether or not the principal or master
suffered damages.
Essence of this crime is that the offender learned of
the secret in the course of his employment.
He is enjoying a confidential relation with the
employer or master so he should respect the privacy
of matters personal to the latter.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the matter pertains to the business of the employer
or master, damage is necessary and the agent,
employee or servant shall always be liable.
Reason: no one has a right to the personal privacy of
another.
ARTICLE 292 - REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a person in charge, employee or
workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
(2) The manufacturing or industrial establishment
has a secret of the industry which the offender
has learned;
(3) Offender reveals such secrets;
(4) Prejudice is caused to the owner.
Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.
The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret
of the industry which the offender has learned.
The revelation of the secret might be made after the
employee or workman had ceased to be connected
with the establishment.
Prejudice is an element of the offense.
Title X. Crimes against
Property
Chapter I: Robbery in General
(1) Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery
(2) Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation of
Persons
(3) Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries, in
an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
(4) Article 296 - Definition of a Band and Penalty
Incurred by the Members Thereof
(5) Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated Robbery
with Homicide
(6) Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through
Violence or Intimidation
(7) Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House or
Public Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship
(8) Article 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited Place
and by a Band
(9) Article 302 -In an Uninhabited Place or Private
Building
PAGE 195
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(10) Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or
Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private
Building
(11) Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or Similar
Tools
(12) Article 305 - Defines False Keys
Chapter 2: Brigandage
(1) Article 306 - Who Are Brigands
(2) Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of
Brigands
Chapter 3: Theft
(1) Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft
(2) Article 309 Penalties
(3) Article 310 - Qualified Theft
(4) Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the National
Library and National Museum
Chapter 4: Usurpation
(1) Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
(2) Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks
Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency
(1) Article 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency
Chapter 6: Swindling
(1) Article 315 Estafa
(2) Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling
(3) Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
(4) Article 318 - Other Deceits
Chapter 7: Chattel mortgage
(1) Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of
Mortgaged Property
Chapter 8: Arson and other Crimes involving
Destruction
Chapter 9: Malicious mischief
(1) Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
(2) Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious Mischief
(3) Article 329 - Other Mischiefs
(4) Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to Means
of Communication
(5) Article 331 - Destroying or Damaging Statues,
Public Monuments or Paintings
Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability
(1) Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal Liability
in Crimes Against Property.
CHAPTER I: ROBBERY IN GENERAL
ARTICLE 293 - WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
Elements of Robbery in General: (PAUI, V/I/F)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(1) Personal property intimidation only offenders carry arms;

(2) Belonging to another
(3) There be Unlawful taking
(4) With Intent to gain
(5) Violence against or intimidation of any person
OR force upon anything ARTICLE 294 - WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION OF
PERSONS
The property taken must be personal, if real
property/right is usurped the crime is usurpation Acts punished under:
(Art. 312). (1) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
Homicide is committed. (Robbery with
Prohibitive articles may be the subject of robbery, Homicide)
e.g., opium (2) When the robbery is accompanied by Rape or
Intentional Mutilation or Arson. (Robbery with
From the moment the offender gains possession of Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,
the object, even without the chance to dispose of the Robbery with Arson)
same, the unlawful taking is complete. (3) When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the Physical Injuries resulting in insanity,
Taking: depriving the offended party of possession imbecility, impotency, or blindness is inflicted.
of the thing taken with the character of permanency. (4) When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any
of the Physical Injuries resulting in the loss of the
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking. use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or
It cannot be established by direct evidence, except in the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg
case of confession. or the loss of the use of any such member, or
incapacity for the work in which the injured
It is not necessary that violence or intimidation is person is theretofore habitually engaged is
present from the beginning. The violence or inflicted.
intimidation at any time before asportation is (5) If the Violence or Intimidation employed in the
complete, the taking of property is qualified to commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
robbery. clearly Unnecessary for the commission of the
crime.
Violence against or Use of force upon things (6) When in the course of its execution, the offender
intimidation of person shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
The taking is
always The taking is robbery only any of the Physical Injuries in consequence of
robbery. if force is used to: which the person injured becomes deformed or
(1) enter the building loses any other member of his body or loses the
VALUE OF THE (2) break doors, use thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the
PROPERTY TAKEN IS wardrobes, chests, or any performance of the work in which he is habitually
IMMATERIAL. other kind of locked or engaged for labor for more than 30 days
sealed furniture or (7) If the violence employed by the offender does
receptacle inside the not cause any of the serious physical injuries
building; OR defined in Art. 263, or if the offender employs
(3) force them open intimidation only.
outside after taking the
same from the building The crime defined in this article is a special complex
(Art. 299 & 302) crime.
The penalty depends on: If committed in an
1) the result of the inhabited house, public On the occasion and by reason mean that
violence used (homicide, building, or edifice homicide or serious physical injuries must be
rape, intentional devoted to religious committed in the course or because of the robbery.
mutilation, serious worship, the penalty is
physical injuries, less based on: The violence must be against the person, not upon
serious or slight physical (1) the value of the thing the thing taken. It must be present before the taking
injuries resulted) and taken and of personal property is complete.
2) the existence of (2) whether or not the

PAGE 196
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Homicide is used in its generic sense, as to include
parricide and murder. Hence, there is no robbery with
murder. The crime is still robbery with homicide even
if, in the course of the robbery, the person killed was
another robber or a bystander.
Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is
still robbery with rape. When the taking of personal
property of a woman is an independent act following
defendants failure to consummate the rape, there
are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape
and theft. Additional rape committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
personal property grave coercion if there is violence
used (Art. 286).
If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and
force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will be
considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more
serious than in Art 299/302.
BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the
penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex
crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be
imposed without sacrificing the principle that
robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe
than that w/ force upon things. [Napolis v. CA (1972)]
When the taking of the victims gun was to prevent
the victim from retaliating, then the crimes
committed are theft and homicide not robbery with
homicide. [People v. Millian (2000)]
ARTICLE 295 - ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
Robbery with violence against or intimidation or
persons is qualified when it is committed:
(1) In an Uninhabited place, or
(2) By a Band, or
(3) By Attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle, or airship, or
(4) By Entering the passengers compartments in a
train, or in any manner taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or
(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 in Art. 294.
It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley.
PAGE 197
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be
alleged in the information and proved during the
trial.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway or alley.
Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with serious physical
injuries under par 1 of Art 263.
NOTE: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295
are very specific
ARTICLE 296 - DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY
INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF
Outline of Art. 296:
When at least 4 armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by
a band.
When any of the arms used in the commission of
robbery is not licensed, penalty upon all the
malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without
prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such firearms.
Any member of a band who was 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 crime.
Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other
members:
(1) Member of the band.
(2) Present at the commission of the robbery.
(3) Other members committed an assault.
(4) He did not attempt to prevent assault.
Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by band.
When the robbery was not committed by a band, the
robber who did not take part in the assault by
another is not liable for that assault.
When the robbery was not by a band and homicide
was not determined by the accused when they
plotted the crime, the one who did not participate in
the killing is liable for robbery only. It is only when
the robbery is in band that all those present in the
commission of the robbery may be punished for any
of the assaults which any of its members might
commit.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide
and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than 4
armed men, are liable for the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide.
Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement,
who was not present at the commission of the
robbery, if the agreement was only to commit
robbery.
The article speaks of more than 3 armed malefactors
who takes part in the commission of the robbery
and member of a band who is present at the
commission of a robbery by a band. Thus, a
principal by inducement, who did not go with the
band at the place of the commission of the robbery,
is not liable for robbery with homicide, but only for
robbery in band, there being no evidence that he
gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that
this should be done.
When there was conspiracy for robbery only but
homicide was also committed on the occasion
thereof, all members of the band are liable for
robbery with homicide.
Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence
of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part in the commission of the robbery are also guilty
as principals in the crime of homicide unless it
appears that they endeavored to prevent the
homicide.
Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a member
of the band liable for robbery with homicide actually
committed by the other members of the band.
There is no crime as robbery with homicide in
band.
Band is only ordinary aggravating circumstance in
robbery w/ homicide
In order that special aggravating circumstance of
unlicensed firearm be appreciated, it is condition sine
qua non that offense charged be robbery by a band
under Art 295.
Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is
qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of Art
294.
Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with
serious physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.
PAGE 198
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed
firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with physical injuries,
committed by a band. [People v. Apduhan]
ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE
Homicide includes multiple homicides, murder,
parricide, or even infanticide.
The penalty is the same, whether robbery is
attempted or frustrated.
Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated
robbery with homicide are special complex crimes,
not governed by Art. 48, but by the special provisions
of Arts.294 & 297, respectively.
There is only one crime of attempted robbery with
homicide even if slight physical injuries were inflicted
on other persons on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery.
ARTICLE 298 - EXECUTION OF DEEDS THROUGH VIOLENCE
OR INTIMIDATION
Elements:
(1) Offender has Intent to defraud another
(2) Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or
deliver any public instrument or document
(3) Compulsion is by means of Violence or
Intimidation.
If the violence resulted in the death of the person to
be defrauded, crime is robbery with homicide and
shall be penalized under Art 294 par. 1.
Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document,
but it does not apply if document is void.
When the offended party is under obligation to sign,
execute or deliver the document under the law, it is
not robbery but coercion.
BY FORCE UPON THINGS
Robbery by the use of force upon things is
committed only when either:
(1) Offender entered a House or Building by
any of the means specified in Art. 299 or
Art. 302, or
(2) Even if there was no entrance by any of
those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest, or
any other kind of locked or closed or sealed
furniture or receptacle in the house or
building, or he took it away to be broken or
forced open outside.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 299 - ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (A):
(1) Offender entered
(a) Inhabited House
(b) Public Building
(c) Edifice devoted to Religious Worship
(2) 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 door
or window;
(c) By using False keys, picklocks or similar
tools; or
(d) By using any Fictitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority.
(e) That once inside the building, the offender
Took personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.
There must be evidence that accused entered the
dwelling house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdivision (a). In entering the
building, there must be the intent to take personal
property.
Inhabited house: any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are temporarily
absent when the robbery is committed.
Public building: 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.
Any of the four means described in subdivision (a)
must be resorted to enter a house or building, not to
get out otherwise it is only theft. The whole body of
the culprit must be inside the building to constitute
entering.
Illustration: If the culprit had entered the house
through an open door, and the owner, not knowing
that the culprit was inside, closed and locked the
door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after
taking personal property in the house, went out
through the window, it is only theft, not robbery.
Breaking: means entering the building. The force
used in this means must be actual, as distinguished
PAGE 199
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
from that in the other means which is only
constructive force.
False keys: genuine keys stolen from the owner or
any keys other than those intended for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender. The genuine key
must be stolen, not taken by force or with
intimidation, from the owner.
If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only theft
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (B) of Art. 299:
(1) Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances under which he
entered it.
(2) Offender takes personal property belonging to
another, with intent to gain, under any of the
following circumstances.
(a) Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle; or
(b) Taking such furniture or objects away to be
broken or forced open outside the place of
the robbery.
Entrance into the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in
robbery under subdivision (b)
The term door in par. 1, subdivision (b) of Art. 299,
refers only to doors, lids or opening sheets of
furniture or other portable receptaclesnot to inside
doors of house or building.
Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe,
which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture.
It is theft, if the locked or sealed receptacle is not
forced open in the building where it is kept or taken
from to be broken outside.
The penalty depends on the value of property taken
and on whether or not offender carries arm. Arms
carried must not be used to intimidate. Liability for
carrying arms is extended to all those who
participated in the robbery, including those without
arms.
The provision punishes more severely the robbery in
a house used as a dwelling than that committed in
an uninhabited place, because of the possibility that
the inhabitants in the former might suffer bodily
harm during the robbery.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

or
ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN UNINHABITED HOUSE, (e) A Closed or sealed receptacle was removed,
PUBLIC BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP even if the same be broken open elsewhere.
AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES: Even if the occupant was
(f) With intent to gain, the offender took
absent during the robbery, the place is still inhabited therefrom personal property belonging to
if the place was ordinarily inhabited and intended as another.
a dwelling.
Building: includes any kind of structure used for
Dependencies: all interior courts, corrals, storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places contiguous (a) freight car ad (b) warehouse.
to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance
connected therewith, and which form part of the Entrance through an opening not intended for
whole (Art. 301, par. 2). entrance or egress is not necessary, if there is
breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed
Requisites: furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be
(1) Contiguous to the building; broken open elsewhere.
(2) Interior entrance connected therewith;
(3) Form part of the whole. Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.
Orchards and lands used for cultivation or Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of
production are not included in the term public authorities is not covered under this article.
dependencies (Art. 301, par. 3).
A receptacle is a container, which must be closed
ARTICLE 300 ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND or sealed.
BY A BAND
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or Penalty is based only on value of property taken.
edifice to religious worship is qualified when
committed by a band and located in an uninhabited Robbery in a store
place. Punishable under Punishable under
Art. 299 Art. 302
See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of band.
If the store is used as a If the store was not
To qualify Robbery w/ To qualify Robbery w/ dwelling, the robbery actually occupied at the
force upon things (Art violence against or committed therein would time of the robbery and
299) intimidation be considered as was not used as a
It must be committed in It must be committed in committed in an dwelling, since the owner
uninhabited place AND an uninhabited place OR inhabited house (People lived in a separate house,
by a band (Art 300) by a band (Art. 295) v Suarez) the robbery committed
therein (People v
ARTICLE 302 - IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE If the store is located on Silvestre)
BUILDING the ground floor of the
house belonging to the
Elements: owner, having an interior
(1) Offender entered an Uninhabited place or a entrance connected
building which was not a dwelling house, not a therewith, it is a
public building, or not an edifice devoted to dependency of an
religious worship. inhabited house and the
(2) That any of the following circumstances was robbery committed
present: therein (US v Tapan).
(a) Entrance was effected through an opening
Not intended for entrance or egress;
ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR
(b) A Wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
FIREWOOD IN AN INHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
window was broken
The penalty is one degree lower only when robbery is
(c) Entrance was effected through the use of
committed by use of force upon things, without
False keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
intimidation or violence against a person.
(d) A Door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle was broken;

PAGE 200
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Cereals are seedlings which are the immediate

product of the soil. The palay must be kept by the
owner as seedling or taken for that purpose by the
robbers. Brigandage Robbery in band
ARTICLE 304 - POSSESSION OF PICKLOCK OR SIMILAR Purpose (1) Commit Commit robbery,
TOOLS robbery in a and not
highway necessarily in a
Elements:
(2) Kidnap to highway
(1) Offender has in his possession Picklocks or
extort or get
similar tools;
ransom
(2) Such picklock or similar tools are especially
(3) Any other
Adopted to the commission of robbery;
purpose to be
(3) Offender does Not have lawful cause for such
achieved by
possession.
means of force
or violence
ARTICLE 305 - DEFINES FALSE KEYS
Proof Mere formation It is necessary to
TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
of a band for any prove that the
(1) Tools mentioned in Article 304;
of the above band actually
(2) Genuine keys Stolen from the owner;
purposes is committed the
(3) Any key other than those intended by the owner
sufficient. There robbery.
for Use in the lock forcibly opened by the
is no Conspiracy to
offender.
requirement that commit robbery
the brigands is not
CHAPTER 2: BRIGANDAGE (ARTICLES 306-307) consummate the punishable.
crime.
ARTICLE 306 - WHO ARE BRIGANDS
Elements of Brigandage:
ARTICLE 307 - AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF
(1) There be at least 4 armed persons
BRIGANDS
(2) They Formed a band of robbers
(3) The Purpose is any of the following: Elements:
(a) To commit Robbery in the highway; or (1) There is a Band of brigands
(b) To Kidnap for the purpose of extortion or to (2) Offender Knows the band to be of brigands
obtain ransom; or (3) Offender Does any of the following acts:
(c) To Attain by means of force and violence (a) He in any manner Aids, abets or protects
any other purpose. such band of brigands; or
(b) He gives them Information of the
Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are movements of the police or other peace
presumed highway robbers or brigands, if any of officers; or
them carries unlicensed firearm. (4) He Acquires or receives the property taken by
such brigands.
The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.
It is presumed that the person performing any of the
The main object of the law is to prevent the acts provided in this article has performed them
formation of band of robbers. knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

The term highway includes city streets.
The following must be proved:
(1) Organization of more than 3 armed persons
forming a band of robbers
(2) Purpose of the band is any of those enumerated
in Art. 306.
(3) That they went upon the highway or roamed
upon the country for that purpose.
(4) That the accused is a member of such band.
Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or
abets the commission of highway robbery or
brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.
See Special Law: PD 532 Anti-Piracy And Anti-
Highway Robbery
It is necessary to prove that the intention and
purpose of the accused was to commit robbery
indiscriminately and such robbery is committed on
any Philippine Highway. [People v. Pulusan (1998)]

PAGE 201
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

In accordance with the definition in Art 308, there is

CHAPTER 3 THEFT
ARTICLE 308 - WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
Elements of Theft:
(1) Taking of personal property
(2) That Belongs to another
(3) With Intent to gain.
(4) Without the Consent of the owner.
(5) Accomplished Without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
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 latters consent.
no frustrated theft. The offender has either complete
control of the property (consummated) or without
(attempted). Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of personal property belonging to
another. [Valenzuela v. People (2007)]
If a person takes property of another, believing it to
be his own, presumption of intent to gain is rebutted.
Hence, he is not guilty of theft.
If one takes personal property openly and avowedly
under claim of title made in good faith, he is not
guilty of theft even though claim of ownership is later
found to be untenable.
If possession was only material or physical, the crime
is THEFT. If possession was juridical, crime is
ESTAFA.

Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.

Persons liable for theft:
(1) Those who, Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft.
(a) with intent to gain,
(b) without violence against or intimidation of The consent contemplated in this article refers to
persons nor force upon things, consent freely given, and not mere lack of opposition
(c) take, by owner of the property taken.
(d) personal property,
(e) of another, It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely
(f) without the latters consent. foreign to the fact of taking.

(2) Those who,
(a) having found lost property,
(b) fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner.
(3) Those who,
(a) after having maliciously damaged the
property of another,
(b) remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by them.
(4) Those who,
(a) enter an inclosed estate or field where
(b) trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and, without the consent of its
owner,
(c) hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits,
cereals, or other forest or farm products.
Gulinao shot Dr. Chua and left. Then he went back &
took Dr. Chuas diamond ring. The crime was Theft
and not robbery. Circumstances show that the taking
was merely an afterthought. Violence used in killing
Dr. Chua had no bearing on the taking of the
ring.[People v. Gulinao, (1989)]
Properties were taken after accused has already
carried out his primary criminal intent of killing the
victim. Considering that the victim was already
heavily wounded when his properties were taken,
there was no need to employ violence against or
intimidation against his person. Hence, accused can
only be held guilty of the separate offense of
theft.[People vs Basao (1999)]
One in possession of part of recently stolen property
is presumed to be thief of all.

The theft is consummated & taking completed once
the culprit is able to place the thing taken under his
control, and in such a situation that he could dispose
of it at once.
Lost property: embraces loss by stealing or by act
of the owner or by a person other than the owner, or
through some casual occurrence.
It is necessary to prove the following in order to
establish theft by failure to deliver or return lost
property:

PAGE 202
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(1) Time of the seizure of the thing
(2) It was a lost property belonging to another; and
(3) That the accused having had the opportunity to
return or deliver the lost property to its owner or
to the local authorities, refrained from doing so.
The law does not require knowledge of the owner of
the property.
Elements of hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc.,
in enclosed estate:
(1) That there is an enclosed estate or a field, where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another
(2) Offender enters the same
(3) Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or
gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products in the estate or field; and
(4) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of
products is without the consent of the owner.
ARTICLE 309 - PENALTIES
The basis of the penalty in theft is
(1) the value of the thing stolen, or
(2) the value and nature of the property taken, or
(3) the circumstances that impelled the culprit to
commit the crime.
If there is no evidence of the value of the property
stolen, the court should impose the minimum
penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of
P5.00. The court may also take judicial notice of its
value in the proper cases.
ARTICLE 310 - QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is qualified if:
(1) Committed by a Domestic servant
(2) Committed with Grave abuse of confidence
(3) The property stolen is
(a) motor vehicle,
(b) mail matter, or
(c) large cattle
The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of a:
(1) plantation
(2) The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery
(3) The property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.
PAGE 203
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. Theres
no need to prove grave abuse of discretion.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must
be allegation in the information and proof of a
relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or
vigilance, between the accused and the offended
party that has created a high degree of confidence
between them, which the accused abused.
Theft of any material, spare part, product or article
by employees and laborers is heavily punished under
PD 133.
Motor vehicle: all vehicles propelled by power,
other than muscular power. Theft of motor vehicle
may now fall under the anti-carnapping law.
When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by
burning it, the crime is arson.
If a private individual took a letter containing postal
money order it is qualified theft. If it was the
postmaster, to whom the letter was delivered, the
crime would be infidelity in the custody of
documents.
Regarding the theft of coconuts and fish, what
matters is not the execution, but the location where
it is taken. It should be in the plantation or in the
fishpond.
RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW
Carnapping: taking, with intent to gain, of motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latters
consent or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by force upon things (Izon
v. People, 1981)
Motor Vehicle: any vehicle which is motorized using
the streets which are public, not exclusively for
private use (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law)
PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Cattle rustling: taking away by means, methods or
schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of
any large cattle whether or not for profit, or whether
committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things. It
includes killing of large cattle, taking its meat or hide
without the consent of owner/raiser.
Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass,
other domesticated member of bovine family. A goat
is not included because it is not large (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Presumption: Every person in possession of large
cattle shall upon demand by competent authorities
exhibit required documents. Failure to do so is prima
facie evidence that large cattle in possession are
fruits of crime of cattle rustling
Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the
taking or killing of large cattle or taking its meat or
hide without the consent of the owner or raiser,
conviction for the same need only be supported by
the fact of taking without the cattle owners consent.
There is a disputable presumption that a person
found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act. [Ernesto Pil-ey vs. People (2007)]
PD 704: ILLEGAL FISHING
Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing when:
(1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous substance or
equipment or device for electric fishing are
found in the fishing boat or in the possession of
fisherman; or
(2) When fish caught with the use of explosives,
obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity are found in a fishing boat
PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW
Fencing:
(1) the act of any person who,
(2) with intent to gain for himself or for another,
(3) shall buy, receive, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in any other
manner deal in
(4) any article, item, object, or anything of value
(5) which he knows, or should be known to him,
(6) to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
Elements:
(1) Robbery or theft has been committed.
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in 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.
PAGE 204
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing. [People v. Dizon-Pamintuan]
Robbery/theft and fencing are separate and distinct
offenses.
ARTICLE 311 - THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL
LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
Theft of property of the National Museum and
National Library has a fixed penalty regardless of its
value. But if it was with grave abuse of confidence,
the penalty for qualified theft shall be imposed.
CHAPTER 4: USURPATION
ARTICLE 312 - OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Acts punishable under Art. 312:
(1) Taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons
(2) Usurping any real rights in property belonging to
another by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Elements:
(1) Offender takes possession of any real property
OR usurps any real rights in property
(2) Real property or real rights belong to another
(3) Violence against or intimidation of persons is
used by the offender in occupying real property
or usurping real rights in property.
(4) There is intent to gain.
If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists.
Violence or intimidation must be the means used in
occupying real property or in usurping real rights.
Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or
intimidation took place subsequent to the entry into
the property.
Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of
the writ of execution issued in the forcible entry case.
Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not
a bar to civil action for forcible entry.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Usurpation Theft or Robbery

Art 314 Insolvency law
Act Occupation or Taking or No need for insolvency Crime should be
Usurpation asportation proceedings. committed after the
institution of insolvency
No need to be adjudged proceedings
What is Taken Real property or Personal bankrupt or insolvent
Real Right property
CHAPTER 6: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Intent To Gain To Gain
ARTICLE 315 - ESTAFA
Elements of Estafa in General:
RA 947 punishes entering or occupying public (1) That the accused defrauded another
agricultural land including lands granted to private (a) by abuse of confidence; or
individuals. (b) by means of deceit; and
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
ARTICLE 313 - ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS estimation is caused to the offended party or
Elements: third person.
(1) That there be boundary marks or monuments of (3) Through
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks (a) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
intended to designate the boundaries of the (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))
same. (b) Estafa by means of fraudulent acts (315 Par.
(2) That the offender alters said boundary marks. 2(A) (B) (C)(D) (E) ; BP22):
(c) Through other fraudulent means (315 par
Provision does not require intent to gain. 3(a) (b) (c) )

The word alter may include: With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (315 par.
(1) destruction of stone monument 1(a) (b) (c))
(2) taking it to another place Par 1(a): Altering substance, quantity or quality of
(3) removing a fence object subject of obligation to deliver

CHAPTER 5: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY Elements:

ARTICLE 314 - FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a debtor; that is, he has
obligations due and payable
(2) That he absconds with his property
(3) That there be prejudice to his creditors.
(1) 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.
Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa with
abuse of confidence.

Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required.
Even if the debtor disposes of his property, unless it
is shown that it has actually prejudiced his creditor,
conviction will not lie.
Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient
if the debtor has some property with which to satisfy
his obligation.
Abscond: does not require that the debtor should
depart and physically conceal his property. Real
property could be the subject matter of Art. 314.
The person prejudiced must be creditor of the
offender.
Damage or prejudice must be capable of estimation,
because it is the basis of the penalty.
Delivery of anything of value must be by virtue of an
onerous obligation to do so.
When the fraud committed consists in the
adulteration or mixing of some extraneous
substance in an article of food so as to lower its
quantity, it may be a violation of the Pure Food Law.
Its not estafa if the thing delivered is not acceptable
to the complainant when there is no agreement as to
its quality.

PAGE 205
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Estafa may arise even if thing delivered is not subject
of lawful commerce, such as opium.
Par.1(b): Misappropriation and Conversion
Elements:
(1) That Money, goods, or other personal property
be received by the offender in trust, or in
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) 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; and
(4) That there is a demand made by the offended
party to the offender.
The 4th element is not necessary when there is
evidence of misappropriation of goods by the
defendant.
Check is included in the word money.
Money, goods or other personal property must be
received by the offender under certain kinds of
transaction transferring juridical possession to him.
The offender acquires both physical possession and
juridical possession when the thing received by the
offender from the offended party
(1) in trust, or
(2) on commission, or
(3) for administration,
Juridical possession: means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which he
may invoke even as against the owner.
When the delivery of a chattel does not transfer
juridical possession/title, it is presumed that the
possession/title of the thing remain w/ owner.
Failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of sale
of goods covered by trust receipts is estafa.
The phrase or under any obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return the same,
includes quasi-contracts and certain contracts of
bailment. The obligation to return the thing must be
contractual but without transferring to accused
ownership of the thing.
When ownership is transferred to recipient, his
failure to return it results in civil liability only.
PAGE 206
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Applicable Civil Code provisions:
(1) Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall
be transferred to the vendee upon actual or
constructive delivery thereof.
(2) Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a
contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of
the price and as proof of the perfection of the
contract.
In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. (b),
subdivision 1 of Art. 315, the thing received must be
returned if there is an obligation to return it.
If no obligation to return there is only civil liability.
No estafa when:
(1) Transaction sale fails. There is no estafa if the
accused refused to return the advance payment.
(2) The money or personal property received by
accused is not to be used for a particular
purpose or to be returned.
(3) Thing received under a contract of sale on credit
Payment by students to the school for the value of
materials broken is not mere deposit.
Novation of contract of agency to one of sale, or to
one of loan, relieves defendant from incipient
criminal liability under the first contract.
He exerted all efforts to retrieve dump truck, albeit
belatedly and to no avail. His ineptitude should not
be confused with criminal intent. Criminal intent is
required for the conviction of Estafa. Earnest effort to
comply with obligation is a defense against estafa.
[Manahan vs CA (1996)]
3 Ways Of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of
Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
(1) Misappropriating the thing received.
(2) Converting the thing received.
(3) Denying that the thing was received.
Misappropriating: means to own, to take
something for one's own benefit.
Converting: Using or disposing of anothers
property as if it were ones own.
Conversion: presupposes that the thing has been
devoted to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon.
The fact that an agent sold the thing received on
commission for a lower price than the one fixed, does
not constitute estafa (US v Torres).
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The law does not distinguish between temporary and
permanent misappropriations.
No estafa under Art. 315 par (b) when there is neither
misappropriation nor conversion.
Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts
(1) If agent is authorized to retain his commission
out of the amounts he collected, there is no
estafa.
(2) Otherwise he is guilty of estafa, because his right
to commission does not make the agent a co-
owner of money
3rd element of estafa with abuse of confidence is
that the conversion, or denial by offender resulted in
the prejudice of the offended party.
To the prejudice of another: not necessarily of the
owner of the property.
General rule: Partners are not liable for estafa of
money or property received for the partnership when
the business commenced and profits accrued.
Failure of partner to account for partnership funds
may give rise to civil obligation only, not estafa.
Exception: when a partner misappropriates the share
of another partner in the profits, the act constitutes
estafa.
A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is liable if,
after the termination of the co-ownership, he
misappropriates the thing which has become the
exclusive property of the other.
Estafa with abuse of
Theft
confidence
With juridical possession Only with physical /
of thing misappropriated material possession of
thing misappropriated
Offender receives the Offender takes the thing
thing from the victim
But when the money or property had been received
by a partner for specific purpose and he
misappropriated it, there is estafa.
Under the 4th element of estafa with abuse of
confidence demand may be required.
In estafa by means of deceit, demand is not needed,
because the offender obtains the thing wrongfully
from the start. In estafa with abuse of confidence,
PAGE 207
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the offender receives the thing under a lawful
transaction.
Demand is not required by law, but it may be
necessary, because failure to account upon demand
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Presumption arises only when the explanation of the
accused is absolutely devoid of merit.
The mere failure to return the thing received for
safekeeping or under any other obligation w/ the
duty to return the same or deliver the value thereof
to the owner could only give rise to a civil action and
does not constitute the crime of estafa.
There is no estafa through negligence.
The gravity of the crime of estafa is based on the
amount not returned before the institution of the
criminal action.
Test to distinguish theft from estafa: In theft, upon
the delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner
expects a return of the thing to him.
General rule: When the owner does not expect the
immediate return of the thing he delivered to the
accused, the misappropriation of the same is estafa.
Exception: When the offender received the thing
from the offended party, with the obligation to
deliver it to a third person and, instead of doing so,
misappropriated it to the prejudice of the owner, the
crime committed is qualified theft.
Sale of thing received to be pledged for owner is
theft, when the intent to appropriate existed at the
time it was received.
Estafa with abuse of
Malversation
confidence
Entrusted with funds or property
Both are continuing offenses
Funds or property are Funds or property usually
always private public
Offender is a private Offender is a public officer
individual or public officer accountable for public
not accountable for public funds or property
funds or property
Committed by Committed by
misappropriating, misappropriating, or thru
converting or denying abandonment or
having received money, negligence, letting other
other personal property person to take the public
funds or property
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Estafa with abuse of
Malversation
confidence
There is no estafa through There can be
negligence. malversation through
abandonment or
negligence.
When in prosecution for malversation the public
officer is acquitted, the private individual in
conspiracy w/ him may be held liable for estafa,
depending on the nature of the funds.
Misappropriation of firearms received by a police
(1) ESTAFA: if it is not involved in the
commission of a crime
(2) MALVERSATION: if it is involved in the
commission of a crime.
(3)
Par.1(c): Taking advantage of signature in blank
Elements:
(1) Paper with the signature of the offended party
be in Blank.
(2) 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.
Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent
Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22):
Elements of estafa by means of deceit:
(1) 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) Offended party must have Relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
(4) As a result thereof, the offended party Suffered
damage.
The acts must be fraudulent. Acts must be founded
on, deceit, trick, or cheat, and such must be made
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud.
PAGE 208
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In false pretenses the deceit consists in the use of
deceitful words, in fraudulent acts the deceit consists
principally in deceitful acts. The fraudulent acts must
be performed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
The offender must be able to obtain something from
the offended party because of the fraudulent acts.
Knowledge of criminal intent of the principal is
essential to be convicted as an accomplice in Estafa
through falsification of commercial document. There
must be knowing assistance in the execution of the
offense. [Abejuela vs People (1991)]
In the case where a tenant-landowner relationship
exists between the parties, the jurisdiction for the
prosecution of the crime Estafa is not divested from
the RTC; though the matter before us apparently
presents an agrarian dispute, the RTC cannot shirk
from its duty to adjudicate on the merits a criminal
case initially filed before it, based on the law and
evidence presented, in order to determine whether
an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
In a tenant-landowner relationship, it was incumbent
upon the tenant to hold in trust and, eventually,
account for the share in the harvest appertaining to
the landowner, failing which the tenant could be held
liable for misappropriation.
As correctly pointed out by the respondents, share
tenancy has been outlawed for being contrary to public
policy as early as 1963, with the passage of R.A. 3844.
What prevails today, under R.A. 6657, is agricultural
leasehold tenancy relationship, and all instances of
share tenancy have been automatically converted into
leasehold tenancy. In such a relationship, the tenants
obligation is simply to pay rentals, not to deliver the
landowners share.
Given this dispensation, the petitioners allegation that
the respondents misappropriated the landowners
share of the harvest as contained in the information
is untenable. Accordingly, the respondents cannot be
held liable under Article 315, paragraph 4, No. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code. [People v. Vanzuela (2008)]
It is well established in jurisprudence that a person
may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and
estafa. The reason, therefore, is not hard to discern:
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while
estafa is malum in se.
In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
imperative. Petitioners claim that she did not
represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she
merely tried to help the complainants secure a
tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal
recruitment, it being enough that she gave the
impression of having had the authority to recruit
workers for deployment abroad; consequently she is
also held liable for the violation of Estafa under
Article 315(2)(a). [Lapasaran v. People (2009)]
Par 2(a): Using fictitious name or false pretenses at
power, influence or other similar
deceits
Ways of committing the offense:
(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..
For estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a), it is indispensable
that the false statement or fraudulent representation
of the accused,
(1) be made prior to, or, at least simultaneously
with,
(2) the delivery of the thing by the complainant.
It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent
representation constitutes the cause or only motive
which induced the complainant to part with the
thing. If there be no such prior or simultaneous false
statement or fraudulent representation, any
subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent
and suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis
for prosecution for the class of estafa.
A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for
estafa.
In estafa by means of deceit under Art. 315 2(a),
there must be evidence that the pretense of the
accused is false. Without such proof, criminal intent
to deceive cannot be inferred. Fraud must be proved
with clear and positive evidence.
Where commission salesman took back the
machines from prospective customers and
misappropriated them, it is theft, not estafa.
Estafa through false pretenses made in writing is
only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime of
estafa through falsification.
PAGE 209
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Manipulation of scale is punished under the Revised
Administrative Code
Par 2(b): by altering the quality, fineness or weight
of anything pertaining to art or business
Par. 2(c): by pretending to have bribed any
government employee
Person would ask money from another for the
alleged purpose of bribing a government employee
but just pocketed the money.
Par 2(d): By postdating a check or issuing a bouncing
check
Elements:
(1) Offender Postdated a check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation;
(2) Such postdating or issuing a check was done
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 check must be genuine, and not falsified.
The check must be postdated or for an obligation
contracted at the time of the issuance and delivery of
the check and not for pre-existing obligation.
Exception:
(1) When postdated checks are issued and intended
by the parties only as promissory notes
(2) When the check is issued by a guarantor
The accused must be able to obtain something from
the offended party by means of the check he issues
and delivers.
The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no
funds in the bank to cover the check at the time he
postdated or issued a check, is sufficient to make him
liable for estafa.
1
RA 4885 deleted the phrase the offender knowing
at the time he had no funds in the bank:
1
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO, PARAGRAPH (d), ARTICLE
THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN OF ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT
HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE. (re: issuance of checks.)
Section 1. Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three hundred
fifteen of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(1) the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount
needed to cover his check
(2) within 3 days from receipt of notice of dishonor
of check for lack or insufficiency of funds
(3) shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by
postdating or issuing a check. One who got hold of a
check issued by another, knowing that the drawer
had no sufficient funds in the bank, and used the
same in the purchase of goods, is guilty of estafa.
[People v. Isleta]
2 Offender must induce the offended party to sign the
PD 818 applies only to estafa under par 2(d) of Art.
315, and does not apply to other forms of estafa.
[People v Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95]
Hence, the penalty prescribed in PD 818, not the
penalty provided for in Art. 315, should be imposed
when the estafa committed is covered by par 2(d) of
Art. 315.
Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime.
Estafa Through Other Fraudulent Means (315 Par 3
(a) (b) (c))
Par 3 (a): By inducing another, through deceit, to
sign any document
Elements:
(1) Offender Induced the offended party to sign a
document.
(2) That deceit be Employed to make him sign the
document.
(3) Offended party Personally signed the document.
(4) That Prejudice be caused.
document. If offended party is willing from the start
to sign the document, because the contents are
different from those which the offended told the
accused to state in the document, the crime is
falsification.
There can be no conviction for estafa in the absence
of proof that defendant made statements tending to
mislead complainant.

See Special Law: BP 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law) Par.3 (b): By resorting to some fraudulent practice
to ensure success in a gambling game

Par.3 (c): By removing, concealing or destroying

"(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an any court record, office files, document or
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
any other papers
the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from Elements:
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that (1) That there be court Record, office files,
said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense
documents or any other papers
or fraudulent act."
Section 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. If there is no malicious intent to defraud, the
Approved: June 17, 1967 destruction of court record is malicious mischief.
2
AMENDING ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE BY
INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA COMMITTED BY
MEANS OF BOUNCING CHECKS Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may co-
Section 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false exist.
pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
If there is neither deceit nor abuse of confidence, its
1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is not estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil
over 12,000 pesos but not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such liability.
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 Deceit through Fraudulent Infidelity in Custody of
may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, Means Documents
and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be Offender is a private Offender is a public
termed reclusion perpetua; person OR a public person entrusted with the
2nd. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, if the person not entrusted w/ documents
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos;
documents
3rd. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if such There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud is not
amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and,
4th. By prision mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does required
not exceed 200 pesos.
Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately.

PAGE 210
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Double jeopardy does not apply because RPC is a
distinct crime from BP 22. Deceit and damage are
essential elements of RPC, which are not required in
BP 22. [Nierras vs Dacuycuy (1990)]
The element of damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation may consist in:
(1) The offended party being deprived of his money
or property, as result of the fraud;
(2) Disturbance in property right; or
(3) Temporary prejudice
Payment subsequent to the commission of estafa
does not extinguish criminal liability or reduce the
penalty.
The crime of estafa is not obliterated by acceptance
of promissory note.
A private person who procures a loan by means of
deceit through a falsified public document of
mortgage, but paid loan within the period agreed
upon, is not guilty of estafa but only falsification of a
public document.
Accused cannot be convicted of estafa with abuse of
confidence if charged w/ estafa by means of deceit
ARTICLE 316 - OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING AND DECEITS
Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or
mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the
owner of the same
Elements:
(1) That the thing be Immovable, such as a parcel of
land or a building.
(2) Offender who is not the owner of said property
should Represent that he is the owner thereof.
(3) Offender should have Executed an act of
ownership (selling, encumbering or mortgaging
the real property).
(4) Act be made to Prejudice of the owner or a third
person.
The thing disposed of must be real property. If its
chattel, crime is Estafa.
There must be existing real property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser but damage is incurred by the first
purchaser, there is violation of par.1 of Art. 316.
Since the penalty is based on the value of the
damage there must be actual damage caused.
Par. 2. By disposing of real property as free from
PAGE 211
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not
recorded
Elements:
(1) That the thing disposed of be Real property.
(2) Offender Knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not.
(3) There must be Express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance.
(4) Act of disposing of the real property be made to
the Damage of another.
Act constituting the offense is disposing of the real
property representing that it is free from
encumbrance.
Dispose: includes encumbering or mortgaging.
Encumbrance: includes every right or interest in the
land which exists in favor of third persons.
The offended party would not have granted the loan
had he known that the property was already
encumbered. When the loan had already been
granted when defendant offered the property as
security for the loan, Art. 316 par. 2 is not applicable.
Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an
encumbrance on the property.
If 3rd element not established, there is no crime.
There must be damage caused. It is not necessary
that act prejudice the owner of the land.
The omitted phrase as free from encumbrance in
par 2 of Art. 316 is the basis of the ruling that silence
as to such encumbrance does not involve a crime.
Par. 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner of his
personal property from its lawful possessor
Elements:
(1) Offender is the Owner of personal property.
(2) Said property is in the Lawful possession of
another.
(3) Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
(4) Prejudice is thereby caused to the lawful
possessor or third person.
Offender must wrongfully take the personal property
from the lawful possessor. Wrongfully take does not
include the use of violence, intimidation.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the thing is taken by means of violence, without
intent to gain, it is not estafa, but grave coercion.
If the owner took the personal property from its
lawful possessor without the latters knowledge and
later charged him with the value of the property, the
crime is theft. If there is intent to charge the bailee
with its value, the crime is robbery. [US v Albao]
Par. 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another.
Illustration: A person who simulates a (4) That the transaction is to the Detriment of such
conveyance of his property to another, to defraud his
creditors. If the conveyance is real and not simulated,
the crime is fraudulent insolvency.
Par. 5. By accepting any compensation for services
not rendered or for labor not performed
Elements:
(1) Accepting a compensation given to accused for
service not rendered
(2) Malicious failure to return the compensation
wrongfully received (fraud).
There must be fraud. Otherwise, it will only be solutio
indebiti, with civil obligation to return the wrong
payment.
If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a
wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not applicable.
In case the person who received it later refused or
failed to return it to the owner of the money, Art. 315
subdivision 1(b) is applicable.
Par. 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real
property or properties with which the offender
guaranteed the fulfilment of his obligation as surety
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Surety in a bond given in a criminal
or civil action.
(2) He Guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation
with his real property or properties.
(3) 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.
There must be damage caused under Art. 316.
PAGE 212
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 317 - SWINDLING OF A MINOR
Elements:
(1) That the offender Takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor.
(2) That he induces such minor
(a) to Assume an obligation, or
(b) to Give release, or
(c) to Execute a transfer of any property right.
(3) That the consideration is
(a) some Loan of money,
(b) Credit, or
(c) Other Personal property.
minor.
Real property is not included because only money,
credit and personal property are enumerated, and
because a minor cannot convey real property without
judicial authority.
ARTICLE 318 - OTHER DECEITS
Other deceits are:
(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 manner, for
profit or gain.
Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall under
this article. As in other cases of estafa, damage to
the offended party is required.
The deceits in this article include false pretenses
and fraudulent acts.
Chattel Mortgage
The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to give the
necessary sanction to the statute, so that mortgage
debtors may be deterred from violating its provisions
and mortgage creditors may be protected against
loss of inconvenience from wrongful removal or sale
of mortgaged property.
CHAPTER 7: CHATTEL MORTGAGE
ARTICLE 319 - REMOVAL, SALE, OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
Acts punishable under Art. 319:
(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
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

assigns. The consent of the mortgagee must be

(2) By selling or pledging personal property already (1) in writing,
pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of (2) on the back of the mortgage, and
the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent (3) noted on the record thereof in the office of the
of the mortgagee written on the back of the register of deeds.
mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the
office of the register of deeds of the province Damage is NOT essential.
where such property is located.
Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by means
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting. of deceit.
If chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of
good faith and is not registered, it is void and cannot Art 319 Art 316 Estafa
be prosecuted under Art 319
In both there is selling of a mortgaged property.
Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged personal Personal property Property involved is real
property: property(Art. 316 par 2)
(1) Personal property is mortgaged under the
Committed by the mere Committed by selling real
Chatter Mortgage Law.
failure to obtain consent property mortgaged as
(2) Offender knows that such property is so
of the mortgagee in free, even though the
mortgaged.
writing, even if offender vendor may have
(3) He removes such mortgaged personal property
should inform the obtained the consent of
to any province or city other than the one in
purchaser that the thing the mortgagee in writing.
which it was located at the time of the execution
sold is mortgaged
of the mortgage.
(4) That the removal is permanent. Purpose: to protect the Purpose: to protect the
(5) That there is no written consent of the mortgagee purchaser (1st or 2nd)
mortgagee or his executors, administrators or
assigns to such removal.
CHAPTER 8: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
A person other than the mortgagor who removed the INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
property to another province, knowing it to be
mortgaged, may be liable. The removal of the Kinds of Arson:
mortgaged personal property must be coupled with (1) Arson (PD 1613, Sec. 1)
intent to defraud. (2) Destructive arson (Art. 320, as amended by RA
7659)
No felonious intent if transfer of personal property is (3) Other cases of arson (Sec. 3, PD 1613)
due to change of residence.
Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson
If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not Attempted arson: A person, intending to burn a
foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis for wooden structure, collects some rags, soaks them in
relief, the removal of property to another province is gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall of
not a violation of Art 319 par1. the building. When he about to light a match to set
fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who
In estafa, the property involved is real property. In chases him away. In attempted arson, it is not
sale of mortgaged property, it is personal property. necessary that there be a fire.

Elements of selling or pledging personal property
already pledged:
(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.
Frustrated arson: If that person is able to light or set
fire to the rags, but the fire was put out before any
part of the building was burned.
Consummated arson: If before the fire was put out, it
had burned a part of the building.
If the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, it is not required that the house be
occupied by one or more persons and the offender
knew it when the house was burned.

PAGE 213
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW
No complex crime of arson with homicide. If by
reason of or on the occasion of arson death results,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed. Homicide is absorbed.
Any of 7 circumstances in Sec. 6 of PD 1613 is
sufficient to establish fact of arson if unexplained.
How is the crime of Arson proved?
In the prosecution for Arson, proof of the crime
charged is complete where the evidence establishes:
1. the corpus delicti, i.e., a fire because of criminal
agency; and
2. the identity of the defendant as the one
responsible for the crime.
In Arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of
the bare fact of the fire and of it having been
intentionally caused. [Gonzales, Jr. v. People, GR No.
159950, Feb. 12, 2007]
PD 1613, 1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
SEC. 2. Destructive ArsonThe penalty of Reclusion
Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion
Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
(1) Any ammunition factory and other
establishment where explosives, inflammable or
combustible materials are stored.
(2) Any archive, museum, whether public or private,
or any edifice devoted to culture, education or
social services.
(3) Any church or place of worship or other building
where people usually assemble.
(4) Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or
watercraft, or conveyance for transportation of
persons or property.
(5) Any building where evidence is kept for use in
any legislative, judicial, or administrative or
other official proceeding.
(6) Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house,
housing tenement, shopping center, public or
private market, theater or movie house or any
similar place or building.
(7) Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not,
situated in a populated or congested area.
SEC. 3. Other Cases of ArsonThe penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:
(1) Any building used as offices of the government or
any of its agencies
(2) Any inhabited house or dwelling
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or
mine shaft, platform or tunnel
(4) Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop,
grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
(5) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central
(6) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse
Article 320, RPC, as amended, with respect to
destructive arson, and the provisions of PD 1613
respecting other cases of arson provide only one
penalty for the commission of arson, whether
destructive or otherwise, where death results
therefrom. The raison detre is that arson is itself the
end and death is simply the consequence.
In cases where both burning and death occur, in
order to determine what crime/crimes was/were
perpetrated whether arson, murder, or arson and
homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the
main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main
objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but
death results by reason or on the occasion of arson,
the crime is simply Arson, and the resulting homicide
is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the main
objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the
means to accomplish such goal, the crime
committed is Murder only; and lastly, (c) if the
objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and
in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as means to cover up the killing, then
there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed Homicide/Murder and Arson
CHAPTER 9 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: It is the willful causing of
damage to anothers property for the sake of causing
damage because of hate, revenge or other evil
motive.
ARTICLE 327 - WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE
Elements of malicious mischief:
(1) Offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another.
(2) Such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction
(3) Act of damaging anothers property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
If there is no malice in causing damage, the
obligation to pay for the damages is only civil (Art.
2176)
PAGE 214
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Damage means not only loss but also diminution of
what is a mans own. Thus, damage to anothers
house includes defacing it. [People v Asido]
ARTICLE 328 - SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Special cases of malicious mischief: (qualified
malicious mischief)
(1) causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions
(2) using any poisonous or corrosive substance
(3) Spreading infection or contagion among cattle
(4) causing damage to 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
Other mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are
punished based on value of the damage caused.
If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the
penalty of arresto menor of fine not exceeding P200
is fixed by law.
When several persons scattered coconut remnants
which contained human excrement on the stairs and
floor of the municipal building, including its interior,
the crime committed is malicious mischief under Art.
329. [People v Dumlao]
ARTICLE 330 - DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION
Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph, or
telephone lines. If the damage shall result in any
derailment of cars, collision, or other accident, a
higher penalty shall be imposed. (Qualifying
Circumstance)
Telegraph/phone lines must pertain to railways.
Q: What is the crime when, as a result of the damage
caused to railway, certain passengers of the train are
killed?
A: It depends. Art. 330 says without prejudice to the
criminal liability of the offender for other
consequences of his criminal act.
If there is no intent to kill, the crime is damages to
means to means of communication with homicide
because of the first paragraph of Art. 4 and Art. 48.
If there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways
was the means to accomplish the criminal purpose,
the crime is murder
PAGE 215
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 331 DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,
PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a public
painting, rather than a public monument.
CHAPTER 10: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
ARTICLE 332 - EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Crimes involved in the exemption:
(1) Theft
(2) Swindling (estafa)
(3) Malicious mischief
If the crime is robbery, exemption does not lie.
Persons exempt from criminal liability:
(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 passed into the
possession of another.
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership of
the property between the offender and the offended
party. There is no criminal, but only civil liability.
Art. 332 does not apply to a stranger who
participates in the commission of the crime.
Stepfather and stepmother are included as
ascendants by affinity. [People v Alvarez; People v
Adame]
Guevarra: An adopted or natural child should also be
considered as included in the term descendants
and a concubine or paramour within the term
spouses.
Art. 332 also applies to common-law spouses. [Art.
144, CC; People v Constantino]
Jurisprudence
THEFT
The fact that beans (subject of the crime were sacks
of beans) were scattered on the floor inside and in
front of the stall of petitioner and in the parking lot
does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime.
This cannot be equated with the principle of law that
a person in possession or control of stolen goods is
presumed to be the author of the larceny. Absent
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
proof of any stolen property in the possession of a
person, as in the case at bar, no presumption of guilt
can arise. The place was a market and presumably,
petitioner was not the only vendor of beans.
Where the proven facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt,
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused.
[Aoas v. People (2008)]
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
It is clear that the place of the commission of the
crime was a residential and commercial building
located in an urban and populated area. This
qualifying circumstance places the offense squarely
within the ambit of Section 2(7) of P.D. 1613, and
converts it to destructive arson.
It was also established that the subject building was
insured against fire for an amount substantially more
than its market value, a fact that has given rise to the
unrebutted prima facie evidence of arson, as
provided in Section 6 of P.D. 1613. [Amora v. People
(2008)]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Does not include taking the gun to shoot its previous
holder. The Court disagrees with the Court of
Appeals that appellant committed the crime of
robbery with homicide. There is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose
of appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun
(Serial No. 9600942).
It must be emphasized that when the victim and
appellant met and had a heated argument, the
absence of the intent to rob on the part of the
appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to
rob the victim. Appellants act of taking the shotgun
was not for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to
protect himself from the victim.
No one would in ones right mind just leave a firearm
lying around after being in a heated argument with
another person.
Having failed to establish that appellants original
criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be
convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or
homicide, as the case may be, and theft. [People vs.
Lara]
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
If the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape
was committed even before the asportation, the
PAGE 216
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
crime is the special complex crime of Robbery with
Rape. So long as the intent of the accused is to rob,
rape may be committed before, during or after the
robbery. But if the primary intent ofthe accused was
to rape and his taking away the belongings of the
victim was only a mere afterthought, two separate
felonies are committed: Rape and Theft or Robbery
depending upon the circumstances surrounding the
unlawful taking. [People v. Naag, GR No. 1361394,
Feb. 15, 2001]
QUALIFIED THEFT (Abuse of Confidence)
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees
of Western does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires.
The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that
there be a relation of independence, guardianship or
vigilance between the petitioners and Western.
Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive
payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely
assisted customers in making a purchase and in
demonstrating the merchandise to prospective
buyers. While they had access to the merchandise,
they had no access to the cashiers booth or to the
cash payments subject of the offense. [Astudillo vs.
People(2006)]
THEFT (Corpus Delicti)
The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable
for the charges on the ground that he was not
caught in possession of the missing funds. This is
clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of
the stolen property is not an element of the corpus
delicti in theft.
Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the
crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that
the crime has been actually committed.
In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely:
(1) that the property was lost by the owner, and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
In the case before us, these two elements were
established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP
because petitioner took them without authority to do
so. [Gan vs. People(2007)]
THEFT; Attempted or Consummated only
The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not
been designed in such fashion as to accommodate
the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is
no language in Article 308 that expressly or
impliedly allows that the free disposition of the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

items stolen is in any way determinative of whether
the crime of theft has been produced. We thus
conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is
no crime of frustrated theft.[Valenzuela vs. People
(2007)]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption Theory
applied)
Attempted homicide or attempted murder
committed during or on the occasion of the robbery,
as in this case, is absorbed in the crime of Robbery
with Homicide which is a special complex crime that
remains fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in
connection with the robbery. [People v. Cabbab,
Jr.(2007)]
ESTAFA; Essence of Misappropriation
The words convert and misappropriate connote
an act of using or disposing of anothers property as
if it were ones own or devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate
for ones own use includes not only conversion to
ones personal advantage but also every attempt to
dispose of the property of another without any right.
[Tan vs. People]
ESTAFA (Sale of jewelry; Failure to return)
In an agency for the sale of jewelries, as in the
present case, it is the agents duty to return the
jewelry upon demand of the owner and failure to do
so is evidence of conversion of the property by the
agent. In other words, the demand for the return of
the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the
accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence
of misappropriation. However, this presumption is
rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily
explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in
trust or to account for the money, he may not be held
liable for estafa. [People v. Manantan]
ADDITIONAL NOTES
THEFT
(a) Presumption of thievery -- possession of stolen
goods [People vs. Dela Cruz (2000)]
(b) No frustrated theft; Either attempted or
consummated only [Valenzuela vs. People
(2007)]
QUALIFIED THEFT
Related Laws
(1) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539);
(2) Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533);
(3) Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees and
Laborers (PD 133);
(4) Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832);
(5) Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft
Ordinances.
(6) Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330);
(7) Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);
Cases:
(a) Theft by bank teller considered Qualified Theft
[Roque vs. People(2004)]
(b) Grave abuse of confidence, requirements
[Astudillo vs. People(2006)]
(c) Carnapping vs. Qualified Theft [People vs.
Bustinera(2004)]
ESTAFA
(a) Conversion/Misappropriation, explained [Lee
vs. People (2005)]
(b) Estafa may coincide with Illegal recruitment
[People vs. Hernandez (2002)]
(c) Deceit/False Pretense, explained [Pablo vs.
People (2004)]
(d) SYNDICATED ESTAFA/Economic Sabotage
(Presidential Decree No. 1689)Ponzi scheme;
Pyramid Scams
Case:
Soliciting funds from and eventually defrauding the
general public constitutes syndicated estafa
amounting to economic sabotage [People vs. Balasa
(1998)]
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
(a) Modes of committing violations of BP 22;
(b) Presumptions/Evidentiary Rules
Cases:
(a) Rule of Preference in BP 22 violations: Court
may impose imprisonment or a fine [Bernardo vs.
People (2007)]
(b) Only a full payment of the face value of the
second check at the time of its presentment or
during the five-day grace period could exonerate
one from criminal liability. [Macalalag vs. People
(2006)]
See Also:
(1) PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law
(2) BP 22: Bouncing Check Law
(3) RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act
(4) RA 9372: Human Security Act
(5) PD 1613: Anti-Arson Law

PAGE 217
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Title XI. Crimes against The man, to be guilty of adultery, must have
Chastity knowledge of the married status of the woman.

A married man who is not liable for adultery,

(1) Art. 333: Adultery because he did not know that the woman is married,
(2) Art. 334: Concubinage may be held liable for concubinage.
(3) Art. 336: Acts of Lasciviousness
(4) Art. 337: Qualified Seduction Acquittal of one of the defendants does not operate
(5) Art. 338: Simple Seduction as a cause of acquittal of the other.
(6) Art. 339: Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended party Under the law, there is no accomplice in adultery.
(7) Art. 340: Corruption of minors
(8) Art. 341: White Slave Trade Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary.
(9) Art. 342: Forcible Abduction Circumstantial evidence is sufficient. (i.e. love letters
(10) Art. 343: Consented Abduction signed by the paramour, photos showing intimate
(11) Art. 344: Prosecution of the crimes of Adultery relations, testimony of witnesses)
(12) Art. 345: Civil Liability
(13) Art. 346: Liability of Ascendants, guardians, Pardon by the H does not exempt the adulterous W
teachers, or other persons entrusted with and her paramour from criminal liability for
custody of the offended adulterous acts committed subsequent to such
pardon, because the pardon refers to previous and
ARTICLE 333 - ADULTERY not to subsequent adulterous acts
Elements:
(1) that the woman is married; Effect of Pardon - applies to Concubinage as well:
(2) that she has sexual intercourse with a man not (1) The pardon must come before the institution of
her husband; the criminal prosecution; and
(3) that as regards the man with whom she has (2) Both the offenders must be pardoned by the
sexual intercourse: he must know her to be offended party. Act of sexual intercourse
married. subsequent to adulterous conduct is considered
as an implied pardon.
(3) Pardon of the offenders by the offended party is
LEGENDS:
a bar to prosecution for adultery or concubinage.
H husband; W wife; M - marriage
(4) Delay in the filing of complaint, if satisfactorily
explained, does not indicate pardon.
Offenders: Married woman and/or the man who has
carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married,
Effect of consent: The husband, knowing that his
even if the M be subsequently declared void. It is not
wife, after serving sentence for adultery, resumed
necessary that there be a valid M (i.e. void ab initio)
living with her co-defendant, did nothing to interfere
with their relations or to assert his rights as husband.
Essence of adultery: violation of the marital vow
The second charge of adultery should be dismissed
because of consent. [People v. Sensano and Ramos]
Gist of the crime: the danger of introducing spurious
heirs into the family, where the rights of the real heirs
Agreement to separate may be used as evidence to
may be impaired and a man may be charged with
show consent by the husband to the infidelity of his
the maintenance of a family not his own. (US v. Mata)
wife.
The offended party must be legally married to the
Effect of death of paramour: Offending wife may still
offender at the time of the filing of the complaint.
be prosecuted. The requirement that both offenders
should be included in the complaint is absolute only
Even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
when the two offenders are alive.
Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of
Effect of death of offended party: The proceedings
adultery.
may continue. Art. 353 seeks to protect the honor
and reputation not only of the living but of dead
Abandonment without justification is not exempting,
persons as well.
but only mitigating. Both defendants are entitled to
this mitigating circumstance.

PAGE 218
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 334 - CONCUBINAGE
Elements:
(1) That the man must be married;
(2) That he committed any of the following acts:
(a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
(b) Having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstance with a woman not his wife;
(c) Cohabiting with her in any other place;
(3) That as regards the woman, she must know him
to be married.
LEGENDS: H husband; W wife; M - marriage
Offenders: married man and the woman who knows
him to be married.
The woman only becomes liable only if she knew him
to be married prior to the commission of the crime.
rd
In the 3 way committing the crime, mere
cohabitation is sufficient; Proof of scandalous
circumstances not necessary. [People v. Pitoc, et. al.]
A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere
sexual relations with a woman not his wife. A man
would only be guilty of concubinage if he appeared
to be guilty of any of the acts punished in Art. 334.
A married man who is not liable for adultery because
he did not know that the woman was married, may
be held liable for concubinage. If the woman knew
that the man was married, she may be held liable for
concubinage as well.
Mistress a woman taken by the accused to live with
him in the conjugal dwelling as his
mistress/concubine. [People v. Bacon and People v.
Hilao]
Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling no
positive proof of sexual intercourse is necessary
Conjugal Dwelling the home of the H and the W
even if the wife appears to be temporarily absent on
any account.
The dwelling of the spouses was constructed from
the proceeds of the sale of their conjugal properties.
The fact that W never had a chance to reside therein
and that H used it with his mistress instead, does not
detract from its nature. [People v. Cordova (1959)]
Cohabit to dwell together as H and W for a period
of time (i.e. A week, a month, year or longer)
Scandalous circumstances Scandal consists in any
reprehensible word or deed that offends public
PAGE 219
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings
of honest persons, and gives occasion to the
neighbors spiritual damage or ruin. [People v.
Santos]
It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere
(outside the conjugal dwelling) that scandalous
circumstances become an element of the crime. [US
v. Macabagbag]
Qualifying expression: Sexual act which may be
proved by circumstantial evidence
Scandal produced by the concubinage of H:
(1) H and mistress live in the same room of a house
(2) They appear together in public,
(3) Perform acts in sight of the community which
give rise to criticism and general protest among
the neighbors.
When spies are employed for the purpose of
watching the conduct of the accused and it
appearing that none of the people living in the
vicinity has observed any suspicious conduct, there is
no evidence of scandalous circumstances. [US v.
Campos Rueda]
Reason: Adultery is punished more severely than
concubinage because adultery makes possible the
introduction of another mans offspring into the
family so that the offended H may have another
mans son bearing Hs name and receiving support
from him.
ARTICLE 335 RAPE
Repealed by R.A. 8353.
ARTICLE 336 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That the is committed against a person of either
sex;
(3) That is done under any of the ff. circumstances:
(a) By using force or intimidation; or
(b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
(c) When the offended party is under 12 years
of age or is demented.
Lewd obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous;
signifies form of immorality which has relation to
moral impurity or that which is carried in wanton
manner
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the offender. the commission of rape.
the essence of lewdness is in the very act itself.
Abuses against chastity (Art. 245) v acts of
Example: If the kissing etc. was done inside church lasciviousness (Art. 336)
(which is a public place), absence of lewd designs
may be proven, and the crime is unjust vexation only. Offenses against Chastity Abuses against Chastity
But if the kissing was done in the house of a woman Committed by a private Committed by a public
when she was alone, the circumstances may prove individual, in most cases officer only
the accuseds lewd designs.
Some act of Mere immoral or indecent
Absent any of the circumstances of rape under the lasciviousness should proposal made earnestly
rd
3 element, the crime is UNJUST VEXATION. (e.g. have been executed by and persistently is
touching of breast) the offender. sufficient.

Lascivious intent is implied from the nature of the act The accused followed the victim, held her, embraced
and the surrounding circumstances. her, tore her dress, and tried to touch her breast.
When a complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed
Consider the act and the environment to distinguish against him, accused claimed that he had no
between Acts of Lasciviousness and Attempted intention of having sexual intercourse with her and
Rape. Desistance in the commission of attempted that he did the acts only as revenge. TC found the
rape may constitute acts of lasciviousness. accused guilty of FRUSTRATED ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS. SC held that there is no
No attempted and frustrated acts of lasciviousness. frustrated crime against chastity which includes acts
of lasciviousness, adultery, and rape. [People v.
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Grave Coercion Famularcano]
Acts of Lasciviousness Grave Coercion
Compulsion or force is Compulsion or force is the From the moment the offender performs all the
included in the very act constituting the elements necessary for the existence of the felony, he
constructive element of offense of grave coercion. actually attains his purpose.
force.
Must be accompanied by Moral compulsion Motive of revenge is of no consequence since the
acts of lasciviousness or amounting to intimidation element of lewdness is in the very act itself.
lewdness. is sufficient. Example: Compelling a girl to dance naked before a
man is an act of lasciviousness, even if the dominant
motive is revenge, for her failure to pay a debt.
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape
Acts of Lasciviousness Attempted Rape Two kinds of seduction:
(1) Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
Same means of committing the crime: (2) Simple seduction (Art. 338)
(1) Force, threat, or intimidation is employed; or
(2) By means of fraudulent machination or grave ARTICLE 337 - QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
abuse of authority; or
(3) The offended party is deprived of reason or Elements:
otherwise unconscious; or (1) That the offended party is a virgin, which is
(4) Victim is under 12 yrs. of age or is demented presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
Offended party is a person of either sex. (2) That the she must be over 12 and under 18 yrs. of
The performance of acts of lascivious character age; (13-17 years 11 months 29 days)
(3) That the offender has sexual intercourse with
Acts performed do not Acts performed clearly her;
indicate that the accused indicate that the (4) That the there is abuse of authority, confidence,
was to lie w/ the offended accuseds purpose was to or relationship on the part of the offender.
party. lie w/ the offended
woman. Seduction - enticing a woman to unlawful sexual
Lascivious acts are the Lascivious acts are only intercourse by promise of marriage or other means of
final objective sought by the preparatory acts to persuasion without use of force. It applies when there

PAGE 220
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
is abuse of authority (qualified seduction) or deceit
(simple seduction).
Two classes of Qualified Seduction:
(1) Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18
years of age by certain persons such as, a person
in authority, priest, teacher or any person who, in
any capacity shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced.
(2) Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her
age or reputation.
Virgin - a woman of chaste character and of good
reputation. The offended party need not be
physically a virgin.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of
lewdness are performed, the crime is acts of
lasciviousness. If any of the circumstances in the
crime of rape is present, the crime is not to be
punished under Art. 337.
The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted
of qualified seduction under the same information.
Offenders in Qualified Seduction:
(1) Those who abused their authority: (PaG-TE/C)
(a) Person in public authority;
(b) Guardian;
(c) Teacher;
(d) Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with
the education or custody of the woman
seduced.
(2) Those who abused confidence reposed in them:
(PHD)
(a) Priest;
(b) House servant;
(c) Domestic
(3) Those who abused their relationship:
(a) Brother who seduced his sister;
(b) Ascendant who seduced his descendant.
Domestic - a person usually living under the same
roof, pertaining to the same house.
Not necessary that the offender be the teacher of the
offended party; it is sufficient that he is a teacher in
the same school.
Qualified seduction may also be committed by a
master to his servant, or a head of the family to any
of its members.
Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant, also
known as INCEST, is punished by a penalty next
higher in degree.
PAGE 221
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The age, reputation, or virginity of the sister or
descendant is irrelevant. The relationship need not
be legitimate.
A 15-year old virgin, who was brought by her mother
to the house of the accused and his wife to serve as a
helper, repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the
accused, as she was induced by his promises of
marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation.
HELD: DECEIT, although an essential element of
ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to be
proved or established in a charge of qualified
seduction. It is replaced by ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE. [People v. Fontanilla]
The accused, a policeman, brought a 13-year old girl
with low mentality, to the ABC Hall where he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. The
complaint did not allege that the girl was a virgin.
The accused was charged with RAPE but convicted
of QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.
HELD: Though it is true that virginity is presumed if
the girl is over 12 but under 18, unmarried and of
good reputation, virginity is still an essential element
of the crime of qualified seduction and must be
alleged in the complaint. Accused is guilty of RAPE,
considering the victims age, mental abnormality and
deficiency. There was also intimidation with the
accused wearing his uniform. [Babanto v. Zosa]
Consented Abduction Qualified
Seduction
Means Requires the taking Requires abuse
away of the victim of authority,
w/ her consent confidence or
relationship
Act Offender has sexual Taking away
intercourse with lewd
designs
Wronged The girl The girls family
Perez succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
Mendoza after he promised to marry her. As he did
not make good on said promise, Mendoza filed a
complaint for Consented Abduction. Trial Court
found that the acts constituted seduction, acquitting
him on the charge of Consented Abduction.
Mendoza then filed a complaint for Qualified
Seduction. Perez moved to dismiss the case on the
grounds of double jeopardy.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

HELD: There are similar elements between under 18 yrs. of age but over 12 yrs., or a sister or
consented abduction and qualified seduction, descendant, regardless of her reputation or age;
namely: (3) The offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of
(1) the offended party is a virgin, and authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit.
(2) over 12 but under 18 yrs. of age
It is necessary that it be committed under
However, an acquittal for CONSENTED ABDUCTION circumstances which would make it qualified or
will not preclude the filing of a charge for QUALIFIED simple seduction had there been sexual intercourse,
SEDUCTION because the elements of the two crimes instead of acts of lewdness only.
are different. [Perez v. CA]
When the victim is under 12 yrs., the penalty shall be
NOTE: The fact that the girl gave consent to the one degree higher than that imposed by law. (sec. 10
sexual intercourse is not a defense. of R.A. 7610)
ARTICLE 338 - SIMPLE SEDUCTION Males cannot be the offended party.
Elements:
(1) That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness with
years of age; (Art. 336) consent (Art. 339)
(2) That she is of good reputation, single or widow;
(3) That the offender has sexual intercourse with her; Committed under Committed under
(4) That it is committed by means of deceit. circumstances w/c, had circumstances w/c, had
there been carnal there been carnal
Purpose of the law - To punish the seducer who by knowledge, would knowledge, would
means of promise of marriage, destroys the chastity amount to rape amount to either qualified
of an unmarried female of previous chaste character or simple seduction
Virginity of offended party is not essential, good Offended party is a Offended party should
reputation is sufficient. female or male only be female

Virginity of offended party is not required. ARTICLE 340 - CORRUPTION OF MINORS

Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled
promise of marriage.
Promise of marriage must be the inducement and
the woman must yield because of the promise or
other inducement.
What about unfulfilled promise of material things, as
when the woman agrees to sexual intercourse in
exchange for jewelry? This is not seduction because
she is a woman of loose morals.
Acts punishable: The promotion or facilitation of the
prostitution or corruption of persons under age
(minors), to satisfy the lust of another.
LIABILITY:
(1) Any person
(2) Punishable by prision mayor
(3) A public officer or employee, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations
(4) Shall also be penalized by temporary absolute
disqualification (As amended by BP 92).

Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse does
not constitute deceit. Promise of marriage by a
married man is not a deceit, if the woman knew him
to be married.
Seduction is not a continuing offense.
ARTICLE 339 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Elements:
(1) Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
(2) The acts are committed upon a woman who is a
virgin or single or widow of good reputation,
Habituality or abuse of authority or confidence is not
necessary.
It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have
been done.
Mere proposal will consummate the offense.
The victim must be of good reputation, not a
prostitute or corrupted person.
SEE ALSO: RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION,
AND DISCRIMINATION ACT

PAGE 222
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

There is a crime of ATTEMPTED CHILD (1) Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without
PROSTITUTION. (Sec. 6, RA 7610) the consent of the offended party
(2) Qualified seduction of sister or descendant
ARTICLE 341 - WHITE SLAVE TRADE (3) Forcible abduction
Acts punishable:
(1) Engaging in business of prostitution The taking away of the woman must be against her
(2) Profiting by prostitution will.
(3) Enlisting the services of women for the purpose
of prostitution. The taking away of the woman may be accomplished
by means of deceit first and then by means of
Habituality is not a necessary element of white slave violence and intimidation.
trade.
If the female abducted is under 12, the crime is
Under any pretext one who engaged the services forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes with
of a woman allegedly as a maid, but in reality for her abductor.
prostitution, is guilty under this article.
When the victim was abducted by the accused
Victim is under 12 yrs., penalty shall be one degree without lewd designs, but for the purpose of lending
higher. her to illicit intercourse with others, the crime is not
abduction but corruption of minors.
Offender need not be the owner of the house.
Rape may absorb forcible abduction, if the main
Maintainer or manager of house of ill-repute need objective was to rape the victim.
not be present therein at the time of raid or arrest.
Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible
abduction.
Corruption of Minors White Slave Trade
Lewd designs may be shown by the conduct of the
Minority of victims Minority is not required
accused. When there are several defendants, it is
essential
enough that one of them had lewd designs. Husband
Victims may be male or Applies only to females is not liable for abduction of his wife, as lewd design
female is wanting.
May not necessarily be for Generally for profit
profit Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of forcible
abduction, thus there is no complex crime of forcible
Committed by a single act Generally committed abduction with attempted rape.
habitually
Nature of the crime - The act of the offender is
violative of the individual liberty of the abducted, her
ARTICLE 342 - FORCIBLE ABDUCTION honor and reputation, and public order.
Elements:
(1) The person abducted is any woman, regardless Forcible Abduction Grave Coercion
of her age, civil status or reputation;
(2) The abduction is against her will; There is violence or intimidation by the offender.
(3) The abduction is with lewd designs. The offended party is compelled to do something
against her will.
Abduction the taking away of a woman from her
Abduction is No lewd design, provided
house or the place where she may be for the purpose
characterized by lewd that there is no
of carrying her to another place with the intent to
design. deprivation of liberty for
marry or to corrupt her.
an appreciable length of
time.
Two kinds of abduction:
(1) Forcible abduction (Art. 342)
(2) Consented abduction (Art. 343) Forcible Abduction Corruption of Minors

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation are Purpose is to effect his Purpose is to lend the
immaterial: lewd designs on the victim to illicit intercourse

PAGE 223
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Forcible Abduction Corruption of Minors HELD: The accused is guilty of FORCIBLE

ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. It was proven that the
victim. with others. victim was taken against her will and with lewd
design, and was subsequently forced to submit to
the accuseds lust, rendering her unconscious in the
Forcible Abduction Serious Illegal Detention process. [People v. Alburo]
There is deprivation of There is deprivation of
liberty and lewd designs. liberty and no lewd There can only be one complex crime of forcible
designs abduction with rape.

Commission of other The victim witnessed the killing of another by the 2

crimes during accused. Upon seeing her, the accused dragged her
confinement of victim is to a vacant lot where they took turns in raping her.
immaterial to the charge TC convicted them of rape.
of kidnapping w/ serious
illegal detention. HELD: FORCIBLE ABDUCTION is absorbed in the
crime of RAPE if the main objective is to rape the
Forcible Abduction with victim. Conviction of acts of lasciviousness is not a
Kidnapping (with rape)
Rape bar to conviction of forcible abduction. [People v.
The violent taking of the Not so motivated Godines]
woman is motivated by
lewd designs. ARTICLE 343 - CONSENTED ABDUCTION
Crime against chastity Crime against liberty Elements:
(1) Offended party is a virgin;
(2) She is over 12 and under 18 yrs. of age;
(3) Offender takes her away with her consent, after
Forcible Abduction with Rape - a complex crime solicitation or cajolery from the offender;
under Art.48, and not a special complex crime (4) The taking away is with lewd designs.

The victim was abducted by the accused and was Purpose of the law - Not to punish the wrong done to
brought to a hotel where the latter succeeded in the girl because she consents to it, but to prescribe
having sexual intercourse with her. punishment for the disgrace to her family and the
alarm caused by the disappearance of one who is, by
HELD: The elements of both rape and forcible her age and sex, susceptible to cajolery and deceit.
abduction are proven. The presence of lewd designs
in forcible abduction is manifested by the If the virgin is under 12 or is deprived of reason, the
subsequent rape of the victim. [People v. Sunpongco] crime is forcible abduction because such is incapable
of giving a valid consent.
This is the Maggie Dela Riva story wherein Maggie
was abducted and brought to a hotel, where the 4 The taking away of the girl need not be with some
accused took turns in raping her. character of permanence. Offended party need not
be taken from her house.
HELD: While the first act of rape was being
performed, the crime of forcible abduction had When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no
already been consummated, hence, forcible deceit and the girl voluntarily went with the man,
abduction can only be attached to the first act of there is no crime committed even if they had sexual
rape, detached from the 3 subsequent acts of rape. intercourse.
The effect therefore would be one count of forcible
abduction with rape and 4 counts of rape for each of ARTICLE 344 - PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE
the accused. [People v. Jose] OFFENSES
(1) Adultery
The accused and 2 other men raped the victim. The
(2) Concubinage
victim was a jeepney passenger who was prevented
(3) Seduction
from leaving the jeepney. She was taken to a remote
(4) Abduction
place where she was raped.
(5) Acts of lasciviousness

PAGE 224
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Nature of the complaint: The complaint must be filed
in court, not with the fiscal. In case of complex
crimes, where one of the component offenses is a
public crime, the criminal prosecution may be
instituted by the fiscal.
The court motu proprio can dismiss the case for
failure of the aggrieved party to file the proper
complaint even if the accused never raised the
question on appeal.
Crimes against chastity cannot be prosecuted de
oficio.
Adultery and Concubinage
Who may file the complaint: Adultery and
Concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint
signed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including BOTH the guilty
parties if they are alive. Both parties must be
included in the complaint even if one of them is not
guilty.
Consent and pardon bar the filing of a criminal
complaint.
The imputation of a crime of prostitution against a
woman can be prosecuted de oficio, but crimes
against chastity cannot.
Prosecution of rape may be made upon complaint by
any person.
Effect of Pardon: (see Effect of Pardon in Art. 333
Adultery)
(1) Effect of Pardon in Adultery applies also to
Concubinage
(2) Condonation or forgiveness of one act of adultery
or concubinage is not a bar to prosecution of
similar acts that may be committed by the
offender in the future.
Consent:
(1) May be express or implied
(2) Given before the adultery or concubinage was
committed
(3) Agreement to live separately may be evidence of
consent.
(4) Affidavit showing consent may be a basis for
new trial.
PAGE 225
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness must
be prosecuted upon complaint signed by
(1) Offended party - When the offended party is a
minor, her parents may file the complaint.
(2) When the offended party is of age and is in
complete possession of her mental and physical
faculties, she alone can file the complaint.
(3) Parents, Grandparents or Guardian in that order
When the offended is a minor or incapacitated and
refuses to file the complaint, any of the persons
mentioned could file.
The term guardian refers to legal guardian. He
must be legally appointed by the Court.
The State may also file the complaint as parens
patriae when the offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she could file the complaint
and has no known parents, grandparents, or
guardians
Effect of Pardon:
(1) Offended party cannot institute criminal
proceedings if the offender has been
EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party, or
her parents, grandparents or guardian.
(2) Pardon by the parent, grandparent, or guardian
must be accompanied by the express pardon of
the offended woman.
(3) The right to file action of the parents,
grandparents and guardian shall be EXCLUSIVE
of other persons and shall be exercised
successively in the order provided.
(4) Pardon by the offended party who is a minor
must have the concurrence of parents, EXCEPT
when the offended party has no parents.
Rape complexed with another crime against chastity
need NOT be signed by the offended woman, since
rape is a public crime. When the evidence fails to
prove a complex crime of rape with another crime,
and there is no complaint signed by the offended
woman, the accused CANNOT be convicted of rape.
Marriage of the offender with the offended party in
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape,
extinguishes criminal action or remits the penalty
already imposed.
Marriage (in cases of seduction, abduction, and acts
of lasciviousness) extinguishes the criminal action
even as to co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories.
Marriage must be entered into in good faith.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Marriage may take place AFTER criminal proceedings
have commenced, or even after conviction
(extinguishes criminal action and remits penalty).
ARTICLE 345: CIVIL LIABILITY
Those guilty of rape, seduction or abduction:
(1) To indemnify the offended woman
(2) To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from doing so
(3) In every case to support the offspring, EXCEPT:
(a) in cases of adultery and concubinage
(b) where either of the offended party or
accused is married
(c) when paternity cannot be determined, such
as in multiple rape
(d) other instances where the law prevents such
The adulterer and the concubine can be sentenced
only to indemnify for damages caused to the
offended spouse.
Under the RPC, there is no civil liability for acts of
lasciviousness.
Art. 2219, CC: moral damages may be recovered in
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts,
as well as in adultery and concubinage.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped,
or abused may also recover moral damages.
In multiple rape, all the offenders must support the
offspring.
Art. 283 (1), CC: Judgment to recognize the offspring
may only be given if there is pregnancy within the
period of conception, which is within 120 days from
the commission of the offense.
In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is
allowed.
ARTICLE 346 LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS,
GUARDIANS, TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY
Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers or other
persons entrusted with the custody of the offended
party
(1) Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are
punished as principals in rape, seduction,
abduction, etc. (see list below for the complete
set of crimes referred to in this article):
(a) ascendants
(b) guardians
(c) curators
PAGE 226
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(d) teachers, and
(e) any other person, who cooperate as
accomplice with abuse of authority or
confidential relationship
(2) The teachers or persons entrusted with
education and guidance of the youth shall also
be penalized with disqualification.
Jurisprudence for Title Eleven
CHILD ABUSE; Sweetheart defense not available
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. [Malto v. People
(2007)]
RAPE; Exemplary Damages; Child Victims
Exemplary damages must also be awarded in these
child abuse cases to deter others with perverse
tendencies from sexually abusing young girls of their
own flesh and blood. [People vs. Abellera(2007)]
CHILD ABUSE; Pandering Child Prostitutes
Appellants violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No.
7610 is as clear as day. The provision penalizes
anyone who engages in or promotes, facilitates or
induces child prostitution either by:
(1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; or
(2) inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means; or
(3) by taking advantage of influence or relationship
to procure a child as a prostitute; or
(4) threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefits to the child with the intent to
engage such child in prostitution.
The purpose of the law is to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and
other conditions prejudicial to their development.
A child exploited in prostitution may seem to
consent to what is being done to her or him and
may appear not to complain.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
However, we have held that a child who is a person
below eighteen years of age or those unable to fully
take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of their age or mental disability or
condition is incapable of giving rational consent to
any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. In fact, the
absence of free consent is conclusively presumed
when the woman is below the age of twelve. [People
vs. Delantar (2007)]
CHILD ABUSE; Definition of Lascivious Conduct
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of
RA 7610 that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness 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. [Navarrete vs. People (2007)]
Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 2 (h) of
the rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
(1) 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,
(2) whether of the same or opposite sex,
(3) with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person,
(4) bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area of a person
RA 9995: ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM
ACT OF 2009
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited
and declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or
group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of the
private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast without the consent of
the person/s involved and under circumstances
in which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration;
PAGE 227
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether it be the original copy or
reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published
or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast
media, or show or exhibit the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any
similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and other similar means or
device.
RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISCRIMINATION
Child prostitution and other acts of abuse
Punishable acts
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution which include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship
to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child
to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or
other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent
to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse
of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
Provided, That when the victims is under twelve
(12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the
establishment where the prostitution takes
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainment or establishment serving as a
cover or which engages in prostitution in
addition to the activity for which the license has
been issued to said establishment.
Comparison with art. 366, RPC
Acts of lasciviousness is punished under RA 7610
when performed on a child below 18 years of age
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse.
Obscene publications and indecent shows
Punishable acts
Section 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent
Shows. Any person who shall hire, employ, use,
persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in
obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether
live or in video, or model in obscene publications or
pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the
said materials shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium period.
If the child used as a performer, subject or
seller/distributor is below twelve (12) years of age,
the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any
capacity with the care of a child who shall cause
and/or allow such child to be employed or to
participate in an obscene play, scene, act, movie or
show or in any other acts covered by this section
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
medium period.
RA 9208: ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
Punishable acts
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be
unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to
commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or
receive a person by any means, including those
done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act
No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of
acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading
him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated,
for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering,
PAGE 228
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
selling, or trading them to engage in
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation,
forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;
(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for
the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography;
(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a
person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud,
deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the
purpose of removal or sale of organs of said
person; and
(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in
armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.
Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. -
The following acts which promote or facilitate
trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be
used any house, building or establishment for
the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,
tampered or fake counseling certificates,
registration stickers and certificates of any
government agency which issues these
certificates and stickers as proof of compliance
with government regulatory and pre-departure
requirements for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any
brochure, flyer, or any propaganda material that
promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or
fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition
of clearances and necessary exit documents
from government agencies that are mandated
to provide pre-departure registration and
services for departing persons for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and
local airports, territorial boundaries and
seaports who are in possession of unissued,
tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport,
travel documents, or personal documents or
belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance
of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the
country or seeking redress from the government
or appropriate agencies; and
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise,
or make use of, the labor or services of a person
held to a condition of involuntary servitude,
forced labor, or slavery.
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The
following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic
Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-
Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said
adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by
a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons, individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian or a person who exercises
authority over the trafficked person or when the
offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage
in prostitution with any member of the military
or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or
law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted
with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
RA 9262: ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN
Punishable acts
SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and
Their Children.- The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any
of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminent physical harm;
PAGE 229
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman
or her child to engage in conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to desist from
or desist from conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to engage in, or attempting to
restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's
freedom of movement or conduct by force or
threat of force, physical or other harm or threat
of physical or other harm, or intimidation
directed against the woman or child. This shall
include, but not limited to, the following acts
committed with the purpose or effect of
controlling or restricting the woman's or her
child's movement or conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving
the woman or her child of custody to her/his
family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the
woman or her children of financial support
legally due her or her family, or deliberately
providing the woman's children insufficient
financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the
woman or her child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any
legitimate profession, occupation, business
or activity or controlling the victim's own
money or properties, or solely controlling
the conjugal or common money, or
properties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on
oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions
or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her
child to engage in any sexual activity which does
not constitute rape, by force or threat of force,
physical harm, or through intimidation directed
against the woman or her child or her/his
immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child.
This shall include, but not be limited to, the
following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child
in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside
the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on
the property of the woman or her child
against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal
belongings or inflicting harm to animals or
pets of the woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or
violence;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public

ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal
and emotional abuse, and denial of financial
support or custody of minor children of access to
the woman's child/children.
Substitution of one child for another
This is committed when a child of a couple is
exchanged with a child of another couple without the
knowledge of the respective parents.

The substitution can also happen by placing a live

Title XII. Crimes against the child of a woman in place of anothers dead child.

Civil Status of Persons Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child

Requisites:
(1) The child must be legitimate
Chapter I: Simulation of Births and Usurpation of Civil (2) The offender conceals or abandons such child;
Status and
(1) Art 347: Simulation of births, substitution of one (3) The offender has the intent to cause such child to
child for another and concealment or lose its civil status.
abandonment of a legitimate child
(2) Art 348: Usurpation of civil status The unlawful sale of a child by his father is not a
crime under this article.
Chapter II: Illegal Marriages
(1) Art 349: Bigamy Abandon as used in art. 347 - The practice of
(2) Art 350: Marriage contracted against provisions abandoning newly born infants and very young child
of law at the door of hospitals and churches.
(3) Art 351: Premature marriages
(4) Art 352: Performance of illegal marriage Art. 347 Art. 246
ceremony
Offender: Any person Offender: The one who
CHAPTER I: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND has the custody of the
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS child
Purpose: To cause the Purpose: To avoid
ARTICLE 347 - SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF
child to lose his civil obligation of rearing and
ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR
status. caring for the child.
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
Mode 1. Simulation of births; A physician or surgeon or public officer, who
cooperates in the execution of these crimes, is also
Mode 2. Substitution of one child for another; liable if he acts in violation of the duties of his
profession or office.
Mode 3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate
child with intent to cause such child to lose its ARTICLE 348 - USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
civil status. This crime is committed when a person represents
himself to be another and assumes the filiation or
The object of the crime under art. 347 is the creation the parental or conjugal rights of such another
of false, or the causing of loss of, civil status. person.
Simulation of birth Usurpation of profession may be punished under art.
Takes place when the woman pretends to be 348.
pregnant when in fact she is not, and on the day of
the supposed delivery, takes the child of another as There must be an intent to enjoy the rights arising
her own. from the civil status of another.
The simulation of birth which is a crime is that which CHAPTER II: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
alters the civil status of a person.
ARTICLE 349 BIGAMY
The fact that the child will be benefited by the
simulation of its birth is not a defense. Elements:

PAGE 230
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(1) Offender has been legally married;
(2) 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) He contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
(4) The second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
The first marriage must be valid.
Nullity of marriage, not a defense in bigamy.
The fact that the first marriage is void from the
beginning is not a defense. As with voidable
marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage before contracting the second
marriage.
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the
whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy through
reckless imprudence.
One who contracted a subsequent marriage before
the declaration of presumptive death of the absent
spouse is guilty of bigamy.
The second marriage must have all the essential
requisites for validity.
One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for
concubinage as both are distinct offenses. 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.
The second spouse is not necessarily liable for
bigamy.
Whether the second spouse should be included in
the information is a question of fact that was
determined by the fiscal who conducted the
preliminary investigation in this case. (People v.
Nepomuceno, Jr., 64 SCRA 518)
The second husband or wife who knew of first
marriage is an accomplice.
PAGE 231
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The witness who falsely vouched for the capacity of
either of the contracting parties is also an
accomplice.
Bigamy is not a private crime.
ARTICLE 350 - MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAWS
Elements:
(1) Offender contracted marriage;
(2) He knew at the time that
(a) The requirements of the law were not
complied with; or
(b) The marriage was in disregard of a legal
impediment..
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages
which are performed without complying with the
requirements of law, or marriages where the consent
of the other is vitiated, or such marriage which was
solemnized by one who is not authorized to
solemnize the same.
Conviction of a violation of art. 350 involves a crime
of moral turpitude. (Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313)
ARTICLE 351 - PREMATURE MARRIAGE
Persons liable:
(1) A widow who is 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.
The purpose of the law punishing premature
marriages is to prevent doubtful paternity. (People v.
Rosal, 49 Phil. 509)
The Supreme Court considered the reason behind
making such marriages within 301 days 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 is 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.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 352 - PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE
CEREMONY
PERSONS LIABLE:
(1) Priests or ministers of any religious
denomination or sect, or civil authorities
(2) who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony
The offender must be authorized to solemnize
marriages.
Jurisprudence:
Bigamy
The primordial issue should be whether or not
petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether
his defense of good faith is valid.
In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the
elements of bigamy thus:
(1) The offender has been legally married;
(2) The first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse has not
been judicially declared presumptively dead;
(3) He contracts a subsequent marriage; and
(4) The subsequent marriage would have been
valid had it not been for the existence of the
first.
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case,
we note that the trial court found that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed between
Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead,
what transpired was a mere signing of the
marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires
that the accused must have been legally married.
But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner
was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is
no first marriage to speak of.
Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage
being declared void ab initio, the two were never
married from the beginning. The contract of
marriage is null; it bears no legal effect.
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for
legal purposes, petitioner was not married to
Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with
Maria Jececha. The existence and the validity of
the first marriage being an essential element of
the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a
conviction for said offense cannot be sustained
PAGE 232
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
where there is no first marriage to speak of. The
petitioner, must, perforce be acquitted of the
instant charge. [Lucio Morigo v. People(2002)]
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity
of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated. Moreover,
petitioner's assertion would only delay the
prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an
accused could simply file a petition to declare his
previous marriage void and invoke the pendency
of that action as a prejudicial question in the
criminal case. We cannot allow that.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioner's innocence
or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because
all that is required for the charge of bigamy to
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted. Thus,
under the law, a marriage, even one which is void
or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared
otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained
a declaration that his first marriage was void ab
initio, the point is, both the first and the second
marriage were subsisting before the first
marriage was annulled. [Abunado v.
People(2004)]
A careful study of the disputed decision reveals
that respondent Judge had been less than
circumspect in his study of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. In
his comment, respondent Judge stated: That the
accused married Manuel P. Diego in the honest
belief that she was free to do so by virtue of the
decree of divorce is a mistake of fact.
This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which
could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a
bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does
not excuse a person, even a lay person, from
liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused, who
had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan
custom, honestly believed that in contracting her
second marriage she was not committing any
violation of the law, and that she had no criminal
intent, the same does not justify her act.
This Court further stated therein that with respect
to the contention that the accused acted in good
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
faith in contracting the second marriage,
believing that she had been validly divorced from
her first husband, it is sufficient to say that
everyone is presumed to know the law, and the
fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt
him from the consequences thereof.
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger,
where it was held that the accused who secured a
foreign divorce, and later remarried in the
Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce
was valid, is liable for bigamy. [Diego v.
Castillo(2004)]
Title XIII. Crimes against
Honor
Chapter I: Libel
(1) Art 353: Definition of Libel
(2) Art 354: Privileged communication
(3) Art 355: Libel by means of writings or similar
means
(4) Art 356: Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a compensation
(5) Art. 357: Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred
to in the course of Official Proceedings
(6) Art 358: Slander
(7) Art 359: Slander by Deed
Chapter II: Incriminatory Machinations
(1) Art 363: Incriminating innocent person
(2) Art 364: Intriguing against honor
CHAPTER I LIBEL
ARTICLE 353 - DEFINITION OF LIBEL
Elements:
(1) There must be an imputation of
(a) a crime,
(b) a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR
(c) any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
(2) The imputation must be made publicly;
(3) It must be malicious;
(4) The imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead.
Libel as used in Art. 353. (Reyes)
Defamation is composed of:
(1) Libel written defamation
(2) Slander- oral defamation
PAGE 233
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Slander by deed defamation through acts
Test of the defamatory character of words used:
Whether they are calculated to induce the hearers to
suppose and understand that the person against
whom they (i.e. the defamatory words) were uttered
was guilty of certain offenses; OR are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold
him up to public ridicule. (U.S. vs. OConnell)
First element: There must be an imputation of a
crime, a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
Imputation of a criminal act may be implied from the
acts and statements of the accused.
Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.
An expression of opinion by one affected by the act
of another and based on actual fact is not libelous.
Second element: The imputation must be made
publicly.
Publication: communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons. There is no
crime if the defamatory imputation is not published.
Third element: The publication must be malicious.
Malice in fact may be shown by proof of ill-will,
hatred or purpose to injure.
Malice in law presumed from a defamatory
imputation. Proof of malice is not required. (Art. 354,
par.1)
But where the communication is privileged, malice is
not presumed from the defamatory words.
Malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with
honest or laudable purpose. Even if the publication is
injurious, the presumption of malice disappears upon
proof of good intentions and justifiable motive.
But where malice in fact is present, justifiable motive
cannot exist, and the imputations become
actionable.
Fourth element: The imputation must be directed at
a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
It is essential that the victim be identifiable, although
it is not necessary that he be named.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is without any comments or remarks, of

not actionable unless the statements are all- (a) any judicial, legislative or other official
embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be proceedings which are not of confidential
identifiable. nature, OR
(b) any statement, report or speech delivered in
Libel published in different places may be taken said proceedings, OR
together to establish the identification of the (c) any other act performed by public officers in
offended party. the exercise of their functions.
Fifth element: The imputation must tend to cause Defamatory remarks are PRESUMED malicious. The
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the offended presumption of malice is REBUTTED, if it is shown by
party. the accused that (see discussion of Art. 361)
(1) The defamatory imputation is true, IN CASE the
Dishonor disgrace, shame or ignominy law allows proof of the truth of the imputation;
Discredit loss of credit of reputation; disesteem (2) It is published with good intention; AND
Contempt state of being despised (3) There is justifiable motive for making it
For a statement to be considered malicious, it must Privileged communication is NOT PRESUMED
be shown that it was written or published with the malicious.
knowledge that they are false OR in reckless
disregard of WON they were false. Kinds of Privilege:
Reckless disregard the defendant entertains serious ABSOLUTE QUALIFIED
doubt as to the truth of the publication, OR that he
NOT actionable. Narrow Actionable IF Malice or
possesses a high degree of awareness of their
and few: Bad faith is proven
probable falsity.
(1) Privileged speeches in (malice in Fact)
congress
To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily
(2) Statements made in Based on par 1 and 2 of
accompany strict liability for erroneous statements,
judicial proceedings Art 354, although the list
rules governing liability for injury to reputation are
as long as they are is not exclusive
required to allow an adequate margin of error by
relevant to the issue
protecting some inaccuracies. [Borjal v. CA (1999)]
(3) Military affairs
Fine preferred penalty in libel cases
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 stated the rule Art 354 does not cover absolute privilege because
of preference of fine only rather than imprisonment character of communications mentioned therein is
in libel cases, having in mind the ff. principles: lost upon proof of malice in fact.
1) The circular does not remove imprisonment as a n
alternative penalty MALICE IN LAW MALICE IN FACT
2) Judges may, in the exercise of their discretion,
determine whether the imposition of fine alone Presumed from To be proved by
would best serve the interest of justice defamatory character of prosecution ONLY IF
3) Should only a fine be imposed and the accused statement malice in law has been
unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to rebutted
the application of the RPC on subsidiary Statement is presented to Can be negated by
imprisonment. court, and the latter will evidence of:
decide whether it is (1) Good motives AND
ARTICLE 354 - REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY defamatory or not Justifiable ends; or
General rule: MALICE IS PRESUMED in every (2) Privileged character
defamatory imputation.
Requisites of privileged communication under par. 1
Exception: in privileged communications, namely: of art. 354:
(1) A private communication to an officer or a (1) That the person who made the communication
board, or superior, having some interest or duty had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
in the matter, made by any person in the communication, or, at least, he had an interest
performance of any legal, moral or social duty; to be upheld;
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith,

PAGE 234
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(2) That the communication is addressed to an
officer or board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter.
(3) The the statements in the communication are
made in good faith without malice in fact.
Applying to the wrong person due to honest mistake
does not take the case out of privilege. (US v. Bustos,
37 Phil. 731)
Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith.
The privileged character simply does away with the
presumption of malice.
The rule is that a communication loses its privileged
character and is actionable on proof of actual malice.
That the statement is a privileged communication is
a matter of defense. To overcome the defense of
privileged communication under par. 1 of art. 354, it
must be shown that:
1) The defendant acted with malice in fact; or
2) There is no reasonable ground for believing the
charge to be true.
Fair and true report of official proceedings
Official proceedings refer to proceedings of the 3
branches of the government: judiciary, legislative,
and executive.
Requisites:
(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; and
(3) That it is without comments or remarks
The communication must be pertinent and material
to the subject matter.
Doctrine of fair comment: Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander.
In order that a discreditable imputation to a public
official may be actionable, it must either be:
(1) A false allegation of fact; OR
(2) A comment based on a false supposition. [People
v. Velasco (2000)]
PUBLIC FIGURE one who, by his accomplishments,
fame, mode of living, OR by adopting a profession or
PAGE 235
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in
his doings, his affairs and his character, has become
a public personage [Ayer Productions v. Capulong
(1988)]
Based on the ruling in US v. Ocampo, proof of
knowledge of and participation in the publication of
the offending article is not required, if the accused
has been specifically identified as author, editor, or
proprietor or printer/publisher of the publication.
On January 25, 2008, the Court issued
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, entitled
Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in
the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. The
Circular expresses a preference for the imposition of
a fine rather than imprisonment, given the
circumstances attendant in the cases cited therein in
which only a fine was imposed by this Court on those
convicted of libel.
It also states that, if the penalty imposed is merely a
fine but the convict is unable to pay the same, the
Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment should apply.
However, the Circular likewise allows the court, in the
exercise of sound discretion, the option to impose
imprisonment as penalty, whenever the imposition of
a fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the
offense, work violence on the social order, or
otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.
[Fermin v. People(2008)]
ARTICLE 355 - LIBEL BY WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
Libel may be committed by means of:
(1) Writing;
(2) Printing;
(3) Lithography;
(4) Engraving;
(5) Radio;
(6) Photograph;
(7) Painting;
(8) Theatrical exhibition;
(9) Cinematographic exhibition; or
(10) Any similar means. (e.g. video broadcast)
Common characteristic of written libel: their
permanent nature as a means of publication.
Use of amplifier system is not libel but oral
defamation (slander). But the defamation made in
the television program is libel.
In a libel case filed in August 2006 against RP
Nuclear Solutions and blogger Abe Olandres, the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Pasig City Prosecutor dismissed the charges against
them because they have no participation in the
creation. Neither did they have the authority to
modify the content of the site being hosted where
3
the allegedly libelous remarks were posted.
The prosecutor however ordered the filing of cases
against two other respondents who never denied
authorship of the posted comments.
It remains debatable when the moment of
publication occurs with respect to statements made
4
over the Internet. One view holds that there is
publication once the statement is uploaded or posted
on a website. The other view maintains that
publication occurs only when another person gains
access or reads the statement on the site
ARTICLE 356 - THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO
PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
Acts Punished:
(1) Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, his parents, spouse, child or
other members of his family
(2) Offering to prevent the publication of such libel
for compensation or money consideration.
The essence of this crime is blackmail, which is
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure.
Blackmail can also be in the form of light threats,
which is punished under ARTICLE 283.
ARTICLE 357 - PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
(GAG LAW)
Elements:
(1) Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
(2) He publishes facts connected with the private
life of another;
(3) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
Requisites of violation:
(1) That the article published contains facts
connected with the private life of an individual;
and
3
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/
view_article.php?article_id=68456
4
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-
the-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)
PAGE 236
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of said person.
This article is referred to as the Gag Law.
Prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in
official proceedings.
Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,
divorce, legitimacy of children, etc. are barred from
publication.
Under RA 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of the news report he
made, UNLESS the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the state.
ARTICLE 358 - SLANDER
Slander, or oral defamation is composed of two kinds:
(1) Simple slander
(2) Grave slander
Factors that determine the gravity of the oral
defamation:
(1) Expressions used
(2) Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party.
(3) The surrounding circumstances.
Illustration of grave slander:
A woman of violent temper hurled at a respectable
married lady with young daughters offensive and
scurrilous epithets including words imputing
unchastity to the mother and tending to injure the
character of the daughters [U.S. vs. Toloso]
Illustration of simple slander:
(1) Calling a person a gangster
(2) Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger
with some provocation on the part of the
offended party
(3) The word putang ina mo is a common
expression in the dialect that is often employed
not really to slander but rather to express anger
or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever taken in its
literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection
on the virtue of a mother. [Reyes vs. People]
The slander need not be heard by the offended party.
ARTICLE 359 - SLANDER BY DEED
Elements:
(1) Offender performs any act not included in any
other crime against honor;
(2) Such act is performed in the presence of other
person or persons;
(3) Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
upon the offended party.
Slander by deed is a crime against honor which is
committed by performing any act which casts
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another
person.
Slander by deed is of two kinds
(1) Simple slander by deed
(2) Grave slander by deed
There is no fixed standard in determining whether a
slander is serious or not; hence the courts have
sufficient discretion to determine the same, basing
the finding on the attendant circumstances and
matters relevant thereto.
Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if the
intention of the accused is to cause shame or
humiliation.
Fighting the offended party with intention to insult
him is slander by deed.
Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by
deed.
Slander by deed and acts of lasciviousness
distinguished by presence of lewd designs. If such is
present, it is an act of lasciviousness.
Slander by deed and maltreatment the nature and
effect of maltreatment determines the crime
committed. If the offended party suffered from
shame or humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it
is slander by deed.
Slander by deed and unjust vexation If it merely
annoys and irritates, without any other concurring
factor, it is unjust vexation. If the irritation or
annoyance was attended by publicity and dishonor, it
is slander by deed.
ARTICLE 360 - PERSONS RESPONSIBLE 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
participate in or have connection with its
publication.
PAGE 237
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Liability of the editor is the same as that of the
author.
Lack of participation in the preparation of libelous
articles does not shield the persons responsible from
liability.
Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as
the Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person
acting as a service provider incurs NO civil or criminal
liability in the making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of libelous material if:
(1) The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or
circumstances from which it is apparent that
making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights;
(2) The service provider does not knowingly receive
a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity;
(3) The service provider does:
(a) not directly commit any infringement or
other unlawful act and
(b) does not induce or cause another person or
party to commit any infringement or other
unlawful act
(c) and/or does not benefit financially from the
infringing activity or unlawful act of another
person or party (Section 30, in relation to
5
Section 5, E-Commerce Law.
Where to file the criminal action? It depends on who
the offended party is.
If he is a public officer, the criminal action can only
be instituted in either:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he held office
at the time of the commission of the offense
If he is a private person, the criminal action may be
brought in:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the
offense
Civil and criminal action must be filed with the same
court.
5
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-
the-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Offended party must filed the complaint for utterance is where the by which he
defamation imputing a crime which cannot be unknown and source of the directly
prosecuted de officio. the offender defamatory incriminates or
simply repeats nature of the imputes to an
Libel imputing a vice or defect, not being an or passes the utterance is innocent person
imputation of a crime, is always prosecuted upon same to blemish known, and the commission
information signed and filed by the fiscal. the honor or offender makes of a crime
reputation of a republication
An action for exemplary damages in libel may be another thereof
awarded if the action is based on quasi-delict.
As far as this crime is concerned, this has been
No remedy for damages for slander or libel in case of interpreted to be possible only in the so-called
absolutely privileged communication. planting of evidence. If this act is resorted to, to
enable officers to arrest the subject, the crime is
ARTICLE 361 - PROOF OF TRUTH
unlawful arrest through incriminating innocent
When admissible? persons.
(1) When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime regardless of whether the offended party is This crime cannot be committed through verbal
a private individual or a public officer. incriminatory statements.
(2) When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the imputation does not Perjury by Defamation
constitute a crime, provided it is related to the Incriminating
making false
discharge of his official duties. innocent person
accusations

Rule of actual malice: Even if the defamatory act of planting giving of false public and
statement is false, NO liability can attach IF it relates evidence and the statement under malicious
to official conduct, UNLESS the public official like in order to oath or making a imputation
concerned proves that the statement was made with incriminate an false affidavit, calculated to
actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that it was false or innocent person imputing to the cause dishonor,
with reckless disregard of WON it was false. person the discredit, or
commission of a contempt upon
That the publication of the article was an honest crime the offended
mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to party
mitigate damages where article is libelous per se.
ARTICLE 364 - INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
ARTICLE 362 - LIBELOUS REMARKS (1) Intriguing against honor is referred to as
(1) Libelous remarks or comments gossiping: the offender, without ascertaining the
(2) connected with the matter privileged under the truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the
provisions of Art. 354, same and pass it on to another, to the damage
(3) if made with malice, of the offended party
(4) shall NOT exempt the author thereof nor the (2) This crime is committed by any person who shall
editor or managing editor of a newspaper from make any intrigue which has for its principal
criminal liability. purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of
another person.
Libelous remarks or comments on matters
privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt Committed by any person who shall make any
the author and editor. intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor or reputation of another person.
CHAPTER II: INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Jurisprudence
ARTICLE 363 - INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
Intriguing Slander Incriminating Libel against a public official
against honor innocent person An open letter addressed to the stockholders of
the source of the offender made offender OPMC was the subject of a full-page advertisement
defamatory the utterance, performs an act published in 5 major daily newspapers. Coyiuto, Jr.,
wrote in his capacity as Chairman of the Board and

PAGE 238
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
President of OPMC, that there was a sweetheart deal
between Commissioner Mario Jalandoni of the PCGG
and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) to the
prejudice of the Government .
In the recent case of Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, et.
al., the Court ruled that: "The question is whether
from the fact that the statements were defamatory,
malice can be presumed so that it was incumbent
upon petitioner to overcome such presumption.
Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the
defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official
duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is
shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal
even though he does not prove that the imputation
was published with good motives and for justifiable
ends."
Moreover, the Court has ruled in a plethora of cases
that in libel cases against public officials which relate
to official conduct liability will attach only if the
public official concerned proves that the statement
was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge
that it was false.
Imputations regarding official conduct do not carry
the presumption of malice, hence even if the
defamatory statement is false, if malice was not
proven, there is no libel. Here petitioner failed to
prove actual malice on the part of the private
respondents. Nor was the Court of the opinion that
the open letter was written to cast aspersion on the
good name of the petitioner.
The paid advertisement merely served as a vehicle to
inform the stockholders of the goings-on in the
business world and only exposed the irregularities
surrounding the PCGG and RCBC deal and the
parties involved. [Mario C.V Jalandoni v Secretary of
Justice(2000)]
Slander (Art. 358)
Atty. Benjamin C. Escolango was conversing with his
political leaders at the terrace of his house when
Rogelio Pader appeared at the gate and shouted
"putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya
mo!" The latter was dumbfounded and embarrassed.
At that time, Atty. Escolango was a candidate for vice
mayor in the 1995 elections. Atty. Escolango filed
with the Municipal Trial Court a complaint against
Pader for grave oral defamation. The MTC rendered
decision convicting petitioner of grave oral
defamation.
HELD: Unquestionably, the words uttered were
defamatory. Considering, however, the factual
PAGE 239
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
backdrop of the case, the oral defamation was only
slight. The trial court believed the defamation to be
deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolango's
reputation since the parties were political opponents.
The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the
parties were also neighbors: that petitioner was
drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words;
and the fact that petitioner's anger was instigated by
what Atty. Escolango did when petitioner's father
died. In which case, the oral defamation was not of
serious or insulting nature.
In Reyes v. People, we ruled that the expression
"putang ina mo" is a common enough utterance in
the dialect that is often employed, not really to
slander but rather to express anger or displeasure.
In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that
punctuates one's expression of profanity. We do not
find it seriously insulting that after a previous
incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader
on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words
expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to
show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily
to insult the latter. [Rogelio Pader v. People (2000)]
Venue of criminal and civil actions in libel cases (Art.
360 and RA 4363 AN ACT TO FURTHER AMEND
ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED SIXTY OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE)
Alfie Lorenzo, Allen Macasaet, Nicolas Quijano, Jr.,
and Roger Parajes, columnist, publisher, managing
editor, and editor, respectively of the newspaper
"Abante" were charged before the RTC, with the
crime of libel. Respondents tried to have the
complaint dismissed on the basis that Trinidad, the
complainant was not a resident of Quezon City but
rather of Marikina. However, the RTC and the Court
of Appeals upheld Trinidad.
HELD: In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule
that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the
crime was committed determines not only the venue
of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction.
In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals and People of the
Philippines, this Court had the occasion to expound
on this principle. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases:
(1) the offense should have been committed or any
one of its essential ingredients took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(2) Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(3) Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed
outside of that limited territory.
(4) Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information.
(5) And once it is so shown, the court may validly
take cognizance of the case.
(6) However, if the evidence adduced during the
trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.
The law, however, is more particular in libel cases.
The possible venues for the institution of the criminal
and the civil aspects of said case are concisely
outlined in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4363.
In Agbayani v. Sayo, we summarized the foregoing
rule in the following manner:
(1) Whether the offended party is a public official or
a private person, the criminal action may be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province or
city where the libelous article is printed and first
published.
(2) If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the
offense.
(3) If the offended party is a public officer whose
office is in Manila at the time of the commission
of the offense, the action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance of Manila.
(4) If the offended party is a public officer holding
office outside of Manila, the action may 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.
In the case at bar, private respondent was a private
citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged
libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit
in the City of Manila where Abante was first
published or in the province or city where he actually
resided at the time the purported libelous article was
printed.
This Court finds it appropriate to reiterate our earlier
pronouncement in the case of Agbayani, to wit: In
order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the
criminal action for written defamation, the complaint
or information should contain allegations as to
whether, at the time the offense was committed, the
offended party was a public officer or a private
PAGE 240
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
individual and where he was actually residing at that
time.
Whenever possible, the place where the written
defamation was printed and first published should
likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine
qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was
printed and first published is used as the basis of the
venue of the action. [Macasaet v. People (2005)]
Unsealed letters
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended
party constitutes publication. [Magno vs.
People(2006)]
What constitutes publication; Fine Instead of
Imprisonment
There is publication in this case. In libel, publication
means making the defamatory matter, after it is
written, known to someone other than the person
against whom it has been written.
Petitioners subject letter-reply itself states that the
same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also,
petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. It
is enough that the author of the libel complained of
has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore,
the letter, when found in the mailbox, was open, not
contained in an envelope thus, open to public.
While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the
reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of
imprisonment applicable to petitioners case of libel.
We note that this is petitioners first offense of this
nature. He never knew respondent prior to the
demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco
who then sought his assistance thereto. He appealed
from the decision of the RTC and the CA in his belief
that he was merely exercising a civil or moral duty in
writing the letter to private complainant. In fact,
petitioner could have applied for probation to evade
prison term but he did not do so believing that he did
not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case.
We believe that the State is concerned not only in the
imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends.
Consequently, we delete the prison sentence
imposed on petitioner and instead impose a fine of
six thousand pesos.
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty
of imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the
crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals, petitioner
was convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of
imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
with us, we affirmed the findings of libel but changed
the penalty imposed to a mere fine. [Buatis vs. People
(2006)]
Slight Oral Defamation
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but
following the rule that all possible circumstances
favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor, it
is our considered view that the slander committed by
petitioner can be characterized as slight slander
following the doctrine that: uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on
the part of the offended party, constitutes only a
light felony. [Villanueva vs. People (2006)]
Effect of Name-calling
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature
depends on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their
entirety, the article in question as a whole explicitly
makes mention of private complainant Rivera all
throughout.
It cannot be said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs
at the aforementioned public market. Rivera was not
only specifically pointed out several times therein but
was even tagged with derogatory names.
Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly
found by the two courts below, directed at the very
person of Rivera himself. [Figueroa vs. People (2006)]
Victim Identifiable
The last element of libel is that the victim is
identified or identifiable from the contents of the
libelous article.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough
ifby intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if
the publication contains matters of description or
reference to facts and circumstances from which
others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that those knowing
such person could and did understand that he was
the person referred to.
Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule
that this requirement is complied withwhere a third
person recognized or could identify the party vilified
in the article. [People vs. Ogie Diaz (2007)]
PAGE 241
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
See Also: AC 08-2008: Re: Guidelines in the
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition
of Penalties in Libel Cases
Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses
ARTICLE 365 - IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Quasi-offenses punished:
(1) Committing through reckless imprudence any
act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light
felony;
(2) Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
(3) Causing damage to the property of another
through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
(4) Causing through simple imprudence or
negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony.
Imprudence Negligence
Both indicate a deficiency of action
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime itself; it is
simply a way of committing a crime.
The rules for graduating penalties (under Art. 64)
based on mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are NOT applicable to offenses punishable thru
criminal negligence.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: failure to render
immediate assistance to the injured party. This
qualifying circumstance must be distinguished from
6
the punishable OMISSION under Article 275.
6
Art. 275. Abandonment of person 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.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the danger that may result from the criminal
negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is
RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, the
criminal negligence would only be simple.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring
criminal liability. This is so because under Article 3, a
felony may result from dolo or culpa. THEREFORE,
even if there are several results arising from ONLY
ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be
prosecuted under one count for the criminal
negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.
Reckless Imprudence:
(1) The offender does or fails to do an act
(2) The doing of or the failure to do the act is
voluntary
(3) It be without malice
(4) Material damage results
(5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the offender, taking into consideration:
(a) His employment/occupation
(b) Physical condition
(c) Degree of intelligence
(d) Other circumstances regarding the persons,
time and place
NOTE:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
(2) Resulting in Physical Injuries
Inexcusable lack of precaution
Factors to be considered in determining inexcusable
lack of precaution:
1) Employment or occupation
2) Degree of intelligence and physical condition of
the offender; and
3) Other circumstances regarding persons, time, and
place.
Simple Imprudence
(1) There is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender
(2) The damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Test of negligence: Would a prudent man, in the
position of the person to whom negligence, foresee
harm as a result of the course actually pursued? If so,
it was the duty of the actor to take precautions
against its mischievous results, and the failure to do
so constitutes negligence.
PAGE 242
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The measure of the damage should be the difference
in value of property immediately before the incident
and immediately after the repair.
Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating
circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed
through negligence.
The penalties provided in art. 365 are not applicable
in the ff. cases:
1) when the penalty provided for the offense is equal
to or lower than those provided in the first two
paragraphs of art. 365, in which case the courts shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree that 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 maximum periods.
When death or serious bodily injury to any person
has resulted, the motor vehicle driver at fault shall
be punished under the Penal Code.
Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only
mitigates criminal liability.
Doctrine of last clear chance
The contributory negligence or the party injured will
not defeat the action is it be shown that the accused
might, by exercise of reasonable care and prudence,
have avoided the consequences of the negligence of
the injured party.
Emergency rule
An automobile driver who, by negligence of another
and not by his own negligence, is suddenly placed in
an emergency and compelled to act instantly to
avoid collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if
he makes such a choice which a person of ordinary
prudence placed in such situation might make even
though he did not make the wisest choice.
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of
negligence. But negligence cannot be predicated
upon the mere fact of minority or lack of an
operators license.
The penalty next to higher in degree is imposed if the
offender fails to lend on the spot help to the injured
parties.
(5) Failing to lend help is a qualifying
circumstance.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Jurisprudence:
The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure
to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by
the situation which was NOT immediately life-
destructive BUT which culminated, as in the present
case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
[Carillo v. People (1994)]
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of
negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that
degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed
by the profession generally, under similar conditions,
and in like surrounding circumstances (this is the test
applied). [Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)]
Elements involved in medical negligence cases:
(D.B.P.I.)
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Injury
(4) Proximate causation
Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:
(1) The accident was of a kind which does NOT
ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is negligent;
(2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the
injury was under the exclusive control of the
person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must NOT have been due to
any voluntary action or contribution of the
person injured.
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and
experience are competent to testify as to whether a
patient has been treated or operated upon with a
reasonable degree of skill and care.
HOWEVER, testimony as to the statements and acts
of physicians and surgeons, external appearances,
and manifest conditions which are observable by any
one may be given by non-expert witnesses. [Reyes v.
Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)]
While playing one day, a child-Honey Fe heard a
commotion from a nearby house and went to
investigate. She saw Randy Luntayao being tortured
and killed by Alexander Sibonga, Reynario Nuez,
Eutiquia Carmen, Delia Sibonga, and Celedonia
Fabie. Apparently it was a ritual supposed to cure
him of demonic possession. The father of the boy
filed charges against the participants, and the child
who witnessed the macabre incident testified as to
what she saw. The trial court convicted the
participants of murder.
PAGE 243
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
HELD: It would appear that accused-appellants are
members of a cult and that the bizarre ritual
performed over the victim was consented to by the
victim's parents. With the permission of the victim's
parents, accused-appellant Carmen, together with
the other accused-appellants, proceeded to subject
the boy to a "treatment" calculated to drive the "bad
spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the
strange procedure resulted in the death of the boy.
Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to
kill the boy.
Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence
because they ought that to know their actions would
not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not
of murder.
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
states that 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 such act.
Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide
or murder, what takes the place of the element of
malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is: the
failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack
of skill taking into account his employment, or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in
the acts done by accused-appellants which, because
of their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of
his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's death. As
already stated, accused-appellants, none of whom is
a medical practitioners, belong to a religious group,
known as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima,
which is engaged in faith healing. [People v. Carmen
(2001)]
The trial court found the accused "guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Homicide
Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the
Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136)."
HELD: There is no such nomenclature of an offense
under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the trial court
was misled to sentence the accused "to suffer two (2)
indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and one
(1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3)
years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision
correccional, as maximum."
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
This is erroneous because in reckless imprudence
cases, the actual penalty for criminal negligence
bears no relation to the individual wilful crime or
crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole
class, or series of crimes. Unfortunately, we can no
longer correct this judgment even if erroneous, as it
is, because it has become final and executory.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
criminal negligence "is treated as a mere quasi
offense, and dealt with separately from wilful
offenses. It is not a question of classification or
terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is
punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is
principally penalized is the mental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, and lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible.
Much of the confusion has arisen from the common
use of such descriptive phrase as 'homicide through
reckless imprudence', and the like; when the strict
technical sense is, more accurately, 'reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide'; or 'simple
imprudence causing damages to property'." [Rafael
Reyes Trucking v People (2000)]
FACTS: Ireneo, Abundio and Lourdes Mangruban
were with their paralyzed aunt at a bus terminal.
Lourdes Mangruban was tasked to accompany their
paralyzed aunt to Butuan City. A dispatcher
informed them that a bus bound for Tacloban via
Cebu and Butuan was about to leave. They were told
to wait as the bus maneuvered to its proper position
prior to departure. The said bus, driven by Teofilo
Abueva, came to a full stop in front of the terminal
building. As they negotiated their way towards the
back of the bus, Lourdes, with luggage in hand, was
waiting on the first stepboard when the bus suddenly
moved. Due to the sudden movement, according to
the witness, Lourdes fell off the bus and hit her head
on the cement pavement below.
According to the witness, the driver did not
disembark to assist Lourdes, while a dispatcher of
the bus company assured them that there was
nothing to worry about because the victim was not
bleeding. Petitioner continued driving per his
scheduled trip.
Lourdes was taken to the San Pedro Hospital where
a brain scan revealed the presence of a blood clot
that needed immediate surgery. The bus company
refused to give financial assistance to the
Mangrubans. On their own, the family raised the
amount required by the hospital as downpayment
PAGE 244
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
for the operation. Surgery was performed but
Lourdes never regained consciousness and expired
five days later. The trial court convicted Teofilo
Abueva for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide.
HELD: After a careful review of the records, the Court
agrees with the factual findings of the lower courts
showing that the victim, Lourdes Mangruban, fell
rather than jumped off the bus.
The prosecution has provided sufficient, clear and
convincing basis for the conclusion that Lourdes fell
off the bus due to the reckless act of the petitioner.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that
reckless imprudence consists in:
(1) voluntarily, but without malice,
(2) doing or failing to do an act from which
(3) material damage results
(4) by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act,
(5) taking into consideration:
(a) his employment or occupation;
(b) his degree of intelligence;
(c) his physical condition; and
(d) other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.
Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has
been in the employ of the bus company for 18 years
26 and has undergone training courses and seminars
to improve his skills as a driver. He is expected to be
well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers.
Not only must he make sure that they reach their
destinations on time, he must also ensure their
safety while they are boarding, during the entire trip,
and upon disembarking from the vehicle. [Abueva v.
People (2002)]
FACTS: "In the evening of February 16, 1990, Pat.
Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned
to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior
Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Around 9:00
p.m. while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca, Pat.
Pabon and Belbes were watching the dance, two
students approached Mrs. Ulanca and said "Ma'm, it
seems that there is somebody making trouble." Pat.
Belbes and Pat. Pabon, armed with an Armalite rifle
and a .38 caliber revolver, respectively, responded
forthwith. Moments after the two police officers left,
bursts of gunfire filled the air.
Fernando Bataller, a graduating student was hit on
different parts of his body and died. The accused Pat.
Belbes stated that they acted in self defense. The
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

trial court convicted Pat. Belbes of murder and

sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

HELD: The offense is definitely not reckless

imprudence resulting in homicide because the
shooting was intentional.

Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in

homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a
friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge
brought about by negligent handling; or (2)
discharging a firearm from the window of one's
house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment
leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the
defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber
pistol twice in the air, and, as the bout continued, he
fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet
ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon
thereafter. In this case, appellant intended to fire AT
the victim, and in fact hit ONLY the victim. [People v.
Belbes (2000)]

Effect of Victims Contributory Negligence

Finally, as to petitioners argument that Jesus
Basallo (Victim; deceased) should be presumed
negligent because he was driving with an expired
license and the passenger jeepney owned by his
brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to
operate, we hold that the same fails to
convince. The defense of contributory negligence
does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of his own
negligence. [Manzanares vs. People (2006)]

PAGE 245