You are on page 1of 12

Art. 277.

Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his


custody; indifference of parents

People v. Miraflores, C.A.-G.R.No. 43384, V.L.J., 382

Thus, when the accused had to go to another province where he was able to
earn a living and his wife and children refused to go with him there, said
accused is not liable for abandoning his family and neglecting his children.

Art. 278. Exploitation of minors

Acts punished in this article:

1. By causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to perform any


dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or contortion, the
offender being any person.
2. By employing children under 16 years of age who are not children or
descendants of the offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer, the offender being an acrobat,
etc., or circus manager or person engaged in a similar calling.
3. By 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.
4. By 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.
5. By 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. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by
Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 279. Additional penalties for other offenses.

Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling.

U.S. v. Mesina, 21 Phil. 615; U.S. v. Panes, 25 Phil. 292

It is a well-settled that whoever enters the dwelling of another at late hour of


the night after the inmates have retired and closed their doors does so against
their will. Under these circumstances an express prohibition is not necessary,
as it is presumed.

Marzalado, Jr. V. People, G.R. No. 152997, November 10, 2004

The exact date when the alleged trespass occurred is not an essential element
of the offense of trespass. 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. Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court
provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the
precise time the offense was committed except when time is a material
ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed
at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as
the information or complaint will permit. A variance between the time set out
in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial does not
constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on
that score. Thus, the error invoked by the petitioner in the date of the alleged
trespass in the Information is of no grave import, for it is far from being the
decisive issue in this case.

However, still incumbent upon the prosecution is to establish the criminal


intent and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal cases
rise and fall on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not the
weakness of the evidence of the defense or the lack of it.15 In the prosecution
for trespass, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is violation of
possession16 or the fact of having caused injury to the right of the possession.

Art. 281. Other forms of trespass

Distinguished from trespass to dwelling

1. In trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person; in other forms


of trespass, the offender is any person.
2. In the first, the offender enters a dwelling house, in the second, the
offender enters closed premises or fenced estate.
3. In the first, the place entered is inhabited; in the second, the place
entered is uninhabited.
4. In the first, the act constituting the crime is entering the dwelling
against the will of the owner; in the second, it is entering the closed
premises or the fenced estate without securing the permission of the
owner or caretaker thereof.
5. In the first, the prohibition to enter is express or implied; in the second,
the prohibition to enter must be manifest. (Comments under The
Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition,
2012.)

Art. 282. Grave threats / Art. 283. Light threats / Art. 285. Other
Light threats

Caluag v. People, G.R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009

In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or


may not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong
threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a
condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount
to a crime and there is no condition.

Art. 284. Bond for good behavior

The giving of bail is an additional penalty.


Note the words “may also be required” in this article, indicating that it
is an additional penalty. (Guevarra) (Comments under The Revised Penal
Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 286. Grave coercions.


When there is prevention of the meeting of a legislative body or provincial
body or city or municipal council or board, the offenders are not liable for
grave coercion through arbitrary detention, even if there is compulsion and
detention. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis
B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

People v. Alipit, et al., 44 Phil. 910

Thus, the arrest of the vice-president who was presiding over the
meeting of the municipal council, preceded by firing a shot in the air by the
municipal president as the latter was ordering his arrest, and the detention of
the vice-president in jail until 2:00 a.m. when he was released by the governor,
do not constitute a complex crime of grave coercion through arbitrary
detention, but simply a violation of Article 143.

Art. 287. Light coercions.

Baleros v. People, G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007

The paramount question [in a prosecution for unjust vexation] is whether


the offender's act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed.

Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of


merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens)

Inducing an employee to give up any part of his wages by force,


stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other means is unlawful under
Article 116 of the Labor Code, not under the Revised Penal Code.
(Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes,
14th Edition, 2012.)
Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of
capital or labor through violence or threats.

People v. Carballo, et al., C.A., 53 O.G. 5253, citing Liberal Labor


Union v. Phil. Can Co., 91 Phil. 72
The right to picket should be confined strictly and in good faith to
gaining information and to peaceful persuasion and argument. Assuming that
the laborer’s cause is right and legal, reforms in the management of the affirs
of the union could be affected by taking the proper remedies through legal
processes and not by resorting to coercion and intimidation.

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence.


People v. Singh, C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 5, 35

Meaning of the word “seize.”

The word “seize” means “to place in the control of someone a thing or to
give him the possession thereof” and accordingly, it is not necessary that in
the act, there should be force or violence.

But stating it correctly, there must be taking possession of papers or


letters of another, even for a short time only. Thus, if the accused accepted
from a messenger of the RCA a radiogram addressed to another person, he did
not seize the radiogram, because it was voluntarily delivered to him.

Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office.

Secrets must be learned by reason of their employment.


The secrets must have come to their knowledge by reason of their
office or position, and it makes no difference that a secret was commited
by the principal or master to the employee or servant.

The secrets must be revealed by the offender.


Article 291 states that the offender shall “learn the secrets of his
principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.” If the offender does not
reveal the secrets, the crime is not committed. (Comments under The
Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets.

Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.


The secrets here must be those relating to the manufacturing
processes invented by or for a manufacturer and used only in his factory
or ina limited number of them; otherwise, as when such processes are
generally used, they will not be secret. (Albert) (Comments under The
Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery

People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 137586, July 30, 2002

The act of taking in robbery is by means of violence or intimidation


which must be shown to have clearly attended its commission. In the case
at bar, complainant’s money was surreptitiously taken by
accused-appellant after consummating the rape, such that the intimidation
or force employed in the perpetration of the rape appears to have had no
bearing on the illegal taking of the money. We thus hold that in
accordance with the evidence presented, the other crime committed is
simple theft.

Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

People v. Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479, July 12, 2007 citing People v.
Cabilto, 362 SCRA 325 [2001]

Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on


the occasion of the robbery is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with
Homicide.

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 regarless of the number of homicides or injuries
committed in connection with the robbery.

Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an


uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a
street, road or alley.

U.S. v. Gapas, 18 Phil. 629


If robbery by a band is committed in an uninhabited place, “by a
band” is qualifying and “uninhabited place” would be generic
aggravating circumstance only.

Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members


thereof.

People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541

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 homicide.

Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under


certain circumstances .

People v. Olaes, 105 Phil. 502

When there is no overt act of robbery.

But where an armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver,
sensing that the band might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it
faster, and the members of the band then fired at it, killing one passenger and
wounding another passenger and the driver, the crime does not constitute
attempted robbery with homicide, because no overt acts pointing to robbery
were established. The offenses committed are the separate crimes of murder,
frustrated muredr and physical injuries.

Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.


133347, April 23, 2010

The element of intent to defraud is not present because, even if, initially, as
claimed by petitioners, they were forced to sign the letter-agreement,
petitioners made claims based thereon and invoked the provisions thereof. In
fact, petitioners wanted respondents to honor the letter-agreement and to pay
rentals for the use of the facilities. By doing so, petitioners effectively,
although they were careful not to articulate this fact, affirmed their signatures
in this letter-agreement.

True, ratification is primarily a principle in our civil law on contracts. Yet,


their subsequent acts in negotiating for the rentals of the facilities ― which
translate into ratification of the letter-agreement ― cannot be disregarded
simply because ratification is a civil law concept. The claims of petitioners
must be consistent and must, singularly, demonstrate respondents culpability
for the crimes they are charged with.

Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or


edifice devoted to worship / Art. 301. What is an inhabited house,
public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their
dependencies. / Art. 302. Robbery is an uninhabited place or in a
private building.

Marquez, et al., v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012

The Court, however, notes at the outset that the CA erred in applying Article
299 of the RPC. The records show that the store alleged to have been robbed
by petitioners is not an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated
to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as defined
under Article 301. From the testimony, it can be deduced that the
establishment allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In fact,
after the robbery took place, there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same
as she was obviously not residing in the store. "If the store was not actually
occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the
owner lived in a separate house, the robbery committed therein is punished
under Article 302." Neither was the place where the store is located owned by
the government. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private
person. Hence, the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not
Article 299 of the RPC.

Art. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band.

U.S. v. Morada, et al., 23 Phil. 477

The two qualifications (uninhabited place and by a band) must concur.

Art. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited


place or private building.

Manahan v. People, 73 Phil. 691

Thus, even if the offender took from the camarin about 15 sacks of palay
through an opening made on the floor of said camarin, since the robbery
committed with force upon things was accompanied with violence against or
intimidation of any persons, Article 303 is not applicable. The ofender should
be punished under Article 294.

Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools.

People v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-18766 May 20, 1965

Since picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to commit robbery, a


picklock is per se specially adapted to the commission of robbery. The
description in the information of a picklock as "specially adapted to the
commission of robbery" is therefore unnecessary for its sufficiency.
Notwithstanding the omission of such superfluous description, therefore, the
charge of the offense of illegal possession of a picklock is valid.

Art. 305. False keys.

Possession of false keys in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 305, not punishable.


(Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes,
14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 306. Who are brigands.

People v. De la Rosa, et al., C.A. 49 O.G. 2863

Brigandage may be committed without the use of firearms. The term


“armed” is used in the first paragraph of Article 306 covers arms and weapons
in general, not necessarily firearms.

Art. 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands.

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft

Viray v. People, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013

Without the circumstance of a grave abuse of confidence and considering that


the use of force in breaking the door was not alleged in the Information,
petitioner can only be held accountable for the crime of simple theft under Art.
308 in relation to Art. 309 of the RPC.

Art. 309. Penalties.

Offender is liable for theft of whole car taken to another place, even if tires are
taken away. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by
Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 310. Qualified theft.

Ringor v. People, G.R. No. 198904, 11 December 2013.

Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Qualified Theft, "must be the


result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance,
between the appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree
of confidence between them which the appellant abused."

Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National
Museum.
Theft of property on National Library and Museum has a fixed penalty
regardless of its value. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal
Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in


property

People v. Hon. Alfeche, G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992

Article 312 may also be considered as defining and penalizing the single,
special and indivisible crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of
real rights in property by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
It is likewise not a complex crime as defined under Article 48. However, while
Article 294 provides a single penalty for each class of crime therein defined,
Article 312 provides a single, albeit two-tiered, penalty consisting of a
principal penalty, which is that incurred for the acts of violence, and an
additional penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the
accused. This is clear from the clause "in addition to the penalty incurred for
the acts of violence executed by him." For want of a better term, the additional
penalty may be designated as an incremental penalty.

What Article 312 means then is that when the occupation of real property is
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the
accused may be prosecuted under an information for the violation thereof,
and not for a separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever,
appropriate, he may be sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence
and to pay a fine based on the value of the gain obtained.

Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks.

The word alter has a general and indefinite meaning. Any alteration of
boundary marks is enough to constitute the material element of the crime.
Destruction of stone monument or taking it to another place, or removing a
fence, is altering. (Albert) (Comments under The Revised Penal Code:
Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency.

Dee v. People, G.R. No. 136785. September 27, 2000

Fraudulent Insolvency does not mean that the offender is insolvent. A debtor
who has transferred his property to another place beyond the reach of the
creditors has been found to be guilty of Fraudulent Insolvency.

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).

Sim v. CA, G.R. No. 159280 May 18, 2004


Regardless of whether petitioner is charged or convicted under either par. 1 (b)
or par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, he would still be guilty of
estafa because damage and deceit, which are essential elements of the crime,
have been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. False pretenses or
fraudulent acts were committed prior to or simultaneous with the commission
of the fraud by falsely pretending to possess property. In this case, false
pretenses or fraudulent acts were employed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud by falsely pretending to possess the 1997 Nissan
Pathfinder, where damage and deceit have been established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

Art. 316. Other forms of swindling

Estrallado-Mainar v. People, G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015

Paragraph 2 of Article 316 does not prohibit the sale of an encumbered


property; the vendor must have represented to the buyer that the property was
free from encumbrance.25 What brings about criminal liability is the deceit in
selling the property. Corollarily, the deed must have a statement of warranty
that is false in order to commit the offense.26 The petitioner's passive attitude
regarding the presence of an adverse claim (she assumed that Naval became
aware of this inscription after showing to him a copy of TCT No. T-19932 and
"never complained") is not sufficient to constitute fraud within the meaning of
the law. The fraud and/or deceit by misrepresentation contemplated by law
must be the result of overt acts; they cannot be implied or presumed.

Art. 317. Swindling a minor.

When the Code is silent as to the age of the minor as the offende party or
victim of the offense, it is understood that he must be under 21 years old, as
provided in the Civil Code. Note: The age of majority is now reduced to 18
years old by R.A. No. 6809. (Comments under The Revised Penal Code:
Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)

Art. 318. Other deceits.

Guinhawa v. People, G.R. No. 162822, August 25, 2005

For one to be liable for other deceits under the law, it is required that the
prosecution must prove the following essential elements: (a) false pretense,
fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the preceding articles;
(b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a
result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. It is essential that
such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or
the only motive for the private complainant to part with her property.

Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property.


People v. Vda. De. Agoncillo, C.A. 50 O.G. 4884

It is essential that there be a valid and subsisting chattel mortgage. If the


chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith and is not
registered, it is void and cannot be the baasis of a criminal prosecution under
Article 319.

Articles 320 to 326-B are repealed or amended by PD 1613.

Art. 320. Destructive arson.

Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 210,
223, citing People v. Casitas, G.R. No. 137404, February 14, 2003,
397 SCRA 382.

The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the


degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts
committed under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code constituting Destructive
Arson are characterized as heinous crimes "for being grievous, odious and
hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society." On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613
constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and
viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple
Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and
national security implications than Destructive Arson.

Art. 321. Other forms of arson.

Art. 322. Cases of arson not included in the preceding articles

Art. 323. Arson of property of small value.

Art. 325. Burning one's own property as means to commit arson.

Art. 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the


offender.

Art. 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a consequence of


arson.

Art. 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson.


Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief.

People v. Asido, et al., C.A. 59 O.G. 3646

Damage means not only loss but also diminution of what is a man’s own.
Thus, damage to another’s house includes defacing it.

Art. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief.

The posionous substance may be used to kill large cattle or other animals
of the offended party. The corrosive substance may be used to cause rust on a
machine or to destroy property through the action of chemicals. (Comments
under The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14 th Edition,
2012.)

Art. 329. Other mischiefs.

People v. Valiente, et al., CA-G.R. No.9442-R, December 29, 1953

The crime being commited out of hate and revenge, is that of malicious
mischief penalized under Article 329, par. 3.

Art. 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication.

Damage and obstruction to means of communication is committed by


damaging any railway, telegraph, or telephone line. (Comments under The
Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law by Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition, 2012.)