You are on page 1of 23

Good morning! Umpisahan na ba natin. Sige, Okay preparatory to sexual intercourse.

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