Criminal Law Book II Treason Elements

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
TITLE ONE
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY  Ways of proving treason:
Crimes against national security a. 2 witnesses testifying to same overt act

1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115); > The testimonies must refer to the same act, place and moment of time. Treason cannot be
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and proved by circumstantial evidence or by extrajudicial confession.
4. Espionage (Art. 117).
Example: X saw arms landed in La Union and loaded into a motor vehicle. At this stage,
Crimes against the law of nations not sufficient to convict yet. Y later saw the arms unloaded in a warehouse. Will X + Y
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118); be sufficient witnesses to convict? Answer: NO. Because the law requires that 2
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119); witnesses see the SAME OVERT ACT.
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and b. Confession of the accused in open court.
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122). Arraignment, pre-trial, trial – OK.
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if the criminal act or acts were committed > If he has pleaded NOT guilty already during arraignment, he can still confess in open
outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. However, prosecution can proceed only if the court by stating the particular acts constituting treason.
offender is within Philippine territory or brought to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition
treaty. This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal Code may be given extra-territorial > During trial, simply saying “I’m guilty” is not enough.
application under Article 2 (5) thereof. In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the
offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be found because the crimes are regarded as > Withdrawing plea of “not guilty” during arraignment not necessary
committed against humanity in general.
> If during arraignment he pleads guilty, court will ask if the accused understands is
Article 114 plea. Submission of affidavit during trial, even if assisted by counsel is not enough.
TREASON
 TREASON: breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes
ELEMENTS: allegiance to it. Allegiance: obligation of fidelity and obedience. It is permanent or temporary
a. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines depending on whether the person is a citizen or an alien.
b. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved  Evident premeditation, superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in
treason, and are, therefore, not aggravating.
c. That the offender either –
 Treason cannot be committed in times of peace, only in times of war – actual hostilities. But
1) Levies war against the government, no need for declaration of war
1. breech of allegiance
2. actual assembling of men  Not Treasonous:
3. for the purpose of executing a treasonable design a. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy does
not constitute per se the felony of treason ( exception: when it is policy
2) Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort determining)
1. breech of allegiance
2. adherence b. Serving in a puppet government (ministerial functions) and in order to serve the
3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy populace is NOT treasonous. But it is treason if : a) there is discretion involved; b)
inflicts harm on Filipinos; c) it is disadvantageous to them.
Requirements of levying war
1) Actual assembling of men; c. Purpose of offender: to deliver the Philippines to enemy country; if merely to
2) To execute a treasonable design by force; change officials – not treason
3) Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and
4) Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereign  On Citizenship
> Filipino citizens can commit treason outside the Philippines. But that of an alien must
* Success is not important. What matters is the actual assembly of men and the execution of be committed in the Philippines.
treasonable design by force.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 1

> Only Filipino citizens or permanent resident aliens can be held liable
2. Lawful obedience to a de facto government.
> ALIEN: with permanent resident status from the BID – it is neither the length of
stay in the Philippines nor the marriage with a Filipino that matters.  When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt act of treason, they cannot be
regarded as (1) separate crimes or (2) as complex with treason.
 Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war
* In the act of levying war or giving aid or comfort to the enemy, murder, robbery, arson or
 No such thing as attempted treason; mere attempt consummates the crime falsification may be committed by the offender. BUT the offender does not commit the crime of
treason complexed with common crimes because such crimes are inherent to treason, being an
 GIVING AID OR COMFORT – material element, enhances forces of the enemy country. indispensable element of the same.
> Acts which strengthen or tend to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the Treason distinguished from Rebellion.
traitor’s country or that which weaken and tend to weaken the power of the same.
The manner in which both crimes are committed in the same . In treason however, the purpose
Example: Financing arms procurement of enemy country. But giving of shelter is not of the offender is to deliver the government to the enemy country or to a foreign power. In
necessarily “giving aid and comfort.” rebellion, the purpose of the rebels is to substitute the government with their own form of
government. No foreign power is involved.
 Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur together.
Treason distinguished from Sedition.
 ADHERENCE: when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors
convictions disloyal to his country’s policy. But membership in the police force during the In treason, the offender repudiates his allegiance to the government by means of force or
occupation is NOT treason. intimidation. He does not recognize the supreme authority of the State. He violates his allegiance
Example: Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for the enemy. by fighting the forces of the duly constituted authorities.
 Adherence may be proved by: (1) one witness; (2) from the nature of the act itself; (3) In sedition, the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public
from the circumstances surrounding the act. peace by raising a commotion or public uprising.
* When this adherence or sympathies are converted into aid and comfort, only then they take
material form. This material form is now what is made punishable. It is usually manifested by the
offender in giving information, commandeering foodstuffs, serving as spy and supplying the Article 115
enemy with war materials. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON
 Treason is a CONTINUING CRIME. Even after the war, offender can be prosecuted.  ELEMENTS:
a. In time of war
* Treason is a continuing offense . It can be committed by a single act or by a series of acts. It
can be committed in one single time or at different times and only one criminal intent. In b. 2 or more persons come to an agreement to
construing the provisions relating to the commission of several acts, the same must be done in 1. levy war against the government, or
pursuance or furtherance of the act of treason.
2. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
* No matter how many acts of treason are committed by the offender, he will be liable for only
one crime of treason. c. They decide to commit it
 If you convict a person for treason by reason of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear, you  ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON
may use Art.12. No treason through negligence a. In time of war
* In the imposition of the penalty for the crime of treason, the court may disregard the presence b. A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to
of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It may consider only the number, nature and adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, proposes its
gravity of the acts established during the trial. The imposition of the penalty rests largely on the execution to some other person/s.
exercise of judicial discretion.
 Mere agreement and decisions to commit treason is punishable
Defenses that may be availed of by the accused.
 Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable too. If the other accepts, it is already
1. Duress or uncontrollable fear of immediate death; and conspiracy.

Article 117
* While Treason as a crime should be established by the two-witness rule, the same is not Espionage by entering, without authority therefor, warship, fort, or naval or military
observed when the crime committed conspiracy to commit treason or when it is only a proposal establishments or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other
to commit treason. data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
 ELEMENTS:
Article 116 a. 1. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein
MISPRISION OF TREASON 2
3 2. That he has no authority therefore;
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the government, and not a b. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data
foreigner of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines
b. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the * Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender must have the intention to obtain
government information relative to the defense of the PHIL. It is sufficient that he entered the prohibited
premises. Here, the offender is any private individual, whether an alien or a citizen of the
c. That he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as Philippines, or a public officer.
soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province or the mayor or
fiscal of the city in which he resides
Espionage by disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the
* While in treason, even aliens can commit said crime because of the amendment to the article, articles, data, or information referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 117, which he had
no such amendment was made in misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is a crime that in his possession by reason of the public office holds
may be committed only by citizens of the Philippines.
ELEMENTS:
 Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason a. That the offender is a public officer
* Take note that the offender is a principal to the crime of misprision of treason, yet he is b. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in
penalized only as an accessory. In the imposition of the penalty, the court is not bound by the par 1 of art 117, by reason of the public office he holds
provisions of Article 63 and 64, referring to indivisible penalties. In the presence of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances, the offender is punished two degrees lower than the penalty for the c. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation
crime of treason.
 Purpose: to gather data
* The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage
* Under the second mode, the offender must be a public officer who has in possession the
 This crime does not apply if the crime of treason is already committed articles, data or information by reason of the office he holds. Taking advantage of his official
position, he reveals or discloses the information which are confidential and are relevant to the
 Crime of omission defense of the Philippines.
* This is a felony by omission although committed with dolo, not with culpa.  ESPIONAGE: the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the
national defense with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to
 “To report within a reasonable time” – depends on time, place and circumstance – the RPC the injury of the Philippines or the advantage of any foreign nation. It is not conditioned on
did not fix time. citizenship.
 RPC states 4 individuals, what if you report to some other high-ranking government official?  Not necessary that Philippines is at war with the country to which the information was
Ex. PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any gov’t official of the DILG is OK. revealed. What is important is that the information related is connected with the defense
system of the Philippines.
* Whether the conspirators are parents or children, and the ones who learn the conspiracy is a
parent or child, they are required to report the same. The reason is that although blood is thicker  Wiretapping is NOT espionage if the purpose is not something connected with the defense
than water so to speak, when it comes to security of the state, blood relationship is always
subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply here because the persons found liable Commonwealth Act No. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against
for this crime are not considered accessories; they are treated as principals. National Security

Acts punished
1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national  Gov’t must have declared the neutrality of the Phil in a war between 2 other countries
defense;
2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense; * The regulation must be issued by a competent authority like the President of the Philippines or
3. Disloyal acts or words in times of peace; the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, during a war between different countries
4. Disloyal acts or words in times of war; in which the Philippines is not taking sides.
5. Conspiracy to violate preceding sections;
6. Harboring or concealing violators of law. and  It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated
7. Photographing vital military information
 Congress has the right to declare neutrality
CRIMES AGAINST LAWS OF NATIONS * The violations can be done either by means of dolo or by means of culpa. So violation of
neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence.
* In crimes against the law of nations, the offenders can be prosecuted anywhere in the world
because these crimes are considered as against humanity in general, like piracy and mutiny .
Crimes against national security can be tried only in the Philippines, as there is a need to bring
the offender here before he can be made to suffer the consequences of the law. The acts Article 120
against national security may be committed abroad and still be punishable under our law, but it CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
can not be tried under foreign law.
ELEMENTS:
a. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
Article 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS b. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory
occupied by enemy troops
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts c. That the correspondence is either –
b. That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to 1. prohibited by the government, or
involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their
persons or property 2. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
 Crime is committed in time of peace, intent is immaterial 3. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy
 Inciting to war – offender is any person  Circumstances qualifying the offense:

1 a. notice or information might be useful to the enemy
 Reprisals is not limited to military action , it could be economic reprisals, or denial of entry 2
into their country. 3 b. offender intended to aid the enemy
EXAMPLE. X burns Chinese flag. If China bans the entry of Filipinos into China, that is already  Hostile country exist only during hostilities or after the declaration of war
reprisal.
 Correspondence to enemy country – correspondence to officials of enemy country –
even if related to you.
Article 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY  It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country
ELEMENTS:  If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition

a. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved
 If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition
b. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality  In any case, it must be correspondence with the enemy country
c. That the offender violates such regulation  Doesn’t matter if correspondence contains innocent matters – if prohibited, punishable

 For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft
Article 121 PIRACY MUTINY

FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY Robbery or forcible degradation on the high Unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or
seas, without lawful authority and done with the raising of commotion and disturbances
 ELEMENTS animo lucrandi and in the spirit and intention on board a ship against the authority of its
a. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved of universal hostility. commander
b. That the offender (Filipino or resident alien) must be owing allegiance to the Intent to gain is an element. No criminal intent
government Attack from outside. Offenders are strangers Attack from the inside.
to the vessel.
c. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country
 under the amended article, piracy can only be committed by a person who is not a
d. That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority passenger nor member of the complement of the vessel irrespective of venue. So if a
passenger or complement of the vessel commits acts of robbery in the high seas,
 Mere attempt consummates the crime the crime is robbery, not piracy.
 If in the Phil. waters still piracy
 There must be a prohibition. If none, even if went to enemy country – no violation
* However, despite the amendment, P.D. No. 532 may still apply where the offender is not
 Alien resident may be guilty here. stranger to the vessel since it provides: “Any attack upon or seize of any vessel, or the taking
away of the whole of part thereof or its cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value hereof, by means of violence against or
Article 122 intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or
PIRACY member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy.
The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.” After all,
 2 Ways of Committing Piracy under the Revised Penal Code, for one to be called a pirate, the offender must be a stranger to
a. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532) the vessel.
b. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vehicles, its equipment or personal  While the Article 122 limits the offenders to non-passengers or non-members of the crew,
belongings of its complement or passengers P.D. 532 states that the attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or taking away the whole or
part thereof or its cargo, equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
 Elements: committed by any person including a passenger or member of the complement of said
a. That a vessel is on the high seas/Philippine waters vessel shall be considered Piracy.
b. That the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the * Note, however, that in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 , the act of aiding pirates or
vessel abetting piracy is penalized as a crime distinct from piracy. Said section penalizes any person
who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates, such as giving them information about
c. That the offenders – the movement of the police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives
1. attack or seize that vessel or (hence, if committed by crew or passengers, the property taken by such pirates, or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or who directly
crime is not piracy but robbery in the high seas) or indirectly abets the commission of piracy. Also, it is expressly provided in the same section
that the offender shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in
2. seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or accordance with the Revised Penal Code. This provision of Presidential Decree No. 532 with
personal belongings of its complement or passengers respect to piracy in Philippine water has not been incorporated in the Revised Penal Code. Neither
may it be considered repealed by Republic Act No. 7659 since there is nothing in the amendatory
 High seas: any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low water law is inconsistent with said section. Apparently, there is still the crime of abetting piracy in
mark although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign gov’t Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No. 532.
 PIRACY IN HIGH SEAS – jurisdiction is with any court where offenders are found or * Considering that the essence of piracy is one of robbery , any taking in a vessel with force upon
arrested things or with violence or intimidation against person is employed will always be piracy . It
cannot co-exist with the crime of robbery . Robbery, therefore, cannot be committed on board a
 PIRACY IN INTERNAL WATERS – jurisdiction is only with Philippine courts vessel. But if the taking is without violence or intimidation on persons or force upon things, the
crime of piracy cannot be committed, but only theft.

(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries.
ELEMENTS OF MUTINY
Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.
1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2) Offenders are either members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel; Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti Hi-Jacking Law)
3) Offenders either – Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. In other countries, this
crime is known as aircraft piracy.
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law:
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment, or personal
belongings of the crew or passengers. (1) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight,
compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
MUTINY is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and
disturbances aboard a ship against the authority of its commander. (2) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine
territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine territory;
Article 123 (3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft
QUALIFIED PIRACY in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance; and
 QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: (4) loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility
a. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if this
was done not in accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the
b. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving Air Transportation Office on this matter.
themselves
Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry
c. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or foreign registry. The common bar question on this law usually involves number 1. The
or rape. (the above may result to qualified mutiny) important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If
not in flight, whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised Penal Code . The law
* Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot makes a distinction between aircraft of a foreign registry and of Philippine registry . If the
be punished as separate crimes, nor can they be complexed with piracy. aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of Philippine registry, it should be in flight at the time of
the hi-jacking. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law will not apply and the crime is still punished
 Parricide/infanticide should be included (Judge Pimentel) under the Revised Penal Code. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave
threat. If somebody is killed, the crime is homicide or murder, as the case may be. If there are
 Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or some explosives carried there, the crime is destructive arson. Explosives are by nature pyro-
complement techniques. Destruction of property with the use of pyro-technique is destructive arson. If there
is illegally possessed or carried firearm, other special laws will apply.
* In piracy, where rape, murder or homicide is committed, the mandatory penalty of death is
imposable. This means that even if the accused enters a plea of guilty, the penalty of death will On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the law does not require that it be in
still be imposed because death is a single and indispensable penalty. (People vs. Rodriguez, flight before the anti hi-jacking law can apply. This is because aircrafts of foreign registry are
135 SCRA 485) considered in transit while they are in foreign countries. Although they may have been in a
foreign country, technically they are still in flight, because they have to move out of that foreign
* The penalty for qualified piracy is reclusion perpetua to death. If any of the circumstances country. So even if any of the acts mentioned were committed while the exterior doors of the
enumerated under the law is proven or established, the mandatory penalty of death should be foreign aircraft were still open, the anti hi-jacking law will already govern.
imposed. The presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances will be ignored by the court.
Note that under this law, an aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior
Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy, there is also the crime of qualified doors are closed following embarkation until such time when the same doors are again opened
mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances: for disembarkation. This means that there are passengers that boarded. So if the doors are
closed to bring the aircraft to the hangar, the aircraft is not considered as in flight. The aircraft
(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves; or shall be deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started.

utility aircraft in the Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law,
in so far as transporting prohibited substances are concerned.
Questions & Answers
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute . Carrying of any prohibited,
flammable, corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under Republic Act No. 6235 . But if the
1. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and aircraft is only a cargo aircraft, the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited
were told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed men walked with substance was not done in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Air
the pilots and went on board the aircraft. But before they could do anything on the aircraft, alert Transportation Office in the matter of shipment of such things. The Board of Transportation
marshals arrested them. What crime was committed? provides the manner of packing of such kind of articles, the quantity in which they may be loaded
at any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law does not apply.
The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It is
a question now of whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern. However, under Section 7, any physical injury or damage to property which would result from the
carrying or loading of the flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance in an aircraft,
The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet about to the offender shall be prosecuted not only for violation of Republic Act No. 6235, but also for the
fly, the requirement that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to aircraft of foreign crime of physical injuries or damage to property, as the case may be, under the Revised Penal
registry. Even if the problem does not say that all exterior doors are closed, the crime is hi- Code. There will be two prosecutions here. Other than this situation, the crime of physical
jacking. Since the aircraft is of foreign registry, under the law, simply usurping or seizing control injuries will be absorbed. If the explosives were planted in the aircraft to blow up the aircraft,
is enough as long as the aircraft is within Philippine territory, without the requirement that it be the circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not punishable as a separate crime for
in flight. murder. The penalty is increased under the anti hi-jacking law.
Note, however, that there is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special law All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying circumstances and would bring about
where the attempted stage is not punishable. higher penalty. Such acts would not constitute another crime . So the killing or explosion will
only qualify the penalty to a higher one.
2. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot
are taking their snacks at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also there. The pilots
Questions & Answers
were followed by these men on their way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the
cockpit, they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft. Does the
anti hi-jacking law apply? 1. In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed.
No. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are What crime or crimes were committed?
apprehended, the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the aircraft
is of Philippine registry. The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty thereof
shall be higher because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The
3. While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was crime of homicide or murder is not committed.
waiting for the passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously
entered the pilot cockpit. At gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East. 2. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack.
However, before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the Middle East, the offenders were What crime or crimes were committed?
subdued and the aircraft landed. What crime was committed?
Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave
The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for threat is not committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve to
the passenger manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hi-jacking law is not increase the penalty.
applicable. Instead, the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The crime committed was grave
coercion or grave threat, depending upon whether or not any serious offense violence was
inflicted upon the pilot.
However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, the act would already be subject to
the anti hi-jacking law because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight before
such law would apply. The reason for the distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not
returned to its home base, technically, it is still considered in transit or in flight.
As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft is a
passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft. In both cases, however, the law applies only to public

 Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private
individuals who conspire with public officers can also be liable.
TITLE TWO
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE * In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains another
was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This is because he is a person in
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State authority vested with the jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his barangay. In the
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124); maintenance of such peace and order, he may cause the arrest and detention of troublemakers
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125); or those who disturb the peace and order within his barangay. But if the legal basis for the
3. Delaying release (Art. 126); apprehension and detention does not exist, then the detention becomes arbitrary.
4. Expulsion (Art. 127);
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128);  Legal grounds for the detention of any person:
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained a. commission of a crime
(Art. 129);
7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130); b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131); hospital
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and
10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133); c. escaped prisoner
* When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the three (3) grounds mentioned above are
* Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as to the last crime – offending the not obtaining, there is no Arbitrary Detention.
religious feelings under Article 133, which refers to any person. The public officers who may be
held liable are only those acting under supposed exercise of official functions, albeit illegally. But  Without legal grounds:
private persons may also be liable under this title as when a private person conspires with a a. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has
public officer. What is required is that the principal offender must be a public officer. Thus, if a committed a crime
private person conspires with a public officer, or becomes an accessory or accomplice, the private
person also becomes liable for the same crime. But a private person acting alone cannot commit b. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory
the crimes under Article 124 to 132 of this title. confinement in a hospital
CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION:  Grounds for warrantless arrest:

a. By detaining a person without legal ground a. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed in his presence
b. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
c. Delaying release b. Officer must have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the person probably committed the crime
Article 124  For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant

ARBITRARY DETENTION
 Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. X voluntarily
 ELEMENTS: admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not asked. X was detained
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include immediately. According to the SC, there was NO arbitrary detention. Why? Because once X
the authority to make an arrest and detain persons; jurisdiction to maintain peace and made a confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.
order).
* Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or negligence. (People vs.
b. That he detains a person (actual restraint). Misa)
c. That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be committed if with Periods of Detention penalized:
warrant).
1. Detention not exceeding three days;
 DETENTION: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.
2. Detention for more than three days but not more than 15 days;
* Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the authority to make an arrest and
detain persons can be guilty of this crime . So, if the offender does not possess such authority, 3. Detention for more than 15 days but not more than 6 months; and
the crime committed by him is illegal detention.
4. Detention for more than 6 months.

 Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime In unlawful arrest, the purpose is 1) to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not
commit; 2) to deliver the person to the proper authority; and 3) to file the necessary
 Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. According to the SC, once you have committed charges in a way trying to incriminate him.
rebellion and have not been punished or amnestied, then the rebels continue to engage in
rebellion, unless the rebels renounce his affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant * When a person is unlawfully arrested, his subsequent detention is without legal grounds.
because this is a continuing crime.
Article 125
Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS
1. In arbitrary detention --  ELEMENTS:

a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
The principal offender must be a public officer. Civilians cannot commit the crime of
arbitrary detention except when they conspire with a public officer committing this b. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds
crime, or become an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed by the public
officer; and c. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
1. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
The offender who is a public officer has a duty which carries with it the authority to equivalent
detain a person. 2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent or
2. In illegal detention -- 3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive
penalties, or their equivalent
The principal offender is a private person. But a public officer can commit the crime of
illegal detention when he is acting in a private capacity or beyond the scope of his * Article 125 covers situations wherein the person detained has been arrested without a warrant
official duty, or when he becomes an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed but his arrest is nonetheless lawful. It is a felony committed by omission because of the failure of
by a private person. the offender to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authority within 12 hours, 18
hours and 36 hours as the case may be.
The offender, even if he is a public officer, does not include as his function the power
to arrest and detain a person, unless he conspires with a public officer committing * At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest. However,
arbitrary detention. the detention becomes arbitrary when the period thereof exceeds 12, 18 or 36 hours, as the case
may be, depending on whether the crime is punished by light, correctional or afflictive penalty or
* Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal detention, it is necessary that there must be their equivalent.
an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party. If there is no actual restraint, as the offended
party may still go to the place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings, the  Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court.
crime of arbitrary detention or illegal detention is not committed. There is either grave or light
threat.  May be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for.
However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such that there is still restraint of liberty,
then the crime of either arbitrary or illegal detention is still committed. * Under the Revised Rules of Court, when the person arrested is arrested for a crime which gives
him the right to preliminary investigation and he wants to avail his right to a preliminary
Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest investigation, he would have to waive in writing his rights under Article 125 so that the arresting
officer will not immediately file the case with the court that will exercise jurisdiction over the case.
(1) As to offender If he does not want to waive this in writing, the arresting officer will have to comply with Article
125 and file the case immediately in court without preliminary investigation. In such case, the
In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer possessed with authority to make arrested person, within five days after learning that the case has been filed in court without
arrests. preliminary investigation, may ask for preliminary investigation. In this case, the public officer
who made the arrest will no longer be liable for violation of Article 125.
In unlawful arrest, the offender may be any person.
 Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed.
(2) As to criminal intent Duty complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts,
prosecutors – though technically not a judicial authority, for purposes of this article, he’s
In arbitrary detention, the main reason for detaining the offended party is to deny him considered as one.)
of his liberty.

* Delivery of detained person consists in making charge of filing a compliant against the prisoner b. That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or
with the proper judicial authority. It does not involve the physical delivery of the prisoner before detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the
the judge (Sayo vs. Chief of Police). liberation of such person
 The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it c. That the offender without good reason delays:
affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court.
1. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
 To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be under
oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the accused 2. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of
constitutional right. the prisoner, or
3. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
 What is length of waiver? Light offense – 5 days. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to
10 days. (Judge Pimentel)  Three acts are punishable:
 Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest a. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
Q. Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person under a b. delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner
warrant of arrest turn over the arrested person to the judicial authority?
c. delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person
A. There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a
reasonable time. The period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply because the arrest  Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision
was made by virtue of a warrant of arrest.
 Provision does not include legislation
 If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention
 Before Article 125 may be applied, it is necessary that initially, the detention of the arrested Article 127
person must be lawful because the arrest is based on legal grounds. If the arrest is made EXPULSION
without a warrant, this constitutes an unlawful arrest. Article 269(unlawful arrest), not
Article 125, will apply. If the arrest is not based on legal grounds, the arrest is pure and ELEMENTS:
simple arbitrary detention. Article 125 contemplates a situation where the arrest was made a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
without warrant but based on legal grounds. This is known as citizen’s arrest.
b. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to
 A police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person on the basis merely of the change his residence
complaint of the offended party, even if after investigation he becomes convinced that the
accused is guilty of the offense charged. What the complainant may do is to file a complaint c. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law
with the court and ask for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
 2 acts punishable:
Arbitrary Detention Delay in Delivery of Detained (125) a. by expelling a person from the Philippines
(124)
Detention is illegal from Detention is legal in the beginning, but illegality starts from the expiration b. by compelling a person to change his residence
the beginning. of the specified periods without the persons detained having been delivered
to the proper judicial authority. * The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion” when committed by a
public officer. If committed by a private person, the crime is grave coercion.
* In the Philippines, only the President of the Republic has the power to deport aliens whose
continued stay in the country constitutes a menace to the peace and safety of the community.
Article 126
DELAYING RELEASE * In the case of Filipino citizens, only the court, by final judgment, can order a person to change
his residence.
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to make the
city free from prostitution. He ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao, without

observing due processes since they have not been charged with any crime at all. It was held that locked, or even if it is open but these are barriers to indicate the manifest intention of the owner
the crime committed was expulsion. to bar strangers from entering, there is implied prohibition.
 Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to prison * The primary object of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the offended party. Hence,
if the privacy is already lost, as when the offender has been allowed by the owner to enter the
dwelling together with other persons, any subsequent change of attitude will not restore the
Questions & Answers privacy which was already lost. When privacy is waived, trespass to dwelling or violation of
domicile cannot be committed.
1. Certain aliens were arrested and they were just put on the first aircraft which
brought them to the country so that they may be out without due process of law. Was there a  If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private
crime committed? individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280)
Yes. Expulsion.  When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and
such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public officer
2. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the country, what crime is committed? is grave coercion, if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if there is
no violence or intimidation (Art 287)
Grave coercion, not expulsion, because a Filipino cannot be deported. This crime
refers only to aliens.  A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will
of the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is having unlawful possession
 If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry – is considered forcing him to of opium
change his address here
 Under Rule 113(sec. 11) of the Revised Rules of Court, when a person to be arrested enters
 Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address. a premise and closes it thereafter, the public officer, after giving notice of an arrest, can
break into the premise. He shall not be liable for violation of domicile.
Article 128
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE  3 acts punishable:
a. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee In the plain view doctrine , public officer should be legally entitled to be in the place
where the effects were found. If he entered the place illegally and he saw the effects,
b. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to doctrine inapplicable; thus, he is liable for violation of domicile.
make a search therein for papers or other effects
b. person enters and searches for papers and effects
c. That he commits any of the following acts:
Public officer who enters with consent searches for paper and effects without the
1. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof consent of the owner. Even if he is welcome in the dwelling, it does not mean he has
permission to search.
2. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous
consent of such owner c. person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to
3. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said The act punished is not the entry but the refusal to leave. If the offender upon being
dwelling and after having been required to leave the same directed to leave, followed and left, there is no crime of violation of domicile. Entry
must be done surreptitiously; without this, crime may be unjust vexation. But if
 Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty imposed): entering was done against the will of the occupant of the house , meaning there was
a. Offense committed at nighttime express or implied prohibition from entering the same, even if the occupant does not
direct him to leave, the crime of violation of domicile is already committed because it
b. Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately would fall in number 1.
* In order to commit this crime, the entry must be against the will of the owner. If the entry is  “BEING AUTHORIZED BY LAW” – means with search warrant, to save himself or do
only without the consent of the owner, the crime of violation of domicile is not committed. some things good for humanity
The prohibition may be expressed or implied. If the signs “Do not enter” and “Strangers keep
out” are posted in front of the house or dwelling, then the prohibition is express. If the door is

There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant is considered valid,
and, therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is also valid . Outside of these, search would be  Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date
invalid and the objects seized would not be admissible in evidence.
 Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People, signed by the
(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest; judge and directed to a public officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court
(2) Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of
he situation prevents the searching officer from securing a search warrant;  No just cause – warrant is unjustified
(3) When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making the seizure without  Search – limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with particularity
making a search therefore.
The officer exceeded his authority under the warrant – To illustrate, let us say that there was a
 Papers and effects need not be part of a crime. pusher in a condo unit. The PNP Narcotics Group obtained a search warrant but the name of
person in the search warrant did not tally with the address stated. Eventually, the person with
the same name was found but in a different address. The occupant resisted but the public officer
Article 129 insisted on the search. Drugs were found and seized and occupant was prosecuted and
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED convicted by the trial court. The Supreme Court acquitted him because the public officers are
required to follow the search warrant to the letter. They have no discretion on the matter. Plain
ELEMENTS: view doctrine is inapplicable since it presupposes that the officer was legally entitled to be in the
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee place where the effects where found. Since the entry was illegal, plain view doctrine does not
apply.
b. That he procures a search warrant
 Malicious warrant. Example. X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of
c. That there is no just cause firearms. A return was made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal
knowledge that there is a gun in that place.
 In order that a search warrant may be issued , it must be based on probable cause in
connection with one offense, to be determined by a judge after examination under oath of  Abuse examples:
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to a. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
b. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made
* This means there was no probable cause determined in obtaining the search warrant. The search warrant is not a license to commit destruction.
 Although void, the search warrant is entitled to respect because of presumption of c. Persons who were not respondents were searched
regularity. One remedy is a motion to quash the search warrant, not refusal to abide by it.
The public officer may also be prosecuted for perjury, because for him to succeed in
obtaining a search warrant without a probable cause, he must have perjured himself or Article 130
induced someone to commit perjury to convince the court. SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES
* The true test of lack of just cause is whether the sworn statement filed in support of the  ELEMENTS :
application for search warrant has been done in such a manner that perjury could be charged and a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
the affiant can be held liable for making such false statement. The oath required refers to the
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses. b. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured
c. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person

ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING
UNNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY PROCURED d. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in
the same locality are not present
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee  Order of those who must witness the search:
b. That he has legally procured a search warrant a. Homeowner
c. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the
same b. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion

c. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)  Meeting is subject to regulation
 Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts : 1) where issued or 2) * If the permit is denied arbitrarily, Article 131 is violated . If the officer would not give the
where the case is pending. Latter is preferred for objective determination. permit unless the meeting is held in a particular place which he dictates, such defeats the
exercise of the right to peaceably assemble, Article 131 is violated.
* Article 130 has no application to search and seizure made on moving vehicles because the
application of this law is limited to dwelling and personal properties such as papers and effects  Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, it’s
found therein. unjust vexation
* There are searches and seizures which are authorized by law and which can be done without  Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime
the attendance of witnesses. For instance, the Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons with against the legislative body, not punishable under this article
police authority under Sec. 2203, to enter; pass through or search any land, enclosure,
warehouse, store or building, not being used as a dwelling house; and to inspect, search and  The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that
examine any vessel or aircraft, and any trunk, package, box or envelope, or any person on board, no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped
or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or
conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.  But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation
of this article
Article 131  Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
 Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance
 ELEMENTS: requires permits for meetings in public places. But if police stops a meeting in a private
a. Offender is a public officer or employee place because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.
b. He performs any of the ff. acts:
1. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a Distinctions between prohibition, interruption, or dissolution of peaceful meetings
peaceful meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary under Article 131, and tumults and other disturbances, under Article 153
manner).
(1) As to the participation of the public officer
2. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings. In Article 131, the public officer is not a participant. As far as the gathering is
concerned, the public officer is a third party.
 prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others,
any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances If the public officer is a participant of the assembly and he prohibits, interrupts, or
dissolves the same, Article 153 is violated if the same is conducted in a public place.
Two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated:
(2) As to the essence of the crime
(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent
coup d’etat. In Article 131, the offender must be a public officer and, without any legal ground, he
prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves a peaceful meeting or assembly to prevent the
(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule. offended party from exercising his freedom of speech and that of the assembly to
petition a grievance against the government.
 If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153)
In Article 153, the offender need not be a public officer. The essence of the crime is
 Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or that of creating a serious disturbance of any sort in a public office, public building or
interrupting that meeting even a private place where a public function is being held .
 If in the course of the assembly the participants commit illegal acts like oral defamation or Article 132
inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the meeting . The INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
permit given is not a license to commit a crime.

 ELEMENTS:
a. That the officer is a public officer or employee * In determining whether an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful, the same must be
viewed or judged from the standpoint of the offended religion and not from the point of view of
b. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take the offender (People vs. Baes, 68 Phil. 203).
place or are going on
c. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same

CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable If Element Missing
 Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats Prohibition, Crime against the Public officers, If not by public officer = tumults
Interruption and fundamental law of the Outsiders
 Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or Dissolution of state
manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. But if done in a private Peaceful Meeting
home, it’s a religious service (131)
Interruption of Crime against the Public officers, If by insider = unjust vexation
 Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious ceremony; Religious Worship fundamental law of the Outsiders If not religious = tumult or alarms
a manifestation of religion. Ex. Mass, baptism, marriage (132) state If not notoriously offensive = unjust
vexation
 X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter Offending the Crime against public order Public officers, private If not tumults = alarms and scandal
was maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a Religious Feeling persons, outsiders If meeting illegal at onset = inciting
private person. (133) to sedition or rebellion
 When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases,

he’s not.
Article 133
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the acts complained of were performed –
1. in a place devoted to religious worship, or (for this element, no need of

religious ceremony, only the place is material)
2. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
b. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
(deliberate intent to hurt the feelings)
c. The offender is any person
d. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed

against religious tenet
 If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing religious
ceremony
 Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). Processions and
special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies
 Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of
ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
 There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or TITLE THREE
rudeness is not enough CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

 Persons liable for rebellion

Crimes against public order a. Any person who: 1. promotes
1. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134); 2. maintains, or
1.a Coup d’ etat (Art. 134-A) 3. heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion (Art. 136);
3. Disloyalty to public officers or employees (Art. 137); b. Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein by:
4. Inciting to rebellion (Art. 138); 1. engaging in war against the forces of the government
5. Sedition (Art. 139);
6. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141); 2. destroying property or committing serious violence
7. Inciting to sedition (Art. 142); 3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which
8. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143); they have been appropriated (Note: “diverting public funds” is malversation
9. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar bodies (Art. 144); absorbed in rebellion);
10. Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145);
11. Illegal assemblies (Art. 146); 4. Any person merely participating or executing the command of others in rebellion
12. Illegal associations (Art. 147);
13. Direct assaults (Art. 148); * The essence of this crime is a public uprising with the taking up of arms. It requires a
14. Indirect assaults (Art. 149); multitude of people. It aims to overthrow the duly constituted government. It does not require
15. Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees, etc., by the the participation of any member of the military or national police organization or public officers
constitutional commissions, its committees, etc. (Art. 150); and generally carried out by civilians. Lastly, the crime can only be committed through force and
16. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person (Art. violence.
151);
17. Tumults and other disturbances of public order (Art. 153); * The crime of rebellion cannot be committed by a single individual. Invariably, it is committed by
18. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (Art. 154); several persons for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted or organized government. In
19. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155); the Philippines, what is known to the ordinary citizen as a symbol of Government would be the
20. Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 156); barangay, represented by its officials; the local government represented by the provincial and
21. Evasion of service of sentence (Art. 157); municipal officials; and the national government represented by the President, the Chief Justice
22. Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art. 158); and the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
23. Violation of conditional pardon (Art. 159); and
24. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous  Success is immaterial, purpose is always political
offense (Art. 160).
* The crime of rebellion is essentially a political crime. The intention of the rebel is to substitute
himself in place of those who are in power. His method of placing himself in authority with the
Article 134 use of violence, duress or intimidation, assassination or the commission of common crimes like
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery and other heinous crimes in what we call rebellion.
 ELEMENTS:
a. That there be –  REBELLION used where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government
1. public uprising and
 INSURRECTION refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor
2. taking arms against the government (force/violence) importance to prevent the exercise of gov’t authority w/ respect to particular matters or
subjects
b. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either
 The phrase “to remove allegiance from the government’ is used to emphasize that the
1. to remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws – object of the uprising could be limited to certain areas, like isolating a barangay or
4 municipality or a province in its loyalty to the duly constituted government or the national
5 i. the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or government.
6
7 ii. any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or * Allegiance is a generic term which includes loyalty, civil obedience and civil service.
2 To deprive the chief executive or congress, wholly or partially, of any of * The law on rebellion however, does not speak only of allegiance or loss of territory. It also
their powers or prerogatives includes the efforts of the rebel to deprive the President of the Philippines of the exercise of his

power to enforce the law, to exact obedience of laws and regulations duly enacted and The statement in People v. Hernandez that common crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities. are absorbed by the crime of rebellion, was dictated by the provision of Article 135 of the Revised
Penal Code prior to its amendment by the Republic Act No. 6968 (An Act Punishing the Crime of
 Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the gov’t, not necessary to convict the accused who is Coup D’etat), which became effective on October 1990. Prior to its amendment by Republic Act
in conspiracy w/ others actually taking arms against the gov’t No. 6968, Article 135 punished those “who while holding any public office or employment, take
part therein” by any of these acts: engaging in war against the forces of Government; destroying
 Purpose of the uprising must be shown but it is not necessary that it be accomplished property; committing serious violence; exacting contributions, diverting funds for the lawful
purpose for which they have been appropriated.
 A change of government w/o external participation
Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the crime of rebellion when any of the specified acts are
 RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT – actual participation. If committed in furtherance thereof, said acts are punished as components of rebellion and,
there is no public uprising, the crime is of direct assault. therefore, are not to be treated as distinct crimes. The same acts constitute distinct crimes when
committed on a different occasion and not in furtherance of rebellion. In short, it was because
* When any of the objectives of rebellion is pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal Article 135 then punished said acts as components of the crime of rebellion that precludes the
sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form. But if there is rebellion, with public uprising, application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code thereto. In the eyes of the law then, said acts
direct assault cannot be committed. constitute only one crime and that is rebellion. The Hernandez doctrine was reaffirmed in Enrile
v. Salazar because the text of Article 135 has remained the same as it was when the Supreme
 Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in the case of rebellion. Merely sympathizing is Court resolved the same issue in the People v. Hernandez. So the Supreme Court invited
not participation, there must be ACTUAL participation attention to this fact and thus stated:
* There must be a public apprising and taking up of arms for the specified purpose or purposes “There is a an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the penalty
mentioned in Article 134. The acts of the accused who is not a member of the Hukbalahap therefore or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered absorbed thereby,
organization of sending cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader; the changing of dollars into so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity
pesos for a top level communist; and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the bank of undertaken in its name. The court has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret
which he was an official, do not constitute Rebellion. (Carino vs. People, et al., 7 SCRA the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully,
900). Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely
within its province.”
 Not necessary that there is killing, mere threat of removing Phil is sufficient
Obviously, Congress took notice of this pronouncement and, thus, in enacting Republic Act No.
* Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot being fired. No encounter needed. 6968, it did not only provide for the crime of coup d’etat in the Revised Penal Code but moreover,
Mere public uprising with arms enough. deleted from the provision of Article 135 that portion referring to those –
 Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other crime. “…who, while holding any public office or employment takes part therein [rebellion or
insurrection], engaging in war against the forces of government, destroying property or
> Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense are divested of their character committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful
as “common” offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime which they are purpose for which they have been appropriated …”
mere ingredients, and consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or
complexed with the same. Hence, overt acts which used to be punished as components of the crime of rebellion have been
severed therefrom by Republic Act No. 6968. The legal impediment to the application of Article
ORTEGA OPINION: 48 to rebellion has been removed. After the amendment, common crimes involving killings,
and/or destructions of property, even though committed by rebels in furtherance of rebellion,
Rebellion can now be complexed with common crimes . Not long ago, the Supreme Court, shall bring about complex crimes of rebellion with murder/homicide, or rebellion with robbery, or
in Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, reiterated and affirmed the rule laid down in rebellion with arson as the case may be.
People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, that rebellion may not be complexed with common
crimes which are committed in furtherance thereof because they are absorbed in To reiterate, before Article 135 was amended, a higher penalty is imposed when the offender
rebellion. In view of said reaffirmation, some believe that it has been a settled doctrine engages in war against the government. "War" connotes anything which may be carried out in
that rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes, such as killing and destruction pursuance of war. This implies that all acts of war or hostilities like serious violence and
of property, committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof. destruction of property committed on occasion and in pursuance of rebellion are component
crimes of rebellion which is why Article 48 on complex crimes is inapplicable. In amending
This thinking is no longer correct; there is no legal basis for such rule now. Article135, the acts which used to be component crimes of rebellion, like serious acts of violence,
have been deleted. These are now distinct crimes. The legal obstacle for the application of

Article 48, therefore, has been removed. Ortega says legislators want to punish these common c. Directed against:
crimes independently of rebellion. Ortega cites no case overturning Enrile v. Salazar.
1. duly constituted authorities
 However, illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is distinct from the crime
of rebellion. 2. any military camp or installation
* The offense of illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum, in which case, good faith 3. communication networks or public utilities
and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses.
4. other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
 Furthermore, it is a continuing crime such along with the crime of conspiracy or proposal to power
commit such
d. Singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines
 A private crime may be committed during rebellion . Examples: killing, possessions of
firearms, illegal association are absorbed. Rape, even if not in furtherance of rebellion d. Committed by any person or persons belonging to the military or
cannot be complexed police or holding any public office or employment; with or without
civilian support or participation
 If killing, robbing were done for private purposes or for profit, without any political
motivation, the crime would be separately be punished and would not be embraced by e. With or without civilian support or participation
rebellion (People v. Fernando)
f. Purpose of seizing or diminishing state power
 Person deemed leader of rebellion in case he is unknown:
Any person who in fact: * The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the facilities of the Philippine government,
a. directed the others military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and facilities essential to
b. spoke for them the continued possession of governmental powers . It may be committed singly or collectively
c. signed receipts and other documents issued in their name and does not require a multitude of people.
d. performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels
 The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze
Distinctions between rebellion and sedition the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued
possession and exercise of governmental powers . It requires as principal offender a
(1) As to nature member of the AFP or of the PNP organization or a public officer with or without civilian
support. Finally, it may be carried out not only by force or violence but also through stealth,
In rebellion, there must be taking up or arms against the government. threat or strategy.
In sedition, it is sufficient that the public uprising be tumultuous. How do you distinguish between coup d’etat and rebellion?
(2) As to purpose Rebellion is committed by any person whether a private individual or a public officer whereas in
coup d’etat, the offender is a member of the military or police force or holding a public office or
In rebellion, the purpose is always political. employment.
* In sedition, the purpose may be political or social. Example: the uprising of squatters against In rebellion, the object is to alienate the allegiance of a people in a territory, whether wholly or
Forbes park residents. The purpose in sedition is to go against established government, not to partially, from the duly constituted government; in coup d’etat, the object or purpose is to seize
overthrow it. or diminish state power.
In both instances, the offenders intend to substitute themselves in place of those who are in
Article 134-A power.
COUP D’ ETAT
Treason (114) Rebellion (134) Coup d’etat Sedition (139)
 ELEMENTS: (134-A)
a. Swift attack
b. Accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth

Nature of Crime against National Crime against Public Crime against Crime against Public Order > It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that
C Security Order Public Order they never recognized the government
r
i > Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common crimes committed in pursuance
m of the movement to overthrow the government
e
Overt Acts levying war against the Public uprising See article. Rising publicly or * Subversion, just like the crimes of rebellion, conspiracy or proposal to commit the crimes of
gov’t; AND tumultuously (caused by rebellion or subversion and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof constitute direct
OR Taking up arms against more than 3 armed men or assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes ( Umil vs. Ramos).
adherence and giving the gov’t provided with means of
aid or comfort to violence) > Killing, robbing etc for private persons or for profit, without any political motivation, would be
enemies separately punished and would not be absorbed in the rebellion.
Purpose of Deliver the gov’t to See article. Seizing or See enumeration in article.
objective enemy during war diminishing state
power. Article 136
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Article 135  ELEMENTS:

PENALTIES a. 2 more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against
the government
 Who are liable?
a. Any person who: b. For any of the purposes of rebellion
1. Promotes
2. Maintains c. They decide to commit it
3. heads a rebellion or insurrection
b. Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (136)
1. engaging in war against the forces of the gov’t
2. destroying property or committing serious violence  ELEMENTS:
3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which
they have been appropriated a. A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms the government
c. Any person merely participating or executing the command of other in a rebellion
b. For any of the purposes of rebellion
* When conspiracy is present in the commission of the crime, the act of one is the act of all. In
committing rebellion and coup d’etat, even if conspiracy as a means to commit the crime is c. Proposes its execution to some other person/s
established, the principal of criminal liability under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code is not
followed.  Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting membership in, and soliciting funds for the
organization show conspiracy to overthrow the gov’t
In Government Service Not in Government Service
Anyone who leads, directs, commands others to undertake a 
Anyone who participates or in an manner, supports, finances, The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make the
coup. abets, aids in a coup. accused guilty of conspiracy if there’s no evidence that the hearers then and there agreed to
rise up in arms against the gov’t
 Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians, which may result in homicide. It is not limited
to hostilities against the armed force.  Conspiracy must be immediately prior to rebellion
 If it is during the rebellion, then it is already taking part in it.
 Diverting public funds is malversation absorbed in rebellion
NOTES: Article 137

> Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
rebellion
 ACTS PUNISHED:
a. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power

The person who proposes the execution of the crime uses The inciting is done publicly.
b. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels secret means.
c. Accepting appointment to office under rebels Article 139

SEDITION
 Presupposes existence of rebellion
 ELEMENTS:
 Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters a. That the offenders rise –
 If there are means to prevent the rebellion but did not resist it, then there’s disloyalty. If 1. Publicly (if no public uprising = tumult and other disturbance of public order)
there are no means, no fault
2. Tumultuously (vis-à-vis rebellion where there must be a taking of arms)
 If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this
b. That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal
 The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels on the people. methods
* Disloyalty as a crime is not limited to rebellion alone but should now include the crime of coup c. That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following
d’etat. Rebellion is essentially a crime committed by private individuals while coup d’etat is a objects:
crime that should be classified as a crime committed by public officers like malversation, bribery,
dereliction of duty and violations of the anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 1. to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of
any popular election
* If the public officer or employee, aside from being disloyal, does or commits acts constituting
the crime of rebellion or coup d’etat, he will no longer be charged for the simple crime of 2. to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal
disloyalty but he shall be proceeded against for the grave offense of rebellion or coup d’etat. government, or any public thereof from freely exercising its or his
functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order
Article 138 3. to inflict any act or hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION public officer or employee
 ELEMENTS: 4. to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge
a. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the against private persons or any social class (hence, even private persons
government may be offended parties)
b. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion 5. to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or
province, or the national government of all its property or any part
c. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, thereof
emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end
 Sedition: raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate object is a
 Intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion violation of the public peace or at least such measures that evidently engenders it.
 There must be uprising to take up arms and rise publicly for the purposes indicated in Art  The crime of sedition is committed by rising publicly and tumultuously. The two elements
134 must concur.
* One who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion and who act at the same time incites or  The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up of arms against the government
influences others to join him in his war efforts against the duly constituted government cannot be because the purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government. Notice from the
held criminally liable for the crime of inciting to rebellion because, as the principal to the crime of purpose of the crime of sedition that the offenders rise publicly and create commotion and
rebellion, the act of inciting to commit a rebellion is inherent to the graver crime of rebellion. disturbance by way of protest to express their dissent and obedience to the government or
to the authorities concerned. This is like the so-called civil disobedience except that the
means employed, which is violence, is illegal.
Proposal to Commit Rebellion (136) Inciting to Rebellion (138)
The person who proposes has decided to commit Not required that the offender has decided to commit  Difference from rebellion – object or purpose of the uprising.
rebellion. rebellion.

For sedition – sufficient that uprising is tumultuous. In rebellion – there must be taking up
of arms against the government. Article 142
INCITING TO SEDITION
Sedition – purpose may be either political or social. In rebellion – always political
 ELEMENTS:
“TUMULTUOUS” is a situation wherein the disturbance or confusion is caused by at least four a. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition
persons. There is no requirement that the offenders should be armed.
b. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which
 Preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions constitute sedition (134)
 In sedition – offender may be a private or public person (Ex. Soldier) c. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing,
emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same
 Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur end (purpose: cause commotion not exactly against the government; actual
disturbance not necessary)
 Q: Are common crimes absorbed in sedition?
 Different acts of inciting to sedition:
In P v. Umali, SC held that NO. Crimes committed in that case were independent of each other.
a. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by
 Preventing election through legal means – NOT sedition means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc.
 But when sugar farmers demonstrated and destroyed the properties of sugar barons – b. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing,
sedition publishing, or circulating scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels against the
government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the
 Persons liable for sedition: public peace
a. leader of the sedition, and
c. Knowingly concealing such evil practices
b. other persons participating in the sedition
 When punishable:
* The objective of the law in criminalizing sedition is to put a limit to the freedom of expression or a. when they tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of
the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. his office; or
 The demonstrations conducted or held by the citizenry to protest certain policies of the b. when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes;
government is not a crime. But when the protest in manifested in the form of rallies where or
the participants, in order to attain their objective of overcoming the will of the government,
resort to force or violence, the mantle of protection guaranteed under the Constitution to c. when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or
express their dissent peacefully, shall cease to exist, as in the meantime, the participants d. when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb
have encroached or stayed in the domain or realm of criminal law. the peace of the community, the safety and order of the government
* Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

Article 141.
Conspiracy to Commit Sedition * Inciting to sedition is an element of sedition. It cannot be treated as a separate offense against
one who is a part of a group that rose up publicly and tumultuously and fought the forces of
* In this crime, there must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to government.
attain any of the objects of sedition.
* Considering that the objective of sedition is to express protest against the government and in
* There is no proposal to commit sedition. the process creating hate against public officers, any act that will generate hatred against the
government or a public officer concerned or a social class may amount to Inciting to sedition.
* The conspiracy must be to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.
any popular election. It may also be a conspiracy to prevent national and local public officials
from freely exercising their duties and functions, or to prevent the execution of an administrative * The mere meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred against the government is inciting to
order. sedition. Lambasting government officials to discredit the government is Inciting to sedition. But

if the objective of such preparatory actions is the overthrow of the government, the crime is VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
inciting to rebellion.
 Acts punishable:
a. By using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of
CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION Congress from –
Article 143 1. attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees,
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from
 ELEMENTS: 2. expressing his opinions or

a. That there be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or 3. casting his vote
division thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or
board b. By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular
or special session, except in case such member has committed a crime
b. That the offender who may be any persons prevents such meeting by force punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor ( 6 years
or fraud up )
* The crime is against popular representation because it is directed against officers whose Elements:
primary function is to meet and enact laws. When these legislative bodies are prevented from 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
meeting and performing their duties, the system of government is disturbed. The three branches
of government must continue to exist and perform their duties. 2. That he arrests or searches any member of Congress
 Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are liable 3. That Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in a regular or special
under Art 143, when the defect of the meeting is not manifest and requires an investigation session
before its existence can be determined.
4. That the member searched has not committed a crime punishable under
the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor (1987 constitution:
Article 144 privilege from arrest while congress in session in all offenses punishable by not
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS more than 6 years imprisonment).
 ELEMENTS: * Under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution, a public officer who arrests a member of
a. That there be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (six years and one day, to 12
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board years) is not liable Article 145.
or city or municipal council or board
* According to Reyes, to be consistent with the Constitution, the phrase "by a penalty higher than
b. That the offender does any of the following acts prision mayor" in Article 145 should be amended to read: "by the penalty of prision mayor or
higher."
1. He disturbs any of such meetings
* The offender is any person and the offended party who is a member of Congress, has not
2. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner committed any crime to justify the use of force, threat, intimidation or fraud to prevent him from
as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it attending the meeting of Congress.
* The disturbance can be in the form of utterances, speeches or any form of expressing dissent
which is not done peacefully but implemented in such a way that it substantially interrupts the ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
meeting of the assembly or adversely affects the respect due to the assembly of its members.
Article 146
 Complaint must be filed by member of the Legislative body. Accused may also be punished ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
for contempt.
 Two (2) Types of illegal assemblies:
Article 145 a. Meeting of the first form

above, the presence of armed men is unnecessary. The mere gathering for the
1. Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving purpose is sufficient to bring about the crime already.
2. purpose : to commit any of crimes punishable under the code (2) Armed men attending the gathering – If the illegal purpose is other than those
mentioned above, the presence of armed men during the gathering brings about the
3. meeting attended by armed persons crime of illegal assembly.
b. Meeting of the second form Example: Persons conspiring to rob a bank were arrested. Some were with firearms.
Liable for illegal assembly, not for conspiracy, but for gathering with armed men.
1. Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving
Distinction between illegal assembly and illegal association
2. Audience whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault. In illegal assembly, the basis of liability is the gathering for an illegal purpose which constitutes a
crime under the Revised Penal Code.
 Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be
armed In illegal association, the basis is the formation of or organization of an association to engage in
an unlawful purpose which is not limited to a violation of the Revised Penal Code. It includes a
 Persons liable for illegal assembly violation of a special law or those against public morals. Meaning of public morals: inimical to
a. the organizers or leaders of the meeting public welfare; it has nothing to do with decency., not acts of obscenity.
b. persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity – not
liable) Article 147
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
 Responsibility of persons merely present at the meeting
 ELEMENTS:
a. if they are not armed, penalty is arresto mayor a. Organized totally or partially for the purpose of committing any of the
crimes in RPC
b. if they carry arms, like bolos or knives, or licensed firearms, penalty is prision Or
correccional b. For some purpose contrary to public morals
 Presumptions if person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm:  Persons liable:
a. founders, directors and president of the association
a. purpose of the meeting is to commit acts punishable under the RPC b. mere members of the association
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY (146) ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION (147)
b. considered as leader or organizer of the meeting
Must be an actual meeting of armed persons to commit any No need for such
of the crimes punishable under the RPC, or of individuals
* Those who incite the audience, by means of speeches, printed matters, and other
who, although not armed, are incited to the commission of
representation, to commit treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault a person in
treason, rebellion, sedition or assault upon a person in
authority, shall be deemed leaders or organizers of said meeting.
authority of his agent.
It is the meeting and the attendance at such that are Act of forming or organizing and membership in the
 The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or gathering of people for illegal purpose
punished association
punishable by the Revised Penal Code. Without gathering, there is no illegal assembly. If
Persons liable: leaders and those present Founders, directors, president and members
unlawful purpose is a crime under a special law, there is no illegal assembly. For example,
the gathering of drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is not illegal assembly because the
purpose is not violative of the Revised Penal Code but of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, Public morals refers to crimes punished under Title Six of the Revised Penal Code, namely,
as amended, which is a special law. gambling, grave scandal, prostitution and vagrancy.
Two forms of illegal assembly

ASSAULT, RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
(1) No attendance of armed men, but persons in the meeting are incited to commit
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority . When Article 148
the illegal purpose of the gathering is to incite people to commit the crimes mentioned DIRECT ASSAULT

 ELEMENTS OF THE 1ST FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT * So, where the spirit is present, it is always complexed with the material consequence of the
a. That the offender employs force or intimidation. unlawful act. If the unlawful act was murder or homicide committed under circumstance of
lawlessness or contempt of authority, the crime would be direct assault with murder or homicide,
b. That the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of as the case may be. In the example of the judge who was killed, the crime is direct assault with
rebellion or any of the objects of the crimes of sedition. (victim need not be murder or homicide.
person in authority)
* The only time when it is not complexed is when material consequence is a light felony, that is,
c. That there is no public uprising. slight physical injury. Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony; the crime of direct assault can not
be separated from the material result of the act. So, if an offender who is charged with direct
Example of the first form of direct assault: assault and in another court for the slight physical Injury which is part of the act, acquittal or
conviction in one is a bar to the prosecution in the other.
Three men broke into a National Food Authority warehouse and lamented sufferings of the
people. They called on people to help themselves to all the rice. They did not even help  Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist is not direct assault because if done against an
themselves to a single grain. agent of a person in authority, the force employed must be of serious character
The crime committed was direct assault. There was no robbery for there was no intent to gain.  The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority
The crime is direct assault by committing acts of sedition under Article 139 (5), that is, spoiling of (ex. Laying of hands)
the property, for any political or social end, of any person municipality or province or the national
government of all or any its property, but there is no public uprising.  The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent only
or a person in authority (ex. Pointing a gun)
 ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT: Force Employed Intimidation/Resistance

a. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a Person in Authority Need not be serious Serious
serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance. Agent Must be of serious character Serious
b. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.  PERSON IN AUTHORITY: any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority
to govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
c. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is governmental corporation, board or commission
engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not essential), or
that he is assaulted (b) by reason of the past performance of official duties  A barangay captain is a person in authority, so is a Division Superintendent of schools,
(motive is essential). President of Sanitary Division and a teacher
d. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in * In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 , teachers, professors, and persons charged
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties (with intention to offend, with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities and
injure or assault). lawyers in the actual performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall
be deemed a person in authority.
e. That there is no public uprising.
 AGENT: is one who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
* Crime of direct assault can only be committed by means of dolo. It cannot be committed by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and
culpa. security of life and property. ( Example. Barrio councilman and any person who comes to the
aid of the person in authority, policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of
 Always complexed with the material consequence of the act (e.g. direct assault with murder) the BIR, Malacañang confidential agent)
except if resulting in a light felony, in which case, the consequence is absorbed
 Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, still direct assault.
* The crime is not based on the material consequence of the unlawful act . The crime of direct
assault punishes the spirit of lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for the authority or the rule  When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is entitled
of law. to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical injuries,
* To be specific, if a judge was killed while he was holding a session, the killing is not the direct because he acts in legitimate self-defense
assault, but murder. There could be direct assault if the offender killed the judge simply because
the judge is so strict in the fulfillment of his duty. It is the spirit of hate which is the essence of * The offended party in assault must not be the aggressor. If there is unlawful aggression
direct assault. employed by the public officer, any form of resistance which may be in the nature of force

against him will be considered as an act of legitimate defense. (People vs. Hernandez, 59 * If the crime of direct assault is committed with the use of force and it resulted in the infliction
Phil. 343) of slight physical injuries, the latter shall not be considered as a separate offense. It shall be
absorbed by the greater crime of direct assault. (People vs. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614)
 There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another when they both
contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties.  Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.
* The offender and the offended party are both public officers. The Supreme Court said that May direct assault be committed upon a private individual? Yes. When a private person
assault may still be committed, as in fact the offender is even subjected to a greater penalty comes to the aid of a person in authority, and he is likewise assaulted. Under Republic Act No.
(U.S. vs. Vallejo, 11 Phil. 193). 1978,
 When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual  a private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is by fiction of law deemed or
performance of his official duty when attacked is considered an agent of a person in authority.
In direct assault of the first form, the stature of the offended person is immaterial . The crime is
manifested by the spirit of lawlessness.
Article 149
In the second form, you have to distinguish a situation where a person in authority or his agent INDIRECT ASSAULT
was attacked while performing official functions, from a situation when he is not performing such
functions.  ELEMENTS:
a. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of
 If attack was done during the exercise of official functions, the crime is always direct direct assault defined in ART. 148.
assault. It is enough that the offender knew that the person in authority was performing an
official function whatever may be the reason for the attack, although what may have b. That a person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent.
happened was a purely private affair.
c. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person
* On the other hand, if the person in authority or the agent was killed when no longer coming to the aid of the authority or his agent.
performing official functions, the crime may simply be the material consequence of he unlawful
act: murder or homicide. For the crime to be direct assault, the attack must be by reason of his  Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed
official function in the past. Motive becomes important in this respect. Example, if a judge was
killed while resisting the taking of his watch, there is no direct assault.  To be indirect assault, the person who should be aided is the agent (not the person
in authority because it is already direct assault, the person coming to the aid of the person
In the second form of direct assault, it is also important that the offended knew that the person in authority being considered as an agent and an attack on the latter is already direct
he is attacking is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, performing his official assault). Example. Aiding a policeman under attack.
functions. No knowledge, no lawlessness or contempt .
* The victim in indirect assault should be a private person who comes in aid of an agent of a
For example, if two persons were quarreling and a policeman in civilian clothes comes and stops person in authority. The assault is upon a person who comes in aid of the agent of a person in
them, but one of the protagonists stabs the policeman, there would be no direct assault unless authority. The victim cannot be the person in authority or his agent.
the offender knew that he is a policeman.
* Take note that under Article 152, as amended, when any person comes in aid of a person in
In this respect it is enough that the offender should know that the offended party was exercising authority, said person at that moment is no longer a civilian – he is constituted as an agent of the
some form of authority. It is not necessary that the offender knows what is meant by person in person in authority. If such person were the one attacked, the crime would be direct assault
authority or an agent of one because ignorantia legis non excusat.
 Circumstances qualifying the offense (Qualified Assault): Article 150

a. when the assault is committed with a weapon DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS
b. when the offender is a public officer or employee  Acts punishable:

a. refusing without legal excuse to obey summons
c. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority
b. refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation
 Complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder, or with serious physical injuries.
c. refusing to answer any legal inquiry to produce books, records etc.

d. restraining another from attending as witness in such body Direct assault is committed in 4 ways – by attacking, Committed by resisting or seriously disobeying a PIA or his
employing force, and seriously resisting a PIA or his agent.
e. inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn agent.
Use of force against an agent of PIA must be serious Use of force against an agent of a PIA is not so serious; no
* The act punished is refusal, without legal excuse, to obey summons issued by the House of and deliberate. manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing
Representatives or the Senate. If a Constitutional Commission is created, it shall enjoy the same it.
privilege.
* In both resistance against an agent of a person in authority and direct assault by resisting an
* The exercise by the legislature of its contempt power is a matter of self-preservation, agent of a person in authority, there is force employed , but the use of force in resistance is not
independent of the judicial branch. The contempt power of the legislature is inherent and sui so serious, as there is no manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing it.
generis.
* The attack or employment of force which gives rise to the crime of direct assault must be
* The power to punish is not extended to the local executive bodies . The reason given is that serious and deliberate; otherwise, even a case of simple resistance to an arrest, which always
local legislative bodies are but a creation of law and therefore, for them to exercise the power of requires the use of force of some kind, would constitute direct assault and the lesser offense of
contempt, there must be an express grant of the same. resistance or disobedience in Article 151 would entirely disappear.
But when the one resisted is a person in authority , the use of any kind or degree of force will give
Article 151 rise to direct assault.
RESISTANCE/DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENT OF SUCH
PERSON (par. 1) If no force is employed by the offender in resisting or disobeying a person in authority , the crime
committed is resistance or serious disobedience under the first paragraph of Article 151.
 ELEMENTS:
a. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of
official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender. Article 152
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY/AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY:
b. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or
his agent.  PERSONS IN AUTHORITY – any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission.
c. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts. 148,
149 and 150.  Examples of Persons in Authority :
a. Barangay captain
b. Barangay chairman
SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2) c. Municipal mayor
d. Provincial fiscal
 ELEMENTS: e. Justice of the peace
a. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of f. Municipal councilor
official duty gives a lawful order to the offender. g. Teachers
h. Professors
b. That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority. i. Persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities
c. That such disobedience is not of a serious nature . j. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of
US vs. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183 such performance
The Supreme Court held that: “t he violation does not refer to resistance or disobedience to the
legal provisions of the law, nor to judicial decisions defining or declaring the rights and  AGENT OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY – any person who, by direct provision of law or by
obligations of the parties for the same give reliefs only in the form of civil actions. Rather, the election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
disobedience or resistance is to the orders directly issued by the authorities in the exercise of public order and the protection and security of life and property.
their official duties.”
 Examples of agents of PIA :
Direct Assault (148) Resistant and Disobedience to a Person in Authority a. Barrio councilman
or Agents of such Person (151) b. Barrio policeman
PIA or his agent must be engaged in the performance PIA or his agent must be in the actual performance of his c. Barangay leader
of official duties or that he is assaulted duties. d. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority

 Section 388 of the Local Gov’t Code provides that “for purposes of the RPC, the punong
barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in  TUMULTUOUS – if caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means
each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other of violence (circumstance qualifying the disturbance/interruption) – “tumultuous in
barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged character”
with the maintenance of public order, protection and the security of life, property, or the
maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who * The essence is creating public disorder. This crime is brought about by creating serious
comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed AGENT of persons in authority. disturbances in public places, public buildings, and even in private places where public functions
or performances are being held.
 When the offended party is a person in authority and while being assaulted, a private
individual comes to his rescue, such private individual, by operation of law, mutates  For a crime to be under this article, it must not fall under Articles 131 (prohibition,
mutandis becomes an agent of a person in authority. Any assault committed against such interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings) and 132 (interruption of religious
person is direct assault, and not indirect assault. But if the person assaulted is an agent of a worship).
person in authority, and a private individual comes to his rescue and is himself assaulted
while giving the assistance, as earlier discussed, the crime committed is indirect assault. * In the act of making outcry during speech tending to incite rebellion or sedition, the situation
must be distinguished from inciting to sedition or rebellion.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DISORDERS  If the speaker, even before he delivered his speech, already had the criminal intent to incite
the listeners to rise to sedition, the crime would be inciting to sedition. However, if the
Article 153 offender had no such criminal intent, but in the course of his speech, tempers went high
TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER and so the speaker started inciting the audience to rise in sedition against the government,
the crime is disturbance of the public order.
 TYPES:
a. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment * The disturbance of the pubic order is tumultuous and the penalty is increased if it is brought
about by armed men. The term “armed” does not refer to firearms but includes even big stones
b. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions, gatherings or capable of causing grave injury.
peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Art 131 and 132 (Public Officers
interrupting peaceful meetings or religious worship).  It is also disturbance of the public order if a convict legally put to death is buried with pomp .
He should not be made out as a martyr; it might incite others to hatred.
c. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or public place  The crime of disturbance of public order may be committed in a public or private place. If
committed in a private place, the law is violated only where the disturbance is made while a
d. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order public function or performance is going on. Without a public gathering in a private place, the
in such place crime cannot be committed.
e. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. Article 154
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES
 If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is NOT committed by
public officers, or if committed by public officers who are not participants therein, this article  TYPES:
applies. Art 131 and 132 punishes the same acts if committed by public officers who areNOT a. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography
participants in the meeting or any other means of publication as news any false news which may
endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the
 The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is an unconscious outburst which, although State.
rebellious or seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit
rebellion or sedition, otherwise, its inciting to rebellion or sedition. b. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or
by praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same
 This article should be distinguished from inciting to rebellion or sedition as discussed under means or by words, utterances or speeches
Article 138 and 142. In the former, the meeting is legal and peaceful. It becomes unlawful
only because of the outcry made, which tends to incite rebellion or sedition in the meeting. c. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution
In the latter case, the meeting is unlawful from the beginning and the utterances made are or document without proper authority, or before they have been published
deliberately articulated to incite others to rise publicly and rebel against the government. officially
What makes it inciting to rebellion or sedition is the act of inciting the audience to commit
rebellion or sedition.

d. Printing, publishing or distributing or (causing the same) books, homicide or attempted murder or attempted parricide. It can not be frustrated because the
pamphlets, periodicals or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s name offended party is not mortally wounded.
or which are classified as anonymous.
In Araneta v. Court of Appeals, it was held that if a person is shot at and is wounded, the
* The purpose of the law is to punish the spreading of false information which tends to cause crime is automatically attempted homicide. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of the
panic, confusion, distrust and divide people in their loyalty to the duly constituted authorities. deadly weapon.
* Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit of the State is not necessary. (4) Grave Threats – If the weapon is not discharged but merely pointed
to another
Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the reprinting, reproduction or republication of government
publications and official documents without previous authority (5) Other Light Threats – If drawn in a quarrel but not in self defense
The article also punishes any person who knowingly publishes official acts or documents which
are not officially promulgated.  What governs is the result, not the intent
CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable

Article 155 Tumults and other Disturbances (153) Crime against Public Order Private persons, outsider
ALARMS AND SCANDALS Alarms and Scandals (155) Crime against Public Order Private persons, outsider
 TYPES:
a. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any Article 156
town or public place, calculated to cause alarm or danger DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS
b. Instigating or taking active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting  ELEMENTS :
offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility a. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment.
c. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while b. That the offender removes therefor such person, or helps the escape of such
engaged in any other nocturnal amusement person (if the escapee is serving final judgement, he is guilty of evasion of sentence).
d. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or c. Offender is a private individual
otherwise, provided the act is not covered by Art 153 (tumult).
 Understand the nature of the crime of alarms and scandals as one that disturbs public  Prisoner may be detention prisoner or one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment
tranquility or public peace. If the annoyance is intended for a particular person, the crime is
unjust vexation. * Even if the prisoner is in the hospital or asylum or any place for detention of prisoner, as long
as he is classified as a prisoner, that is, a formal complaint or information has been filed in court,
 Charivari – mock serenade or discordant noises made with kettles, tin horns etc, designed and he has been officially categorized as a prisoner, this article applies, as such place is
to deride, insult or annoy considered extension of the penal institution.
WHEN A PERSON DISCHARGES A FIREARM IN PUBLIC , the act may constitute any of the  A policeman assigned to the city jail as guard who while off-duty released a prisoner is liable
possible crimes under the Revised Penal Code: here
(1) Alarms and scandals if the firearm when discharged was not directed to any particular * Even if the prisoner returned to the jail after several hours, the one who removed him from jail
person; is liable.
(2) Illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 if the firearm is directed or pointed to a  It may be committed through negligence
particular person when discharged but intent to kill is absent;
 Circumstances qualifying the offense – is committed by means of violence, intimidation
(3) Attempted homicide, murder, or parricide if the firearm when discharged is or bribery.
directed against a person and intent to kill is present.  Mitigating circumstance – if it takes place outside the penal establishment by taking the
guards by surprise
In this connection, understand that it is not necessary that the offended party be wounded or hit.
Mere discharge of firearm towards another with intent to kill already amounts to attempted

(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the penal establishment because of a
* correlate the crime of delivering person from jail with infidelity in the custody of prisoners calamity, conflagration or mutiny and such calamity, conflagration or mutiny has been
punished under Articles 223, 224 and 225 of the Revised Penal Code . In both acts, announced as already passed under Article 158;
the offender may be a public officer or a private citizen. (3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon under Article 159.
 Do not think that infidelity in the custody of prisoners can only be committed by a public Article 157
officer and delivering persons from jail can only be committed by private person. Both EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
crimes may be committed by public officers as well as private persons.
 ELEMENTS :
> In both crimes, the person involved may be a convict or a mere detention prisoner. a. That the offender is a convict by final judgment.
* The only point of distinction between the two crimes lies on whether the offender is the b. That he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty
custodian of the prisoner or not at the time the prisoner was made to escape. (destierro included)
 If the offender is the custodian at that time , the crime is infidelity in the custody of c. That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term
prisoners. But if the offender is not the custodian of the prisoner at that time , even though if his sentence. (fact of return immaterial).
he is a public officer, the crime he committed is delivering prisoners from jail.  By the very nature of the crime, it cannot be committed when the prisoner involved is
merely a detention prisoner. But it applies to persons convicted by final judgment with a
LIABILITY OF THE PRISONER OR DETAINEE WHO ESCAPED – When these crimes are penalty of destierro.
committed, whether infidelity in the custody of prisoners or delivering prisoners from
jail, the prisoner so escaping may also have criminal liability and this is so if the * A detention prisoner even if he escapes from confinement has no criminal liability . Thus,
prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment. The crime of evasion of escaping from his prison cell when his case is still on appeal does not make said prisoner liable
service of sentence is committed by the prisoner who escapes if such prisoner is a for Evasion of Service of Sentence.
convict serving sentence by final judgment.
 In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the prisoner immediately returned is
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention prisoner , he does not incur liability from escaping immaterial. It is enough that he left the penal establishment by escaping therefrom. His
if he does not know of the plan to remove him from jail. But if such prisoner knows of the plot to voluntary return may only be mitigating, being analogous to voluntary surrender. But the
remove him from jail and cooperates therein by escaping, he himself becomes liable for delivering same will not absolve his criminal liability.
prisoners from jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
 A continuing offense.
* If three persons are involved – a stranger, the custodian and the prisoner – three crimes are
committed:  Offenders – not minor delinquents nor detention prisoners
(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail; and  If escaped within the 15 day appeal period – no evasion
(3) Evasion of service of sentence.
 No applicable to deportation as the sentence
It is possible that several crimes may be committed in one set of facts . For instance,
assuming that Pedro, the jail warden, agreed with Juan to allow Maria to escape by not locking  The crime of evasion of service of sentence may be committed even if the sentence is
the gate of the city jail. Provided that Juan comes across with P5,000.00 pesos as bribe money. destierro, and this is committed if the convict sentenced to destierro will enter the prohibited
The arrangement was not known to Maria but when she noticed the unlocked gate of the city jail places or come within the prohibited radius of 25 kilometers to such places as stated in the
she took advantage of the situation and escaped. From the facts given, there is no question that judgment.
Pedro, as the jail warden, is liable for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. He will
also be able for the crime of bribery. Juan will be liable for the crime of delivering a prisoner from * If the sentence violated is destierro, the penalty upon the convict is to be served by way of
jail and for corruption of public official under Art. 212. If Maria is a sentenced prisoner, she will destierro also, not imprisonment. This is so because the penalty for the evasion can not be more
be liable for evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. if she is a detention prisoner, she severe than the penalty evaded.
commits no crime.
 Circumstances qualifying the offense (done thru):
a. unlawful entry (by “scaling”)
EVASION OF SENTENCE OR SERVICE
b. breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE HAS THREE FORMS:
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal establishment under Article 157; c. using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation

 Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer, a sedition, a revolt

d. connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution
 The mutiny referred to in the second form of evasion of service of sentence does not include
* A, a foreigner, was found guilty of violation of the law, and was ordered by the court to be riot. The mutiny referred to here involves subordinate personnel rising against the
deported. Later on, he returned to the Philippines in violation of the sentence. Held: He is not supervisor within the penal establishment. One who escapes during a riot will be subject to
guilty of Evasion of Service of Sentence as the law is not applicable to offenses executed by Article 157, that is, simply leaving or escaping the penal establishment.
deportation. (U.S. vs. Loo Hoe, 36 Phil. 867).
 Disarming the guards is not mutiny
Article 158 * Violation attributed to the accused is no longer referred to the court for judicial inquiry or
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS, resolution. The law has provided sufficient guidelines for the jail warden to follow.
CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES OR OTHER CALAMITIES
* This disquisition will not apply if the offender who escapes taking advantage of the calamities
 ELEMENTS : enumerated herein is apprehended by the authorities after 48 hours from the declaration that the
a. That the offender is a convict by final judgement who is confined in a calamity is over. It is only extended to one who returns but made inside the 48 hours delimited
penal institution. by the proclamation. At this stage, the violation is not substantive but administrative in nature.
b. That there is disorder, resulting from- 1. conflagration,

2. earthquake, or Article 159
3. explosion, or VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
4. similar catastrophe, or
5. mutiny , not participated.  ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender was a convict.
c. That the offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the
penal institution where he is confined, on the occasion of such disorder b. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the chief executive.
or during the mutiny.
c. That he violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
d. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48
hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the chief executive  Condition extends to special laws – violation of illegal voting
announcing the passing away of such calamity. The condition imposed upon the prisoner not to be guilty of another crime is not limited to those
punishable under the Revised Penal Code. It includes those punished under Special Law.
 The leaving from the penal establishment is not the basis of criminal liability. It is the (People vs. Corral, 74 Phil. 357).
failure to return within 48 hours after the passing of the calamity, conflagration or mutiny
had been announced. Under Article 158, those who return within 48 hours are given credit * In violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the violation will amount to this crime only if the
or deduction from the remaining period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the original condition is violated during the remaining period of the sentence.
term of the sentence. But if the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours, an added
penalty, also 1/5, shall be imposed but the 1/5 penalty is based on the remaining period of * If the condition of the pardon is violated, the remedy against the accused may be in the form of
the sentence, not on the original sentence. In no case shall that penalty exceed six months. prosecution under Article 159. it may also be an administrative action by referring the violation to
the court of origin and praying for the issuance of a warrant of arrest justified under Section 64
 Offender must escape to be entitled to allowance of the Revised Administrative Code.
> Those who did not leave the penal establishment are not entitled to the 1/5 credit. Only those  The administrative liability of the convict under the conditional pardon is different and has
who left and returned within the 48-hour period. nothing to do with his criminal liability for the evasion of service of sentence in the event
that the condition of the pardon has been violated. Exception: where the violation of the
 For such event to be considered as a calamity, the President must declared it to be so. He condition of the pardon will constitute evasion of service of sentence, even though
must issue a proclamation to the effect that the calamity is over. Even if the events herein committed beyond the remaining period of the sentence. This is when the conditional
mentioned may be considered as calamity, there is a need for the Chief Executive to make pardon expressly so provides or the language of the conditional pardon clearly shows the
such announcement. Absent such declaration. Even if the prisoner will return to the penal intention to make the condition perpetual even beyond the unserved portion of the
institution where he was confined, the same is of no moment as in the meantime he has sentence. In such case, the convict may be required to serve the unserved portion of the
committed a violation of the law, not under the present article but for pure evasion of sentence even though the violation has taken place when the sentence has already lapsed.
service of sentence under Article 157.

 Offender must have been found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be period of the penalty. The mandate is absolute and is justified by the finding that the accused is
prosecuted under this Article. But if under Revised Admin Code, no conviction necessary. suffering from some degree of moral perversity if not total incorrigibility. (People vs. Alicia, et
President has power to arrest, reincarnate offender without trial al., 95 SCRA 227)
* Quasi-recidivism is an aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating
* Article 159 is a distinct felony. It is a substantive crime . For one to suffer the consequence of its circumstance. To be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the
violation, the prisoner must be formally charged in court. He will be entitled to a full blown information. (People vs. Bautista, 65 SCRA 460)
hearing, in full enjoyment of his right to due process. Only after a final judgment has been
rendered against him may he suffer the penalty prescribed under Article 159 (Torres vs.  Quasi-Recidivism may be offset by a special privileged mitigating circumstance (ex. Minority)
Gonzales, et al., 152 SCRA 292)
VIOLATION OF PARDON ORDINARY EVASION

Infringement of conditions/terms of President To evade the penalty given by the courts – disturbs the TITLE FOUR
public order CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
 Two penalties provided: Crimes against public interest

a. prision correccional in its minimum period – if the penalty remitted does not exceed 6 1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines (Art. 161);
years 2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art. 162);
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163);
b. the unexpired portion of his original sentence – if the penalty remitted is higher than 6 4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 164);
years 5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance (Art. 165);
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, importing and
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME uttering of such false or forged notes and documents (Art. 166);
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);
Article 160 8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR credit (Art. 168);
ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE-PENALTY: (quasi-recidivism) 9. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);
10. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary (Art. 171);
 ELEMENTS 11. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents (Art. 172);
a. That the offender was already convicted by final judgement of one 12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said
offense. falsified messages (Art. 173);
13. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service (Art. 174);
b. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such 14. Using false certificates (Art. 175);
sentence or while serving the same. 15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art. 176);
16. Usurpation of authority or official functions (Art. 177);
 Quasi-recidivism : a person after having been convicted by final judgement shall commit a 17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 178);
new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same. 18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art. 179);
19. False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);
 Second crimes must belong to the RPC, not special laws. First crime may be either from the 20. False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);
RPC or special laws 21. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
22. False testimony in other cases and perjury (Art. 183);
 Reiteracion: offender shall have served out his sentence for the prior offense 23. Offering false testimony in evidence (Art. 184);
24. Machinations in public auction (Art. 185);
 A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at age 70. Except: Unworthy or Habitual Delinquent 25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. 186);
26. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
 If new felony is evasion of sentence – offender is not a quasi-recidivist silver, or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);
27. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks (Art. 188);
 Penalty: maximum period of the penalty for the new felony should be imposed 28. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name, or service
mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and false description (Art. 189).
* Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which directs the court to impose the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. The court will do away or * The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of the
will ignore mitigating and aggravating circumstances in considering the penalty to be imposed. crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit perpetrated
There will be no occasion for the court to consider imposing the minimum, medium or maximum upon the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title.

 Counterfeiting – imitation of legal or genuine coin (may contain more silver, different
Article 161 design) such as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be genuine
COUNTERFEITING GREAT SEAL OF GOVERNMENT
 Utter – to pass counterfeited coins, deliver or give away
 TYPES:
a. Forging the great seal of the Government  Import – to bring to port the same
b. Forging the signature of the President  Both Philippine and foreign state coins
c. Forging the stamp of the President  Applies also to coins withdrawn from circulation
 When the signature of the President is forged, it is not falsification but forging of signature  Essence of article: making of coins without authority
under this article
 Signature must be forged, others signed it – not the President. Acts punished
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirements that there be
Article 162 intent to damage or to defraud another;
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there
ELEMENTS: must be connivances with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
a. That the great seal of the republic was counterfeited or the signature or
stamp of the chief executive was forged by another person. The first acts of falsification or falsity are –
b. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery. (1) Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency;
c. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp. (2) Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and obligations and securities issued by the
Philippine government or any banking institution authorized by the Philippine
 Offender is NOT the forger/not the cause of the counterfeiting government to issue the same;
(3) Falsification – can only be committed in respect of documents.

Article 163
MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there are two crimes that may be committed:
 ELEMENTS : (1) Counterfeiting coins -- This is the crime of remaking or manufacturing without any
a. That there be false or counterfeited coins (need not be legal tender). authority to do so.
b. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins. * In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not concerned with the fraud upon the public such
that even though the coin is no longer legal tender, the act of imitating or manufacturing the coin
c. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connives of the government is penalized. In punishing the crime of counterfeiting, the law wants to
with counterfeiters or importers. prevent people from trying their ingenuity in their imitation of the manufacture of money.
 Coin is counterfeit – if it is forged, or if it is not an article of the government as legal (2) Mutilation of coins -- This refers to the deliberate act of diminishing the proper
tender, regardless if it is of no value metal contents of the coin either by scraping, scratching or filling the edges of the coin
and the offender gathers the metal dust that has been scraped from the coin.
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
Requisites of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin; and
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.

(3) It has to be a coin. Mutilation, under the Revised Penal Code, is not committed because they do not collect
the precious metal content that is being scraped from the coin. However, this will amount to
 There is no expertise involved here . In mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal Code, violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.
the offender does nothing but to scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the dust and, thus,
diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. 2. When the image of Jose Rizal on a five-peso bill is transformed into that of
Randy Santiago, is there a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247?
* Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin mutilated is legal tender . If it is not legal tender
anymore, no one will accept it, so nobody will be defrauded. But if the coin is of legal tender, Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is violated by such act.
and the offender minimizes or decreases the precious metal dust content of the coin, the crime of
mutilation is committed. 4. An old woman who was a cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to accept one-
centavo coins for payment of the vendee of cigarettes he purchased. Then came the police who
* The offender must deliberately reduce the precious metal in the coin. Deliberate intent arises advised her that she has no right to refuse since the coins are of legal tender. On this, the old
only when the offender collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated coin. If the offender woman accepted in her hands the one-centavo coins and then threw it to the face of the vendee
does not collect such dust, intent to mutilate is absent, but Presidential Decree No. 247 will and the police. Was the old woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247?
apply.
She was guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247 because if no one ever picks up
the coins, her act would result in the diminution of the coin in circulation.
Article 164
 MULTILATION OF COINS – IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE: 5. A certain customer in a restaurant wanted to show off and used a P 20.00 bill
to light his cigarette. Was he guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247?
This has been repealed by PD 247. (Defacement, Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or
Destroying Central Bank Notes and Coins) He was guilty of arrested for violating of Presidential Decree No. 247. Anyone who is
in possession of defaced money is the one who is the violator of Presidential Decree No. 247.
Under this PD, the acts punishable are: The intention of Presidential Decree No. 247 is not to punish the act of defrauding the public but
a. willful defacement what is being punished is the act of destruction of money issued by the Central Bank of the
b. mutilation Philippines.
c. tearing
d. burning Note that persons making bracelets out of some coins violate Presidential Decree No. 247.
e. destruction of Central Bank
notes and coins The primary purpose of Presidential Decree No. 247 at the time it was ordained was to stop the
practice of people writing at the back or on the edges of the paper bills, such as "wanted: pen
 Mutilation – to take off part of the metal either by filling it or substituting it for another pal".
metal of inferior quality, to diminish by inferior means (to diminish metal contents).
So, if the act of mutilating coins does not involve gathering dust like playing cara y cruz, that is
 Foreign notes and coins not included. Must be legal tender. not mutilation under the Revised Penal Code because the offender does not collect the metal
dust. But by rubbing the coins on the sidewalk, he also defaces and destroys the coin and that is
 Must be intention to mutilate. punishable under Presidential Decree No. 247.
Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is true only to coins . It cannot be a crime under the
Revised Penal Code to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation under the code is Article 165
collecting the precious metal dust. However, under Presidential Decree No. 247, mutilation is not SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
limited to coins.
 2 Types
a. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with
Questions & Answers intent to utter the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated .
1. The people playing cara y cruz, before they throw the coin in the air would ELEMENTS:
rub the money to the sidewalk thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. Is the crime of 1. possession
mutilation committed?
2. with intent to utter, and
3. knowledge

COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO

b. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be BEARER
false or mutilated.
 ELEMENTS :
ELEMENTS: a. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of
1. actually uttering, and credit not payable to bearer.
2. knowledge. b. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instruments.
 Possession does not require legal tender in foreign coins c. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.
 Includes constructive possession

Article 168
* On counterfeiting coins, it is immaterial whether the coin is legal tender or not because the ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
intention of the law is to put an end to the practice of imitating money and to discourage anyone INSTRUMENT OF CREDIT
who might entertain the idea of imitating money (People vs. Kong Leon).
 ELEMENTS:
a. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and
Article 166 security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES – IMPORTING AND UTTERING document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by
another person.
a. Forging or falsity of treasury/bank notes or documents payable to b. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or
bearer falsified.
b. Importing of such notes c. That he performs any of these acts –

1. using any of such forged or falsified instrument, or
c. Uttering of such false or forged obligations and notes in connivance 2. possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified
with forgers and importers instrument.
 Act sought to be punished: Knowingly possessing with intent to use any of such forged
 FORGING – by giving a treasury or bank note or document payable to bearer/order an treasury or bank notes
appearance of a true and genuine document
 FALSIFICATION – by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the Article 169
figures and letters, words, signs contained therein FORGERY
 E.g. falsifying – lotto or sweepstakes ticket. Attempted estafa through falsification of an  How forgery is committed:
obligation or security of the Phil a. by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or
to order, the appearance of a true and genuine document
 PNB checks not included here – it’s falsification of commercial document under Article 172
b. by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, altering by any means the figures,
 Obligation or security includes: bonds, certificate of indebtedness, bills, national bank letters or words, or signs contained therein.
notes, coupons, treasury notes, certificate of deposits, checks, drafts for money,
sweepstakes money  if all acts done but genuine appearance is not given, the crime is frustrated
* If the falsification is done on a document that is classified as a government security, then the * Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies to papers, which are in the form of obligations
crime is punished under Article 166. On the other hand, if it is not a government security, then and securities issued by the Philippine government as its own obligations, which is given the
the offender may either have violated Article 171 or 172. same status as legal tender. Generally, the word “counterfeiting” is not used when it comes to
notes; what is used is “forgery.” Counterfeiting refers to money, whether coins or bills.
Article 167 * Notice that mere change on a document does not amount to this crime . The essence of
forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document . Not any alteration

of a letter, number, figure or design would amount to forgery. At most, it would only be (1) Falsification of legislative documents;
frustrated forgery.
(2) Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public;
* When what is being counterfeited is obligation or securities, which under the Revised Penal
Code is given a status of money or legal tender, the crime committed is forgery. (3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial documents by a private individual;
(4) Falsification of a private document by any person;

Questions & Answers
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages.
1. Instead of the peso sign (P), somebody replaced it with a dollar sign ($).
Was the crime of forgery committed? * The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a document in the legal sense. The
writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or creating rights or
No. Forgery was not committed. The forged instrument and currency note must be capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein. Until and unless the writing has
given the appearance of a true and genuine document. The crime committed is a violation of attained this quality, it will not be considered as document in the legal sense and, therefore, the
Presidential Decree No. 247. Where the currency note, obligation or security has been changed crime of falsification cannot be committed in respect thereto.
to make it appear as one which it purports to be as genuine, the crime is forgery. In checks or
commercial documents, this crime is committed when the figures or words are changed which Distinction between falsification and forgery:
materially alters the document.
Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on legislative
2. An old man, in his desire to earn something, scraped a digit in a losing (only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private documents, or
sweepstakes ticket, cut out a digit from another ticket and pasted it there to match the series of wireless, or telegraph messages.
digits corresponding to the winning sweepstakes ticket. He presented this ticket to the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office. But the alteration is so crude that even a child can notice that the The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury
supposed digit is merely superimposed on the digit that was scraped. Was the old man guilty of or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order.
forgery?
* Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries.
NO Because of the impossibility of deceiving whoever would be the person to whom
that ticket is presented, the Supreme Court ruled that what was committed was an impossible
crime. Note, however, that the decision has been criticized. In a case like this, the Supreme Article 170
Court of Spain ruled that the crime is frustrated. Where the alteration is such that nobody would FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
be deceived, one could easily see that it is a forgery, the crime is frustrated because he has done
all the acts of execution which would bring about the felonious consequence but nevertheless did  ELEMENTS :
not result in a consummation for reasons independent of his will. a. That these be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending
approval by the national assembly or any provincial board or municipal
3. A person has a twenty-peso bill. He applied toothache drops on one side of council.
the bill. He has a mimeograph paper similar in texture to that of the currency note and placed it
on top of the twenty-peso bill and put some weight on top of the paper. After sometime, he b. That the offender (any person) alters the same.
removed it and the printing on the twenty-peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper. He
took the reverse side of the P20 bill, applied toothache drops and reversed the mimeo paper and c. That he has no proper authority therefor.
pressed it to the paper. After sometime, he removed it and it was reproduced. He cut it out,
scraped it a little and went to a sari-sari store trying to buy a cigarette with that bill. What he d. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.
overlooked was that, when he placed the bill, the printing was inverted. He was apprehended
and was prosecuted and convicted of forgery. Was the crime of forgery committed? * The words "municipal council" should include the city council or municipal board – Reyes.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was only frustrated forgery because although the  Accused must not be a public official entrusted with the custody or possession of such
offender has performed all the acts of execution, it is not possible because by simply looking at document otherwise Art 171 applies .
the forged document, it could be seen that it is not genuine. It can only be a consummated
forgery if the document which purports to be genuine is given the appearance of a true and * The falsification must be committed on a genuine, true and authentic legislative document. If
genuine document. Otherwise, it is at most frustrated. committed on a simulated, spurious or fabricated legislative document, the crime is not punished
under this article but under Article 171 or 172.
Five classes of falsification:

Article 171
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR NOTARY OR * For one to be held criminally liable for falsification under paragraph 4, the untruthful statement
ECCLESTASTICAL MINISTER must be such as to effect the integrity of the document or to change the effects which it would
otherwise produce.
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.  Legal obligation means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the
truth of the facts narrated. Ex. Residence certificates
b. That he takes advantage of his official position.
 The person making the narration of facts must be aware of the falsity of the
c. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts: facts narrated by him. This kind of falsification may be committed by
omission
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
5. Altering true dates.
Requisites: – date must be essential
i. That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate
* For falsification to take place under this paragraph, the date of the document must be material
ii. That the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the to the right created or to the obligation that is extinguished.
forged, bear some resemblance, to each other
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
 (lack of similitude/imitation of a genuine signature will not be a ground changes its meaning.
for conviction under par. 1 but such is not an impediment to conviction
under par. 2) Requisites:
i. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or a document
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
ii. That it was made on a genuine document
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them. iii. That the alteration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the
document
Requisites:
i. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a iv. That the change made the document speak something false.
person/s participated in an act or a proceeding; and
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of
ii. That such person/s did not in fact so participate in the act or an original document when no such original exists, or including in such
proceeding copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine
original; (if no knowledge, falsification through negligence) or
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
* The acts of falsification mentioned in this paragraph are committed by a public officer or by a
Requisites: notary public who takes advantage of his official position as custodian of the document. It can
i. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration also refer to a public officer or notary who prepared and retained a copy of the document. The
of facts falsification can be done in two ways . It can be a certification purporting to show that the
document issued is a copy of the original on record when no such original exists. It can also be in
ii. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated the form of a certification to the effect that the document on file contains statements or including
by him; (required by law to be done) and in the copy issued, entries which are not found on contrary to, or different from the original
genuine document on file.
iii. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in
iv. That the perversion or truth in the narration of facts was made with the a protocol, registry, or official book. (genuine document)
wrongful intent of injuring a third person
* In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with
 There must be a narration of facts, not a conclusion of law. Must be on a respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil
material matter status of persons.

Liability of a private individual in falsification by a public officer when there is

 There is no crime of attempted or frustrated falsification of public document conspiracy.
* Alteration or changes to make the document speak the truth do not constitute falsification. (US Under Republic Act 7975, when a public officer who holds a position classified as Grade 27 or
vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324) higher, commits a crime in relation to the performance of his official functions, the case against
him will fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. If a private person is included in the
 Persons liable – public officer, employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister accusation because of the existence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime , the
> Either he has duty to intervene in the preparation of the document or it may be a situation Sandiganbayan shall maintain jurisdiction over the person of the co-accused, notwithstanding the
wherein the public officer has official custody of the document. fact that said co-accused is a private individual. If the public officer is found guilty, the same
liability and penalty shall be imposed on the private individual . (U.S. vs. Ponce, 20 Phil. 379)
 So even if the offender is a public officer, if her causes the falsification of a document which
is not in his official custody or if the falsification committed by him is not related whatsoever
to the performance of his duties, he will still be liable for falsification but definitely not under Article 172
this Article but under Article 172. (falsification of documents by a private person) FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL, OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL (par 1)
DOCUMENT: Any written instrument which establishes a right or by which an obligation is
extinguished. A deed or agreement executed by a person setting forth any disposition or  ELEMENTS
condition wherein rights and obligations may arise. a. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee
who did not take advantage of his official position.
* Writing may be on anything as long as it is a product of the handwriting, it is considered a
document. b. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in ART.
171.
 Not necessary that what is falsified is a genuine or real document, enough that it gives an
appearance of a genuine article 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
As long as any of the acts of falsification is committed, whether the document is 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
genuine or not, the crime of falsification may be committed. Even totally false documents may proceeding when they did not in fact so participated.
be falsified.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
 COUNTERFEITING – imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric statements other than those in fact made by them.
 FEIGNING – simulating a signature, handwriting, or rubric out of one of which does not in 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
fact exist
5. Altering true dates.
* It does not require that the writing be genuine. Even if the writing was through and through
false, if it appears to be genuine, the crime of falsification is nevertheless committed. 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning.
THERE ARE FOUR KINDS OF DOCUMENTS:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in authority or notary public has c. That the falsification was committed in any public or official or
taken part; commercial document.
(2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any  Under this paragraph, damage is not essential, it is presumed
commercial law; and
(4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part. * If the falsification of public, official or commercial documents, whether they be public official or
by private individuals, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to
* Public document is broader than the term official document . Before a document may be injure a third person. What is punished under the law is the violation of public faith and the
considered official, it must first be a public document. But not all public documents are official perversion of the truth as solemnly proclaimed by the nature of the document. (Sarep vs.
documents. To become an official document, there must be a law which requires a public officer Sandiganbayan)
to issue or to render such document. Example: A cashier is required to issue an official receipt
for the amount he receives. The official receipt is a public document which is an official  Defense: lack of malice or criminal intent
document.
 The following writings are public:

a. the written acts or records of acts of the sovereign authority of official bodies and
tribunals, and of the public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of the * There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is a private document .
Philippines or of a foreign country.
 Falsification by omission
b. Public records kept in the Philippines.
* Mere falsification of a private document is not enough to commit crime under paragraph 2 of
 Examples of commercial documents – warehouse receipts, airway bills, bank checks, cash Article 172. Two acts must be done by the offender. 1) He must have performed in the private
files, deposit slips and bank statements, journals, books, ledgers, drafts, letters of credit and document the falsification contemplated under Article 171. 2) He must have performed an
other negotiable instruments independent act which operates to cause damage or prejudice to a third person. The third person
There is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public, official or mentioned herein may include the government. Damage is not limited to money or pecuniary
commercial document. In the crime of estafa, damage or intent to cause damage is not an prejudice. Damage to one’s honor, reputation or good name is included.
element. It is sufficient that the offender committed or performed the acts of falsification as
defined and punished under Article 171. The two offenses can co-exist as they have distinct  A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime must be public, official
elements peculiar to their nature as a crime. When the falsification is committed because it is or commercial
necessary to commit estafa, what we have is a complex crime defined and punished under Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code.  There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document
because the immediate effect of the latter is the same as that of estafa
There is a complex crime of falsification of pubic documents through reckless imprudence.
* If a private document is falsified to cause damage to the offended party, the crime committed
 Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payments are not commercial is falsification of a private document. Remember that in estafa, damage or intent to cause
documents damage is an indispensable element of the crime. The same element is necessary to commit the
crime of falsification of private document. Since they have a common element, such element
 A mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document cannot be divided into the two parts and considered as two separate offenses.
 The possessor of falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification * There is no complex crime of estafa with falsification because deceit is a common element of
both. One and the same deceit or damage cannot give rise to more than one crime. It is either
estafa or falsification.
FALSIFICATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF ART. 172. OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
Criteria to determine whether the crime is estafa only or falsification only :
 ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in IF the falsification of the private document was essential in the commission of estafa because the
paragraph 7 and 8, enumerated in art. 171. falsification, estafa cannot be committed, the crime is falsification; estafa becomes the
consequence of the crime.
b. That the falsification was committed in any private document (must affect the
truth or integrity of the document) IF the estafa can be committed even without resorting to falsification, the latter being resorted
only to facilitate estafa, the main crime is estafa; falsification is merely incidental, since even
c. That the falsification caused damage (essential element; hence, no crime of without falsification, estafa can be committed.
estafa thru falsification of private document) to a third party or at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.  If the estafa was already consummated at the time of the falsification of a private document
was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa, the falsification is not punishable,
 Not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit from the falsification because as regards the falsification of the private document there was no damage or intent
to cause damage.
* Falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually falsified
with the intent to prejudice a third person whether such falsified document is or is not thereafter * A private document which is falsified to obtain money from offended party is a falsification of
put to illegal use for which it is intended. (Lopez vs. Paras, 36 Phil. 146) private document only.
* What is emphasized at this point is the element of falsification of private document. There must  A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part
be intent to cause damage or damage is actually caused . The intention is therefore must be of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law
malicious or there is deliberate intent to commit a wrong. Reckless imprudence is incompatible
with malicious intent.  The crime is falsification of public documents even if falsification took place before the
private document becomes part of the public records
 Falsification is not a continuing offense

Examples: 2. Falsification of document is a separate and distinct offense from that of the use of falsified
An employee of a private company who punches the bundy clock on behalf on a co-employee is documents. So if the falsification of document was done or performed because it was
guilty of falsification of a private document. necessary to the use of the same and in the commission of the crime, then we may have a
complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
One who will take the civil service examination for another and makes it appear that he is the
examinee is guilty of falsification of a public document. 3. Good faith is a defense in falsification of public document.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (par. 3, art. 172)

Article 173
 ELEMENTS: FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES,
AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
a. Introducing in a judicial proceeding:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another  Acts punishable:
person. 1. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone message
Requisites:
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any subdivisions a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer
nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172. or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone message.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial
proceeding. (intent to cause damage not necessary) b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:
- uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message, or
b. Use in any other transaction: - falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another
person. 2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
Requisites:
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer
subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172. or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone message.
3. That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings).
b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:
4. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least - uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message, or
was used with intent to cause such damage. - falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message
 The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of falsification, if: 3. Using such falsified message
a. the use is so closely connected in time with the falsification Requisites:
a. That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message
b. the user had the capacity of falsifying the document was falsified by any of the person specified in the first paragraph of art. 173.
Falsification of Private Documents Falsification of Public/Official Documents b. That the accused used such falsified dispatch.
Prejudice to third party is an element of the Prejudice to third persons is immaterial, what is punished is the
offense. violation of public faith and perversion of truth which the c. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third
document proclaims. party, or that the use thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice.
Rules to observe in the use of a falsified document.  The public officer, to be liable must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving
1. It is a crime when knowingly introduced in a judicial proceeding even if there is not intent to wireless, cable and telegraph or telephone message
cause damage to another. Knowingly introducing a falsified document in a judicial
proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. The mere introduction of the forged document is
the crime itself. But when the falsified document is knowingly introduced in an Article 174
administrative proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. There must be intent to cause FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, CERTIFCATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE
damage or damage is actually inflicted. AND THE LIKE:
 Persons liable:

a. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issued a b. By performing an act pertaining to any person in authority or public
false certificate (note: such certificate must refer to the illness or injury of a person) officer of the Phil gov’t or foreign gov’t under the pretense of such
official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
b. Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar  In usurpation of authority: The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself
circumstances is sufficient. Not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public officer.
c. Private individual who falsified a certificate under (1) and (2) Elements
1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself;
Article 175 2. As an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency

USING FALSE CERTIFICATES of the Philippine government or of any foreign government.
 ELEMENTS:  In usurpation of official functions: It is essential that the offender should have
a. That a physician or surgeon has issued a false medical certificate, or a performed an act pertaining to a person in authority
public officer has issued a false certificate of merit or service, good
conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had falsified any Elements
of said certificates. 1. Offender performs any act;
b. That the offender knew that the certificate was false. 2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the
Philippine government or any foreign government, or any agency
c. That he used the same. thereof;
3. Under pretense of official position;

Article 176
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR 4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
FALSIFICATION:
 A public officer may also be an offender
a. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies or marks or  The act performed without being lawfully entitled to do so must pertain:
other instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification a. to the gov’t
b. to any person in authority
b. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for c. to any public office
counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines
by another person * Foreign government adverted to in this article refers to public officers duly authorized to
perform governmental duties in the Philippines. The law cannot refer to other foreign
 The implement confiscated need not form a complete set governments as its application may bring us to legal problems which may infringe on
constitutional boundaries.
 Constructive possession is also punished
* If the offender commits the acts of usurpation as contemplated herein, and he does it because
he is a rebel and pursuant to the crime of rebellion or insurrection or sedition, he will not be liable
OTHER FALSITIES under this article because what is attributed against him as a crime of usurpation is in fact one of
the elements of committing rebellion.
Article 177
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS: * The elements of false pretense is necessary to commit the crime of usurpation of official
function.
 2 ways of committing the crime:
a. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine gov’t or Article 178
any foreign gov’t. USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME
 ELEMENTS (using fictitious name) :

a. That the offender uses a name other than his real name.

a. That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress.

b. That he uses that fictitious name publicly.
b. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the
c. That the purpose of the offender is – offender or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.
1. To conceal a crime,
2. To evade the execution of a judgment, or c. That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.
3. To cause damage to public interest. (ex. Signing fictitious name for
a passport) * The wearing of a uniform, or insignia of a non-existing office or establishment is not a crime. It
is necessary that the uniform or insignia represents an office which carries authority, respect,
* The name of a person is what appears in his birth certificate. The name of a person refers to dignity, or influence which the public looks up to.
his first name, surname, and maternal name. Any other name which a person publicly applies to
himself without authority of law is a fictitious name. > So also, an exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary ; a colorable resemblance
calculated to deceive the common run of people is sufficient.
* The wearing of insignia, badge or emblem of rank of the members of the armed forced of the
Philippines or constabulary (now PNP) is punished by Republic Act No. 493.
 ELEMENTS (concealing true name):
a. that the offender conceals – * When the uniform or insignia is used to emphasize the pageantry of a play or drama or in
moving picture films, the crime is not committed.
1. his true name, and
2. all other personal circumstances. THREE FORMS OF FALSE TESTIMONY
b. that the purpose is only to conceal his identity. 1. False testimony in criminal cases under Article 180 and 181;
2. False testimony in civil case under Article 182;
* What the offender does to violate or commit this act is for him to conceal his true name and 3. False testimony in other cases under Article 183.
other personal circumstances. His only motive in doing so is to conceal his identity. In
concealment of true name, the deception is done momentarily, just enough to conceal the name
of the offender. In the use of fictitious name, the offender presents himself before the public with False testimony, defined
another name. It is the declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is contrary to
what is true, or to deny the same, or to alter essentially the truth.
* A person under investigation by the police who gives a false name and false personal
circumstances, upon being interrogated, is guilty of this crime. Nature of the crime of false testimony.
1. It cannot be committed through reckless imprudence because false testimony requires
Use of Fictitious Name (178) Concealing True Name (178) criminal intent or intent to violate the law is an essential element of the crime.
Element of publicity must be present Publicity not necessary
Purpose is to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a Purpose is to conceal identity 2. If the false testimony is due to honest mistake or error or there was good faith in making the
judgement, or to cause damage false testimony, no crime is committed.
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating the Use of Aliases)

No person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the Article 180
office of the local civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court.  ELEMENTS:
a. That there be a criminal proceeding.
Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio, or other entertainment and
in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice. b. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant
therein.
Article 179 c. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.
ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA
d. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either
 ELEMENTS: acquitted or convicted in a final judgment (prescriptive period starts at this point)

 Requires criminal intent, can’t be committed through negligence . Need not impute guilt upon c. That the testimony must be false.
the accused
d. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same
 The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine or must have to be false.
been acquitted
e. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the
 The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did not consider his issues presented in the said case
testimony
 Not applicable when testimony given in a special proceeding (in this case, the crime is
* The probative value of the testimonial evidence is subject to the rules of evidence. It may not perjury)
be considered at all by the judge. But whether the testimony is credible or not or whether it is
appreciated or not in the context that the false witness wanted it to be, the crime of false  Basis of penalty: amount involved in the civil case
testimony is still committed, since it is punished not because of the effect it produces, but
because of its tendency to favor the accused. (People vs. Reyes) Distinctions between perjury and false testimony:
PERJURY FALSE TESTIMONY
 Penalty is dependent upon sentence imposed on the defendant 1. Non-judicial proceedings. 1. Given in a judicial proceeding.
2. Statement or testimony is required by law. 2. Testimony need not be required by law.
3. Amount involved is not material. 3. Amount involved in civil cases is material.
Article 181
4. immaterial whether statement or testimony 4. It is always material in criminal cases.
FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT in a criminal case:
is favorable or not to the accused.
Elements:
1. A person gives false testimony;
Article183
FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
2. In favor of the defendant;
ELEMENTS:
3. In a criminal case.
a. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit
 False testimony by negative statement is in favor of the defendant upon a material matter.
b. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer,

 False testimony need not in fact benefit the defendant
authorized to receive and administer oath.
 A statement of a mere opinion is not punishable
c. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood, and
 Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgement is not necessary). The false
testimony need not influence the acquittal
d. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required
by law.
 A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the witness stand and falsely imputes the offense to
another person the commission of the offense is liable under this article. If he merely denies
 2 ways of committing perjury:
the commission of the offense, he is not liable.
a. by falsely testifying under oath
b. by making a false statement
 Basis of penalty: gravity of the felony charged against the defendant
 Subornation of perjury: procures another to swear falsely.
Article 182
 Solemn affirmation: refers to non-judicial proceedings and affidavits
FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
 A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the testimony must be given in a civil case.
* Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict the affiant for the crime of
perjury. There must be evidence to show which is false. The same must be established or proved
b. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case.

from sources other than the two contradictory statements. (People vs. Capistrano, 40 Phil. material matter with a full knowledge that the information given is essentially contrary to the
902) truth. Material matter means the main fact which is the subject or object of the inquiry.
 A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue
* The test of materiality is whether a false statement can influence the court (People vs.
Bnazil).
 A “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who has a

right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction
Article 184
* There is no perjury if the accused signed and swore the statement before a person not OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
authorized to administer oath (People vs. Bella David).
 ELEMENTS:
 There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of falsehood must a That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony.
be willful and deliberate
b That he knew the witness or the testimony was false.
* Because of the nature of perjury, which is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood, there
is no perjury committed through reckless imprudence or simple negligence under Article 365. c That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.
Since admittedly perjury can only be committed by means of dolo, then good faith or lack of
malice is a good defense when one is indicted for the crime of perjury.  The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. The mere offer is sufficient.
 Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made * The offender in this article knows that the witness to be presented is a false witness or that the
for a legal purpose, it is sufficient witness will lie while testifying. The proceedings is either judicial or official. There is a formal offer
of testimonial evidence in the proceedings. The witness is able to testify and the offender,
* If there is no requirement of law to place the statement or testimony under oath, there is no knowing the testimony is given by the witness to be false, nevertheless offers the same in
Perjury considering the phrases “oath in cases in which the law so requires” in Article 183. evidence. In this case, the person offering the false testimony must have nothing to do in the
making of the false testimony. He knows that the witness is false and yet he asks him to testify
* The affidavit or sworn statement must be required by law like affidavit of adverse claim to and thereafter offers the testimony in evidence. So if the offeror, aside from being such, is also
protect one’s interest on real property; or an affidavit of good moral character to take the bar the person responsible in inducing or convincing the false witness to lie, Article 184 will not apply.
examination. So if the affidavit was made but the same is not required by law, even if the The applicable article will be Article 180, 181, 182, or 183 as the case may be. The offenders in
allegations are false, the crime of perjury is not committed. (Diaz vs. People, 191 SCRA 86) this case will be charged with perjury; the inducer as principal by inducement and the induced
party as the principal by direct participation.
 Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of
judicial proceedings * It is for this reason that subornation of perjury is no longer treated as a specific felony with
a separate article of its own . Nevertheless, it is a crime defined and punished under the Revised
 False testimony before the justice of the peace during the P.I. may give rise to the crime of Penal Code. The crime committed by one who induces another to testify falsely and the person
perjury because false testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial where a who agrees and in conspiracy with the inducer, testifies falsely, is perjury. (People vs. Padol,
judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered 66 Phil. 365)
 A person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear falsely commits subornation
of perjury and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty FRAUDS
of perjury.
Article 185
 The false testimony is not in a judicial proceeding MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTION
False testimony vs. Perjury  ELEMENTS:

When one testifies falsely before the court, the crime committed is false testimony. If one a That there be a public auction.
testifies falsely in a non-judicial proceeding, the crime committed is perjury. In false testimony, it
is not required that the offender asserts a falsehood on a material matter. It is enough that he b That the accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders.
testifies falsely with deliberate intent. In perjury, the witness must testify or assert a fact on a

c That such gifts or promise was the consideration for his refraining from 1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce,
taking part in that public auction. or by combining with any other person or persons to monopolize
said merchandise or object;
d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the
thing auctioned. 2. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false rumors or
making use of any other artifice;
 ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY AWAY: 3. To restrain free competition in the market
a That there be a public auction.
d. Manufacturer, producer or processor or importer combining, conspiring or
b That the accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that agreeing with any person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful
public auction commerce or to increase the market price of the merchandise.
c That it was done by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice. Elements
d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the 1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of any merchandise
thing auctioned. or object of commerce;
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person;
3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or

to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of
commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled or
imported into the Philippines.
Article 186  Person/s liable:

MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE: a. manufacturer
b. producer
 Acts punished: c. processor
d. importer
a. Combination to prevent free competition in the market
 Crime is committed by:
Elements a. combining
b. conspiring
1. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any c. agreeing with another person
conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise;
 The purpose is:
2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means a. to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce
free competition in the market. b. to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured,
produced, processed, assembled or imported into the Phil
b. By entering into a contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or
commerce or prevent by artificial means free competition in the market (It is  Also liable as principals:
enough that initial steps are taken. It is not necessary that there be actual restraint of a. corporation/association
trade) b. agent/representative
c. director/manager – who willingly permitted or failed to prevent commission of above
c. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market offense
Elements  Aggravated if items are:

a. food substance
b. motor fuel or lubricants
c. goods of prime necessity

persons, estafa is committed. If the fraud is employed against the public, Article 188 is
violated.
Article 187
IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE  Must not be another manufacturer otherwise unfair competition
MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS
* Take note that after making the substitution the goods are displayed in the store or market for
 ELEMENTS: sale, Article 188 is already committed even if no customer comes to buy any of the goods on
a That the offender imports, sells or disposes of any of those articles or display. The mere offer for sale to the public consummates the crime.
merchandise.
* The pendency of the administrative aspect of the case is not a prejudicial question in the
b That the stamps, brands, or marks or those articles or merchandise fails to resolution of the criminal case.
indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
c That the offender knows that the said stamp, brand, or mark fails to indicate Article 189
the actual fineness or quality of the metals or alloys. UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF TRADENAME, TRADEMARK
SERVICE MARK, FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND FALSE DESCRIPTION
* To be criminally liable, it is important to establish that the offender knows the fact that the
imported merchandise fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the precious metal. If the  Acts punished:
importer has no expertise on the matter such that he has no way of knowing how the fraud was a Unfair competition by selling his goods, giving them the general appearance of the
committed, the existence of such fact may be seriously considered as a defense. goods of another manufacturer or dealer
* What the law punishes herein is the selling of misbranded goods made of gold, silver and other b Fraudulent designation of origin; false description by (a) affixing to his goods or
precious metals. Therefore, it must be shown that the seller knows that the merchandise is using in connection with his services a false designation of origin; or any false
misbranded. Hence, dishonesty is an essential element of the crime. description or representation, and (b) selling such goods or services
c Fraudulent registration by procuring fraudulently from the patent office the

Article 188 registration of t/m, t/m or service mark.
SUBSTITUTING – ALTERING TRADE-MARK, TRADENAME, OR SERVICE MARK
 ELEMENTS:
 Acts punishable: a That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of
a By (a) substituting the trade name (t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some other another manufacturer or dealer
manufacturer or dealer or a colorable imitation thereof, for the t/n or t/m of
the real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce and (b) selling b That the general appearance is shown in the (a) goods themselves, or in the
the same. (b) wrapping of their packages, or in the (c) device or words therein, or in
(d) any other feature of their appearance
b By selling or by offering for sale such article of commerce, knowing that the
t/n or t/m has been fraudulently used c That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a
chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose.
c By using or substituting the service mark of some other person, or a
colorable imitation of such marks, in the sale or advertising of services d That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.
d By printing, lithographing or reproducing t/n, t/m or service mark of one * Under Republic Act No. 166, Section 29, paragraph 2, unfair competition is defined as
person, or a colorable limitation thereof, to enable another person to follows: It consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which
fraudulently use the same, knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it is to any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or
be used. services for those of the one having established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to
produce such result.
 If a particular person is defrauded by the offender; as in the case of locally manufactured
goods, which the offender, by altering the label, are made to appear as imported articles * The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an
and sold to a particular person, the crime committed is undoubtedly estafa as far as the appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care. (U.S. vs.
particular person is concerned. But if the falsely mislabeled goods are displayed in a store Manuel, 7 Phil. 221)
and offered for sale to the public in general, the crime committed is punished under Article
188. So, if the deception is isolated and is confined to a particular person or group of

* For unfair competition to take place , it must be the manufacturer of the goods who will cloth or  Importation of prohibited/regulated drugs.
label his goods with the trade name or trademark of another manufacturer, who has established
a good name or good will in the mind of the public because of the quality of the merchandise PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million regardless of the Quantity and
manufactured by him. The imitator is also a manufacturer of the same kind of product but of purity involved
inferior quality. By labeling his product with the trademark or trade name of said manufacturer, MAXIMUM PENALTY :
he profits from the goodwill of another. 1) Use of diplomatic Passport
2) Financier
* If the labeling or clothing of the goods is not done by another manufacturer , the crime
committed is not unfair competition but substitution of trademark or trade name under Article  Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transaction of
188. prohibited/regulated drugs.
* When the honorable Supreme Court declared that unfair competition is broader and more - NOT BAILABLE
inclusive than infringement of trade name or trademark. In infringement of trade name or
trademark, the offended party has a peculiar symbol or mark on his goods which is considered a PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million regardless of the Quantity and
property right which must therefore be protected. In unfair competition, the offended party has purity involved ( includes BROKER )
identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures to distinguish it from the goods of Qualifying Circumstances –
the other manufacturers. In infringement of trade name or trademark , the offender uses the 1) if the victim of the offense is a minor or should a prohibited/regulated drug involve in
trade name or trademark of another in selling his goods, while in unfair competition, the offender any offense under this section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the
gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer and sells the same maximum penalty herein shall be imposed.
to the public. (E. Spinner & Co. vs. New Hesslein Corp., 54 Phil. 224) 2) Financier
3) Sale made within 100m from school
TITLE FIVE  Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort for prohibited/regulated drug users.
CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS (190-194) ** Property escheated in favor of the government
Qualifying Circumstance – where a prohibited/regulated drug is administered, delivered,
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place, or should a prohibited drug
(RA No. 9165) be the proximate cause of the death of the person using the same in such den, dive or
resort, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.
I. Acts Punishable:
a. importation of prohibited drugs  Manufacture of prohibited/regulated drugs.
b. sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs
c. maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drug users  Possession of prohibited/regulated drugs.
d. being employees or visitors of drug den
e. manufacture of prohibited drugs PENALTY :
f. possession or use
g. cultivation of plants a. Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million
h. failure to comply with provisions relative to keeping of records of prescription 10 gms. Opium, morphine, heroine, cocaine, marijuana resin and Ecstasy.
i. unnecessary prescription 50 gms. Shabu
j. possession of opium pipe and other paraphernalia 500 gms. Marijuana
k. Importation, sale, etc. of regulated drugs
b. Life Imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00-P500,000.00
DRUG SYNDICATE – any organized group of two(2) or more persons forming or joining 10-50 gms. Shabu
together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under the act.
c. 20 years to Life and a fine of 400,000.00-500,000.00
PLANTING OF EVIDENCE – the willful act by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously 5-10 gms. Shabu
inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act,
whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical d. 12 – 20 years and a fine of 300,000.00-400,000.00
in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the Less than 5 gms. Of any dangerous drugs
purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of this Act.
 Possession of paraphernalia
P D E A – Philippine Drug Enforcement Unit 6 mos. – 4 yrs. & fine of 10,000 – 50,000

Use of Dangerous Drugs – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive After the conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the appropriate criminal case filed, the Court
for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a shall immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of the
minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, offense and all the assets and properties of the accused either owned or held by him or in the
subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. name of some other persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion of
his/her income; Provided, however, That if the forfeited property is a vehicle, the same shall be
If apprehended using any dangerous drug act for the second time, he/she shall suffer the auctioned off not later than five (5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture.
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve(12) years and
a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no property, or income derived
(P200,000.00); therefrom, which may be confiscated and forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or transferred
and the same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the
Provided, That this section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to same.
have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section
11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs
 Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs. PDEA in charge and custody for proper disposition
Penalty - Life to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 Million
Procedure in Disposal
a Note: The land/portions thereof and/or greenhouses in which any of the said plants is 1. Apprehending team immediately after seizure shall make physical inventory and photograph
cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative of the media and
thereof can prove that he did not know of such cultivation or culture despite the DOJ and any elected public official who shall sign the copies of the inventory.
exercise of due diligence on his part.
2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, such drug shall be submitted to
b Qualifying Circumstance – the PDEA forensic laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
1. If the land involved is part of the public domain, the maximum of the penalty herein 3. Certification of the forensic examination results shall be issued within 24 hours.
provided shall be imposed.
4. After the filing of the criminal case, the proper court shall conduct and ocular inspection within
2. Maximum penalty imposed on financier 72 hours of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs.
 Failure to keep records of prescription, sales, purchases, acquisitions and/or 5. After ocular inspection by the court, PDEA shall destroy or burn the confiscated, seized and/or
deliveries of prohibited/regulated drugs surrendered dangerous drugs within 24 hours in the presence of the accused or his counsel,
representative of the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public officer.
Persons liable: 6. PDEA shall issue a certification of such destruction and samples of the dangerous drugs shall
Pharmacist, Physician, Dentist, Veterinarian, Manufacturer, Wholesaler, Importer, be submitted to the court.
Distributor, Dealer, Retailer
Plea-Bargaining
 Unlawful prescription of prohibited/regulated drugs
Penalty – life to death and a fine of P500,000 to P10 Million Any person charged under any commission of this act regardless of the imposable penalty shall
not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
 Unnecessary prescription of prohibited/regulated drugs
Penalty – 12 to 20 years and fine of P100,000 to P500,000 plus revocation of license
Probation Law
Persons Liable: Physician or dentist who shall prescribe any prohibited/regulated drug for Any person convicted for drug trafficking regardless of the penalty imposed cannot avail of the
any person whose physical/physiological condition does not require the use of thereof. privilege granted by the probation law.
Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act, Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
including the properties of the proceeds derived from the illegal trafficking of A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance
dangerous drugs. in the commission of a crime by an offender and the application of the penalty provided for in the
RPC.
Forfeited infavor of the government

 Possession of opium pipe, equipment, apparatus or any paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or otherwise using opium or any 4. Officers and employees of private and public offices – random (employer shall shoulder
other prohibited drug, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, expenses)
consumed, administered to himself, injected or used a prohibited drug. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drug shall be dealt with
administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination subject to Art. 282 of
 Attempt and conspiracy to commit the following offenses: the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law.
a Importation of dangerous drugs
5. Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies – annual
b Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs mandatory
c Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drugs 6. All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an
impossible penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall have
d Manufacture of dangerous drugs to undergo a mandatory drug test
e Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs 7. All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local
government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
 Other persons liable:
Issuance of False or fraudulent drug test results (whether willfully or through gross
a If the violation of the Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any negligence)
judicial person, the partner, president, director, or manager who consents to or
knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as co-principal. Penalty – 6 to 12 years and fine P100,000.00 to P500,000.00
Additional penalty – revocation of license to practice and closure of the drug testing center
b Partner, president, director, manager, officer or stockholder, who knowingly authorizes,
tolerates, or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as an instrument in the II. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, all school heads, supervisors
importation, sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of dangerous drugs, or to the and teachers shall be deemed to be persons in authority and, as such, are vested with
use of their equipment, machines or other instruments in the manufacture of any the power to apprehend, arrest, or cause the apprehension or arrest of any person
dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment, or other instrument, is who shall violate any of the said provision.
owned or under the control and supervision of the partnership, corporation, association
or judicial entity to which they are affiliated. a. NOTE: They shall be considered as persons in authority if they are in the school
or within its immediate vicinity, or beyond such immediate vicinity if they are in
Criminal liability of a public officer or employee for misappropriation, attendance in any school or class function in their official capacity as school heads,
misapplication or failure to account for the confiscated, seized and/or supervisors or teachers.
surrendered dangerous drugs
b. Any teacher or school employee who discovers or finds that any person in the
Penalty - life to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 Million in addition to absolute school or within its immediate vicinity is violating this Act shall have the duty to
perpetual disqualification from any public office. report the violation to the school head or supervisor who shall, in turn, report the
matter to the proper authorities. Failure to report in either case shall, after
Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the hearing, constitute sufficient cause for disciplinary action.
trafficking of dangerous drugs or have received any financial or material contributions from
persons found guilty of drug trafficking dangerous drugs, shall be removed from office and III. Rules regarding rehabilitation of drug dependents
perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive positions in the government.
Voluntary submission
Planting of Evidence a. Voluntary submission of a drug dependent to confinement, treatment and rehabilitation
Any person who is found guilty of planting any dangerous drug regardless of the quantity by the drug dependent himself or through his parent, guardian or relative within the 4 th
and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death. civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in a center and compliance with such
conditions therefor as the Dangerous Drugs Board may prescribe shall exempt from
Drug Testing criminal liability for possession or use of the prohibited/regulated drug. (Applicable
1. Applicants for driver’s license - mandatory only to those liable for use of dangerous drugs and not to possession and
sale)
2. Applicants for firearms license and for permit to carry - mandatory
3. Students of secondary and tertiary schools – random (school shall shoulder expenses)

b. Should the drug dependent escape from the center, he may submit himself for Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drug Cases
confinement within 1 week from the date of his escape, of his parent guardian or
relative may, within the same period surrender him for confinement. Section 90. Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the
existing Regional Trial Court in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving
c. Upon application of the Board, the Court shall issue an order for recommitment if the violations of this Act. The number of court designated in each judicial region shall be based on
drug dependent does not resubmit himself for confinement or if he is not surrendered population and the number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction.
for recommitment.
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this
d. If, subsequent to such recommitment, he should escape again, he shall no longer be Act.
exempt from criminal liability for the use or possession of any dangerous drug.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within a period of
e. If a person charged with an offense is found by the fiscal or by the Court at any stage thirty (30) days from the date of their filing.
of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the fiscal or court as the case may be,
shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit records of the case to the Board. When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is
established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court within 24 hours from the
f. After his rehabilitation, he shall be prosecuted for such violation. In case of conviction, termination of the investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a
the judgement shall, if the accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper
center to have maintained good behavior, indicate that he shall be given full credit for prosecutor within 48 hours from the receipt of the records of the case.
the period he was confined in the center.
Section 91. Responsibility and Liability of Law Enforcement Agencies and Other
NOTE: When the offense is use of dangerous drugs and the accused is not a recidivist, Government Officials and Employees Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in
the penalty thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the center upon his release Dangerous Drugs Cases – Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government
therefrom. official and employees who, after due notice, fails or refuses intentionally or negligently, to
appear as a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings, involving violations of this Act,
g. The period of prescription of the offense charged shall not run during the time that the without any valid reason, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years
respondent/accused is under detention or confinement in a center. and one (1) day to 20 years and a fine of not less than P500,000.00, in addition to the
administrative liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate superior and/or
h. Requisites of suspension of sentence for first offense in a minor: appropriate body.
The immediate superior of a member of the law enforcement agency or any other government
1. If accused is a minor (under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less
offense but not more than 21 years of age when the judgement should have been than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than
promulgated. P10,000.00 but not more than P50,000 and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from
public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness concerned, the former does not
2. He has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or of exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
the RPC or placed on probation.
The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in
 Sentence shall be deferred and the accused shall be placed on probation the preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or re-assigned to any other territorial
under the supervision of the Board. jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. However, the concerned member of the law
enforcement agency or government employee may be transferred or re-assigned for compelling
 In case of violation of conditions of pardon, court shall pronounce judgment reasons; Provided, That his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is
of conviction and he shall serve sentence. pending of the order of transfer or re-assign, within 24 hours from its approval; Provided further,
That his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2)
 If accused did not violate conditions of probation, case shall be dismissed months and one (1) day but not less than six (6) years and a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but
upon expiration of the designated period. not more than P50,000.00 and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office,
should he/she fail to notify the court of such order to transfer or re-assign.
Compulsory submission
If a person charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of not Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for
more than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any violation of any existing law.
stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the prosecutor of the court as the case may
be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases. - Any government
Board. officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this Act, who,
through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the

unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years without
prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.  found guilty of possession or use of prohibited or regulated drugs
a Buy Bust Operation – no law or rule to require policemen to adopt a uniform way of  not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or
identifying BUY MONEY (P v. Abedes) the RPC
b Absence of ultraviolet powder is not fatal in the prosecution  not been placed on probation
c Transportation/importation of MJ – immaterial whether there may or may not be a  defer sentence, place on probation for 6 months to 1 year
distinction for the MJ
 violation of probation – pronounce sentence – convict and serve
d Distinguish Entrapment and Instigation: sentence
1. If prosecution can prove the crime without presenting the informer or asset – not  no violation – discharge him and dismiss the proceeding
necessary because their testimonies are merely corroborative. Poseur buyer – it
depends on whether the prosecution can prove the crime without their testimonies  if minor is drug dependent – commit to a center for treatment and
(P v. Rosalinda Ramos) rehabilitation
2. Under the RA, special aggravating circumstance if a crime has been committed
while the accused was high on drugs (P v. Anthony Belgar)
TITLE SIX
3. Delivery or Sale of Prohibited Drugs – the accused must be aware that what he is CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
selling or delivering was prohibited drug. But the moment the fact of sale or
delivery is proved by prosecution, the burden to prove that the accused is not Crimes against public morals
aware that drugs are prohibited falls on the defense (P v. Aranda) 1. Gambling (Art. 195);
2. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tickets or advertisements (Art. 196);
4. P v. Angelito Manalo – burden of proving the authority to possess shabu is a 3. Betting in sport contests (Art. 197);
matter of defense 4. Illegal betting on horse races (Art. 198);
5. Illegal cockfighting (Art. 199);
5. P v. Hilario Moscaling – court may take judicial notice of the word “shabu” 6. Grave scandal (Art. 200);
7. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions (Art. 201); and
6. Criminal liabilities of a policeman who sold the drugs confiscated from a pusher : 8. Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 202).
violation of RA 9165 and malversation under RPC.
e Planting evidence – to implicate another Article 195. What Acts Are Punishable in Gambling
f Buy Bust Operation – form of entrapment (P v. Alberto) – not necessary to have Acts punished
prior police surveillance (P v. Carlos Franca)
1. Taking part directly or indirectly in –
g Possession – constructive or actual – not necessary to adduce the marked money as
evidence (P v. Romeo Macara) a. any game of monte, jueteng, or any other form of lottery, policy, banking, or
percentage game, dog races, or any other game or scheme the results of
h Separate crimes – sale/possession of MJ found in his possession after he was frisked which depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard; or wherein wagers
but he can’t be convicted for possession of MJ that he sold consisting of money, articles of value, or representative of value are made;
or
i If victim is minor or drug is proximate cause of death – max penalty is imposed
b. the exploitation or use of any other mechanical invention or contrivance to
1. First offense of a minor – suspension of sentence determine by chance the loser or winner of money or any object or
representative of value;
CONDITIONS:
 under 18 at time of commission but not more than 21 at time when 2. Knowingly permitting any form of gambling to be carried on in any place owned or
judgment was promulgated controlled by the offender;

3. Being maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game of jueteng or similar game; This article has been repealed by Presidential Decree No. 483 (Betting, Game-fixing or
4. Knowingly and without lawful purpose possessing lottery list, paper, or other matter Point-shaving and Machinations in Sport Contests):
containing letters, figures, signs or symbol which pertain to or are in any manner used
in the game of jueteng or any similar game.
PENALIZING BETTING, GAME-FIXING OR POINT-SHAVING AND
What is gambling? MACHINATIONS IN SPORTS CONTESTS
It is a game or device or method, the result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon PD 483
chance or hazard. So, if the game depends wholly upon skill or ability of the players, there is no
gambling.  Acts Punishable:
a. Betting: Betting money or any object or article of value of representative value
The manner of determining whether the game played is prohibited or not is whether the result upon the result of any game, races and other sports contests.
will depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard.
b. Game-fixing: any arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which
Significantly, if the game has been identified and declared as a form of gambling by express the result of any game, races, or sports contests shall be predicated and/or known
provision of law, there will be no need or requirement to go into the methods upon how the other than on the basis of the honest playing skill or ability of the players or
game is played. participants.
What is lottery? c. Point-shaving: any such arrangement combination, scheme or agreement by

It is a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid, which the skill or ability of any player or participant in a fame, races, or sports contests
or agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for a chance to obtain a prize. (US vs. Filart, et al., to make points of scores shall be limited deliberately in order to influence the result
30 Phil. 80) thereof in favor of one or other team, player or participant.
Pinball machines or slot machines are considered gambling devices because the result depends d. Game Machination: any other fraudulent, deceitful, unfair or dishonest means,
upon chance or hazard. method, manner or practice employed for the purpose of influencing the result of any
game, races or sports contest.
If the prizes do not come out of the funds or contributions of the participants, there is no lottery.
(Uy vs. Palomar, 27 SCRA 287)
Article 198.
ILLEGAL BETTING ON HORSE RACE
Article 196.
IMPORTATION, SALE AND POSSESSION OF LOTTERY TICKETS OR ADVERTISEMENTS Acts punished
Acts punished Betting on horse races during periods not allowed by law;
1. Importing into the Philippines from any foreign place or port any lottery ticket or Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on races or realizing
advertisement; or profit therefrom during the periods not allowed by law.
2. Selling or distributing the same in connivance with the importer; When horse races not allowed:
3. Possessing, knowingly and with intent to use them, lottery tickets or July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
advertisements; or
December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);
4. Selling or distributing the same without connivance with the importer of the
same. Any registration or voting days (Republic Act No. 180, Revised Election Code); and
Note that possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement is prima facie evidence of an intent to Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act No. 946).
sell, distribute or use the same in the Philippines.
Article 199.
Article 197. ILLEGAL COCKFIGHTING
BETTING IN SPORT CONTESTS

This article has been modified or repealed by Presidential Decree No. 449 (The
Cockfighting Law of 1974): E. No gambling of any kind shall be permitted on the premises of the cockpit or place
of cockfighting during cockfights.
COCKFIGHTING LAW OF 1974 F. City or municipal mayors are authorized to issue licenses for the operation and
PD 449 maintenance of cockpits.
I. Scope – This law shall govern the establishment, operation, maintenance and
ownership of cockpits. Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Simplifying and Providing Stiffer Penalties for
Violations of Philippine Gambling Laws)
II. Rules:
Section 1. Violations and Penalties. -- The penalty of prision mayor in its medium
A. Only Filipino citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing laws shall be allowed to degree or a fine ranging from Five Hundred Pesos to Two Thousand Pesos and in case of
own, manage and operated cockpits. recidivism the penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree or a fine of ranging from One
Thousand Pesos to Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon:
B. Only one cockpit shall be allowed in each city or municipality with a population of
100,000 or less. (a) Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding subsection who in
any manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any game of cockfighting, jueteng, bookies
C. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within the appropriate areas as (jai- alai or horse racing to include game fixing) and other lotteries, cara y cruz or pompiang and
prescribed in the Zoning Law or ordinance. the like, black jack, lucky nine, “pusoy” or Russian Poker, monte, baccarat and other card games,
palk que, domino, mahjong, high and low, slot machines, roulette, pinball and other mechanical
inventories or devices, dog racing, boat racing, car raising and other races, basketball, volleyball,
boxing, seven-eleven dice games and the like and other contests to include game fixing, point
shaving and other machinations banking or percentage game, or any other game or scheme,
D. When allowed: whether upon chance or skill, which do not have a franchise from the national government,
wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value of representative of value are made;
1. Cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and
legal holidays and during local fiestas for not more than 3 days; or (b) Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in
the preceding subdivision to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited places or any building,
2. During provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place where gambling
carnival or exposition for a similar period of 3 days upon resolution of the is carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited gambling is frequently
province, city or municipality where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be carried on therein or the place is a public or government building or barangay hall, the culprit
held, subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized shall be punished by the penalty provided for in its maximum period and a fine of Six Thousand
representative. Pesos.
Limitations: The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum degree and a fine of Six Thousand
a) No cockfighting on the occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be Pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer, conductor of the above gambling schemes.
allowed within the month of the local fiesta or for more than 2 occasions a
year in the same city of municipality. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium degree and temporary absolute
disqualification and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer, conductor or
b) No cockfighting shall be held on December 30, June 12,November 30, Holy banker is a government official, or if a player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in cases
Thursday, Good Friday, Election Day and during registration days for such of game-fixing, point-shaving and other game machination.
election/referendum.
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree and a fine ranging from Five
3. If the purpose is for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries or for tourists, or Hundred pesos to Two Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly
for returning balikbayans, or for the support of national fund-raising and without lawful purpose in any hour of any day shall have in his possession any lottery list,
campaigns for charitable purposes as may be authorized by the Office of the paper, or other matter containing letter, figures, signs or symbols which pertain to or in any
President upon resolution of a provincial board, city or municipal council, in manner used in the game of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies and similar game or lottery
licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks. which has taken place or about to take place.
Limitations: This privilege shall be extended for only one time, for a period Section 2. Barangay Official. – Any barangay official in whose jurisdiction
not exceeding 3 days, within a year to a province, city or municipality. such gambling house is found and which house has the reputation of a gambling place shall

suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period and a fine ranging from Five 2. If the merchandise is not saleable because of its inferior quality, so that the public
Hundred to Two Thousand Pesos and temporary absolute disqualifications. actually does not buy them, but with the lottery the public starts patronizing such
merchandise. In effect, the public is paying for the lottery and not for the
merchandise, and therefore the lottery is a gambling game. Public is not made to pay a
While the acts under the Revised Penal Code are still punished under the new law, yet the higher price.
concept of gambling under it has been changed by the new gambling law.
Illustrations:
Before, the Revised Penal Code considered the skill of the player in classifying whether a game is
gambling or not. But under the new gambling law, the skill of the players is immaterial. (1) A certain supermarket wanted to increase its sales and sponsored a lottery where
valuable prices are offered at stake. To defray the cost of the prices offered in the
Any game is considered gambling where there are bets or wagers placed with the hope to win a lottery, the management increased their prices of the merchandise by 10 cents each.
prize therefrom. Whenever someone buys from that supermarket, he pays 10 cents more for each
merchandise and for his purchase, he gets a coupon which is to be dropped at
Under this law, even sports contents like boxing, would be gambling insofar as those who designated drop boxes to be raffled on a certain period.
are betting therein are concerned. Under the old penal code, if the skill of the player
outweighs the chance or hazard involved in winning the game, the game is not considered The increase of the price is to answer for the cost of the valuable prices that will be
gambling but a sport. It was because of this that betting in boxing and basketball games covered at stake. The increase in the price is the consideration for the chance to win in
proliferated. the lottery and that makes the lottery a gambling game.
“Unless authorized by a franchise, any form of gambling is illegal.” So said the court in the recent But if the increase in prices of the articles or commodities was not general, but only on
resolution of the case against the operation of jai-alai. certain items and the increase in prices is not the same, the fact that a lottery is
sponsored does not appear to be tied up with the increase in prices, therefore not
There are so-called parlor games which have been exempted from the operation of the decree illegal.
like when the games are played during a wake to keep the mourners awake at night. Pursuant to
a memorandum circular issued by the Executive Branch, the offshoot of the exemption is the Also, in case of manufacturers, you have to determine whether the increase in the price
intentional prolonging of the wake of the dead by gambling lords. was due to the lottery or brought about by the normal price increase. If the increase in
price is brought about by the normal price increase [economic factor] that even without
As a general rule, betting or wagering determines whether a game is gambling or not. the lottery the price would be like that, there is no consideration in favor of the lottery
Exceptions: These are games which are expressly prohibited even without bets. Monte, jueteng and the lottery would not amount to a gambling game.
or any form of lottery; dog races; slot machines; these are habit-forming and addictive to players,
bringing about the pernicious effects to the family and economic life of the players. If the increase in the price is due particularly to the lottery, then the lottery is a
gambling game. And the sponsors thereof may be prosecuted for illegal gambling
Mere possession of lottery tickets or lottery lists is a crime punished also as part of gambling. under Presidential Decree No. 1602.
However, it is necessary to make a distinction whether a ticket or list refers to a past date or to a
future date. (2) The merchandise is not really saleable because of its inferior quality. A certain
manufacturer, Bhey Company, manufacture cigarettes which is not saleable because
Illustration: the same is irritating to the throat, sponsored a lottery and a coupon is inserted in
every pack of cigarette so that one who buys it shall have a chance to participate. Due
X was accused one night and found in his possession was a list of jueteng. If the date therein to the coupons, the public started buying the cigarette. Although there was no price
refers to the past, X cannot be convicted of gambling or illegal possession of lottery list without increase in the cigarettes, the lottery can be considered a gambling game because the
proving that such game was indeed played on the date stated. Mere possession is not enough. buyers were really after the coupons not the low quality cigarettes.
If the date refers to the future, X can be convicted by the mere possession with intent to use.
This will already bring about criminal liability and there is no need to prove that the game was If without the lottery or raffle, the public does not patronize the product and starts to
played on the date stated. If the possessor was caught, chances are he will not go on with it patronize them only after the lottery or raffle, in effect the public is paying for the price
anymore. not the product.
There are two criteria as to when the lottery is in fact becomes a gambling game:
Under this decree, a barangay captain who is responsible for the existence of gambling dens in
1. If the public is made to pay not only for the merchandise that he is buying, but also for their own locality will be held liable and disqualified from office if he fails to prosecute these
the chance to win a prize out of the lottery, lottery becomes a gambling game. Public gamblers. But this is not being implemented.
is made to pay a higher price.
Gambling, of course, is legal when authorized by law.

 The essence of grave scandal is publicity and that the acts committed are not only contrary
Fund-raising campaigns are not gambling. They are for charitable purposes but they have to to morals and good customs but must likewise be of such character as to cause public
obtain a permit from Department of Social Welfare and Development. This includes concerts for scandal to those witnessing it.
causes, Christmas caroling, and the like.
Distinction should be made as to the place where the offensive act was committed,
whether in the public place or in a private place:
(1) In public place, the criminal liability arises irrespective of whether the immoral act is
open to the public view. In short public view is not required.
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
(2) When act offensive to decency is done in a private place, public view or public
Article 200 knowledge is required.
GRAVE SCANDAL
* Public view does not require numerous persons . Even if there was only one person who
 ELEMENTS: witnessed the offensive act for as long as the third person was not an intruder, grave scandal is
a. Offender performs an act committed provided the act does not fall under any other crime in the Revised Penal Code.
b. Act is highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs Illustrations:
c. Highly scandalous conduct does not expressly fall within any other (1) A man and a woman enters a movie house which is a public place and then goes to the
article of the RPC darkest part of the balcony and while there the man started performing acts of
lasciviousness on the woman.
d. Committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.
(The public view is not required, it is sufficient if in public place. For public If it is against the will of the woman, the crime would be acts of lasciviousness. But if
knowledge, it may occur even in a private place; the number of people who sees there is mutuality, this constitutes grave scandal. Public view is not necessary so long
it is not material). as it is performed in a public place.
 GRAVE SCANDAL: consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs. They (2) A man and a woman went to Luneta and slept there. They covered themselves their
are committed publicly and thus, give rise to public scandal to persons who have blanket and made the grass their conjugal bed.
accidentally witnessed the acts
This is grave scandal.
* The crime of grave scandal is a crime against public morals . Necessarily, the offender must
commit the crime in a public place or within the view of the public. (3) In a certain apartment, a lady tenant had the habit of undressing in her room without
shutting the blinds. She does this every night at about eight in the evening. So that at
In grave scandal, the scandal involved refers to moral scandal offensive to decency, although it this hour of the night, you can expect people outside gathered in front of her window
does not disturb public peace. But such conduct or act must be open to the public view. looking at her silhouette. She was charged of grave scandal. Her defense was that
she was doing it in her own house.
In alarms and scandals, the scandal involved refers to disturbances of the public tranquility
and not to acts offensive to decency. It is no defense that she is doing it in her private home. It is still open to the public
view.
 Decency: means properly observing the requirements of modesty, good taste etc
(4) In a particular building in Makati which stands right next to the house of a young lady
 Customs: refers to established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and who goes sunbathing in her poolside. Every morning several men in the upper floors
enforced by social disapproval in case of violation would stick their heads out to get a full view of said lady while in her two-piece
swimsuit. The lady was then charged with grave scandal. Her defense was that it is
 If the acts complained of are punishable under another provision of the RPC, Art 200 is not her own private pool and it is those men looking down at her who are malicious.
applicable
This is an act which even though done in a private place is nonetheless open to public
* Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may bring about criminal liability for the crime view.
of grave scandal provided such act does not constitute some other crime under the Revised Penal
Code. Grave scandal is a crime of last resort.

e. those that are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies,
Article 201 lawful orders, decrees and edicts
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS:
 Mere nudity in paintings and pictures is not obscene
 Persons liable:
a. Those who publicly expound or proclaim doctrines that are contrary to  Pictures w/ a slight degree of obscenity having no artistic value and intended for commercial
public morals purposes fall within this article
b. Authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any  Publicity is an essential element
form
* Sexual indulgence is not in itself immoral if done within the bounds of privacy and performed
c. Editors publishing such obscene literature normally. The moment the parties carry their private rights and privileges to public view, they
expose themselves to public scrutiny.
d. Owners or operators of establishments selling obscene literature
Article 202
e. Those who exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows ion VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES:
theaters, fairs, cinemas or any other place
 Who are considered vagrants:
f. Those who sell, distribute, or exhibit prints, engraving, sculptures or
literature which are offensive to morals a. Those who have no apparent means of subsistence and who have the
physical ability to work yet neglect to apply themselves to some useful
 MORALS: implies conformity to generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in calling
conduct or character
b. Persons found loitering around public and semi-public places without
 TEST OF OBSCENITY: whether the matter has a tendency to deprave or corrupt the minds visible means of support
of those who are open to immoral influences. A matter can also be considered obscene if it
shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as indecency. c. Persons tramping or wandering around the country or the streets with
no visible means of support
> The test is objective. It is more on the effect upon the viewer and not alone on the conduct of
the performer. d. Idle or dissolute persons lodging in houses of ill-fame
* If the material has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the same e. Ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes
is obscene and where such obscenity is made publicly, criminal liability arises. (may include even the rich)
* The law is not concerned with the moral of one person . As long as the pornographic matter or f. Persons found loitering in inhabited or uninhabited places belonging to
exhibition is made privately, there is no crime committed under the Revised Penal Code because others, without any lawful or justifiable reason provided the act does
what is protected is the morality of the public in general. not fall within any other article of the RPC
* In committing this crime, there must be publicity. It means the act or acts done must come to
the knowledge of third persons. If fenced and with prohibition of entry Trespass to dwelling
 However, Art 201 enumerates what are considered as obscene literature or If fenced and entered to hunt/fish Attempted theft
immoral or indecent plays, scenes or acts:
a. those w/c glorify criminals or condone crimes If not fenced and with no prohibition of entry Vagrancy
b. those w/c serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or  Who are considered prostitutes - refer to women who habitually indulge in sexual
pornography intercourse or lascivious conduct for money or profit (if a man indulges in the same conduct:
vagrancy)
c. those w/c offend against any race or religion
d. those w/c tend to abet the traffic in and the use of prohibited drugs

* In law the mere indulging in lascivious conduct habitually because of money or gain would 38. Usurpation of judicial functions (Art. 241);
amount to prostitution, even if there is no sexual intercourse. Virginity is not a defense. 39. Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242);
Habituality is the controlling factor; it has to be more than one time. 40. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority (Art. 243);
41. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244); and
* There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy . One who conspires with a woman in the 42. Abuses against chastity (Art. 245).
prostitution business like pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of clients are guilty of the crime under
Article 341 for white slavery. * The designation of the title is misleading. Crimes under this title can be committed by public
officers or a non-public officer, when the latter become a conspirator with a public officer, or an
accomplice, or accessory to the crime. The public officer has to be the principal.
TITLE SEVEN
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS * In some cases, it can even be committed by a private citizen alone such as in Article 275
(infidelity in the custody of a prisoner where the offender is not a public officer) or in Article 222
Crimes committed by public officers (malversation).
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art. 204);
2. Judgment rendered through negligence (Art. 205);
3. Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206); Article 203
4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice (Art. 207);  WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS:
5. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance (Art. 208); a. Takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government, or
6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – Revelation of secrets (Art. 209);
7. Direct bribery (Art. 210); b. Performs public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official in
8. Indirect bribery (Art. 211); the gov’t or any of its branches
9. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A);
10. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212);  Notes:
11. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses (Art. 213); Public officer must derive his authority from:
12. Other frauds (Art. 214); 1. direct provision of law
13. Prohibited transactions (Art. 215); 2. popular election
14. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art. 216); 3.appointment by competent authority
15. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation (Art. 217)
16. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218); * In defining the term “public officers”, the law makes the reference to the manner by which he
17. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country is appointed to public office. He thus becomes a public officer because of his appointment by
(Art. 219); competent authority or because he is elected to public office.
18. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220);
19. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221); Public officers: embraces every public servant from the lowest to the highest rank
20. Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art. 223);
21. Evasion through negligence (Art. 224); Under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), the term public officer is
22. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer (Art. 225); broader and more comprehensive because it includes all persons whether an official or an
23. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents (Art. 226); employee, temporary or not, classified or not, contractual or otherwise. Any person who receives
24. Officer breaking seal (Art. 227); compensation for services rendered is a public officer.
25. Opening of closed documents (Art. 228);
26. Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229); * A government laborer is not a public officer. However, temporary performance by a laborer of
27. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual (Art. 230); public functions makes him a public officer
28. Open disobedience (Art. 231); * Crimes committed by public officers are nothing but corruption in public service.
29. Disobedience to order of superior officer when said order was suspended by inferior
officer (Art. 232); Breach of oath of office partakes of three forms:
30. Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
31. Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234); a. Misfeasance: means improper performance of an act which might be properly be
32. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235); performed
33. Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);
34. Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 237); b. Malfeasance: means performance of an act which ought not to be done
35. Abandonment of office or position (Art. 238);
36. Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239); c. Nonfeasance: means omission of an act which ought to be done
37. Usurpation of executive functions (Art. 240);

Malfeasance Doing of an act which a public officer should not have done b. Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
Misfeasance Improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do c. Judgment is manifestly unjust
Nonfeasance Failure of an agent to perform his undertaking for the principal d. Due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance
 MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT: one that is so contrary to law that even a person
Article 204: having meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice
KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST JUDGMENT
* The unjust judgment is merely the result of inexcusable negligence or ignorance of the law. The
 ELEMENTS: ignorance may refer to substantive or procedural law. There must be an apparent and notorious
a. Offender is a judge manifestation of lack of logic and false interpretation of the law. (Cortes vs. Catral, 279 SCRA
1)
b. Renders a judgment in the case submitted to him for judgment
c. Judgment is unjust Article 206

UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
d. Knowledge that the decision is unjust
 ELEMENTS:
 Notes: a. That the offender is a judge.
JUDGMENT: is a final consideration and determination by a court of competent jurisdiction of
the issues submitted to it in an action or proceeding b. That he performs any of the following acts:
1. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree, or
* The law requires that the judgment must be written in the official language, personally and
directly prepared by the judge, and signed by him. It must contain a clear and distinct statement 2. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through
of facts proved or admitted by the defendant and upon which the judgment is based. inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
UNJUST JUDGMENT: one which is contrary to law, or not supported by the evidence, or both  INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: one issued by the court deciding a collateral or incidental
matter. It is not a final determination of the issues of the action or proceeding
An unjust judgment may result from:
1. error (with bad faith) * The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, or knowingly issuing an unjust
2. ill-will or revenge interlocutory order, may be committed only by a judge of a trial court and never of an appellate
3. bribery court. The reason for this is that in appellate court, not only one magistrate renders or issues the
interlocutory order. An appellate court functions as a division and the resolutions thereof are
* There must be evidence that the decision rendered is unjust. It is not presumed handed down only after deliberations among the members of a division so that it cannot be said
that there is malice or inexcusable negligence or ignorance in the rendering of a judgment or
* To be liable for the above crime, not only must the judgment be proved to be unjust .it must order that is supposedly unjust as held by the Supreme Court in one administrative case.
likewise be established to have been knowingly rendered. There must be a conscious and
deliberate intent to do an injustice. This usually occurs when the judge entertains hatred, envy,
revenge, or greed against one of the parties. Article 207
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OR JUSTICE
* Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment cannot likewise serve as basis for rendering an
unjust judgment in the absence of proof or even an allegation of bad faith (motive or improper  ELEMENTS:
consideration). a. That the offender is a judge.
b. That there is a proceeding in his court.

Article 205
JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE c. That he delays the administration of justice.
 ELEMENTS: d. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with
a. Offender is a judge deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case.

 Mere delay without malice is not punishable (1) An accessory to the crime committed by the principal in accordance with Article 19,
paragraph 3; or
* Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the delay is sought to favor one party to the
prejudice of the other. (2) He may become a fence if the crime committed is robbery or theft, in which case he
violates the Anti-Fencing Law; or
* These have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer only to judges of the trial court.
(3) He may be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
* The Constitution provides that cases submitted for decision before the Supreme Court must be
resolved within two years. Before the Court of Appeals, such cases must be resolved within 1 Illustration:
year; and before the Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court, such cases must be
decided within a period of three months or ninety days. The offender was caught for white slavery. The policeman allowed the offender to go free for
some consideration. The policeman does not violate Article 208 but he becomes an accessory to
Article 208 the crime of white slavery.
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
But in the crime of theft or robbery, where the policeman shared in the loot and allowed the
Acts Punished offender to go free, he becomes a fence. Therefore, he is considered an offender under the Anti-
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law; Fencing Law.
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses. However, in distant provinces or municipalities where there are no municipal attorneys, the local
chief of police is the prosecuting officer. If he is the one who tolerates the violations of laws or
 ELEMENTS OF DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES: otherwise allows offenders to escape, he can be prosecuted under this article.
a. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty
to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute offenses. This is also true in the case of a barangay chairman. They are supposed to prosecute violators of
laws within their jurisdiction. If they do not do so, they can be prosecuted for this crime.
b. That there is dereliction of the duties of his office, that is, knowing the
commission of the crime, he does not cause (a) the prosecution of the  The crime must be proved first before an officer can be convicted of dereliction of duty
criminal (People vs. Rosales, G.R. no. 42648) or (b) knowing that a crime is
about to be committed he tolerates its commission (if gift/promise is a  A public officer who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of an offender, when it is his
consideration for his conduct: direct bribery) duty to prosecute him is liable as principal in the crime of dereliction of duty in the
prosecution of offenses. He is not an accessory
c. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law.  Article not applicable to revenue officers
* Relative to this crime under Article 208, consider the crime of qualified bribery. Among the
 PREVARICACION: negligence and tolerance in the prosecution of an offense amendments made by Republic Act No. 7659 on the Revised Penal Code is a new provision which
reads as follows:
* A public officer engaged in the prosecution of offenders shall maliciously tolerate the
commission of crimes or refrain from prosecuting offenders or violators of the law. Article. 211-A. Qualified Bribery – If any public officer is
entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or
* This crime can only be committed by a public officer whose official duty is to prosecute prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by Reclusion
offenders, that is, state prosecutors. Hence, those officers who are not duty bound to perform Perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
these obligations cannot commit this crime in the strict sense. present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not
prosecuted.
 There must be a duty on the part of the public officer to prosecute or move for the
prosecution of the offender. Note however, that a fiscal is under no compulsion to file an If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present,
information based upon a complaint if he is not convinced that the evidence before him he shall suffer the penalty of death.
does not warrant filing an action in court
* Actually the crime is a kind of direct bribery where the bribe, offer, promise, gift or present has
When a policeman tolerates the commission of a crime or otherwise refrains from apprehending a consideration on the part of the public officer, that is refraining from arresting or prosecuting
the offender, such peace officer cannot be prosecuted for this crime but they can be prosecuted the offender in consideration for such offer, promise, gift or present . In a way, this new
as: provision modifies Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on direct bribery.

* However, the crime of qualified bribery may be committed only by public officers “entrusted * Under the rules on evidence , communications made with prospective clients to a lawyer with a
with enforcement” whose official duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute offenders . view to engaging his professional services are already privileged even though the client-lawyer
Apparently, they are peace officers and public prosecutors since the nonfeasance refers to relationship did not eventually materialize because the client cannot afford the fee being asked by
“arresting or prosecuting.” But this crime arises only when the offender whom such public officer the lawyer. The lawyer and his secretary or clerk cannot be examined thereon.
refrains from arresting or prosecuting, has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death. If the crime were punishable by a lower penalty, then such nonfeasance by the * That this communication with a prospective client is considered privileged, implies that the
public officer would amount to direct bribery, not qualified bribery. same is confidential. Therefore, if the lawyer would reveal the same or otherwise accept a case
from the adverse party, he would already be violating Article 209. Mere malicious breach without
* If the crime was qualified bribery, the dereliction of the duty punished under Article 208 of the damage is not violative of Article 209; at most he will be liable administratively as a lawyer, e.g.,
Revised Penal Code should be absorbed because said article punishes the public officer who suspension or disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
“maliciously refrains from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law or
shall tolerate the commission of offenses”. The dereliction of duty referred to is necessarily Illustration:
included in the crime of qualified bribery.
B, who is involved in the crime of seduction wanted A, an attorney at law, to handle his case. A
* On the other hand, if the crime was direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, received confidential information from B. However, B cannot pay the professional fee of A. C,
the public officer involved should be prosecuted also for the dereliction of duty , which is a crime the offended party, came to A also and the same was accepted.
under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, because the latter is not absorbed by the crime of
direct bribery. This is because in direct bribery, where the public officer agreed to perform an act A did not commit the crime under Article 209, although the lawyer’s act may be considered
constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties, Article 210 expressly unethical. The client-lawyer relationship between A and B was not yet established. Therefore,
provides that the liabilty thereunder shall be “in addition to the penalty corresponding to the there is no trust to violate because B has not yet actually engaged the services of the lawyer A.
crime agreed upon, if the crime shall have been committed. A is not bound to B. However, if A would reveal the confidential matter learned by him from B,
then Article 209 is violated because it is enough that such confidential matters were
Illustration: communicated to him in his professional capacity, or it was made to him with a view to engaging
his professional services.
A fiscal, for a sum of money, refrains from prosecuting a person charged before him. If the
penalty for the crime involved is reclusion perpetua, the fiscal commits qualified bribery. If the Here, matters that are considered confidential must have been said to the lawyer with the view of
crime is punishable by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, the crime is direct bribery. engaging his services. Otherwise, the communication shall not be considered privileged and no
trust is violated.
In the latter situation, three crimes are committed: direct bribery and dereliction of duty on the
part of the fiscal; and corruption of a public officer by the giver. Illustration:
A went to B, a lawyer/notary public, to have a document notarized. A narrated to B the detail of

Article 209 the criminal case. If B will disclose what was narrated to him there is no betrayal of trust since B
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR is acting as a notary public and not as a counsel. The lawyer must have learned the confidential
(NOT NECESSARILY A PUBLIC OFFICER ALTHOUGH ALL LAWYERS ARE OFFICERS OF THE matter in his professional capacity.
COURT)
Several acts which would make a lawyer criminally liable:
 ACTS PUNISHED:
a. Causing damage to client (prejudice is essential) either (1) Maliciously causing damage to his client through a breach of his professional duty. The
1. by any malicious breach of professional duty, or breach of professional duty must be malicious. If it is just incidental, it would not give
rise to criminal liability, although it may be the subject of administrative discipline;
2. by inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
(2) Through gross ignorance, causing damage to the client;
b. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his
professional capacity (damage not necessary) (3) Inexcusable negligence;
c. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party of the 1st client and/or (4) Revelation of secrets learned in his professional capacity;
having received confidential information from the latter and without the
latter’s consent (damage not necessary) (5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in a case without the consent of the first
client whose defense has already been undertaken.
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his employment or inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, there must be damage to his client. Note that only numbers 1, 2 and 3 must approximate malice.

* A lawyer who had already undertaken the case of a client cannot later on shift to the opposing  ELEMENTS:
party. This cannot be done. a. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Art 203
* Under the circumstances, it is necessary that the confidential matters or information was b. That the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or
confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional capacity. present by himself or through another
* It is not the duty of the lawyer to give advice on the commission of a future crime. It is, c. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present received by the
therefore, not privileged in character. The lawyer is not bound by the mandate of privilege public officer (mere agreement consummates the crime)
communication if he reports such commission of a future crime. It is only confidential
information relating to crimes already committed that are covered by the crime of betrayal of 1. with a view to committing some crime (delivery of consideration is not
trust if the lawyer should undertake the case of opposing party or otherwise divulge confidential necessary) or
information of a client.
2. in consideration of an execution of an act which does not constitute
* Under the law on evidence on privileged communication, it is not only the lawyer who is a crime, but the act must be unjust (delivery of consideration is
protected by the matter of privilege but also the office staff like the secretary. necessary), or
* The nominal liability under this article may be constituted either from breach of professional 3. to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do
duties in the handling of the case or it may arise out of the confidential relation between the
lawyer and the client. d. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes
be connected with the performance of his official duties
BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL DUTY
* Bribery refers to the act of the receiver and the act of the giver is corruption of public official.
> Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for which reason the case was dismissed for being
non-prosecuted; or tardiness on the part of the defense counsel leading to declaration of default  For purposes of this article, temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to
and adverse judgment. constitute a person a public officer.
> Professional duties – Lawyer must appear on time. But the client must have suffered damage  A private person may commit this crime only in the case in which custody of prisoners is
due to the breach of professional duty. Otherwise, the lawyer cannot be held liable. entrusted to him
> If the prosecutor was tardy and the case was dismissed as non-prosecuted, but he filed a  Applicable also to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any
motion for reconsideration which was granted, and the case was continued, the lawyer is not other person performing public duties
liable, because the client did not suffer damage.
 Cannot be frustrated, only attempted or consummated.
> If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer, and his client declared in default, and there was
an adverse judgment, the client suffered damages. The lawyer is liable. * Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted and consummated stages because, in
frustrated felony, the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would
BREACH OF CONFIDENTIAL RELATION produce the felony as a consequence . In direct bribery, it is possible only if the corruptor
concurs with the offender. Once there is concurrence, the direct bribery is already consummated .
> Revealing information obtained or taking advantage thereof by accepting the engagement with In short, the offender could not have performed all the acts of execution to produce the felony
the adverse party. There is no need to prove that the client suffered damages. The mere breach without consummating the same.
of confidential relation is punishable.
* Actually, you cannot have a giver unless there is one who is willing to receive and there cannot
> In a conjugal case, if the lawyer disclosed the confidential information to other people, he be a receiver unless there is one willing to give . So this crime requires two to commit. It cannot
would be criminally liable even though the client did not suffer any damage. be said, therefore, that one has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but for reasons independent of the will, the crime was not committed.
> The client who was suing his wife disclosed that he also committed acts of unfaithfulness. The
lawyer talked about this to a friend. He is, thus, liable. * It is now settled, therefore, that the crime of bribery and corruption of public officials cannot be
committed in the frustrated stage because this requires two to commit and that means a meeting
of the minds.
Article 210
DIRECT BRIBERY Illustrations:

(1) If the corruptor offers a consideration to a custodian of a public record to remove

(1) If the public official accepted the corrupt consideration and turned it over to his certain files, the mere agreement, without delivery of the consideration, brings about
superior as evidence of the corruption, the offense is attempted corruption only and not the crime of direct bribery and corruption of public official.
frustrated. The official did not agree to be corrupted.
If the records were actually removed, both the public officer and the corruptor will in
If the public officer did not report the same to his superior and actually accepted it, he addition to the two felonies above, will also be liable for the crime committed, which is
allowed himself to be corrupted. The corruptor becomes liable for consummated infidelity in the custody of the public records for which they shall be liable as principals;
corruption of public official. The public officer also becomes equally liable for one as principal by inducement, the other as principal by direct participation.
consummated bribery.
(2) A party litigant approached the court’s stenographer and proposed the idea of altering
(2) If a public official demanded something from a taxpayer who pretended to agree and the transcript of stenographic notes. The court stenographer agreed and he demanded
use marked money with the knowledge of the police , the crime of the public official is P 2,000.00.
attempted bribery. The reason is that because the giver has no intention to corrupt her
and therefore, he could not perform all the acts of execution. Unknown to them, there were law enforcers who already had a tip that the court
stenographer had been doing this before. So they were waiting for the chance to
Be sure that what is involved is a crime of bribery, not extortion. If it were extortion, entrap him. They were apprehended and they said they have not done anything yet.
the crime is not bribery, but robbery . The one who yielded to the demand does not
commit corruption of a public officer because it was involuntary. Under Article 210, the mere agreement to commit the act, which amounts to a crime, is
already bribery. That stenographer becomes liable already for consummated crime of
 Bribery exists when the gift is: bribery and the party who agreed to give that money is already liable for consummated
a. voluntarily offered by a private person corruption, even though not a single centavo is delivered yet and even though the
stenographer had not yet made the alterations.
b. solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private person
If he changed the transcript, another crime is committed: falsification.
c. solicited by the public officer but the private person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer perform his functions (here the crime by giver is * The same criterion will apply with respect to a public officer who agrees to refrain from
not corruption of public officials due to involuntariness) performing his official duties. If the refraining would give rise to a crime, such as refraining to
prosecute an offender, the mere agreement to do so will consummate the bribery and the
 Actual receipt of the gift is not only if acts constitutes a crime necessary . An accepted offer corruption, even if no money was delivered to him. If the refraining is not a crime, it would only
or promise of a gift is sufficient. However, if the offer is not accepted, only the person amount to bribery if the consideration be delivered to him.
offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of a public officer
* If it is not a crime, the consideration must be delivered by the corruptor before a public
 The gift must have a value or capable of pecuniary estimation . It could be in the form of officer can be prosecuted for bribery . Mere agreement, is not enough to constitute the crime
money, property or services because the act to be done in the first place is legitimate or in the performance of the official
duties of the public official.
 If the act required of the public officer amounts to a crime and he commits it, he shall be
liable for the penalty corresponding to the crime in addition to the penalty for bribery * Unless the public officer receives the consideration for doing his official duty, there is no
bribery. It is necessary that there must be delivery of monetary consideration. This is so
* In direct bribery, consider whether the official act, which the public officer agreed to do, is a because in the second situation, the public officer actually performed what he is supposed to
crime or not. perform. It is just that he would not perform what he is required by law to perform without an
added consideration from the public which gives rise to the crime.
* If it will amount to a crime, it is not necessary that the corruptor should deliver the
consideration or the doing of the act. The moment there is a meeting of the minds, even without * The idea of the law is that he is being paid salary for being there. He is not supposed to
the delivery of the consideration, even without the public officer performing the act amounting to demand additional compensation from the public before performing his public service. The
a crime, bribery is already committed on the part of the public officer. Corruption is already prohibition will apply only when the money is delivered to him, or if he performs what he is
committed on the part of the supposed giver. The reason is that the agreement is a conspiracy supposed to perform in anticipation of being paid the money.
involving the duty of a public officer. The mere agreement is a felony already.
If the public officer commits the act which constitutes the crime, he, as well as the corruptor shall * Here, the bribery will only arise when there is already the acceptance of the consideration
be liable also for that other crime. because the act to be done is not a crime. So, without the acceptance, the crime is not
committed.
Illustrations:

 The third type of bribery and prevaricacion (art 208) are similar offenses, both consisting of
omissions to do an act required to be performed. In direct bribery however, a gift or promise c. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
is given in consideration of the omission. This is not necessary in prevaricacion
 The gift is given in anticipation of future favor from the public officer
Distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery Indirect bribery, the public officer receives or accepts gifts, money or anything of value by reason
of his office. If there is only a promise of a gift or money, no crime is committed because of the
Bribery is direct when a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an language of the law which uses the phrase “shall accept gifts.”
official act in exchange for the gift, present or consideration given to him.
 There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and
If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason of his public position, the crime is consider the property as his own for that moment. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by
indirect bribery. Bear in mind that the gift is given "by reason of his office", not "in any other sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the
consideration" thereof. So never use the term “consideration.” The public officer in Indirect officer
bribery is not to perform any official act.
* The Supreme Court has laid down the rule that for indirect bribery to be committed , the public
* Note however that what may begin as an indirect bribery may actually ripen into direct bribery. officer must have performed an act of appropriating of the gift for himself, his family or
employees. It is the act of appropriating that signifies acceptance. Merely delivering the gift to
Illustration: the public officer does not bring about the crime. Otherwise it would be very easy to remove a
public officer: just deliver a gift to him.
Without any understanding with the public officer, a taxi operator gave an expensive suiting
material to a BLT registrar. Upon receipt by the BLT registrar of his valuable suiting material, he  There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery
asked who the giver was. He found out that he is a taxi operator . As far as the giver is
concerned, he is giving this by reason of the office or position of the public officer involved. It is  The principal distinction between direct and indirect bribery is that in the former, the officer
just indirect bribery agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift or promise. In the
latter case, it is not necessary that the officer do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the
If the BLT registrar calls up his subordinates and said to take care of the taxis of the taxi operator gift offered by reason of his office
so much so that the registration of the taxis is facilitated ahead of the others, what originally
would have been indirect bribery becomes direct bribery.  Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion, including
Christmas are liable under PD 46.
 The criminal penalty or imprisonment is distinct from the administrative penalty of

Bribery (210) Robbery (294) suspension from the service
When the victim has committed a crime and gives When the victim did not commit a crime and he is intimidated
money/gift to avoid arrest or prosecution. with arrest and/or prosecution to deprive him of his personal Article 211-A
property. QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Victim parts with his money or property voluntarily. Victim is deprived of his money or property by force or
intimidation.  ELEMENTS:
a. Public officer entrusted with law enforcement
* Robbery should be distinguished from Bribery where a law enforcer, say a policeman, extorts
money from a person, employing intimidation and threatening to arrest the latter if he will not b. Refrains from arresting/prosecuting offender for crime punishable by
come across with money may be guilty of Robbery (Article 294, par. 5) or Bribery (Article 210). reclusion perpetua and/or death
If the victim actually committed a crime, and the policeman demanded money so he will not be (if lower penalty than stated above, the crime is direct bribery)
arrested, the crime is Bribery. But if no crime has been committed and the policeman is falsely
charging him of having committed one, threatening to arrest him if he will not come across with c. In consideration of any offer, promise or gift
some consideration, the crime is Robbery. * Note that the penalty is DEATH if the public officer is the one who asks or demands such
present.
Article 211 > He need not receive the gift or present because a mere offer or promise is sufficient.
INDIRECT BRIBERY
 ELEMENTS: Article 212

a. That the offender is a public officer. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
b. That he accepts gifts.  ELEMENTS:

a. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or present to a * These conditions are analogous to the conditions under the State Witness Rule under Criminal
public officer. Procedure.
b. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a * The immunity granted the bribe-giver is limited only to the illegal transaction where the
public officer, under circumstances that will make the public officer informant gave voluntarily the testimony . If there were other transactions where the informant
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery also participated, he is not immune from prosecution. The immunity in one transaction does not
extend to other transactions.
 The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of the promise. The act may or may not
be accomplished * The immunity attaches only if the information given turns out to be true and correct . If the
same is false, the public officer may even file criminal and civil actions against the informant for
Presidential Decree No. 46 perjury and the immunity under the decree will not protect him.
Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits giving and acceptance of gifts by a public officer or to a
public officer, even during anniversary, or when there is an occasion like Christmas, New Year, or Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder)
any gift-giving anniversary. The Presidential Decree punishes both receiver and giver.
Plunder is a crime defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, which became effective in
The prohibition giving and receiving gifts given by reason of official position, regardless of 1991. This crime somehow modified certain crimes in the Revised Penal Code insofar as the
whether or not the same is for past or future favors. overt acts by which a public officer amasses, acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are
felonies under the Revised Penal Code like bribery (Articles 210, 211, 211-A), fraud against the
The giving of parties by reason of the promotion of a public official is considered a crime even public treasury [Article 213], other frauds (Article 214), malversation (Article 217), when the ill-
though it may call for a celebration. The giving of a party is not limited to the public officer only gotten wealth amounts to a total value of P50,000,000.00. The amount was reduced from
but also to any member of his family. P75,000,000.00 by Republic Act No. 7659 and the penalty was changed from life imprisonment to
reclusion perpetua to death.
Presidential Decree No. 749
Short of the amount, plunder does not arise. Any amount less than P50,000,000.00 is a violation
> The decree grants immunity from prosecution to a private person or public officer who shall of the Revised Penal Code or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
voluntarily give information and testify in a case of bribery or in a case involving a violation of the
Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Under the law on plunder, the prescriptive period is 20 years commencing from the time of the
last overt act.
It provides immunity to the bribe-giver provided he does two things:
(1) He voluntarily discloses the transaction he had with the public officer constituting direct Plunder is committed through a combination or series of overt acts:
or indirect bribery, or any other corrupt transaction;
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids
(2) He must willingly testify against the public officer involved in the case to be filed on the public treasury;
against the latter.
(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks
Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from the information, he has to be charged first with the or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection
receiver. Before trial, prosecutor may move for dropping bribe-giver from information and be with any government contract or project by reason of the office or position of the
granted immunity. But first, five conditions have to be met: public officer;
(1) Information must refer to consummated bribery; (3) By illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging to the national
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-
(2) Information is necessary for the proper conviction of the public officer involved; owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
(3) That the information or testimony to be given is not yet in the possession of the (4) By obtaining, receiving, or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or
government or known to the government; any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment
in any business or undertaking;
(4) That the information can be corroborated in its material points;
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial, or commercial monopolies or other combinations
(5) That the informant has not been convicted previously for any crime involving moral and/or implementations of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or
turpitude. special interests; or

(6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or 7. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and
influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will
and prejudice of the Filipino people, and the Republic of the Philippines. profit thereby.
8. Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or

While the crime appears to be malum prohibitum, Republic Act No. 7080 provides that “in the transaction in connection with which he intervenes or take part in his official capacity,
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and or in which he is prohibited by the constitution or by any law from having any interest.
aggravating circumstances shall be considered by the court”.
9. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material
interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel, or group of
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he
RA 3019 votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
 Persons Liable:
10. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege, or benefit in favor of
a. Any public officer who shall perform any of the following acts: any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege, or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting entitled.
a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be 11. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense. him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date.
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit for himself or for any other person in connection with any contract or b. Any person having family or close personal relation with any public official who shall
transaction between the government and any other party wherein the public officer in capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or
his official capacity has to intervene under the law. indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift, or material, or pecuniary advantage from
any person having some business, transaction, application, request, or contact with the
3. Directly, or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, or other pecuniary or government in which such public official has to intervene (Sec. 4)
material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public
officer, in any manner of capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, c. Any person who shall knowingly induce or cause any public official to commit any of the
any Government permit or license, in consideration for the held given or to be given. offenses under (A). (Sec. 4)
4. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private d. Spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the 3rd civil degree, of the
enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or president of the Philippines, the vice-president, the president of the Senate, or speaker of
within one year after its termination. the house of Representatives, who shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business
transaction, contract or application with the gov’t (Sec. 5).
5. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his This prohibition shall not apply to:
official, administrative or judicial function through manifest partiality, evident bad faith 1. Any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of whom he is related, has been already dealing with the gov’t along the same line of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or business;
other concessions.
2. Any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to such assumption of public office;
act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some 3. Any application filed by him, the approval of which is not discretionary on the part
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own of the official(s) concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided
interest of giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law;
interested party.
4. Any act lawfully performed an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.

e. Any member of congress, during the term for which he has been elected, who the right to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings leading to the filing of the
shall acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business information, i.e., that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation, or that
enterprise which shall be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of R.A. No.
or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by Congress during 3019, which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of this Act;
his term. and (c) the right to raise the issue that the information can be quashed under any of the grounds
provided in Section 2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (People vs. Albano, 163 SCRA 511).
f. Any public officer who shall fail to file a true, detailed and sworn statement of
assets and liabilities within 30 days after assuming office and thereafter on or * Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance, the court must issue the
before the 15th day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as suspension order as a matter of course and there are no ifs and buts about it (Bayot vs.
upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation Sandiganbayan, et al., 128 SCRA 383).
from office (Sec. 7).
* Preventive suspension is resorted to in order to prevent the accused from using his office to
III. Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal due to unexplained Wealth (Sec. 8) intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office
because the presumption is that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate his
 If a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his prosecution to commit further acts of malfeasance or both (Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.,
name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out supra).
of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income.
* “When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is
 Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such public official may be taken not finally disposed of by the disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the
into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee, the respondent shall be
shown. automatically reinstated in the service: Provided, That when the delay in the disposition of the
case is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay shall not be
 Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.” (Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan)
official, his spouse or any of their dependents including but not limited to activities in any
club or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of ORTEGA NOTES:
a non-official character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently
out of proportion to legitimate income. The mere act of a public officer demanding an amount from a taxpayer to whom he is to render
public service does not amount to bribery, but will amount to a violation of the Anti-graft and
III. Competent court: All prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of Corrupt Practices Act.
the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 10).
Illustration:
* In case none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27
or higher; PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher of their equivalent, A court secretary received P500 .00 from a litigant to set a motion for an early hearing. This is
exclusive jurisdiction over the case shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, direct bribery even if the act to be performed is within his official duty so long as he received a
Metropolitan Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court as the case may be. The decision of the consideration therefor.
court in these cases shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan which exercises exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over them. If the secretary persuaded the judge to make a favorable resolution, even if the judge did not do
so, this constitutes a violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sub-Section A.
IV. Prescription of offenses: all offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in 15 years
(Sec. 11). Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly Section 3, there are several acts
defined as corrupt practices. Some of them are mere repetitions of the act already penalized
V. Exceptions: Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a under the Revised Penal Code, like prohibited transactions under Article 215 and 216. In such a
mere ordinary token of gratitude of friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be case, the act or omission remains to be mala in se.
excepted from the provisions of this act (Sec. 14).
But there are acts penalized under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which are not
* Once the case is filed with the Sandiganbayan, by express provision of the law, it becomes penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Those acts may be considered as mala prohibita.
incumbent upon the court to place under preventive suspension the public officer who stands Therefore, good faith is not a defense.
accused before it. However, before the order of suspension is issued, it is necessary that a pre-
suspension hearing be held by the court wherein the accused is afforded the opportunity to Illustration:
challenge the validity of the information filed against him. Such right of the accused to challenge “ CATCH ALL PROVISION”
the validity of the information covers (a) the right to challenge the sufficiency of the recitals of
the information vis-à-vis the essential elements of the offense as defined by substantive law; (b)

Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – causing undue injury to the A public officer was assigned to direct traffic in a very busy corner. While there, he caught a thief
government or a private party by giving unwarranted benefit to the party whom does not deserve in the act of lifting the wallet of a pedestrian. As he could not leave his post, he summoned a
the same. civilian to deliver the thief to the precinct. The civilian agreed so he left with the thief. When they
were beyond the view of the policeman, the civilian allowed the thief to go home. What would
In this case, good faith is not a defense because it is in the nature of a malum prohibitum. be the liability of the public officer?
Criminal intent on the part of the offender is not required. It is enough that he performed the
prohibited act voluntarily. Even though the prohibited act may have benefited the government. The liability of the traffic policeman would be merely administrative. The civilian has no liability at
The crime is still committed because the law is not after the effect of the act as long as the act is all.
prohibited. Firstly, the offender is not yet a prisoner so there is no accountability yet. The term “prisoner”
refers to one who is already booked and incarcerated no matter how short the time may be.
Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – where a public officer entered into a
contract for the government which is manifestly disadvantageous to the government even if he The policeman could not be said as having assisted the escape of the offender because as the
did not profit from the transaction, a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is problem says, he is assigned to direct traffic in a busy corner street. So he cannot be considered
committed. as falling under the third 3rd paragraph of Article 19 that would constitute his as an accessory.
If a public officer, with his office and a private enterprise had a transaction and he allows a The same is true with the civilian because the crime committed by the offender, which is
relative or member of his family to accept employment in that enterprise, good faith is not a snatching or a kind of robbery or theft as the case may be, is not one of those crimes mentioned
defense because it is a malum prohibitum. It is enough that that the act was performed. under the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
Where the public officer is a member of the board, panel or group who is to act on an application Where the public officer is still incumbent, the prosecution shall be with the Ombudsman.
of a contract and the act involved one of discretion, any public officer who is a member of that
board, panel or group, even though he voted against the approval of the application, as long as Where the respondent is separated from service and the period has not yet prescribed, the
he has an interest in that business enterprise whose application is pending before that board, information shall be filed in any prosecution’s office in the city where the respondent resides.
panel or group, the public officer concerned shall be liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and The prosecution shall file the case in the Regional Trial Court unless the violation carries a penalty
Corrupt Practices Act. His only course of action to avoid prosecution under the Anti-graft and higher than prision correccional, in which case the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Corrupt Practices Act is to sell his interest in the enterprise which has filed an application before
that board, panel or group where he is a member. Or otherwise, he should resign from his public The fact that the government benefited out of the prohibited act is no defense at all, the violation
position. being mala prohibita.
Illustration: Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – where the public officer neglects or
refuses to act on a matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining any pecuniary or
Sen. Dominador Aytono had an interest in the Iligan Steel Mills, which at that time was being material benefit or advantage in favor of or discriminating against another interested party.
subject of an investigation by the Senate Committee of which he was a chairman. He was
threatened with prosecution under Republic Act No. 3019 so he was compelled to sell all his The law itself additionally requires that the accused’s dereliction, besides being without
interest in that steel mill; there is no defense. Because the law says so, even if he voted against justification, must be for the purpose of obtaining from any person interested in the matter some
it, he commits a violation thereof. pecuniary or material benefit or for the purpose of favoring any interested party, or discriminating
against another interested party. This element is indispensable.
These cases are filed with the Ombudsman and not with the regular prosecutor’s office.
Jurisdiction is exclusively with the Sandiganbayan. The accused public officer must be suspended In other words, the neglect or refusal to act must motivated by gain or benefit, or purposely to
when the case is already filed with the Sandiganbayan. favor the other interested party as held in Coronado v. SB, decided on August 18, 1993.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the public officer who is accused should not be Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth)
automatically suspended upon the filing of the information in court. It is the court which will
order the suspension of the public officer and not the superior of that public officer. As long as Correlate with RA 1379 -- properly under Remedial Law. This provides the procedure for
the court has not ordered the suspension of the public officer involved, the superior of that public forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
officer is not authorized to order the suspension simply because of the violation of the Anti-Graft proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature.
and Corrupt Practices Act. The court will not order the suspension of the public officer without
first passing upon the validity of the information filed in court. Without a hearing, the suspension Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public officer has amassed wealth out of proportion to this
would be null and void for being violative of due process. legitimate income may file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the place where the public
officer resides or holds office. The prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation just like in a
Illustration: criminal case and he will forward his findings to the office of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor

General will determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has of light bulbs, pricing each light bulb at P550.00 instead of the actual price of P500.00. This is a
accumulated an unexplained wealth. case of fraud against public treasury.
If the Solicitor General finds probable cause, he would file a petition requesting the court to issue If there is a fixed outlay of P20,000.00 for the lighting apparatus needed and the public officer
a writ commanding the respondent to show cause why the ill-gotten wealth described in the connived with the seller so that although allocation was made a lesser number was asked to be
petition should not be forfeited in favor of the government. This is covered by the Rules on Civil delivered, or of an inferior quality, or secondhand. In this case there is no fraud against the
Procedure. The respondent is given 15 days to answer the petition. Thereafter trial would public treasury because there is a fixed allocation. The fraud is in the implementation of
proceed. Judgment is rendered and appeal is just like in a civil case. Remember that this is not a procurement. That would constitute the crime of “other fraud” in Article 214, which is in the
criminal proceeding. The basic difference is that the preliminary investigation is conducted by the nature of swindling or estafa.
prosecutor.
* Be sure to determine whether fraud is against public treasury or one under Article 214.
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
Article 213
FRAUDS AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY
 ELEMENTS: (par. 1)
a. That the offender be a public officer. ILLEGAL EXACTIONS (par 2)
b. That he should have taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened  ELEMENTS:
in the transaction in his official capacity. a. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts.
c. That he entered into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to (a) b. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
furnishing supplies (b) the making of contracts, or (c) the adjustment or
settlement of account relating to a public property or funds. 1. demanding, directly or indirectly the payment of sums different
from or larger than those authorized by law, or
d. That the accused had intent to defraud the government.
2. failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any
 Notes: sum of money collected by him officially, or
> The public officer must act in his official capacity
3. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or
> The felony is consummated by merely entering into an agreement with any interested party or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different from that
speculator or by merely making use of any scheme to defraud the Government provided by law.
* The essence of this crime is making the government pay for something not received or making  Notes:
it pay more than what is due. It is also committed by refunding more than the amount which
should properly be refunded . This occurs usually in cases where a public officer whose official * This can only be committed principally by a public officer whose official duty is to collect taxes,
duty is to procure supplies for the government or enter into contract for government transactions, license fees, import duties and other dues payable to the government.
connives with the said supplier with the intention to defraud the government. Also when certain
supplies for the government are purchased for the high price but its quantity or quality is low. * Not any public officer can commit this crime. Otherwise, it is estafa. Fixers cannot commit this
crime unless he conspires with the public officer authorized to make the collection.
* Not all frauds will constitute this crime. There must be no fixed allocation or amount on the
matter acted upon by the public officer. * The essence of the crime is not misappropriation of any of the amounts but the improper
making of the collection which would prejudice the accounting of collected amounts by the
* The allocation or outlay was made the basis of fraudulent quotations made by the public officer government.
involved.
* Mere demand of a larger or different amount is sufficient to consummate the crime. The
For example, there was a need to put some additional lighting along a street and no one knows essence is the improper collection (damage to gov’t is not required)
how much it will cost. An officer was asked to canvass the cost but he connived with the seller

On the first form of illegal exaction In this case, the entire P500.00 was covered by an official receipt. That act of covering
the whole amount received from the taxpayer in an official receipt will have the
In this form, mere demand will consummate the crime , even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come characteristics of becoming a part of the public funds. The crimes committed,
across with the amount being demanded. That will not affect the consummation of the crime. therefore, are the following:
> In the demand, it is not necessary that the amount being demanded is bigger than what is (a) Illegal exaction – for collecting more than he is authorized to collect. The
payable to the government. The amount being demanded maybe less than the amount due the mere act of demanding is enough to constitute this crime.
government.
(b) Falsification – because there was an alteration of official document which
* If sums are received without demanding the same, a felony under this article is not committed. is the duplicate of the official receipt to show an amount less than the actual
However, if the sum is given as a sort of gift or gratification, the crime is indirect bribery amount collected.
* When there is deceit in demanding larger fees, the crime committed is estafa (c) Malversation – because of his act of misappropriating the P100.00 excess
which was covered by an official receipt already, even though not payable to
* May be complexed with malversation the government. The entire P500.00 was covered by the receipt, therefore,
the whole amount became public funds. So when he appropriated the P100
* Note that this is often committed with malversation or estafa because when a public officer for his own benefit, he was not extracting private funds anymore but public
shall demand an amount different from what the law provides, it can be expected that such funds.
public officer will not turn over his collection to the government.
Should the falsification be complexed with the malversation?
Illustrations:
As far as the crime of illegal exaction is concerned, it will be the subject of separate
(1) A taxpayer goes to the local municipal treasurer to pay real estate taxes on his land. accusation because there, the mere demand regardless of whether the taxpayer will
Actually, what is due the government is P400.00 only but the municipal treasurer pay or not, will already consummate the crime of illegal exaction. It is the breach of
demanded P500.00. By that demand alone, the crime of illegal exaction is already trust by a public officer entrusted to make the collection which is penalized under such
committed even though the taxpayer does not pay the P500.00. article. The falsification or alteration made on the duplicate can not be said as a means
to commit malversation. At most , the duplicate was altered in order to conceal the
(2) Suppose the taxpayer came across with P500.00. But the municipal treasurer, thinking malversation. So it cannot be complexed with the malversation.
that he would abstract the P100.00, issued a receipt for only P400.00. The taxpayer
would naturally ask the municipal treasurer why the receipt was only for P400.00. The It cannot also be said that the falsification is a necessary means to commit the
treasurer answered that the P100.00 is supposed to be for documentary stamps. The malversation because the public officer can misappropriate the P100.00 without any
taxpayer left. falsification. All that he has to do is to get the excess of P100.00 and misappropriate it.
So the falsification is a separate accusation.
He has a receipt for P400.00. The municipal treasurer turned over to the government
coffers P400.00 because that is due the government and pocketed the P100.00. However, illegal exaction may be complexed with malversation because illegal exaction
The mere fact that there was a demand for an amount different from what is due the is a necessary means to be able to collect the P100.00 excess which was malversed.
government, the public officer already committed the crime of illegal exaction.
In this crime, pay attention to whether the offender is the one charged with the
On the P100.00 which the public officer pocketed, will it be malversation or estafa? collection of the tax, license or impost subject of the misappropriation. If he is not the
one authorized by disposition to do the collection, the crime of illegal exaction is not
In the example given, the public officer did not include in the official receipt the committed.
P100.00 and, therefore, it did not become part of the public funds. It remained to be
private. It is the taxpayer who has been defrauded of his P100.00 because he can If it did not give rise to the crime of illegal exaction, the funds collected may not have
never claim a refund from the government for excess payment since the receipt issued become part of the public funds. If it had not become part of the public funds, or had
to him was only P400.00 which is due the government. As far as the P100.00 is not become impressed with being part of the public funds, it cannot be the subject of
concerned, the crime committed is estafa. malversation. It will give rise to estafa or theft as the case may be.
(3) A taxpayer pays his taxes. What is due the government is P400.00 and the public (3) The Municipal Treasurer demanded P500.00 when only P400.00 was due. He issued
officer issues a receipt for P500.00 upon payment of the taxpayer of said amount the receipt at P400.00 and explained to taxpayer that the P100 was for documentary
demanded by the public officer involved. But he altered the duplicate to reflect only stamps. The Municipal Treasurer placed the entire P500.00 in the vault of the office.
P400.00 and he extracted the difference of P100.00. When he needed money, he took the P100.00 and spent it.

The crime committed is illegal exaction because the payment by check is not allowed if the check
The following crimes were committed: does not pertain to the taxpayer himself, unless the check is a manager’s check or a certified
check, amended already as of 1990. (See the case of Roman Catholic.)
(a) Illegal exaction – for demanding a different amount;
* Under Article 213, if any of these acts penalized as illegal exaction is committed by those
(b) Estafa – for deceiving the taxpayer; and employed in the Bureau of Customs or Bureau of Internal Revenue, the law that will apply to
them will be the Revised Administrative Code or the Tariff and Customs Code or National
(c) Malversation – for getting the P100.00 from the vault. Revenue Code.
Although the excess P100.00 was not covered by the Official Receipt, it was * This crime does not require damage to the government.
commingled with the other public funds in the vault; hence, it became part of public
funds and subsequent extraction thereof constitutes malversation. Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are not covered by the article.
The NIRC or Administrative Code is the applicable law
Note that numbers 1 and 2 are complexed as illegal exaction with estafa, while in number 3, >These officers are authorized to make impositions and to enter into compromises. Because of
malversation is a distinct offense. this discretion, their demanding or collecting different from what is necessary is legal
* The issuance of the Official Receipt is the operative fact to convert the payment into public
funds. The payor may demand a refund by virtue of the Official Receipt. Article 214
OTHER FRAUDS
* In cases where the payor decides to let the official to “keep the change”, if the latter should
pocket the excess, he shall be liable for malversation. The official has no right but the  ELEMENTS:
government, under the principle of accretion, as the owner of the bigger amount becomes the a. That the offender is a public officer.
owner of the whole.
b. That he takes advantage of his official position.
On the second form of illegal exaction
c. That he commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in art. 315 to
The act of receiving payment due the government without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal 318. (estafa; swindling)
exaction even though a provisional receipt has been issued. What the law requires is a receipt in
the form prescribed by law, which means official receipt.  Note: RTC has jurisdiction over the offense because the principal penalty is disqualification
Illustration:
If a government cashier or officer to whom payment is made issued a receipt in his own private
form, which he calls provisional, even though he has no intention of misappropriating the amount Article 215
received by him, the mere fact that he issued a receipt not in the form prescribed by law, the PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
crime of illegal exaction is committed. There must be voluntary failure to issue the Official
Receipt.  ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is an appointive public officer.
On the third form of illegal exaction
b. That he becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of
Under the rules and regulations of the government, payment of checks not belonging to the exchange or speculation.
taxpayer, but that of checks of other persons, should not be accepted to settle the obligation of
that person. c. That the transaction takes place within the territory subject to his
jurisdiction.
Illustration:
d. That he becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency.
A taxpayer pays his obligation with a check not his own but pertaining to another. Because of
that, the check bounced later on.  Notes:
Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation are: buying and selling stocks,
commodities, land etc wherein one hopes to take advantage of an expected rise or fall in price

* Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simple investment and not a violation of the
article. However, regularly buying securities for resale is speculation No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his
Article 216 office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTERESTS BY A PUBLIC OFFICER franchise or privilege granted by the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
 Who are liable:
a. Public officer – in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to
intervene. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
b. Experts, arbitrators and private accountants – in any contract or transaction Article 217
connected with the estate or property in the approval, distribution or adjudication MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
of which they had acted.
 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTS MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
c. Guardians and executors – with respect to property belonging to their wards or PROPERTY :
the estate. a. That the offender be a public officer (or private person if entrusted with
 Notes: public funds or connived with public officers)
> Actual fraud is not necessary.
b. That he had the custody or control of funds or property (if not accountable
* Act is punished because of the possibility that fraud may be committed or that the officer may for the funds, theft or qualified theft)
place his own interest above that of the Government or party which he represents
c. That those funds or property were public funds or property (even if
* The mere violation of the prohibition is already punished even if no actual fraud occurs because private funds if attached, seized, deposited or commingled with public funds)
of the possibility that fraud may be committed or that the officer may place his own interest
above that of the government or party he represents. (U. S. vs. Udarbe, 28 Phil. 383) d. That he:
1. Appropriated the funds or property
Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
2. Took or misappropriated them
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other 3. Consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted any
administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any other person to take such public funds or property. (it is not
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any necessary that the offender profited thereby. His being remiss in the duty of
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled safekeeping public funds violates the trust reposed)
corporation or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to Concept of Malversation
act on account of his office.
It consists in the misappropriation or conversion of public funds or property to one’s personal use
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution or knowingly, or through abandonment or negligence allowing other to use or appropriate the
same. The offender is made liable because of the nature of his duties to take care of the funds or
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or property entrusted to him with the diligence of a good father of a family. He is accountable by
assistant shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or virtue of the nature of his office to account for funds or properties that come to his possession. If
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice he is not accountable for the funds or properties and he misappropriates the same, the crime will
any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, not be malversation but estafa under Article 315.
or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their  Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
* This crime is predicated on the relationship of the offender to the property or funds involved.
The offender must be accountable for the property misappropriated. If the fund or property,
though public in character is the responsibility of another officer, malversation is not committed
unless there is conspiracy.
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution

* In determining whether the offender is liable for malversation, it is the nature of the duties of or property. because allowing others to commit the
the public officer that controls. While the name of the office is important, what is controlling is misappropriation is also malversation.
whether in performing his duties as a public officer, he has to account or is required by the
nature of the performance of a duty, to render an account on the money or property that came  When a public officer has official custody or the duty to collect or receive funds due the
into his possession. government, or the obligation to account for them, his misappropriation of the same
constitutes malversation
* It is not necessary that the offender profited because somebody else may have misappropriated
the funds in question for as long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty of safekeeping * Note that the moment any money is commingled with the public fund even if not due the
public funds or property. He is liable for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise government, it becomes impressed with the characteristic of being part of public funds. Once
misappropriated by another. they are commingled, you do not know anymore which belong to the government and which
belong to the private persons. So that a public vault or safe should not be used to hold any fund
 It can be committed either with malice or through negligence or imprudence other that what is due to the government.
* There is no crime of malversation through negligence . The crime is malversation, plain and  In malversation thru negligence, the negligence of the accountable public officer must be
simple, whether committed through dolo or culpa. There is no crime of malversation under positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable, approximating fraud or malice
Article 365 – on criminal negligence – because in malversation under Article 217, the same
penalty is imposed whether the malversation results from negligence or was the product of > Under jurisprudence, when the public officer leaves his post without locking his drawer, there is
deliberate act. negligence. Thus, he is liable for the loss.
 In determining whether the offender is a public officer, what is controlling is the nature of  The measure of negligence to be observed is the standard of care commensurate with the
his office and not the designation occasion
* The offender, to commit malversation, must be accountable for the funds or property  When malversation is not committed through negligence, lack of criminal intent or good
misappropriated by him. If he is not the one accountable but somebody else, the crime faith is a defense
committed is theft. It will be qualified theft if there is abuse of confidence.
 The failure of a public officer to have any duly forthcoming public funds or property upon
* Accountable officer does not refer only to cashier, disbursing officers or property custodian . demand, by any authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such
Any public officer having custody of public funds or property for which he is accountable can missing funds or property to personal use. However, if at the very moment when the
commit the crime of malversation if he would misappropriate such fund or property or allow shortage is discovered, the accountable officer is notified, and he immediately pays the
others to do so. amount from his pocket, the presumption does not arise
* An accountable public officer may be convicted even if there is no direct evidence of
 The funds or property must be received in an official capacity . Otherwise, the crime misappropriation and the only evidence is the shortage in his account which he has not been able
committed is estafa to explain satisfactorily. (Palma Gil vs. People)
* When private property is attached or seized by public authority and the public officer * If a public officer reports the loss of money before a cash examination is conducted and the
accountable therefor misappropriates the same, malversation is committed also. cause of the loss as reported has a distinct ring of truth to it, the legal presumption of prima facie
evidence of guilt will not apply. In order to support conviction, the prosecution must prove the
Illustration: actual misappropriation of the missing funds.(Salvacion vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan,
G. R. No. 68233, July 11, 1986)
If a sheriff levied the property of the defendants and absconded with it, he is not liable of
qualified theft but of malversation even though the property belonged to a private person. The * To rebut the presumption of guilt prima facie under Article 217 , the accused must raise the
seizure of the property or fund impressed it with the character of being part of the public funds it issue of accuracy, correctness and regularity in the conduct of audit. If asked for a second audit
being in custodia legis. For as long as the public officer is the one accountable for the fund or before the filing of the information against him and the same was denied, and during the trial,
property that was misappropriated, he can be liable for the crime of malversation. Absent such some disbursement vouchers were introduced which were not considered in the first audit, the
relation, the crime could be theft, simple or qualified. denial of the request for a second audit is fatal to the cause of the prosecution because in the
meantime, the evidence introduced does not establish a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Had the
re-audit requested by the accused been accorded due course, the remaining balance could have
Estafa Malversation been satisfactorily accounted for. (Mahinay vs. The Sandiganbayan. G. R. No. 61442, May
It is usually committed by a private individual Committed by accountable public officers 9, 1989)
Funds or property of misappropriation are The object is public fund or property.
privately owned.  Returning the embezzled funds is not exempting, it is only mitigating
The offender appropriates personally the funds Personal appropriation is not indispensable

* Payment of the amount misappropriated or restitution of property misappropriated does not  ELEMENTS:
erase criminal liability but only civil liability. a. That the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated
therefrom.
 There is also no malversation when the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his office
and borrow the amount corresponding to the shortage and later, the missing amount is b. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds property.
found in an unaccustomed place
c. That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the
 A person whose negligence made possible the commission of malversation by another can commission on audit, or to a provincial auditor.
be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation
d. That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts
* It is not necessary that the accountable public officer should actually misappropriate the fund or should be rendered.
property involved. It is enough that he has violated the trust reposed on him in connection with
the property. The public officers who are bound to render accounts are the following:
1. cashiers
 Demand as well as damage to the government are not necessary elements 2. storekeepers
3. warehousemen and
* Note that damage on the part of the government is not considered an essential element. It is 4. those who by the nature of their position become custodian or public funds or property.
enough that the proprietary rights of the government over the funds have been disturbed
through breach of trust.  Note: Demand and misappropriation are not necessary
* The grant of loans through the vale system is a clear case of an accountable officer consenting * It is sufficient that there is a law or regulation requiring him to render an account. It is the
to the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by law. failure to follow the requirement of the law that is made punishable. It is not necessary that the
To tolerate such a practice is to give a license to every disbursing officer to conduct a lending offender prevent the situation of the crime being committed because of the failure of the
operation with the use of public funds. There is no law or regulation allowing accountable officers accountable officer to render an account.
to extend loans to anyone against the “vales” or chits given in exchange by the borrowers.
(Meneses vs. Sandiganbayan)
Article 219
A private person may also commit malversation under the following situations: FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
(1) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing malversation;
 ELEMENTS:
(2) When he has become an accomplice or accessory to a public officer who commits a. That the offender is a public officer.
malversation;
b. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property.
(3) When the private person is made the custodian in whatever capacity of public funds or
property, whether belonging to national or local government, and he misappropriates c. That he must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) the
the same; Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a certificate
showing that his accounts have been finally settled.
(4) When he is constituted as the depositary or administrator of funds or property seized
or attached by public authority even though said funds or property belong to a private Who can commit this crime?
individual. A responsible public officer, not necessarily an accountable one, who leaves the country without
first securing clearance from the Commission on Audit.
* Technical malversation is not included in the crime of malversation . In malversation, the
offender misappropriates public funds or property for his own personal use, or allows any other  Note: The act of leaving the Philippines must be unauthorized or not permitted by law
person to take such funds or property for the latter’s own personal use. In technical
malversation, the public officer applies the public funds or property under his administration to * Mere leaving without securing clearance constitutes violation of the Revised Penal Code. It is
another public use different from that for which the public fund was appropriated by law or not necessary that they really misappropriated public funds.
ordinance. Recourse: File the proper information.
Article 220
Article 218 ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY (Technical Malversation)
FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
 ELEMENTS:

a. That the offender is a public officer.

* Note that when a private person is constituted as the custodian in whatever capacity, of public
b. That there is public fund or property under his administration. funds or property, and he misappropriates the same, the crime of malversation is also
committed. See Article 222.
c. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance (without this, it is simple malversation even if applied to other public Illustration:
purpose).
The payroll money for a government infrastructure project on the way to the site of the project,
d. That he applies the same to a public use other than for which such fund the officers bringing the money were ambushed. They were all wounded. One of them,
or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance. however, was able to get away from the scene of the ambush until he reached a certain house.
* The term TECHNICAL MALVERSATION is used because in this crime, the fund or property He told the occupant of the house to safeguard the amount because it is the payroll money of the
involved is already appropriated or earmarked for a certain public purpose. government laborers of a particular project. The occupant of the house accepted the money for
his own use. The crime is not theft but malversation as long as he knew that what was entrusted
* The offender is entrusted with such fund or property only to administer or apply the same to in his custody is public fund or property.
the public purpose for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance. Instead of applying it to
the public purpose to which the fund or property was already appropriated by law, the public Article 221
officer applied it to another purpose. FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
 To distinguish this article with Art 217 , just remember that in illegal use of public funds or ELEMENTS:
property, the offender does not derive any personal gain, the funds are merely devoted to a. Offender has gov’t funds or property in his possession
some other public use
b. He is under obligation to either:
 Absence of damage is only a mitigating circumstance 1. make payment from such funds
* Since damage is not an element of malversation , even though the application made proved to 2. to deliver property in his custody or administration when ordered
be more beneficial to public interest than the original purpose for which the amount or property by competent authority
was appropriated by law, the public officer involved is still liable for technical malversation.
c. He maliciously fails or refuses to do so
* If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or ordinance, and this was applied to a public
purpose by the custodian thereof, the crime is plain and simple malversation, not technical  Note: Penalty is based on value of funds/property to be delivered
malversation. If the funds had been appropriated for a particular public purpose, but the same Article 222
was applied to private purpose, the crime committed is simple malversation only. PERSONS WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER ARTS 217 TO 221
Illustration: a. Private individual who, in any capacity, have charge of any national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenue, or property
The office lacked bond papers. What the government cashier did was to send the janitor, get
some money from his collection, told the janitor to buy bond paper so that the office will have b. Administrator or depositary of funds or property that has been attached,
something to use. The amount involved maybe immaterial but the cashier commits malversation seized or deposited by public authority, even if owned by a private
pure and simple. individual
* This crime can also be committed by a private person.  Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term “administrator”
Illustration:  A judicial administrator in charge of settling the estate of the deceased is not covered by the
article
A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of cement were already being unloaded at the side. But
then, rain began to fall so the supervisor of the road building went to a certain house with a * Here, the funds or property belong to private individuals, but they are considered public funds
garage, asked the owner if he could possibly deposit the bags of cement in his garage to prevent or property if they come to the possession of the public officer because of 1) a writ of
the same from being wet. The owner of the house, Olive, agreed. So the bags of cement were attachment; or 2) if they are seized by virtue of a search warrant. Or 3) if they are ordered
transferred to the garage of the private person. After the public officer had left, and the workers deposited pending determination of ownership in the administrative or judicial proceedings.
had left because it is not possible to do the cementing, the owner of the garage started using
some of the cement in paving his own garage. The crime of technical malversation is also * Private individuals may also be liable for malversation if they act as conspirators in the
committed. commission of the crime.

* The negligence which is punishable however is not such definite laxity at all but that which
amounts to deliberate non-performance of the jailer or the guard. So that if a policemen on
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS guard duty unlocked the door of the jail to let a detention prisoner go out so he can clean the
premises, but on the latter’s third trip to a nearby faucet, he walked behind the police
Article 223 headquarters climbed over the wall and escape, the crime is not committed. (People vs. Solis,
CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION C.A. 43 O.G. 580).
 ELEMENTS:  The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his custody
a. That the offender is a public officer (on duty). does not afford complete exculpation
b. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either  The liability of an escaping prisoner:
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment. a. if he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable for evasion of service (art 157)
b. if he is a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability (unless cooperating
c. That such prisoner escaped from his custody with the offender).
d. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape

Article 225
 DETENTION PRISONER: refers to a person in legal custody, arrested for and charged ESCAPE OF PRISONERS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
with some crime or public offense
 ELEMENTS:
 The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within a. That the offender is a private person (note: must be on duty)
the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Neither is mere leniency or
laxity in the performance of duty constitutive of infidelity b. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is
confined to him.
 There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the
prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment c. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes.
* A municipal mayor who utilized the prisoner’s services for domestic chores in his house, d. That the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person
including using him as a cook is liable for faithlessness in the custody of prisoner (Art. 223) even under arrest, or that the escape takes place through his negligence
though the convict may not have fled, in as much as the prisoner’s leaving the prison was
effected through him. (People vs. Evangelista, C.A. 38 O.G. 158).  Note: This article is not applicable if a private person made the arrest and he consented to
the escape of the person he arrested
Article 224 * The offender under this article is not the one who arrested the escaping prisoner but one who
EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE agreed to have the custody or charge of the prisoner or person under arrest.
 ELEMENTS: ORTEGA NOTES:

The crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners if the offender involved is the custodian of the
b. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either prisoner.
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment. If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoner’s escaping from confinement, whether the
prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not the custodian, the crime is delivering prisoners
c. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence. from jail under Article156.
d. Penalty based on nature of imprisonment The crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be committed only by the custodian of the
prisoner.
 The article punishes a definite laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance of a duty
If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to escape is already off-duty at that time and he is no
* Not every error is negligence under this article. To be liable, the negligence must be notorious longer the custodian of the prisoner, the crime committed by him is delivering prisoners from jail.
and apparent. The laxity must be definite and must seriously suggest a deliberate non-
performance of a duty. Note that you do not apply here the principle of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all.
The party who is not the custodian who conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner to

escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. He commits the crime of A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in the toilet. While answering the call of nature, police
delivering prisoners from jail. officer waiting there, until the prisoner escaped. Police officer was accused of infidelity.
There is no criminal liability because it does not constitute negligence. Negligence contemplated
here refers to deliberate abandonment of duty.
Question & Answer
Note, however, that according to a recent Supreme Court ruling, failure to accompany lady
prisoner in the comfort room is a case of negligence and therefore the custodian is liable for
If a private person approached the custodian of the prisoner and for a certain infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
consideration, told the custodian to leave the door of the cell unlocked for the prisoner to escape.
What crime had been committed? Prison guard should not go to any other place not officially called for. This is a case of infidelity
in the custody of prisoner through negligence under Article 224.
It is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners because as far as the private person is
concerned, this crime is delivering prisoners from jail. The infidelity is only committed by the
custodian. INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
This crime can be committed also by a private person if the custody of the prisoner has been Article 226
confided to a private person. REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Illustration:  ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender be a public officer.
A policeman escorted a prisoner to court. After the court hearing, this policeman was shot at
with a view to liberate the prisoner from his custody. The policeman fought the attacker but he b. That he abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers.
was fatally wounded. When he could no longer control the prisoner, he went to a nearby house,
talked to the head of the family of that house and asked him if he could give the custody of the c. That the said document or paper should have been entrusted to such
prisoner to him. He said yes. After the prisoner was handcuffed in his hands, the policeman public officer by reason of his office.
expired. Thereafter, the head of the family of that private house asked the prisoner if he could
afford to give something so that he would allow him to go. The prisoner said, “Yes, if you would d. That damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public
allow me to leave, you can come with me and I will give the money to you.” This private persons interest should have been caused.
went with the prisoner and when the money was given, he allowed him to go. What crime/s had * The act of obstruction, destruction or concealment must cause damage to a third party or to
been committed? the public interest. Damage to a third party is usually pecuniary; but damage to public interest
may consist in mere alarm to the public or the alienation of its confidence on any branch of the
Under Article 225, the crime can be committed by a private person to whom the custody of a government service.
prisoner has been confided.
 The document must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an
Where such private person, while performing a private function by virtue of a provision of law, obligation could be extinguished
shall accept any consideration or gift for the non-performance of a duty confided to him, Bribery
is also committed. So the crime committed by him is infidelity in the custody of prisoners and  Books, periodicals, pamphlets etc are not documents
bribery.
 “Papers” would include checks, promissory notes and paper money
If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail, bribery is just a means, under Article 156, that would
call for the imposition of a heavier penalty, but not a separate charge of bribery under Article > Removal of a document presupposes unlawful appropriation of the official document.
156.
> Destruction means to render the document useless. Its nature to prove the existence of a
But under Article 225 in infidelity, what is basically punished is the breach of trust because the fact is lost such that it cannot anymore prove the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
offender is the custodian. For that, the crime is infidelity. If he violates the trust because of
some consideration, bribery is also committed. > Concealment on the other hand means to make it appear that the document is not available.
A higher degree of vigilance is required. Failure to do so will render the custodian liable. The  A post office official who retained the mail without forwarding the letters to their destination
prevailing ruling is against laxity in the handling of prisoners. is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers
Illustration:  Removal of a document or paper must be for an illicit purpose .

* If the removal of the document is for a lawful purpose and that is, to secure the same from In malicious mischief, the offender purposely destroyed and damaged the property/document.
imminent danger or loss, there is no crime committed under the law, (Kataniag vs. People, 74
Phil. 45).
Article 227
 There is illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is to: OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
a. tamper with it
b. to profit by it  ELEMENTS :
c. to commit any act constituting a breech of trust in the official thereof a. That the offender is a public officer.
* The act of removal, destruction or concealment should be coupled with criminal intent or malice b. That he is charged with the custody of papers or property.
(Manzanaris vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 64750, Jan. 30, 1984).
c. That these papers or property are sealed by proper authority.
 Removal is consummated upon removal or secreting away of the document from its usual
place. It is immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the offender has been d. That he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
accomplished
 It is the breaking of the seals and not the opening of a closed envelope which is punished
* Removal of public records by the custodian does not require that the record be brought out of
the premises where it is kept. It is enough that the record be removed from the place where it  Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary; damage is presumed
should be and transferred to another place where it is not supposed to be kept. If damage is
caused to the public service, the public officer is criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of * If the official document is sealed or otherwise placed in an official envelope, the element of
official documents. damage is not required. The mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of the document
would already bring about infidelity even though no damage has been suffered by anyone or by
 Infidelity in the custody of documents through destruction or concealment does not require the public at large. The offender does not have to misappropriate the same. Just trying to
proof of an illicit purpose discover or look what is inside is infidelity already.
 Where in case for bribery or corruption, the monetary considerations was marked as * A crime is already committed regardless of whether the contents of the document are secret or
exhibits, such considerations acquires the nature of a document such that if the same would private. It is enough that it is entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a closed envelope and he
be spent by the custodian the crime is not malversation but Infidelity in the custody of public broke the seal or opened the envelop. Public trust is already violated if he managed to look into
records, because the money adduced as exhibits partake the nature of a document and not the contents of the document.
as money. Although such monetary consideration acquires the nature of a document, the
best evidence rule does not apply here. Example, photocopies may be presented in Distinction between infidelity and theft
evidence.
There is infidelity if the offender opened the letter but did not take the same.
 Delivering the document to the wrong party is infidelity in the custody thereof
There is theft if there is intent to gain when the offender took the money.
 The damage may either be great or small
* Note that the document must be complete in legal sense. If the writings are mere form, there
* Damage to public interest is necessary. However, material damage is not necessary. is no crime.
 Although there is no material damage caused, mere delay in rendering public service is Illustration:
considered
damage. As regard the payroll, which has not been signed by the Mayor, no infidelity is committed because
 The offender must be in custody of such documents the document is not yet a payroll in the legal sense since the document has not been signed yet.
Distinction between infidelity in the custody of public document, estafa and malicious * In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not be given a literal meaning. Even if
mischief actually, the seal was not broken, because the custodian managed to open the parcel without
breaking the seal.
In infidelity in the custody of public document, the offender is the custodian of the official
document removed or concealed.
Article 228
In estafa, the offender is not the custodian of the document removed or concealed. OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS

 ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer. c. That those papers should not be published.
b. That any closed papers, documents, or objects are entrusted to his d. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person.
custody.
e. That the delivery is wrongful.
c. That he opens or permits to be opened said closed papers, documents or
objects. f. That damage be caused to public interest.
d. That he does not have proper authority.  Notes:

 Note: Damage also not necessary
“CHARGE”: means custody or control. If he is merely entrusted with the papers and not with the
* In Article 227, the mere breaking of the seal is what is made punishable while in Article 228, custody thereof, he is not liable under this article
the mere opening of closed documents is enough to hold the offender criminally liable. The
breaking of the seal or the opening of the closed document must be done without lawful * If the papers contain secrets which should not be published, and the public officer having
authority or order from competent authority. In both offenses, damage to the public interest is charge thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a third person, the crime is revelation of
not required. secrets. On the other hand, if the papers do not contain secrets, their removal for an illicit
purpose is infidelity in the custody of documents
REVELATION OF SECRETS
* Damage is essential to the act committed
Article 229
REVELATION OF SECRET BY AN OFFICER Article 230
PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
 ELEMENTS OF PAR.1: BY REASON OF HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
a. That the offender is a public officer.  ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer
b. That he knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity.
b. That he knows of the secret of a private individual by reason of his
c. That he reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons. office.
d. That damage, great or small, be caused to the public interest. c. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justification reason.
(damage is essential)
 Revelation to one person is sufficient
 Notes:
> Secret must affect public interest  If the offender is an attorney, he is properly liable under Art 209 (betrayal of trust by an
attorney)
* The secrets referred to in this article are those which have an official or public character. It
does not include secret information regarding private individuals. Nor does it include military or  Damage to private individual is not necessary
State secrets in as much as the revelation of the same is classified as espionage, a crime in
violation of the national security of the State.
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
* Secrets of a private individual is not included
Article 231
* Espionage for the benefit of another State is not contemplated by the article. If regarding OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
military secrets or secrets affecting state security, the crime may be espionage.
 ELEMENTS:
 ELEMENTS OF PAR 2 – DELIVERING WRONGFULLY PAPERS OR COPIES OF a. That the offender is a judicial or executive officer.
PAPERS OF WHICH HE MAY HAVE CHARGE AND WHICH SHOULD NOT BE
PUBLISHED: b. That there is a judgment, decision or order of superior authority.
b. That he has charge of papers.

c. That such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the
jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued with all the legal b. That a competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his
formalities. cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public
service.
d. that the offender without any legal justification openly refuses to
execute the said judgment, decision or order which he is duty bound to c. That the offender fails to do so maliciously.
obey.
 Involves a request from one public officer to another
* The gravamen of the offense is the open refusal of the offender to execute the order without
justifiable reason.  Damage to the public interest or third party is essential
 Note: Judgment should have been rendered in a hearing and issued within proper * Damage is essential whether great or small. But the penalty is affected by the seriousness of
jurisdiction with all legal solemnities required the damage. Note that the refusal must be done with malice.
* The term “execute” as found in the law does not only means performance of an act since the  Demand is necessary
judgment, decision or order may also direct the non-performance of an act.
* The situation contemplated herein may refer to the administration of justice before the case is
* The article does not apply to the members of Congress. filed in court. Competent authority may refer to persons in authority who are charged by the law
to help in the administration of justice. The term may refer to police authorities. However, when
a case under investigation reaches the court, the remedy may not be limited to incurring criminal
Article 232 liability under this article because the refusal may already be punished as direct or indirect
DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS contempt of court.
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER
* This is a crime, which a policeman may commit when, being subpoenaed to appear in court in
ELEMENTS: connection with a crime investigated by him but because of some arrangement with the
a. That the offender is a public officer. offenders, the policeman does not appear in court anymore to testify against the offenders. He
tried to assail the subpoena so that ultimately the case would be dismissed. It was already held
b. That an order is issued by his superior for execution. that the policeman could be prosecuted under this crime of refusal of assistance and not that of
dereliction of duty.
c. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of such order.
d. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the Article 234
order. REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
e. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the  ELEMENTS:
suspension. a. That the offender is elected by popular election to a public office.
 Note: A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior is illegal b. That he refuses to be sworn in or discharge the duties of said office.
* What is contemplated here is a situation where the subordinate has some doubts regarding the c. That there is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to
legality of the order. Hence, he is afforded an opportunity to suspend the execution of the order, discharge the duties of said office.
so as to give him time to further study the same. He commits no crime for doing this act.
However, if he continues to suspend the execution of the order notwithstanding the disapproval * After proclamation of a candidate to a public office, it becomes his duty to render public
by his superior of the stay of the execution, such refusal on his part already constitutes a crime service. Since it is his duty, then his refusal to perform such duty is punishable under the law.
punishable under this article.
 Note: Even if the person did not run for the office on his own will as the Constitution
provides that every citizen may be required to render service
Article 233
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
 ELEMENTS:

Article 235 A certain snatcher was arrested by a law enforcer, brought to the police precinct, turned over to
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS the custodian of that police precinct. Every time a policeman entered the police precinct, he
would ask, “What is this fellow doing here? What crime has he committed?”. The other
 ELEMENTS: policeman would then tell, “This fellow is a snatcher.” So every time a policeman would come in,
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee. he would inflict injury to him. This is not maltreatment of prisoner because the offender is not
the custodian. The crime is only physical injuries.
b. That he has under charge a prisoner or detention prisoner (otherwise the
crime is physical injuries) > But if the custodian is present there and he allowed it , then he will be liable also for the
physical injuries inflicted, but not for maltreatment because it was not the custodian who inflicted
c. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners: the injury.
1. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or > But if it is the custodian who effected the maltreatment , the crime will be maltreatment of
detention prisoner under his charge either – prisoners plus a separate charge for physical injuries.
 by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the  Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries or damage caused
regulations, or
 by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel
and humiliating manner, or
2. by maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain Article 236

some information from the prisoner. ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICE
* The maltreatment does not really require physical injuries. Any kind of punishment not  ELEMENTS:
authorized or though authorized if executed in excess of the prescribed degree. a. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment, either
by election or appointment.
> But if as a result of the maltreatment, physical injuries were caused to the prisoner , a separate
crime for the physical injuries shall be filed. You do not complex the crime of physical injuries b. That the law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first
with the maltreatment because the way Article 235 is worded, it prohibits the complexing of the give a bond.
crime.
c. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office.
* If the maltreatment was done in order to extort confession , therefore, the constitutional right of
the prisoner is further violated. The penalty is qualified to the next higher degree. d. That he has not taken his oath of office and /or given the bond required by
law.
 The public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner in order to be held liable
* If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the Article 237
crime is physical injuries. PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND POWERS
* If a Barangay Captain maltreats a person after the latter’s arrest but before confinement, the  ELEMENTS:
offense is not maltreatment but physical injuries. The victim must actually be confined either as a. That the offender is holding a public office.
a convict or a detention prisoner for Art. 235 to apply . (People vs. Baring, et al., 37 O.G.
1366). b. That the period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for
holding such office has already expired.
 To be considered a detention prisoner, the person arrested must be placed in jail even for
just a short while c. That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office.
* The offended party here must be a prisoner in the legal sense . The mere fact that a private  Note: The article contemplates officers who have been suspended, separated or declared
citizen had been apprehended or arrested by a law enforcer does not constitute him a prisoner. over-aged or dismissed
To be a prisoner, he must have been booked and incarcerated no matter how short it is.
* The crime is committed only if the public officer has lost every right to the office because there
Illustration: are offices which require the officer to continue serving as such properly relieved. The law is
intended to put an end to the “principle of hold – over”.

b. That he (a.) makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his
authority or (b.) attempts to repeal a law or (c.) suspends the execution
Article 238 thereof.
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
Article 240
ELEMENTS: USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
b. That he formally resigns from his position. a. That the offender is a judge.
c. That his resignation has not yet been accepted. b. That he (a.) assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or
(b.) obstructs executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their powers.
d. That he abandons his office to the detriment of the public service.
 Note: Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of executive functions
 There must be formal or written resignation
Article 241
* Oral resignation is not allowed. The resignation must be in writing and directed to the USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
appointing power who has the authority to accept or disapprove the same. This requirement is
indispensable because the letter of resignation goes into a process. ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government.
 The offense is qualified if the purpose behind the abandonment is to evade the discharge of
duties consisting of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes against national b. That he (a.) assumes judicial powers, or (b.) obstruct the execution of any
security. The penalty is higher ( one degree ). This involves the following crimes: order decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
a. treason
b. conspiracy and proposal to commit conspiracy  Note: A mayor is guilty under this article when he investigates a case while a justice of the
c. misprision of treason peace is in the municipality
d. espionage
e. inciting to war or giving motives to reprisals Article 242
f. violation of neutrality DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION
g. correspondence with hostile country
h. flight to enemy country ELEMENTS:
i. piracy and mutiny on the high seas a. That the offender is a public officer.
j. rebellion
k. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion b. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer.
l. disloyalty to public officers
m. inciting to rebellion c. That there is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his
n. sedition jurisdiction, which is not yet decided.
o. conspiracy to commit sedition
p. inciting to sedition d. That he has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the
proceeding.
Abandonment of Office or Position (238) Dereliction of Duty (208)
There is actual abandonment through resignation to Public officer does not abandon his office but merely fails e. That he continues the proceeding.
evade the discharge of duties. to prosecute a violation of the law. * Even if the jurisdiction of the offender is later upheld or sustained, he is still liable because what
is in issue is not the legality of his jurisdiction, but whether he obeyed or disobeyed the
temporary restraining order issued by the higher authority.
Article 239
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Article 243
ELEMENTS: ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
a. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer.
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is an executive officer.

3. the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity
b. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority. of the person in the custody of the offender
c. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within * Only a lady can be a complainant here so that a gay guard or warden who makes immoral
the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice. proposals or indecent advances to a male prisoner is not liable under this law.
 Note: Legislative or judicial officers are not liable under this article * Mere indecent solicitation or advances of a woman over whom the public officer exercises a
certain influence because the woman is involved in a case where the offender is to make a report
of result with superiors or otherwise a case which the offender was investigating.
Article 244
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS * This crime is also committed if the woman is a prisoner and the offender is her jail warden or
custodian, or even if the prisoner may be a man if the jail warden would make the immoral
ELEMENTS: solicitations upon the wife, sister, daughter, or relative by affinity within the same degree of the
a. That the offender is a public officer. prisoner involved.
b. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office.  The mother of the person in the custody of the public officer is not included
c. That such person lacks the legal qualification therefor. * This crime cannot be committed if the warden is a woman and the prisoner is a man. Men
have no chastity.
d. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the
qualification at the time he made the nomination or appointment. * If the warden is also a woman but is a lesbian, it is submitted that this crime could be
committed, as the law does not require that the custodian be a man but requires that the
 Recommending, knowing that the person recommended is not qualified is not a crime offended be a woman.
* The word “nominate” is not the same as “recommend.” To nominate is to guarantee to the  Solicit: means to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a
appointing power that the person nominated has all the qualifications to the office. woman
Recommendation on the other hand does not make any guarantee as to the legal fitness of the
candidate to public office. * The word “solicit” means to demand earnestly. In this case, the demand is for sexual favor. It
must be immoral or indecent and done by the public officer taking advantage of his position as
 There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person to be nominated or one who can help by rendering a favorable decision or unwarranted benefits, advantage or
appointed to a public office preference to a person under his custody.
 The crime is consummated by mere proposal

Article 245
ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY * It is not necessarily for the offended party to surrender her virtue to consummate the crime.
> Mere proposal is sufficient to consummate the crime.
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer. * Even if the woman may have lied with the hearing officer or to the public officer and acceded to
him, that does not change the crime because the crime seeks to penalize the taking advantage of
b. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman. official duties.
c. That such woman must be – * It is immaterial whether the woman did not agree or agreed to the solicitation. If the woman
did not agree and the public officer involved pushed through with the advances, attempted rape
1. interested in matters pending before the offender for decision, or with may have been committed.
respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer, or * Legally, a prisoner is an accountability of the government. So the custodian is not supposed to
interfere. Even if the prisoner may like it, he is not supposed to do that. Otherwise, abuse
2. under the custody of the offender who is a warden or other public against chastity is committed.
officer directly charged with care and custody of prisoners or person
under arrest, or * If he forced himself against the will of the woman, another crime is committed, that is, rape
aside from abuse against chastity.

* You cannot consider the abuse against chastity as absorbed in the rape because the basis of
penalizing the acts is different from each other. ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed.
 Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused.
Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act)
> Committed by any person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a 3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
work, training or education environment when he or she demands, requests, or otherwise illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
requires any sexual favor from the other regardless of whether the demand, request or legitimate spouse of the accused.
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of the said act (for a passing grade, or
granting of scholarship or honors, or payment of a stipend, allowances, benefits, considerations; Notes:
favorable compensation terms, conditions, promotions or when the refusal to do so results in a * The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of the felony
detrimental consequence for the victim).
* The relationship must be in the direct line and not in the collateral line.
> Also holds liable any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual
harassment, or who cooperates in the commission, the head of the office, educational or training * The relationship between the offender and the offended party must be legitimate, except when
institution solidarily. the offender and the offended party are related as parent and child.
> Complaints to be handled by a committee on decorum, which shall be determined by rules and * Except between husband and wife, the offender must be related to the offended party by
regulations on such. blood.
> Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts * Parents and children are not included in the term “ascendants” or “descendants”
of sexual harassment.
TITLE EIGHT * The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. On the other hand, the father, mother
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS or child may be legitimate or illegitimate
Crimes against persons
1. Parricide (Art. 246); * If the offender and the offended party, although related by blood and in the direct line, are
2. Murder (Art. 248); separated by an intervening illegitimate relationship, parricide can no longer be committed. The
3. Homicide (Art. 249); illegitimate relationship between the child and the parent renders all relatives after the child in
4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray (Art. 251); the direct line to be illegitimate too.
5. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray (Art. 252);
6. Giving assistance to suicide (Art. 253); * The only illegitimate relationship that can bring about parricide is that between parents and
7. Discharge of firearms (Art. 254); illegitimate children as the offender and the offended parties.
8. Infanticide (Art. 255);
9. Intentional abortion (Art. 256); Illustration:
10. Unintentional abortion (Art. 257);
11. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents (Art. 258); A is the parent of B, the illegitimate daughter. B married C and they begot a legitimate child D.
12. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives (Art. 259); If D, daughter of B and C, would kill A, the grandmother, the crime cannot be parricide anymore
13. Duel (Art. 260); because of the intervening illegitimacy. The relationship between A and D is no longer legitimate.
14. Challenging to a duel (Art. 261); Hence, the crime committed is homicide or murder.
15. Mutilation (Art. 262);
16. Serious physical injuries (Art. 263); * A, an illegitimate son of B, who killed the legitimate father of the latter, is not guilty of Parricide
17. Administering injurious substances or beverages (Art. 264); because in case of other ascendants (grandparents, great grandparents, etc.), the relationship
18. Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265); with the killer must be legitimate. The same is true with other descendants – that is,
19. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 266); and grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.
20. Rape (Art. 266-A).
* The child should not be less than 3 days old. Otherwise, the offense is infanticide
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE * That the mother killed her child in order to conceal her dishonor is not mitigating . This is
immaterial to the crime of parricide, unlike in the case of infanticide. If the child is less than
Article 246 three days old when killed, the crime is infanticide and intent to conceal her dishonor is
PARRICIDE considered mitigating.

* Relationship must be alleged Article 247

DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
* In killing a spouse, there must be a valid subsisting marriage at the time of the killing. Also, the
information should allege the fact of such valid marriage between the accused and the victim. Requisites:
1. A legally married person or parent surprises his spouse or daughter (the latter
* In a ruling by the Supreme Court, it was held that if the information did not allege that the must be under 18 and living with them) in the act of committing sexual intercourse
accused was legally married to the victim, he could not be convicted of parricide even if the with another person
marriage was established during the trial. In such cases, relationship shall be appreciated as
generic aggravating circumstance. 2. He/she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter
* The Supreme Court has also ruled that Muslim husbands with several wives can be convicted of
parricide only in case the first wife is killed . There is no parricide if the other wives are killed 3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or
although their marriage is recognized as valid. This is so because a Catholic man can commit that he has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
the crime only once. If a Muslim husband could commit this crime more than once, in effect, he
is being punished for the marriage which the law itself authorized him to contract. Notes:
* Article does not define or penalize a felony
* A stranger who cooperates in committing parricide is liable for murder or homicide
* Article 247, far from defining a felony merely grants a privilege or benefit, more of an
* Since parricide is a crime of relationship, if a stranger conspired in the commission of the crime, exempting circumstance as the penalty is intended more for the protection of the accused than a
he cannot be held liable for parricide . His participation would make him liable for murder or for punishment. Death under exceptional character can not be qualified by either aggravating or
homicide, as the case may be. The rule of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all does mitigating circumstances.
not apply here because of the personal relationship of the offender to the offended party .
* If the accused fails to establish the circumstances called for in Article 247, he/she will be guilty
Illustration: of Parricide and Murder or Homicide if the victims were killed.
A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. C is the stranger in the relationship. C killed B with * Not necessary that the parent be legitimate
treachery. The means employed is made known to A and A agreed that the killing will be done by
poisoning. * Article applies only when the daughter is single
As far as A is concerned, the crime is based on his relationship with B. It is therefore parricide. * SURPRISE: means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly
The treachery that was employed in killing Bong will only be generic aggravating circumstance in
the crime of parricide because this is not one crime that requires a qualifying circumstance. * Art 247 is applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act sexual intercourse with
another person. However, it is enough that circumstances reasonably show that the carnal act is
But that same treachery, insofar as C is concerned, as a stranger who cooperated in the killing, being committed or has been committed
makes the crime murder; treachery becomes a qualifying circumstance.
* It is not necessary that the spouse actually saw the sexual intercourse being committed. It is
* Even if the offender did not know that the person he had killed is his son, he is still liable for enough that he/she surprised them under such circumstances that no other reasonable
parricide because the law does not require knowledge of the relationship conclusion can be inferred but that a carnal act was being performed or has just been committed.
* Article 365 expressly provides that parricide can be committed through reckless imprudence . * The article does not apply where the wife was not surprised in flagrant adultery but was being
The penalty will not be under Article 246 but under Article 365. abused by a man as in this case there will be defense of relation.
* Similarly, parricide can be committed by mistake . This is demonstrated in a situation where a * If the offender surprised a couple in sexual intercourse, and believing the woman to be his
person wanting to kill a stranger, kills his own father by mistake. Although the crime committed is wife, killed them, this article may be applied if the mistake of facts is proved.
parricide, the offender will not be punished under Article 246 but under Article 49, which
prescribes a penalty much lower than that provided under Article 246. * The benefits of this article do not apply to the person who consented to the infidelity of his
spouse or who facilitated the prostitution of his wife.
* Sexual intercourse does not include preparatory acts

* So if the surprising took place before any actual sexual intercourse could be done because the
parties are only in their preliminaries, the article cannot be invoked anymore.
Article 248
* IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER: means that the discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing must MURDER
all form parts of one continuous act
ELEMENTS :
* The phrase “immediately thereafter” has been interpreted to mean that between the surprising 1. That a person was killed.
and the killing of the inflicting of the physical injury, there should be no break of
time. In other words, it must be a continuous process. 2. That the accused killed him.
* If there was already a break of time between the sexual act and the killing or inflicting of the 3. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances
injury, the law presupposes that the offender regained his reason and therefore, the article will
not apply anymore. a. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid or
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
* The killing must be the direct by-product of the rage of the accused persons to insure or afford impunity
* Article 247 does not provide that the victim is to be killed instantly by the accused after b. in consideration of price, reward or promise
surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse. What is required is that the killing is the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused upon the discovery of the infidelity of c. by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of
his spouse. The killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse. vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of
airship, by means of motor vehicles or with the use of any other means
* No criminal liability is incurred when less serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted. involving great waste or ruin
Moreover, in case third persons caught in the crossfire suffer physical injuries, the accused is not
liable. The principle that one is liable for the consequences of his felonious act is not applicable d. on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
because he is not committing a felony paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or any other public calamity
* In the case of People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735, two persons suffered physical injuries as
they were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot the victim. A complex crime of double e. with evident premeditation
frustrated murder was not committed as the accused did not have the intent to kill the two
victims. Here, the accused did not commit murder when he fired at the paramour of his wife. f. with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the suffering
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. The accused was held liable for of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse
negligence under the first part, second paragraph of Article 365, that is, less serious physical
injuries through simple negligence. No aberratio ictus because he was acting lawfully. 4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
* A person who acts under Article 247 is not committing a crime. Since this is merely an
exempting circumstance, the accused must first be charged with:
Notes:
(1) Parricide – if the spouse is killed; * While the circumstance of “by a band” is not among those enumerated that could qualify killing
to murder, it would seem that if the killers constituted a band, the crime is murder because the
(2) Murder or homicide – depending on how the killing was done insofar as the paramour circumstance of “with the aid of armed men” is included in the qualifying circumstances.
or the mistress is concerned;
* The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense. Otherwise, it would be
(3) Homicide – through simple negligence, if a third party is killed; attempted or frustrated murder
(4) Physical injuries – through reckless imprudence, if a third party is injured. * Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. (People vs. Cagoco,
58 Phil. 530)
* If death results or the physical injuries are serious , there is criminal liability although the
penalty is only destierro. The banishment is intended more for the protection of the offender * Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, they will
rather than a penalty. only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances
* If the crime committed is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries , there is no
criminal liability.

* When the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If there are more than one
cannot be treated or separated as generic aggravating circumstances. (People vs. Remalante, qualifying circumstance alleged in the information for murder, only one circumstance
92 Phil. 48) will qualify the killing to murder and the other circumstances will be taken as generic.
* Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use of poison To be considered qualifying, the particular circumstance must be alleged in the
information. If what was alleged was not proven and instead another circumstance,
Ortega Notes: not alleged, was established during the trial, even if the latter constitutes a qualifying
circumstance under Article 248, the same can not qualify the killing to murder. The
In murder, any of the following qualifying circumstances is present: accused can only be convicted of homicide.
(1) Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, aid or armed men, or employing Generally, murder cannot be committed if at the beginning, the offended had no intent
means to waken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; to kill because the qualifying circumstances must be resorted to with a view of killing
the offended party. So if the killing were at the “spur of the moment”, even though the
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person victim was denied the chance to defend himself because of the suddenness of the
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and attack, the crime would only be homicide. Treachery contemplates that the means,
especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which methods and form in the execution were consciously adopted and deliberately resorted
the offended party might make. to by the offender, and were not merely incidental to the killing.
This circumstance involves means, methods, form in the execution of the killing which If the offender may have not intended to kill the victim but he only wanted to commit a
may actually be an aggravating circumstance also, in which case, the treachery absorbs crime against him in the beginning, he will still be liable for murder if in the manner of
the same. committing the felony there was treachery and as a consequence thereof the victim
died. This is based on the rule that a person committing a felony shall be liable for the
Illustration: consequences thereof although different from that which he intended.
A person who is determined to kill resorted to the cover of darkness at nighttime to Illustration:
insure the killing. Nocturnity becomes a means that constitutes treachery and the
killing would be murder. But if the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity is The accused, three young men, resented the fact that the victim continued to visit a
considered by itself, it is not one of those which qualify a homicide to murder. One girl in their neighborhood despite the warning they gave him. So one evening, after
might think the killing is homicide unless nocturnity is considered as constituting the victim had visited the girl, they seized and tied him to a tree, with both arms and
treachery, in which case the crime is murder. legs around the tree. They thought they would give him a lesson by whipping him with
branches of gumamela until the victim fell unconscious. The accused left not knowing
The essence of treachery is that the offended party was denied the chance to defend that the victim died.
himself because of the means, methods, form in executing the crime deliberately
adopted by the offender. It is a matter of whether or not the offended party was The crime committed was murder. The accused deprived the victim of the chance to
denied the chance of defending himself. defend himself when the latter was tied to a tree. Treachery is a circumstance
referring to the manner of committing the crime. There was no risk to the accused
If the offended was denied the chance to defend himself, treachery qualifies the killing arising from the defense by the victim.
to murder. If despite the means resorted to by the offender, the offended was able to
put up a defense, although unsuccessful, treachery is not available. Instead, some Although what was initially intended was physical injury, the manner adopted by the
other circumstance may be present. Consider now whether such other circumstance accused was treacherous and since the victim died as a consequence thereof, the crime
qualifies the killing or not. is murder -- although originally, there was no intent to kill.
Illustration: When the victim is already dead, intent to kill becomes irrelevant . It is important only
if the victim did not die to determine if the felony is physical injury or attempted or
If the offender used superior strength and the victim was denied the chance to defend frustrated homicide.
himself, there is treachery. The treachery must be alleged in the information . But if
the victim was able to put up an unsuccessful resistance , there is no more treachery So long as the means, methods and form in the execution is deliberately adopted, even
but the use of superior strength can be alleged and it also qualifies the killing to if there was no intent to kill, there is treachery.
murder.
(2) In consideration of price, reward or promises;

(3) Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or Hence, this is not actually limited to cruelty. It goes beyond that because even if the
assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of a motor vehicle, victim is already a corpse when the acts deliberately augmenting the wrong done to
or with the use of other means involving great waste and ruin; him were committed, the killing is still qualified to murder although the acts done no
longer amount to cruelty.
The only problem insofar as the killing by fire is concerned is whether it would be arson
with homicide, or murder. Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty requires that the
victim be alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted and, therefore, must be evidence
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to that effect. Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty, any act that would amount to
considered. If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to kill and fire was only scoffing or decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify the killing to murder.
used as a means to do so, the crime is only murder. If the primordial criminal intent of
the offender is to destroy property with the use of pyrotechnics and incidentally, Illustration:
somebody within the premises is killed, the crime is arson with homicide . But this is
not a complex crime under Article 48. This is single indivisible crime penalized under Two people engaged in a quarrel and they hacked each other, one killing the other. Up
Article 326, which is death as a consequence of arson. That somebody died during to that point, the crime is homicide. However, if the killer tried to dismember the
such fire would not bring about murder because there is no intent to kill in the mind of different parts of the body of the victim, indicative of an intention to scoff at or decry
the offender. He intended only to destroy property. However, a higher penalty will be or humiliate the corpse of the victim, then what would have murder because this
applied. circumstance is recognized under Article 248, even though it was inflicted or was
committed when the victim was already dead.
* When killing was accomplished “by means of fire” alleged in the information, it does not qualify
killing to Murder unless the use of fire was employed to kill the victim. The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to the crime of murder:
In People v. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439, there was a town fiesta and the (1) Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified by treachery because the weakness
two accused were at the town plaza with their companions. All were uproariously of the child due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the
happy, apparently drenched with drink. Then, the group saw the victim, a 25 year old aggressor.
retard walking nearby and they made him dance by tickling his sides with a piece of
wood. The victim and the accused Pugay were friends and, at times, slept in the same (2) Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward or promise, if without the
place together. Having gotten bored with their form of entertainment, accused Pugay premeditation the inductor would not have induced the other to commit the act but not
went and got a can of gasoline and poured it all over the retard. Then, the accused as regards the one induced.
Samson lit him up, making him a frenzied, shrieking human torch. The retard died.
(3 Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and comprehended by the circumstance of
It was held that Pugay was guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Samson treachery or forms part of treachery.
only guilty of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so
grave a wrong. There was no animosity between the two accused and the victim such (4) Treachery is inherent in poison.
that it cannot be said that they resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part of their
fun making but because their acts were felonious, they are criminally liable. (5) Where one of the accused, who were charged with murder, was the wife of the
deceased but here relationship to the deceased was not alleged in the information, she
(4) On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph c, or an also should be convicted of murder but the relationship should be appreciated as
earthquake, eruption of volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other public aggravating.
calamity;
(6) Killing of the victims hit by hand grenade thrown at them is murder qualified by
(5) Evident premeditation; and explosion not by treachery.
* When the actual victim turns out to be different from the intended victim, premeditation is not (7) Where the accused housemaid gagged a three year old boy, son of her master, with
aggravating. (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307) stockings, placed him in a box with head down and legs upward and covered the box
with some sacks and other boxes, and the child instantly died because of suffocation,
(6) Cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or and then the accused demanded ransom from the parents, such did not convert the
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. offense into kidnapping with murder. The accused was well aware that the child could
be suffocated to death in a few minutes after she left. Ransom was only a part of the
Cruelty includes the situation where the victim is already dead and yet, acts were diabolical scheme to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand money
committed which would decry or scoff the corpse of the victim. The crime becomes before discovery of the body.
murder.

* The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal detention is the actual confinement or restraint of (3) If the injuries were mortal but were only due to negligence, the crime committed will
the victim or deprivation of his liberty. If there is no showing that the accused intended to be serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence as the element of intent to kill
deprive their victims of their liberty for some time and there being no appreciable interval in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
between their being taken and their being shot, murder and not kidnapping with murder is
committed. (4) Where the intent to kill is not manifest, the crime committed has been generally
considered as physical injuries and not attempted or frustrated murder or homicide.
(5) When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a victim but it
cannot be determined who inflicted which would which caused the death of the victim,
all are liable for the victim’s death.
Article 249 * Note that while it is possible to have a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence, it is not
HOMICIDE possible to have a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence.
ELEMENTS: * If a boxer killed his opponent in a boxing bout duly licensed by the Government without any
1. That a person was killed. violation of the governing rules and regulations, there is no Homicide to speak of. If he hit his
opponent below the belt without any intention to do so, it is Homicide Through Reckless
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances. Imprudence if the latter died as a result. If he intentionally hit his opponent on that part of his
body causing the death, the crime is Homicide.
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed.
* The shooting of a peace officer who was fully aware of the risks in pursuing the malefactors
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of when done in a spur of the moment is only Homicide. (People vs. Porras, 255 SCRA 514).
murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Common misconception on the meaning of corpus delicti.
Notes:
* Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person not constituting murder, parricide or infanticide. Corpus delicti means body of the crime. It does not refer to the body of the murdered person. In
all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element of the crime, there must
* Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence, evidence of intent to kill is be proof of the fact of death and identity of the victim. (Cortez vs. Court of Appeals, 162
required only in attempted or frustrated homicide SCRA 139)
* In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element, there must be Article 250
satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact of death and (2) the identity of the victim PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR HOMICIDE
Distinction between homicide and physical injuries:

Article 251
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill. DEATH IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
In physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the ELEMENTS:
victim died, the crime will be homicide because the law punishes the result, and not the intent of 1. That there be several persons.
the act.
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to the crime of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally.
homicide:
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused
(1) Physical injuries are included as one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide. and tumultuous manner.
(2) If the deceased received two wounds from two persons acting independently of each 4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray.
other and the wound inflicted by either could have caused death, both of them are
liable for the death of the victim and each of them is guilty of homicide. 5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased.
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used
violence can be identified.

Notes:
* Tumultuous affray exists when at least 4 persons take part in it Article 252
PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
* When there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted each other, there is no tumultuous
affray ELEMENTS:
1. that there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article.
Persons liable are:
a. person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries 2. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious physical injuries or
physical injuries of a less serious nature only.
b. if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the deceased, all
persons who used violence upon the person of the victim 3. that the person responsible therefor cannot be identified.
* If those who actually killed the victim can be determined, they will be the ones to be held liable, 4. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended
and those who inflicted serious or less serious or slight physical injuries shall be punished for said party are known.
corresponding offenses provided no conspiracy is established with the killers.
* Unlike in Article 251, where the victim need not be one of the participants , the injured party in
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY simply means a commotion in a tumultuous and confused manner, to the crime of physical injuries inflicted in tumultuous affray must be one or some of those involved
such an extent that it would not be possible to identify who the killer is if death in the quarrel.
results, or who inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or persons who
used violence are known. * In physical injuries caused in a tumultuous affray , the conditions are also the same. But you
do not have a crime of physical injuries resulting from a tumultuous affray if the physical injury is
* It is not a tumultuous affray which brings about the crime; it is the inability to ascertain actual only slight. The physical injury should be serious or less serious and resulting from a tumultuous
perpetrator. It is necessary that the very person who caused the death can not be known, not affray. So anyone who may have employed violence will answer for such serious or less serious
that he can not be identified. Because if he is known but only his identity is not known, then he physical injury.
will be charged for the crime of homicide or murder under a fictitious name and not death in a
tumultuous affray. If there is a conspiracy, this crime is not committed. * If the physical injury sustained is only slight, this is considered as inherent in a tumultuous
affray. The offended party cannot complain if he cannot identify who inflicted the slight physical
To be considered death in a tumultuous affray, there must be: injuries on him.
(1) a quarrel, a free-for-all, which should not involve organized group; and * Note that in slight physical injuries is inflicted in the tumultuous affray and the identity of the
offender is established, the provisions of this article will not be observed. Instead, the offender
(2) someone who is injured or killed because of the fight. shall be prosecuted in the ordinary course of law.
* The person killed in the affray need not be one of the participants.
Article 253
* As long as it cannot be determined who killed the victim, all of those persons who inflicted GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
serious physical injuries will be collectively answerable for the death of that fellow.
The Revised Penal Code sets priorities as to who may be liable for the death or 1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or
physical injury in tumultuous affray: not
(1) The persons who inflicted serious physical injury upon the victim; 2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing
the killing himself
(2) If they could not be known, then anyone who may have employed violence on that
person will answer for his death.  Notes:
* Giving assistance to suicide means giving means (arms, poison, etc.) or whatever manner of
(3) If nobody could still be traced to have employed violence upon the victim, nobody will positive and direct cooperation (intellectual aid, suggestions regarding the mode of committing
answer. The crimes committed might be disturbance of public order, or if participants suicide, etc.).
are armed, it could be tumultuous disturbance, or if property was destroyed, it could be
malicious mischief. * A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable

* In this crime, the intention must be for the person who is asking the assistance of another to
commit suicide.  Notes:
* This crime cannot be committed through imprudence because it requires that the discharge
* If the intention is not to commit suicide, as when he just wanted to have a picture taken of him must be directed at another.
to impress upon the world that he is committing suicide because he is not satisfied with the
government, the crime is held to be inciting to sedition. * The offender must shoot at another with any firearm without intention of killing him. If the
firearm is not discharged at a person, the act is not punished under this article
> He becomes a co-conspirator in the crime of inciting to sedition, but not of giving assistance to
suicide because the assistance must be given to one who is really determined to commit suicide. * If the firearm is directed at a person and the trigger was pressed but did not fire, the crime is
frustrated discharge of firearm.
* A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by means of poison but instead of dying, the
fetus in her womb was expelled, is not liable for abortion * If the discharge is not directed at a person, the crime may constitute alarm and scandal.
* Assistance to suicide is different from mercy-killing . Euthanasia/mercy-killing is the practice of * A discharge towards the house of the victim is not discharge of firearm. On the other hand,
painlessly putting to death a person suffering from some incurable disease. In this case, the firing a gun against the house of the offended party at random, not knowing in what part of the
person does not want to die. A doctor who resorts to euthanasia may be held liable for murder house the people were, it is only alarm under art 155.
* If the person does the killing himself, the penalty is similar to that of homicide, which is * Usually, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the offended party
reclusion temporal. There can be no qualifying circumstance because the determination to die
must come from the victim. This does not contemplate euthanasia or mercy killing where the * Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the distance between the victim and the offender is 200
crime is murder, if without consent; if with consent, covered by Article 253. yards
* In mercy killing, the victim is not in a position to commit suicide. Whoever would heed his * A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party
advice is not really giving assistance to suicide but doing the killing himself. In giving assistance when it fired for as long as it was initially aimed at or against the offended party
to suicide, the principal actor is the person committing the suicide.
* Both in euthanasia and suicide, the intention to the end life comes from the victim himself;
otherwise the article does not apply. The victim must persistently induce the offender to end his The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to this crime:
life.
(1) If serious physical injuries resulted from discharge, the crime committed is the complex
* Penalty is mitigated if suicide is not successful crime of serious physical injury with illegal discharge of firearm, or if less serious
physical injury, the complex crime of less serious physical injury with illegal discharge
* Even if the suicide did not materialize, the person giving assistance to suicide is also liable but of firearm will apply.
the penalty shall be one or two degrees lower depending on whether it is frustrated or attempted
suicide. (2) Firing a gun at a person even if merely to frighten him constitutes illegal discharge of
firearm.
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to this crime:
* The gun used in the crime must be licensed, or the person using the firearm must be
(1) The crime is frustrated if the offender gives the assistance by doing the killing himself authorized to carry the same, otherwise, in addition to the crime punished under this article,
as firing upon the head of the victim but who did not die due to medical assistance. accused may also be held liable for illegal possession of firearm under Republic Act No. 1866 as
amended by Republic Act No. 8294.
(2) The person attempting to commit suicide is not liable if he survives. The accused is
liable if he kills the victim, his sweetheart, because of a suicide pact.
Article 255
INFANTICIDE
Article 254
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS ELEMENTS:
1. That a child was killed.
ELEMENTS:
1. that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person. 2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that person. 3. That the accused killed the said child.

> A legal problem occurs when a fetus having an intra-uterine life of less than 7 months, born
Notes: alive, is killed within 24 hours from the time the umbilical cord is cut. This is so because there is
* When the offender is the father, mother or legitimate ascendant, he shall suffer the penalty difficulty of determining whether the crime committed is infanticide or abortion. In such a
prescribed for parricide. If the offender is any other person, the penalty is that for murder. In situation, the court may avail of expert testimony in order to help it arrive at a conclusion. So, if it
either case, the proper qualification for the offense is infanticide is shown that the infant cannot survive within 24 hours, the crime committed is abortion;
otherwise if it can survive, the crime would be infanticide.
* Even if the killer is the mother or the father or the legitimate grandparents, the crime is still
Infanticide and not Parricide. The penalty however, is that for Parricide.
Article 256
Illustration: INTENTIONAL ABORTION
An unmarried woman, A, gave birth to a child, B. To conceal her dishonor, A conspired with C to ELEMENTS:
dispose of the child. C agreed and killed the child B by burying the child somewhere. 1. That there is a pregnant woman.
If the child was killed when the age of the child was three days old and above already , the crime 2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused
of A is parricide. The fact that the killing was done to conceal her dishonor will not mitigate the otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman.
criminal liability anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing the child is not mitigating in
parricide. 3. That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any
other act of the accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been
If the crime committed by A is parricide because the age of the child is three days old or above, expelled therefrom.
the crime of the co-conspirator C is murder. It is not parricide because he is not related to the
victim. 4. That the abortion is intended.
If the child is less than three days old when killed , both the mother and the stranger commits Ortega Notes:
infanticide because infanticide is not predicated on the relation of the offender to the offended
party but on the age of the child. In such a case, concealment of dishonor as a motive for the Acts punished
mother to have the child killed is mitigating.
1. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman;
* When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother in order to conceal the
dishonor, such fact is only mitigating 2. Acting, but without using violence, without the consent of the woman. (By
administering drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent.)
* The delinquent mother who claims that she committed the offense to conceal the dishonor
must be of good reputation. Hence, if she is a prostitute, she is not entitled to a lesser penalty 3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the consent of the pregnant
because she has no honor to conceal woman.
* Concealment of dishonor is not an element of infanticide . It merely lowers the penalty. If the > Abortion is the violent expulsion of a fetus from the maternal womb . If the fetus has been
child is abandoned without any intent to kill and death results as a consequence, the crime delivered but it could not subsist by itself, it is still a fetus and not a person. Thus, if it is killed,
committed is not infanticide but abandonment under Article 276. the crime committed is abortion not infanticide.
* If the purpose of the mother is to conceal her dishonor, infanticide through imprudence is not Distinction between infanticide and abortion
committed because the purpose of concealing the dishonor is incompatible with the absence of
malice in culpable felonies. It is infanticide if the victim is already a person less that three days old or 72 hours and is viable
or capable of living separately from the mother’s womb.
* There is no infanticide when the child was born dead, or although born alive it could not sustain
an independent life when it was killed It is abortion if the victim is not viable but remains to be a fetus.
* In our study of persons and family relations, we have learned that birth determines personality. > Abortion is not a crime against the woman but against the fetus . If mother as a consequence
So fetus becomes a person by the legal fact of birth. The Civil Code provides that, if the fetus had of abortion suffers death or physical injuries, you have a complex crime of murder or physical
an intra-uterine life of less than seven (7) months, it will be considered born only if it survives 24 injuries and abortion.
hours after the umbilical cord is cut. If such fetus is killed within the 24-hour period, we have to
determine if it would have survived or it would have died nonetheless, had it not been killed.

> In intentional abortion, the offender must know of the pregnancy because the particular Article 257
criminal intention is to cause an abortion. Therefore, the offender must have known of the UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
pregnancy for otherwise, he would not try an abortion.
ELEMENTS:
> If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and someone performs an abortion upon her, he is 1. That there is a pregnant woman.
liable for an impossible crime if the woman suffers no physical injury. If she does, the crime will
be homicide, serious physical injuries, etc. 2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion.
> Under the Article 40 of the Civil Code, birth determines personality. A person is considered 3. That the violence is intentionally exerted.
born at the time when the umbilical cord is cut. He then acquires a personality separate from the
mother. 4. That as a result of the violence that fetus dies, either in the womb or after having
been expelled therefrom.
> But even though the umbilical cord has been cut, Article 41 of the Civil Code provides that if
the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it must survive at least 24 hours Notes:
after the umbilical cord is cut for it to be considered born.
* Unintentional abortion requires physical violence inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by a third
Illustration: person upon the person of the pregnant woman. Mere intimidation is not enough unless the
degree of intimidation already approximates violence.
A mother delivered an offspring which had an intra-uterine life of seven months. Before the
umbilical cord is cut, the child was killed. * If the pregnant woman aborted because of intimidation, the crime committed is not
unintentional abortion because there is no violence; the crime committed is light threats.
If it could be shown that had the umbilical cord been cut, that child, if not killed, would have
survived beyond 24 hours, the crime is infanticide because that conceived child is already * If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her husband, the crime committed is the
considered born. complex crime of parricide with unlawful abortion.
If it could be shown that the child, if not killed, would not have survived beyond 24 hours, the * While there is no intention on the part of the accused to cause an abortion, nonetheless, the
crime is abortion because what was killed was a fetus only. violence that he employs on the pregnant woman must be intentional. In other words, only the
abortion is unintended.
> In abortion, the concealment of dishonor as a motive of the mother to commit the abortion
upon herself is mitigating. It will also mitigate the liability of the maternal grandparent of the * Unintentional abortion can also be committed through negligence
victim – the mother of the pregnant woman – if the abortion was done with the consent of the
pregnant woman. * Unintentional abortion may be committed through negligence as it is enough that the use of
violence be voluntary.
> If the abortion was done by the mother of the pregnant woman without the consent of the
woman herself, even if it was done to conceal dishonor, that circumstance will not mitigate her Illustration:
criminal liability.
A quarrel ensued between A, husband, and B, wife. A became so angry that he struck B, who
But if those who performed the abortion are the parents of the pregnant woman, or either of was then pregnant, with a soft drink bottle on the hip. Abortion resulted and B died.
them, and the pregnant woman consented for the purpose of concealing her dishonor , the
penalty is the same as that imposed upon the woman who practiced the abortion upon herself . * Take note that while unintentional abortion appears to be a crime that should be committed
with deliberate intent because of the requirement that the violence employed on the victim must
> Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is expelled is viable and, therefore, not dead be intentional, nevertheless, if the circumstances of the case justifies the application of the other
as abortion did not result despite the employment of adequate and sufficient means to make the means of committing a felony (like culpa), then the same should be applied but the penalty will
pregnant woman abort. If the means are not sufficient or adequate, the crime would be an not be the penalty provided under Article 257. Instead, the offender shall be subject to the
impossible crime of abortion. In consummated abortion, the fetus must be dead. penalty prescribed for simple or reckless imprudence under Article 365.
> One who persuades her sister to abort is a co-principal, and one who looks for a physician to * The accused can only be held liable if he knew that the woman was pregnant
make his sweetheart abort is an accomplice. The physician will be punished under Article 259 of - DEBATABLE
the Revised Penal Code.
In US v. Jeffry, 15 Phil. 391, the Supreme Court said that knowledge of pregnancy of the
offended party is not necessary. In People v. Carnaso, decided on April 7, 1964, however,
the Supreme Court held that knowledge of pregnancy is required in unintentional abortion.

ELEMENTS :
Criticism: 1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion.
Under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, any person committing a felony is 2. That the abortion is intended.
criminally liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious acts although
it may be different from that which is intended. The act of employing violence or physical force 3. That the abortion is caused by –
upon the woman is already a felony. It is not material if offender knew about the woman being
pregnant or not. a. the pregnant woman herself
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of self-defense, and there is no knowledge of b. any other person, with her consent, or
the woman’s pregnancy, there is no liability. If the act of violence is not felonious, but there is
knowledge of the woman’s pregnancy, the offender is liable for unintentional abortion. c. any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor.
Illustration:
Notes:
The act of pushing another causing her to fall is a felonious act and could result in physical * Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her dishonor. However,
injuries. Correspondingly, if not only physical injuries were sustained but abortion also resulted, there is no Mitigation for the parents of the pregnant women even if their purpose is to conceal
the felonious act of pushing is the proximate cause of the unintentional abortion. their daughter’s dishonor
* If there is no intention to cause abortion and neither was violence exerted, arts 256 and 257 * In infanticide, parents can avail of the mitigating circumstance of concealing the dishonor of
does not apply their daughter. This is not so for art 258
Questions & Answers

Article 259
ABORTION PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
1. A pregnant woman decided to commit suicide. She jumped out of a window ABORTIVES
of a building but she landed on a passerby. She did not die but an abortion followed. Is she
liable for unintentional abortion? ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion.
No. What is contemplated in unintentional abortion is that the force or violence must come
from another. If it was the woman doing the violence upon herself, it must be to bring 2. That the abortion is intended.
about an abortion, and therefore, the crime will be intentional abortion. In this case, where
the woman tried to commit suicide, the act of trying to commit suicide is not a felony under 3. That the offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes or assists in
the Revised Penal Code. The one penalized in suicide is the one giving assistance and not causing the abortion.
the person trying to commit suicide.
4. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge
2. If the abortive drug used in abortion is a prohibited drug or regulated drug or skill.
under Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, what are
the crimes committed? Notes:
* It is not necessary that the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause abortion.
The crimes committed are (1) intentional abortion; and (2) violation of the Dangerous What is punished is the act of dispensing an abortive without the proper prescription . It is not
Drugs Act of 1972. necessary that the abortive be actually used
* If the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause abortion and abortion results,
he is liable as an accomplice
* If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the life of the mother, there is no liability.
This is known as a therapeutic abortion. But abortion without medical necessity to warrant it
is punishable even with the consent of the woman or her husband.
Article 258
ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS Illustration:

A woman who is pregnant got sick. The doctor administered a medicine which resulted in
Abortion. The crime committed was unintentional abortion through negligence or imprudence.
Article 261
CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
Question & Answer
Acts punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel
What is the liability of a physician who aborts the fetus to save the life of the mother?
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel
None. This is a case of therapeutic abortion which is done out of a state of necessity.
Therefore, the requisites under Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code must be 3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a
present. There must be no other practical or less harmful means of saving the life of the mother challenge to fight a duel
to make the killing justified.
Persons liable:
Article 260 1. Challenger
RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL 2. Instigators
Acts punished: * If the challenge is only to fight, without the challenger having in mind a formal combat to be
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel agreed upon with the assistance of seconds as contemplated under the law, the crime committed
will only be grave or light threat as the case may be.
2. Inflicting upon the adversary serious physical injuries
Illustration:
3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted
If one challenges another to a duel by shouting “Come down, Olympia, let us measure your
Persons liable: prowess. We will see whose intestines will come out. You are a coward if you do not come
1. Principals – person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary, or both down”, the crime of challenging to a duel is not committed . What is committed is the crime of
combatants in any other cases light threats under Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
2. Accomplices – as seconds
Article 262
* The person who killed or injured his adversary. If both survive, both will be liable for the crime MUTILATION
of duel as principals by direct participation. The seconds will be held liable as accomplices.
Kinds of Mutilation
Notes:
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, totally or partially, of some essential
DUEL: a formal or regular combat previously concerted between 2 parties in the presence of 2 or organ for reproduction
more seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other
conditions of the fight 2. Intentionally making another mutilation, i.e. lopping, clipping off any part of the body
of the offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him
* If death results, the penalty is the same as that for homicide of that part of the body
* While the agreement is to fight to the death, the law will disregard the “intent to kill,” if only Elements:
physical injuries is inflicted. The crime will not be classified as attempted or frustrated homicide. 1. There be a castration i.e. mutilation of organs necessary for generation
* If the accused and the deceased, after a verbal heated argument in a bar, left the place at the 2. Mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately
same time and pursuant to their agreement, went to the plaza to fight each other to death with
knives which they bought on the way, the facts do not constitute the crime of dueling since there Notes:
were no seconds who fixed the conditions of the fight in a more or less formal manner . If one
was killed, the crime committed would be Homicide. MUTILATION is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the body.
* There is no such crime nowadays because people hit each other even without entering into any
pre-conceived agreement. This is an obsolete provision.

* The intent to deliberately cut off the particular part of the body that was removed from the b. loses any other member of his body
offended party must be established. If there is no intent to deprive victim of particular part of
body, the crime is only serious physical injury. c. loses the use thereof
* The common mistake is to associate this with the reproductive organs only. Mutilation includes d. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which
any part of the human body that is not susceptible to grow again. he had been habitually engaged in for more than 90 days
* If what was cut off was a reproductive organ, the penalty is much higher than that for 4. Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
homicide. (but not more than 90 days)
* This cannot be committed through criminal negligence. Notes:
* In the first kind of mutilation, the castration must be made purposely. Otherwise, it will be * The crime of physical injuries is a crime of result because under our laws the crime of physical
considered as mutilation of the second kind injuries is based on the gravity of the injury sustained. So this crime is always consummated.
MAYHEM: refers to any other intentional mutilation * The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated physical injuries is because the crime of
physical injuries is determined on the gravity of the injury. As long as the injury is not there,
there can be no attempted or frustrated stage thereof.
Article 263
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES * Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence
How Committed * There must be no intent to kill

1. Wounding
IMPOTENT should include inability to copulate and sterility
2. Beating
BLINDNESS requires lost of vision in both eyes. Mere weakness in vision is not contemplated
3. Assaulting
Loss of power to hear must involve both ears. Otherwise, it will be considered as serious
4. Administering injurious substances physical injuries under par 3
* In one case, the accused, while conversing with the offended party, drew the latter’s bolo from Loss of use of hand or incapacity of usual work in par 2 must be permanent
its scabbard. The offended party caught hold of the edge of the blade of his bolo and wounded
himself. It was held that since the accused did not wound, beat or assault the offended party, he * Par 2 refers to principal members of the body. Par 3 on the other hand, covers any other
can not be guilty of serious physical injuries. member which is not a principal part of the body. In this respect, a front tooth is considered as a
member of the body, other than a principal member
What are serious physical injuries:
DEFORMITY: means physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. Not curable by
1. Injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind natural means or by nature. It must be conspicuous and visible. Thus, if the scar is usually
covered by a dress, it would not be conspicuous and visible
2. Injured person –
* The loss of 3 incisors is a visible deformity. Loss of one incisor is not. However, loss of one
a. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, loses an eye, a tooth which impaired appearance is a deformity
hand, foot, arm or leg
b. loses the use of any such member * Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be impaired by the action of the nature
c. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually * Loss of both outer ears constitutes deformity and also loss of the power to hear. Meanwhile,
engaged loss of the lobule of the ear is only a deformity
3. Injured person – * Loss of the index and middle fingers is either a deformity or loss of a member, not a principal
one of his body or use of the same
a. becomes deformed

* Loss of the power to hear in the right ear is considered as merely loss of use of some other part (3) When the injury created a deformity upon the offended party, you disregard the
of the body healing duration or the period of medical treatment involved . At once, it is considered
serious physical injuries.
* If the injury would require medical attendance for more than 30 days, the illness of the
offended party may be considered as lasting more than 30 days. The fact that there was medical So even though the deformity may not have incapacitated the offended party from
attendance for that period of time shows that the injuries were not cured for that length of time work, or even though the medical treatment did not go beyond nine days, that
* Under par 4, all that is required is illness or incapacity, not medical attendance deformity will bring about the crime of serious physical injuries.
> In determining incapacity , the injured party must have an avocation at the time of the Deformity requires the concurrence of the following conditions:
injury. Work: includes studies or preparation for a profession
(1) The injury must produce ugliness;
* When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of the
illness or incapacity for labor, there must be evidence of the length of that period. Otherwise, the (2) It must be visible;
offense will only be considered as slight physical injuries
(3) The ugliness will not disappear through natural healing process.
* There is no incapacity if the injured party could still engage in his work although less effectively
than before Illustration:
* Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same Loss of molar tooth – This is not deformity as it is not visible.
persons enumerated in the article on parricide or when it is attended by any of the circumstances
defining the crime of murder. However, serious physical injuries resulting from excessive Loss of permanent front tooth – This is deformity as it is visible and permanent.
chastisement by parents is not qualified serious physical injuries Loss of milk front tooth – This is not deformity as it is visible but will be naturally
replaced.
Ortega Notes:
Question & Answer
Classification of physical injuries:
(1) Between slight physical injuries and less serious physical injuries , you have a duration The offender threw acid on the face of the offended party. Were it not for timely
of one to nine days if slight physical injuries; or 10 days to 20 days if less serious medical attention, a deformity would have been produced on the face of the victim. After the
physical injuries. Consider the duration of healing and treatment. plastic surgery, the offended party was more handsome than before the injury. What crime was
committed? In what stage was it committed?
The significant part here is between slight physical injuries and less serious physical
injuries. You will consider not only the healing duration of the injury but also the The crime is serious physical injuries because the problem itself states that the injury would
medical attendance required to treat the injury. So the healing duration may be one to have produced a deformity. The fact that the plastic surgery removed the deformity is
nine days, but if the medical treatment continues beyond nine days, the physical immaterial because in law what is considered is not the artificial treatment but the natural
injuries would already qualify as less serious physical injuries. The medical treatment healing process.
may have lasted for nine days, but if the offended party is still incapacitated for labor
beyond nine days, the physical injuries are already considered less serious physical In a case decided by the Supreme Court, accused was charged with serious physical injuries
injuries. because the injuries produced a scar. He was convicted under Article 263 (4). He appealed
because, in the course of the trial, the scar disappeared . It was held that accused can not
(2) Between less serious physical injuries and serious physical injuries , you do not consider be convicted of serious physical injuries. He is liable only for slight physical injuries because
the period of medical treatment. You only consider the period when the offended party the victim was not incapacitated, and there was no evidence that the medical treatment
is rendered incapacitated for labor. lasted for more than nine days.
If the offended party is incapacitated to work for less than 30 days, even though the Serious physical injuries is punished with higher penalties in the following cases:
treatment continued beyond 30 days, the physical injuries are only considered less
serious because for purposes of classifying the physical injuries as serious, you do not (1) If it is committed against any of the persons referred to in the crime of parricide under
consider the period of medical treatment. You only consider the period of incapacity Article 246;
from work.
(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying murder attended its commission.

Thus, a father who inflicts serious physical injuries upon his son will be liable for qualified serious
physical injuries. * Administering means introducing into the body the substance, thus throwing of the acid in
the face is not contemplated
Republic Act No. 8049 (THE ANTI-HAZING LAW)

Article 265
Hazing -- This is any initiation rite or practice which is a prerequisite for admission into LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
membership in a fraternity or sorority or any organization which places the neophyte or applicant
in some embarrassing or humiliating situations or otherwise subjecting him to physical or ELEMENTS:
psychological suffering of injury. These do not include any physical, mental, psychological testing 1. That the offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but
and training procedure and practice to determine and enhance the physical and psychological not more than 30 days), or needs medical attendance for the same period
fitness of the prospective regular members of the below. of time
Organizations include any club or AFP, PNP, PMA or officer or cadet corps of the CMT or CAT. 2. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding
articles
Section 2 requires a written notice to school authorities from the head of the organization seven
days prior to the rites and should not exceed three days in duration. Notes:
Section 3 requires supervision by head of the school or the organization of the rites. Circumstances qualifying the offense:
a. when there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person
Section 4 qualifies the crime if rape, sodomy or mutilation results therefrom, if the person
becomes insane, an imbecile, or impotent or blind because of such, if the person loses the use of b. when there are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense
speech or the power to hear or smell or an eye, a foot, an arm or a leg, or the use of any such
member or any of the serious physical injuries or the less serious physical injuries. Also if the c. when the victim is either the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators
victim is below 12, or becomes incapacitated for the work he habitually engages in for 30, 10, 1-9 or teachers
days.
d. when the victim is a person of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is
It holds the parents, school authorities who consented or who had actual knowledge if they did not direct assault
nothing to prevent it, officers and members who planned, knowingly cooperated or were present,
present alumni of the organization, owner of the place where such occurred liable. * It falls under this article even if there was no incapacity but the medical treatment was for 13
days
Makes presence a prima facie presumption of guilt for such.
* In this article, the offended party is incapacitated from work for ten (10) days or more but not
more than thirty (30) days. If the injury causes the illness of the victim, the healing duration must
Article 264 be more than nine (9) days but not more than thirty (30) days.
ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES
* Article 265 is an exception to Article 48 in relation to complex crimes as the latter only takes
ELEMENTS: place in cases where the Revised Penal Code has no specific provision penalizing the same with a
definite, specific penalty. Hence, there is no complex crime of slander by deed with less serious
1. That the offender inflicted upon another person any serious physical injury physical injuries but only less serious physical injuries if the act which was committed produced
the less serious physical injuries with the manifest intent to insult or offend the offended party, or
2. That it was done knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.
beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind of credulity
3. He had no intent to kill Article 266

SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
Notes:
3 Kinds:
* The article under consideration does not deal with a crime. It refers to means of committing
serious physical injuries. 1. That which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9 days or
required medical attendance during the same period
* It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill

2. That which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual ELEMENTS:
work or which did not require medical attendance (ex. Black-eye) Rape is committed
1. By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury (ex. slapping circumstances:
but without causing dishonor)
a. through force, threat or intimidation
* This involves even ill-treatment where there is no sign of injury requiring medical treatment.
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
* Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment which is a form of slight physical injuries.
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
> But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the person slapped, the crime is slander by
deed. If the slapping was done without the intention of casting dishonor, or to humiliate or d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even
embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is still ill-treatment or slight though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present
physical injuries.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in par 1
* The crime is slight physical injury if there is no proof as to the period of the offended party’s hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
incapacity for labor or of the required medical attendance.
a. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act), in relation to murder, mutilation or injuries to a child b. any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person
The last paragraph of Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, provides:
Rape committed under par 1 is punishable by:
“For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 1. reclusion perpetua
249, 262 (2) and 263 (1) of Act No 3815, as amended of the Revised Penal Code for the crimes
of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall 2. reclusion perpetua to DEATH when
be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve years of age.” a. victim became insane by reason or on the occasion of rape
The provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 modified the provisions of the Revised Penal Code in so b. the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
far as the victim of the felonies referred to is under 12 years of age. The clear intention is to thereof
punish the said crimes with a higher penalty when the victim is a child of tender age.
Incidentally, the reference to Article 249 of the Code which defines and penalizes the crime of 3. DEATH when
homicide were the victim is under 12 years old is an error. Killing a child under 12 is murder, not a. homicide is committed
homicide, because the victim is under no position to defend himself as held in the case of
People v. Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431. b. victim under 18 years and offender is:
i. parent
For murder, the penalty provided by the Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion ii. ascendant
perpetua to death – higher than what Republic Act no. 7610 provides. Accordingly, insofar as the iii. step-parent
crime is murder, Article 248 of the Code, as amended, shall govern even if the victim was under iv. guardian
12 years of age. It is only in respect of the crimes of intentional mutilation in paragraph 2 of v. relative by consanguinity or affinity with the 3rd civil degree or
Article 262 and of serious physical injuries in paragraph 1 of Article 263 of the Code that the vi. common law spouse of parent of victim
quoted provision of Republic Act No. 7160 may be applied for the higher penalty when the victim
is under 12 years old. c. under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution
RAPE d. committed in full view of the spouse, parent or any of the children or other relatives
within the 3rd degree of consanguinity
ART 266-A
RAPE e. victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as Crime known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime
Against Persons incorporated into Title 8 of the RPC to be known as Chapter 3
f. a child below 7 years old

Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora (or he outer lips of the female organ) must be
g. offender knows he is afflicted with HIV or AIDS or any other sexually transmissible entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the
disease and the virus is transmitted to the victim female organ. Thus, grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the
h. offender; member of the AFP, or para-military units thereof, or the PNP, or any law pudendum is not sufficient to constitute rape. ( Pp vs. Campuhan)
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his
position to facilitate the commission of the crime Classification of rape
!) Traditional concept under Article 335 – carnal knowledge with a woman against her will.
i. victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability The offended party is always a woman and the offender is always a man.
j. the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the 2) Sexual assault - committed with an instrument or an object or use of the penis with
commission of the crime; and penetration of mouth or anal orifice. The offended party or the offender can either be
man or woman, that is, if a woman or a man uses an instrument on anal orifice of
k. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical male, she or he can be liable for rape.
handicap or the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime
Since rape is not a private crime anymore, it can be prosecuted even if the woman does not file a
Rape committed under par 2 is punishable by: complaint.
1. prision mayor
If carnal knowledge was made possible because of fraudulent machinations and grave abuse of
2. prision mayor to reclusion temporal authority, the crime is rape. This absorbs the crime of qualified and simple seduction when no
a. use of deadly weapon or force or violence was used, but the offender abused his authority to rape the victim.
b. by two or more persons Under Article 266-C, the offended woman may pardon the offender through a subsequent valid
marriage, the effect of which would be the extinction of the offender’s liability . Similarly, the
3. reclusion temporal – when the victim has become insane legal husband may be pardoned by forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not void
ab initio. Obviously, under the new law, the husband may be liable for rape if his wife does not
4. reclusion temporal to reclusion pepetua – rape is attempted and homicide is want to have sex with him. It is enough that there is indication of any amount of resistance as to
committed make it rape.
5. reclusion perpetua – homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of rape Incestuous rape was coined in Supreme Court decisions. It refers to rape committed by an
ascendant of the offended woman. In such cases, the force and intimidation need not be of such
6. reclusion temporal – committed with any of the 10 aggravating circumstances mentioned nature as would be required in rape cases had the accused been a stranger. Conversely, the
above Supreme Court expected that if the offender is not known to the woman , it is necessary that
there be evidence of affirmative resistance put up by the offended woman. Mere “no, no” is not
Notes: enough if the offender is a stranger, although if the rape is incestuous, this is enough.
DIVIDING AGE IN RAPE: The new rape law also requires that there be a physical overt act manifesting resistance , if the
a. less than 7 yrs old, mandatory death offended party was in a situation where he or she is incapable of giving valid consent, this is
admissible in evidence to show that carnal knowledge was against his or her will.
b. less than 12 yrs old, statutory rape
When the victim is below 12 years old, mere sexual intercourse with her is already rape . Even if it
c. less than 18 yrs old and there is relationship (e.g. parent etc); mandatory death was she who wanted the sexual intercourse, the crime will be rape. This is referred to as
statutory rape.
* Because of this amendment which reclassified rape as a crime against persons, an impossible
crime may now be committed in case of rape ; that is, if there is inherent impossibility of its If the victim however is exactly twelve (12) years old (she was raped on her birthday) or more,
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. and there is consent, there is no rape. However, Republic Act No. 7610, Sec. 5 (b) provides
that: Even if the victim is over twelve (12) year old and the carnal act was with her consent as
* The case of People vs. Orita (G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990), laid a new doctrine in Philippine long as she falls under the classification of a child exploited in prostitution and other sexual
penal law insofar as the crime of rape is concerned, as it finally did away with frustrated rape and abuse, the crime is rape.
allowed only attempted rape and consummated rape to remain in our statute books.
In other cases, there must be force, intimidation, or violence proven to have been exerted to
* The act of “touching” should be understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the bring about carnal knowledge or the woman must have been deprived of reason or otherwise
labia of the female organ and not the mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. unconscious.

In a case where the accused jumped upon a woman and threw her to the ground, although the
It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as accused raised her skirts, the accused did not make any effort to remove her underwear.
could not be resisted – it is only necessary that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which Instead, he removed his own underwear and placed himself on top of the woman and started
the accused had in mind. (People vs. Canada, 253 SCRA 277). performing sexual movements. Thereafter, when he was finished, he stood up and left. The
crime committed is only acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape. The fact that he did not
Carnal knowledge with a woman who is asleep constitutes Rape since she was either deprived of remove the underwear of the victim indicates that he does not have a real intention to effect a
reason or otherwise unconscious at that time. (People vs. Caballero, 61 Phil. 900). penetration. It was only to satisfy a lewd design.
Sexual intercourse with an insane, deranged or mentally deficient, feeble-minded or idiotic The new law, R.A. 8353, added new circumstance – that is, when carnal knowledge was had by
woman is Rape pure and simple. The deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority. It would seem that if a woman of
complete; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. majority age had sexual intercourse with a man through the latter’s scheme of pretending to
marry her which is the condition upon which the woman agreed to have sex with him,
Where the victim is over 12 years old, it must be shown that the carnal knowledge with her was manipulating a sham marriage, the man would be guilty of Rape under this Section. So also, a
obtained against her will. It is necessary that there be evidence of some resistance put up by the prostitute who willingly had sexual congress with a man upon the latter’s assurance that she
offended woman. It is not, however, necessary that the offended party should exert all her would be paid handsomely, may be guilty of Rape if later on he refuses to pay the said amount.
efforts to prevent the carnal intercourse. It is enough that from her resistance, it would appear
that the carnal intercourse is against her will. A person in authority who maneuvered a scheme where a woman landed in jail, and
who upon promise of being released after having sex with the officer, willingly consented to the
Mere initial resistance, which does not indicate refusal on the part of the offended party to the sexual act, may also be found guilty of Rape under this new section.
sexual intercourse, will not be enough to bring about the crime of rape.
Note that it has been held that in the crime of rape, conviction does not require medico-legal IN RAPE CASES, COURT MUST ALWAYS BE GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:
finding of any penetration on the part of the woman. A medico-legal certificate is not necessary
or indispensable to convict the accused of the crime of rape. 1. An accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more difficult for
the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
It has also been held that although the offended woman who is the victim of the rape failed to
adduce evidence regarding the damages to her by reason of the rape, the court may take judicial 2. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the
notice that there is such damage in crimes against chastity. The standard amount given now is P testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
50,000.00, with or without evidence of any moral damage.
3. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed
An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the offended woman . It does not to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. (People vs.
require that testimony be corroborated before a conviction may stand. This is particularly true if Ricafort)
the commission of the rape is such that the narration of the offended woman would lead to no TITLE NINE
other conclusion except that the rape was committed. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Illustration: Crimes against liberty

Daughter accuses her own father of having raped her. 1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267);
2. Slight illegal detention (Art. 268);
Allegation of several accused that the woman consented to their sexual intercourse with her is a 3. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);
proposition which is revolting to reason that a woman would allow more than one man to have 4. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270);
sexual intercourse with her in the presence of the others. 5. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271);
6. Slavery (Art. 272);
It has also been ruled that rape can be committed in a standing position because complete 7. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273);
penetration is not necessary. The slightest penetration – contact with the labia – will 8. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debts (Art. 274).
consummate the rape.
Crimes against security
On the other hand, as long as there is an intent to effect sexual cohesion, although unsuccessful, 1. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one's own victim (Art. 275);
the crime becomes attempted rape. However, if that intention is not proven, the offender can 2. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);
only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness. 3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
(Art. 277);
The main distinction between the crime of attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the intent 4. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);
to lie with the offended woman. 5. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280);
6. Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);

7. Grave threats (Art. 282); When a public officer conspires with a private person in the commission of any of the crimes
8. Light threats (Art. 283); under Title IX, the crime is also one committed under this title and not under Title II.
9. Other light threats (Art. 285);
10. Grave coercions (Art. 286); Illustration:
11. Light coercions (Art. 287);
12. Other similar coercions (Art. 288); If a private person commits the crime of kidnapping or serious illegal detention, even though a
13. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through public officer conspires therein, the crime cannot be arbitrary detention. As far as that public
violence or threats (Art. 289); officer is concerned, the crime is also illegal detention.
14. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence (Art. 290);
15. Revealing secrets with abus of office (Art. 291); In the actual essence of the crime, when one says kidnapping, this connotes the idea of
16. Revealing of industrial secrets (Art. 292). transporting the offended party from one place to another. When you think illegal detention, it
connotes the idea that one is restrained of his liberty without necessarily transporting him from
one place to another.
Article 267
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION The crime of kidnapping is committed if the purpose of the offender is to extort ransom either
from the victim or from any other person . But if a person is transported not for ransom, the
ELEMENTS: crime can be illegal detention. Usually, the offended party is brought to a place other than his
1. Offender is a private individual own, to detain him there.
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his When one thinks of kidnapping, it is not only that of transporting one person from one place to
liberty another. One also has to think of the criminal intent.
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal Forcible abduction -- If a woman is transported from one place to another by virtue of
restraining her of her liberty, and that act is coupled with lewd designs.
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are
present (becomes serious) Serious illegal detention – If a woman is transported just to restrain her of her liberty. There
is no lewd design or lewd intent.
a. that the kidnapping/detention lasts for more than 3 days
Grave coercion – If a woman is carried away just to break her will, to compel her to agree to
b. that it is committed simulating public authority the demand or request by the offender.
c. that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or In a decided case, a suitor, who cannot get a favorable reply from a woman, invited the woman
detained or threats to kill him are made, or to ride with him, purportedly to take home the woman from class. But while the woman is in his
car, he drove the woman to a far place and told the woman to marry him. On the way, the
d. that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor (except if parent is the offender had repeatedly touched the private parts of the woman. It was held that the act of the
offender), female or a public officer offender of touching the private parts of the woman could not be considered as lewd designs
because he was willing to marry the offended party. The Supreme Court ruled that when it is a
Note: When death penalty is imposed: suitor who could possibly marry the woman, merely kissing the woman or touching her private
a. If kidnapping is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom either from the victim parts to “compel” her to agree to the marriage, such cannot be characterized as lewd design. It is
or from any other person even if none of the aforementioned are present in the considered merely as the “passion of a lover”. But if the man is already married, you cannot
commission of the offense (even if none of the circumstances are present) consider that as legitimate but immoral and definitely amounts to lewd design.
b. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped or is If a woman is carried against her will but without lewd design on the part of the offender , the
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts crime is grave coercion.
* The essence of the offense is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the
intent of the accused to effect it. There must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the Illustration:
malefactor was to deprive the offended party of liberty. The restraint however need not be
permanent. (People vs. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676). Tom Cruz invited Nicole Chizmacks for a snack. They drove along Roxas Boulevard, along the
Coastal Road and to Cavite. The woman was already crying and wanted to be brought home.
Ortega Notes: Tom imposed the condition that Nicole should first marry him. Nicole found this as, simply, a
mission impossible. The crime committed in this case is grave coercion. But if after they drove

to Cavite, the suitor placed the woman in a house and would not let her out until she agrees to If the victim was raped, this brings about the composite crime of kidnapping with rape. Being a
marry him, the crime would be serious illegal detention. composite crime, not a complex crime, the same is regarded as a single indivisible offense as in
fact the law punishes such acts with only a single penalty. In a way, the amendment depreciated
If the victim is a woman or a public officer, the detention is always serious – no matter how short the seriousness of the rape because no matter how many times the victim was raped, there will
the period of detention is. only be one kidnapping with rape. This would not be the consequence if rape were a separate
crime from kidnapping because each act of rape would be a distinct count.
Distinction between illegal detention and arbitrary detention
However for the crime to be kidnapping with rape, the offender should not have taken the victim
Illegal detention is committed by a private person who kidnaps, detains, or otherwise deprives with lewd designs as otherwise the crime would be forcible abduction; and if the victim was
another of his liberty. raped, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape would be committed. If the taking was
forcible abduction, and the woman was raped several times, there would only be one crime of
Arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer who detains a person without legal grounds. forcible abduction with rape, and each of the other rapes would constitute distinct counts of rape.
This was the ruling in the case of People v. Bacalso.
The penalty for kidnapping is higher than for forcible abduction . This is wrong because if the
offender knew about this, he would perform lascivious acts upon the woman and be charged only In People v. Lactao, decided on October 29, 1993, the Supreme Court stressed that the
for forcible abduction instead of kidnapping or illegal detention. He thereby benefits from this crime is serious illegal detention if the purpose was to deprive the offended party of her liberty.
absurdity, which arose when Congress amended Article 267, increasing the penalty thereof, And if in the course of the illegal detention, the offended party was raped, a separate crime of
without amending Article 342 on forcible abduction. rape would be committed. This is so because there is no complex crime of serious illegal
detention with rape since the illegal detention was not a necessary means to the commission of
Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No. 7659 in the following respects: rape.
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it shall have lasted for more than three days, In People v. Bernal, 131 SCRA 1, the appellants were held guilty of separate crimes of serious
instead of five days as originally provided; illegal detention and of multiple rapes. With the amendment by Republic Act No. 7659 making
rape a qualifying circumstance in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or detained was a minor and the offender was jurisprudence is superseded to the effect that the rape should be a distinct crime. Article 48 on
anyone of the parents, the latter has been expressly excluded from the provision. The complex crimes may not apply when serious illegal detention and rape are committed by the
liability of the parent is provided for in the last paragraph of Article 271; same offender. The offender will be charged for the composite crime of serious illegal detention
with rape as a single indivisible offense, regardless of the number of times that the victim was
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267, which states: raped.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention Also, when the victim of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention was subjected to torture and
or is raped, or is subjected to torture, or dehumanizing acts, the sustained physical injuries, a composite crime of kidnapping with physical injuries is committed.
maximum penalty shall be imposed.
Palattao notes:
This amendment brings about a composite crime of kidnapping with homicide when it
is the victim of the kidnapping who was killed, or dies as a consequence of the When the person is deprived of his liberty or is seized and forcibly taken to another place, the
detention and, thus, only one penalty is imposed which is death. inquiry would, be what is the purpose of the offender in taking him or her away:
Article 48, on complex crimes, does not govern in this case. But Article 48 will govern if any 1. If the seizure is only to facilitate the killing of the victim the crime committed would either be
other person is killed aside, because the provision specifically refers to “victim”. Accordingly, the homicide or murder and the crime of kidnapping is absorbed.
rulings in cases of People v. Parulan, People v. Ging Sam, and other similar cases where the
accused were convicted for the complex crimes of kidnapping with murder have become 2. If the seizure or deprivation of liberty is only to compel the victim to perform an act, be it right
academic. or wrong, the crime committed would only be grave coercion. (People vs. Astorga, 283
SCRA 420).
In the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide, the term “homicide” is used in the generic
sense and, thus, covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. It does 3. If the deprivation of liberty is to take away the victim to satisfy the lewd design of the
not matter whether the purpose of the kidnapping was to kill the victim or not, as long as the offender, the crime would only be forcible abduction.
victim was killed, or died as a consequence of the kidnapping or detention. There is no more
separate crime of kidnapping and murder if the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of 4. If the seizure of the victim is solely to deprive him of his liberty, the crime is illegal detention.
killing her.
In the penultimate paragraph of Article 267, there is deprivation of liberty but not for any for the
purposes enumerated above. It is for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or from

any other person. The law classifies the crime committed by the offender as serious illegal When the offender voluntarily releases the offended party from detention within three days from
detention even if none of the circumstances to make it serious is present in the commission of the time the restraint of liberty began, as long as the offender has not accomplished his
the crime. In this particular mode of committing the crime of serious illegal detention, demand for purposes, and the release was made before the criminal prosecution was commenced, this would
ransom is an indispensable element. (People vs. Bustamante, G. R. No. 66427, Dec. 4, serve to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender, provided that the kidnapping or illegal
1991) detention is not serious.
SANDOVAL Notes: If the illegal detention is serious , however, even if the offender voluntarily released the offended
party, and such release was within three days from the time the detention began, even if the
If the victim was not kidnapped or taken away but was restrained and deprived of his offender has not accomplished his purpose in detaining the offended party, and even if there is
liberty, like in the case of a hostage incident where the accused, who was one of the occupants no criminal prosecution yet, such voluntary release will not mitigate the criminal liability of the
of the house, grabbed a child, poked a knife on the latter’s neck, called for media people and offender.
demanded a vehicle from the authorities which he could use in escaping, as it turned out that
there was an unserved arrest warrant against him, the proper charge is Serious Illegal Detention One who furnishes the place where the offended party is being held generally acts as an
(without kidnapping anymore) but likewise under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. accomplice. But the criminal liability in connection with the kidnapping and serious illegal
detention, as well as the slight illegal detention, is that of the principal and not of the accomplice.
Where after taking the victim with her car, the accused called the house of the victim
asking for ransom but upon going to their safehouse saw several police cars chasing them, The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which provides that voluntary release will only
prompting them to kill their victim inside the car, there were two crime committed – Kidnapping mitigate criminal liability if crime was slight illegal detention. If serious, it has no effect.
for Ransom and Murder, not a complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder as she was not taken or
carried away to be killed, killing being an afterthought . (People vs. Evanoria, 209 SCRA In kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release will not mitigate the crime. This is because, with the
577). reimposition of the death penalty, this crime is penalized with the extreme penalty of death.
What is ransom? It is the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
Article 268 captured person or persons, a payment that releases a person from captivity.
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
The definition of ransom under the Lindberg law of the U.S. has been adopted in our
ELEMENTS: jurisprudence in People v. Akiran, 18 SCRA 239, 242, such that when a creditor detains a
1. Offender is a private person debtor and releases the latter only upon the payment of the debt, such payment of the debt,
which was made a condition for the release is ransom, under this article.
2. He kidnaps or detains another or in any other maner deprives him pof his
liberty / furnished place for the perpetuation of the crime In the case of People v. Roluna, decided March 29, 1994, witnesses saw a person being
taken away with hands tied behind his back and was not heard from for six years. Supreme
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal Court reversed the trial court ruling that the men accused were guilty of kidnapping with murder.
The crime is only slight illegal detention under Article 268, aggravated by a band, since none of
4. That the crime is committed without the attendant of any of the the circumstances in Article 267 has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the
circumstances enumerated in Art 267 victim has been missing for six years raises a presumption of death, but from this disputable
presumption of death, it should not be further presumed that the persons who were last seen
Note: Privileged mitigating circumstances: with the absentee is responsible for his disappearance.
If the offender:
a. voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or detained within 3 days from the
commencement of the detention Article 269
UNLAWFUL ARREST
b. without having attained the purpose intended and
ELEMENTS:
c. before the institution of criminal proceedings against him 1. That the offender arrests or detains another person
Ortega Notes: 2. That the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities
One should know the nature of the illegal detention to know whether the voluntary release of the 3. That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no
offended party will affect the criminal liability of the offender. reasonable ground therefor
Notes:

* Offender is any person, so either a public officer or private individual

* If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does not apply; Articles 270 and 271 apply.
* The offender in this article can be a private individual or public officer. In the latter case, the
offender, being a public officer, has the authority to arrest and detain a person, but the arrest is * If the taking is with the consent of the parents, the crime in Article 270 is committed.
made without legal grounds. For him to be punished under this article, the public officer must
make the arrest and detention without authority to do so; or without acting in his official * In People v. Generosa, it was held that deliberate failure to return a minor under one’s
capacity. custody constitutes deprivation of liberty. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is necessarily
included in kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor under Article 267(4).
* This felony consists in making an arrest or detention without legal or reasonable ground for the
purpose of delivering the offended party to the proper authorities. * In People v. Mendoza, where a minor child was taken by the accused without the knowledge
and consent of his parents, it was held that the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
* The offended party may also be detained but the crime is not illegal detention because the under Article 267, not kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270.
purpose is to prosecute the person arrested. The detention is only incidental; the primary
criminal intention of the offender is to charge the offended party for a crime he did not actually
commit. Article 271
INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME
* Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating innocent persons by the offender’s planting
evidence to justify the arrest – a complex crime results, that is, unlawful arrest through ELEMENTS:
incriminatory machinations under Article 363. 1. That the minor (whether over or under 7) is living in the home of his parents
or guardians or the person entrusted with his custody
* Refers to warrantless arrests
* If the arrest is made without a warrant and under circumstances not allowing a warrantless 2. That the offender induces a minor to abandon such home
arrest, the crime would be unlawful arrest.
Notes:
* If the person arrested is not delivered to the authorities, the private individual making the * The inducement must be actually done with malice and a determined will to cause damage.
arrest incurs criminal liability for illegal detention under Article 267 or 268. (People vs. Paalam, C.A., O.G. 8267-8268). But where the victims abandoned their
respective homes out of an irresponsible spirit of restlessness and adventure, the crime is not
* If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention under Article 124. committed.
* If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, but the public officer delays delivery of the * Minor should not leave his home of his own free will
person arrested to the proper judicial authorities, then Article 125 will apply.
* Mitigating if by father or mother
* Note that this felony may also be committed by public officers.
* The article also punishes the father or mother who commits the act penalized under the law.
* In art 125, the detention is for some legal ground while here, the detention is not authorized by This arises when the custody of the minor is awarded by the court to one of them after they have
law separated. The other parent who induces the minor to abandon his home is covered by this
article.
* In art 125, the crime pertains to failure to deliver the person to the proper judicial authority Article 272
within the prescribed period while here, the arrest is not authorized by law SLAVERY
ELEMENTS:
Article 270 1. That the offender purchases. Sells, kidnaps or detains a human being.
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR
2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether SLAVERY is the treatment of a human being as a mere property, stripped of dignity and human
over or under 7 but less than 18 yrs old) rights. The person is reduced to the level of an ordinary animal, a mere chattel with material
value capable of pecuniary estimation and for which reason, the offender purchases and sells the
2. That he deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents same.
* If any of the foregoing elements is absent , the kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Note: Qualifying circumstance – if the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party
Article 267. to some immoral traffic (prostitution), the penalty is higher

* This is distinguished from illegal detention by the purpose. If the purpose of the kidnapping or Acts punishable:
detention is to enslave the offended party, slavery is committed. 1. By failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender finds in an
inhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such
* The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in the business of prostitution. If he is, the assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
crime is white slave trade under Article 341. more serious offense
Elements
Article 273 a. That place is not inhabited.
EXPLOITION OF CHILD LABOR
b. The accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender retains a minor in his service. c. The accused can render assistance without detriment to himself.
2. That it is against the will of the minor. d. The accused fails to render assistance.
3. That it is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an 2. By failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender has
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of such minor. accidentally wounded or injured
* If the minor agrees to serve the accused, no crime is committed, even if the service is rendered 3. By failing to deliver a child, under 7 whom the offender has found abandoned, to
to pay an ascendant’s alleged debt. the authorities or to his family, or by failing to take him to a safe place
* Under the first act, the offender is liable only when he can render such assistance without
Article 274 detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense . Where the
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT person is already wounded and already in danger of dying, there is an obligation to render
assistance only if he is found in an uninhabited place . If the mortally wounded, dying person is
ELEMENTS: found in a place not uninhabited in legal contemplation, abandonment will not bring about this
crime. An uninhabited place is determined by possibility of person receiving assistance from
1. That the offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as household another. Even if there are many houses around, the place may still be uninhabited if possibility of
servant or farm laborer. receiving assistance is remote.
2. That it is against the debtor’s will. * If what happened was an accident at first, there would be no liability pursuant to Article 12 (4)
of the RPC – damnum absque injuria. But if you abandon your victim, you will be liable under
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt. Article 275. Here, the character of the place is immaterial. As long as the victim was injured
because of the accident caused by the offender, the offender would be liable for abandonment if
Involuntary servitude or service . In this article, no distinction is made whether the offended he would not render assistance to the victim.
is a minor or an adult.
Article 276
ABANDONING A MINOR
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has the custody of a child.
2. That the child is under seven years of age.
3. That he abandons such child.
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY 4. That he has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned.
Article 275 Notes:

ABANDONMENT OF PERSON IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM

* Conscious, deliberate, permanent 1. By causing any boy or girl under 16 to perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength or contortion, the offender being any person
* In order to hold one criminally liable under this article, the offender must have abandoned the
child with deliberate intent. The purpose of the offender must solely be avoidance of the 2. By employing children under 16 who are not the children or descendants of the
obligation of taking care of the minor . offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal
tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling
Qualifying circumstances:
a. When the death of the minor resulted from such abandonment 3. By employing any descendant under 12 in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in
the next preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of said callings
b. If the life of the minor was in danger because of the abandonment
4. By delivering a child under 16 gratuitously to any person following any of the
Article 277 callings enumerated in par 2 or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS the care of such child
Acts punished: 5. By inducing any child under 16 to abandon the home of its ascendants;
guardians, curators or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the
1. By delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons w/o consent of the callings mentioned in par 2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar, the
one who entrusted such minor to the care of the offender or, in the absence of offender being any person
that one, without the consent of the proper authorities
Note: Qualifying Circumstance – if the delivery of the child to any person following any of the
Elements: callings of acrobat, rope-walker, diver or wild-animal trainer or circus manager or to any habitual
a. That the offender has charged of the rearing or education of a minor. vagrant of beggar is made in consideration of any price, compensation or promise, the penalty is
higher.
b. That he delivers said minor to a public institution or other persons.
* The offender is engaged in a kind of business that would place the life or limb of the minor in
c. That the one who entrusted such child to the offender has not danger, even though working for him is not against the will of the minor.
consented to such act, or if the one who entrusted such child to the Nature of the Business – This involves circuses which generally attract children so they
offender is absent; the proper authorities have not consented to it. themselves may enjoy working there unaware of the danger to their own lives and
limbs.
2. By neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them education which their
station in life requires and financial condition permits Age – Must be below 16 years. At this age, the minor is still growing.
Elements: * If the employer is an ascendant, the crime is not committed, unless the minor is less than 12
a. That the offender is a parent. years old. Because if the employer is an ascendant, the law regards that he would look after the
welfare and protection of the child; hence, the age is lowered to 12 years. Below that age, the
b. That he neglects his children by not giving them education. crime is committed.
c. That his station in life requires such education and his financial * But remember Republic Act No. 7610 ( Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
condition permits it. Exploitation and Discrimination Act ). It applies to minors below 18 years old, not 16 years old as
in the Revised Penal Code. As long as the employment is inimical – even though there is no
“Indifference of parents” – while they are financially capable of supporting the needs of their physical risk – and detrimental to the child’s interest – against moral, intellectual, physical, and
children, they deliberately neglect to support the educational requirements of these children mental development of the minor – the establishment will be closed.
through plain irresponsibility caused by wrong social values.
* Article 278 has no application if minor is 16 years old and above. But the exploitation will be
dealt with by Republic Act No. 7610.
Article 278
EXPLOITATION OF MINORS * If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries as a result of a violation of Article 278,
Article 279 provides that there would be additional criminal liability for the resulting felony.
Acts punished:
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR OTHER OFFENSES: (279)

* On violence, Cuello Calon opines that violence may be committed not only against persons but
Article 280 also against things. So, breaking the door or glass of a window or door constitutes
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING acts of violence. Our Supreme Court followed this view in People v. Tayag.
Violence or intimidation must, however, be anterior or coetaneous with the
ELEMENTS: entrance and must not be posterior. But if the violence is employed immediately
1. That the offender is a private person. after the entrance without the consent of the owner of the house, trespass is
committed. If there is also violence or intimidation, proof of prohibition to enter is
2. That he enters the dwelling of another. no longer necessary.
3. That such entrance is against the latter’s will. * When there is no overt act of the crime intended to be committed, this is the crime
Notes: * If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown, trespass is committed. If the purpose is
shown, it may be absorbed in the crime as in robbery with force upon things, the trespass
DWELLING – This is the place that a person inhabits. It includes the dependencies which have yielding to the more serious crime. But if the purpose is not shown and while inside the dwelling
interior communication with the house. It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling of he was found by the occupants, one of whom was injured by him, the crime committed will be
the person. So, a person’s room in a hotel may be considered a dwelling. It also includes a room trespass to dwelling and frustrated homicide, physical injuries, or if there was no injury, unjust
where one resides as a boarder. vexation.
Qualifying circumstance: if the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation, the * May be committed even by the owner (as against the actual occupant)
penalty is higher
* Even if the house belonged to the accused, if the possession has been delivered to another by
* There must be an opposition to the entry of the accused reason of contract or by a mere tolerance, his being the owner would not authorize him to enter
the house against the will of the lawful occupant. His ownership is no authority for him to place
* If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry, that is presumed to be against the will of the law in his hands. (People vs. Almeda, 75 Phil. 476)
the occupant (example, entry through a window). It is not necessary that there be a breaking.
Distinction between qualified trespass to dwelling and violation of domicile
* Lack of permission to enter a dwelling does not amount to prohibition. So, one who enters a
building is not presumed to be trespasser until the owner tells him to leave the building . In such a Unlike qualified trespass to dwelling, violation of domicile may be committed only by a public
case, if he refuses to leave, then his entry shall now be considered to have been made without officer or employee and the violation may consist of any of the three acts mentioned in Article
the express consent of the owner. (People vs. De Peralta, 42 Phil. 69) 128 – (1) entering the dwelling against the will of the owner without judicial order; (2) searching
papers or other effects found in such dwelling without the previous consent of the owner thereof;
* Even if the door is not locked, for as long as it is closed, the prohibition is presumed especially and (3) refusing to leave the dwelling when so requested by the owner thereof, after having
if the entry was done at the late hour of the night or at an unholy hour of the day. (U. S. vs. surreptitiously entered such dwelling.
Mesina, 21 Phil. 615)
Not applicable to:
* Implied prohibition is present considering the situation – late at night and everyone’s asleep or a. entrance is for the purpose of preventing harm to himself, the occupants or a third
entrance was made through the window person
“Against the will” -- This means that the entrance is, either expressly or impliedly, prohibited b. purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice
or the prohibition is presumed. Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass . The prohibition to
enter may be made at any time and not necessarily at the time of the entrance. c. place is a café, tavern etc while open
* To prove that an entry is against the will of the occupant, it is not necessary that the entry * Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a person who believes that a crime has
should be preceded by an express prohibition, provided that the opposition of the occupant is been committed against him has every right to go after the culprit and arrest him without any
clearly established by the circumstances under which the entry is made, such as the existence of warrant even if in the process he enters the house of another against the latter’s will.
enmity or strained relations between the accused and the occupant.
Medina case: when the accused entered the dwelling through the window, he had no intent to
* Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender kill any person inside, but the intention to kill came to his mind when he was being arrested by
the occupants thereof, the crime of trespass to dwelling is a separate and distinct offense from
frustrated homicide

Article 281 Elements

OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS a. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the
latter’s person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of
ELEMENTS: any wrong.
1. That the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another.
b. That such wrong amounts to a crime.
2. That the entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited.
c. That the threat is not subject to a condition
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest.
Notes:
4. That the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof. Intimidation is an indispensable element in the crime of threat. The very essence of threat is to
sow fear, anxiety and insecurity in the mind of the offended party. It is done by threatening to
commit the crime upon the person, honor and property of the offended party. There is a promise
of some future harm or injury.
Aggravating circumstances: if made in writing or thru a middleman
Frustrated – if not received by the person being threatened
THREATS and COERCIONS * Art 284 bond for good behavior may be imposed (only in these offenses)
Article 282 Ortega Notes:

GRAVE THREATS
Threat is a declaration of an intention or determination to injure another by the commission
Acts punishable: upon his person, honor or property or upon that of his family of some wrong which may or may
not amount to a crime:
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property
that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or (1) Grave threats – when the wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime. The
imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful and the offender (Note: case falls under Article 282.
threat is with condition)
(2) Light threats – if it does not amount to a crime. The case falls under Article 283.
Elements
a. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the But even if the harm intended is in the nature of a crime, if made orally and in the heat of anger
latter’s person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of and after the oral threat, the issuer of the threat did not pursue the act, the crime is only other
any wrong. light threats under Article 285.
b. That such wrong amounts to a crime. To constitute grave threats, the threats must refer to a future wrong and is committed by acts or
through words of such efficiency to inspire terror or fear upon another. It is, therefore,
c. That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is characterized by moral pressure that produces disquietude or alarm.
imposed, even though not unlawful.
The greater perversity of the offender is manifested when the threats are made demanding
d. That the offender attains his purpose. money or imposing any condition, whether lawful or not, and the offender shall have attained his
purpose. So the law imposes upon him the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for
2. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose the crime threatened to be committed. But if the purpose is not attained, the penalty lower by
two degrees is imposed. The maximum period of the penalty is imposed if the threats are made
3. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or in writing or through a middleman as they manifest evident premeditation.
that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being
subject to a condition (Note: threat is without condition) Distinction between threat and coercion:

The essence of coercion is violence or intimidation. There is no condition involved; hence, there under Article 356. For example, a person threatens to expose the affairs of married man if the
is no futurity in the harm or wrong done. latter does not give him money. There is intimidation done under a demand.
In threat, the wrong or harm done is future and conditional. In coercion, it is direct and
personal.
Distinction between threat and robbery:
(1) As to intimidation – In robbery, the intimidation is actual and immediate; in threat, the Article 284
intimidation is future and conditional. BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
(2) As to nature of intimidation – In robbery, the intimidation is personal; in threats, it may * The law imposes the penalty of bond for good behavior only in case of grave and light threats.
be through an intermediary. If the offender can not post the bond, he will be banished by way of destierro to prevent him
from carrying out his threat.
(3) As to subject matter – Robbery refers to personal property; threat may refer to the
person, honor or property. * Bond for good behavior means the posting of bond on the part of the accused in order to
guarantee that he will not molest the offended party. It is in the nature of an additional penalty.
(4) As to intent to gain – In robbery, there is intent to gain; in threats, intent to gain is not
an essential element. * Bond to keep peace under Article 35 is applicable to all cases and is treated as a distinct
penalty. If the sentenced prisoner fails to give the bond, he shall be detained for a period not
(5) In robbery, the robber makes the danger involved in his threats directly imminent to exceeding six months if the crime for which he was convicted is classified as grave felony or for a
the victim and the obtainment of his gain immediate, thereby also taking rights to his period not exceeding thirty days if convicted for a light felony.
person by the opposition or resistance which the victim might offer; in threat, the
danger to the victim is not instantly imminent nor the gain of the culprit immediate.
Article 285
OTHER LIGHT THREATS
Article 283
LIGHT THREATS ELEMENTS:
1. Person shall threaten another with a weapon, or draw weapon in a quarrel
ELEMENTS: unless in self-defense.
1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong.
2. In the heat of anger, person orally threatens another with some harm
2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime. constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea involved in the threat.
Subsequent acts did not persist.
3. That there is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful 3. Person orally threatens another with harm not constituting a felony.
4. That the offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not attained his * In the crime of light threats, there is no demand for money and the threat made is not planned
purpose or done with deliberate intent. So threats which would otherwise qualify as grave threats, when
made in the heat of anger or which is a product of a spur of the moment are generally considered
* In order to convict a person of the crime of light threats, the harm threatened must not be in as light threats.
the nature of crime and there is a demand for money or any other condition is imposed, even
though lawful. * Whether it is grave or light threats, the crime is committed even in the absence of the person
to whom the threat is directed.
Question & Answer
Article 286
Blackmailing constitutes what crime? GRAVE COERCIONS
It is a crime of light threat under Article 283 if there is no threat to publish any libelous ELEMENTS:
or slanderous matter against the offended party. If there is such a threat to make a slanderous 1. That a person prevented another from doing something OR not to do something
or libelous publication against the offended party, the crime will be one of libel, which is penalized against his will, be it right or wrong;

* Exception to the rule that physical violence must be exerted: where intimidation is so serious
2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, of force as would that it is not a threat anymore – it approximates violence.
produce intimidation and control the will.
* In Lee v. CA, 201 SCAR 405, it was held that neither the crime of threats nor coercion is
3. That the person that restrained the will and liberty by another had not the committed although the accused, a branch manager of a bank made the complainant
authority of law or the right to do so, or, in other words, that the restraint shall sign a withdrawal slip for the amount needed to pay the spurious dollar check she had
not be made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right. encashed, and also made her execute an affidavit regarding the return of the amount
against her better sense and judgment. According to the court, the complainant may
Acts punished have acted reluctantly and with hesitation, but still, it was voluntary. It is different
when a complainant refuses absolutely to act such an extent that she becomes a mere
1. Preventing another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, from doing automaton and acts mechanically only, not of her own will. In this situation, the
something not prohibited by law; complainant ceases to exits as an independent personality and the person who employs
force or intimidation is, in the eyes of the law, the one acting; while the hand of the
2. Compelling another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, to do something complainant sign, the will that moves it is the hand of the offender.
against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
* In grave coercion, the act of preventing by force must be made at the time the offended party Article 287
was doing or was about to do the act to be prevented. LIGHT COERCIONS
* Grave coercion arises only if the act which the offender prevented another to do is not ELEMENTS:
prohibited by law or ordinance. If the act prohibited was illegal, he is not liable for grave 1. That the offender must be a creditor.
coercion.
2. That he seizes anything belonging to his debtor.
* If a person prohibits another to do an act because the act is a crime, even though some sort of
violence or intimidation is employed, it would not give rise to grave coercion. It may only give 3. That the seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display
rise to threat or physical injuries, if some injuries are inflicted. However, in case of grave of material force producing intimidation;
coercion where the offended party is being compelled to do something against his will, whether it
be wrong or not, the crime of grave coercion is committed if violence or intimidation is employed 4. That the purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt.
in order to compel him to do the act. No person shall take the law into his own hands.
Illustration: UNJUST VEXATION
Compelling the debtor to deliver some of his properties to pay a creditor will amount to coercion * In unjust vexation, any act committed without violence, but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes
although the creditor may have a right to collect payment from the debtor, even if the obligation an innocent person amounts to light coercion.
is long over due.
* As a punishable act, unjust vexation should include any human conduct which, although not
* The violence employed in grave coercion must be immediate, actual, or imminent . In the productive of some physical or material harm would, however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an
absence of actual or imminent force or violence, coercion is not committed. The essence of innocent person.
coercion is an attack on individual liberty.
* It is distinguished from grave coercion under the first paragraph by the absence of violence.
* The physical violence is exerted to (1) prevent a person from doing something he wants to do;
or (2) compel him to do something he does not want to do. Illustration:
Illustration: Persons stoning someone else’s house. So long as stoning is not serious and it is intended to
annoy, it is unjust vexation. It disturbs the peace of mind.
If a man compels another to show the contents of the latter’s pockets, and takes the wallet, this
is robbery and not grave coercion. The intimidation is a means of committing robbery with * The main purpose of the statute penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to enforce
violence or intimidation of persons. Violence is inherent in the crime of robbery with violence or the principle that no person may take the law into his hands and that our government is one of
intimidation upon persons and in usurpation of real properties because it is the means of laws, not of men. The essence of the crimes is the attack on individual liberty.
committing the crime.

Article 288 * Preventing employees or laborers from joining any registered labor organization is punished
OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS under Art. 248 of the Labor Code.
ELEMENTS OF NO. 1 DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling of Article 290
the laborer or employee of the offender to purchase merchandise of commodities of any kind DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
from him;
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is any person, agent or officer of any association or 1. That the offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the
corporation. exercise of his official function,
2. That he or such firm or corporation has employed laborers or employees. 2. That he seizes the papers or letters of another.
3. That he forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permits to be 3. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person.
forced or compelled, any of his or its laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any kind from his or from said firm or 4. That offender is informed of the contents or the papers or letters seized.
corporation.
Notes:
ELEMENTS OF NO. 2
Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of tokens or object other than the legal * This is a crime against the security of one’s papers and effects. The purpose must be to
tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer or employee. discover its effects. The act violates the privacy of communication.
1. That the offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him by * Not applicable to parents with respect to minor children
means of tokens or objects.
* The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes the provision of the first and second
2. That those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender currency to the paragraph thereof inapplicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of
Philippines. minors placed under their care or custody, and to the spouses with respect to the papers or
letters of either of them. The teachers or other persons entrusted with the care and education of
3. That such employee or laborer does not expressly request that he be paid by minors are included in the exceptions.
means of tokens or objects. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, a spouse who rummaged and found love letters of
husband to mistress does not commit this crime, but the letters are inadmissible in evidence
* Under the Republic Act No. 602, known as the Minimum Wage Law, wages of laborers because of unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling held that the wife should have applied
must be paid in legal tender. Accordingly, it is unlawful to pay the wages of the laborers in the for a search warrant.
form of promissory notes, vouchers, coupons, tokens, or any other forms alleged to represent
legal tender. * Contents need not be secret but purpose prevails
* According to Ortega, it is not necessary that the offender should actually discover the contents
Article 289 of the letter. Reyes, citing People v. Singh, CA, 40 OG, Suppl. 5, 35, believes otherwise.
FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR
LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS Circumstances qualifying the offense: when the offender reveals contents of such papers or
letters of another to a 3rd person, the penalty is higher
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as to compel or Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and unjust vexation:
force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or
work If the act had been executed with intent of gain, it would be estafa;
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or labor, If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to defraud, but only to cause damage to another’s, it
strike of laborers or lockout of employees. would merit the qualification of damage to property;
* Peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech and is not covered by this article. If the intention was merely to cause vexation preventing another to do something which the law
does not prohibit or compel him to execute what he does not want, the act should be considered
as unjust vexation.

TITLE TEN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 291
REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE Crimes against property
1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Art. 294);
ELEMENTS: 2. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances (Art. 297);
1. That the offender is a manager, employee or servant. 3. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation (Art. 298);
4. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship (Art.
2. That he learns the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity. 299);
5. Robbery in an inhabited place or in a private building (Art. 302);
3. That he reveals such secrets. 6. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art. 304);
7. Brigandage (Art. 306);
* An employee, manager, or servant who came to know of the secret of his master or principal in 8. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art. 307);
such capacity and reveals the same shall also be liable regardless of whether or not the principal 9. Theft (Art. 308);
or master suffered damages. 10. Qualified theft (Art. 310);
11. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum (Art. 311);
* The essence of this crime is that the offender learned of the secret in the course of his 12. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property (Art. 312);
employment. He is enjoying a confidential relation with the employer or master so he should 13. Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
respect the privacy of matters personal to the latter. 14. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314);
15. Swindling (Art. 315);
* If the matter pertains to the business of the employer or master, damage is necessary and the 16. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316);
agent, employee or servant shall always be liable. Reason: no one has a right to the personal 17. Swindling a minor (Art. 317);
privacy of another. 18. Other deceits (Art. 318);
19. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property (Art. 319);
20. Destructive arson (Art. 320);
21. Other forms of arson (Art. 321);
22. Arson of property of small value (Art. 323);
23. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 324);
24. Burning one’s own property as means to commit arson (Art. 325);
25. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender (Art. 326);
Article 292 26. Malicious mischief (Art. 327);
REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS 27. Special case of malicious mischief (Art. 328);
28. Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art. 330);
ELEMENTS: 29. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings (Art. 331).
1. That the offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a
manufacturing or industrial establishment.
2. That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the

industry which the offender has learned.
3. That the offender reveals such secrets.
4. That the prejudice is caused to the owner.

Article 293
* A business secret must not be known to other business entities or persons. It is a matter to be ROBBERY IN GENERAL
discovered, known and used by and must belong to one person or entity exclusively. One who
merely copies their machines from those already existing and functioning cannot claim to have a ELEMENTS:
business secret, much less, a discovery within the contemplation of Article 292. 1. That there be personal property belonging to another.
2. That there is unlawful taking of that property.
3. That the taking must be with intent to gain, and

4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon * When there’s no intent to gain but there is violence in the taking – grave coercion
anything.
* Violence or intimidation must be against the person of the offended party, not upon the thing
Notes: General rule: violence or intimidation must be present before the “taking” is complete
Except: when violence results in – homicide, rape, intentional mutilation or any of the serious
ROBBERY – This is the taking or personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by physical injuries in par 1 and 2 of art 263, the taking of the property is robbery complexed with
means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. any of these crimes under art 294, even if taking is already complete when violence was used by
the offender
Two kinds of robbery: 1) robbery with violence or intimidation and 2) robbery with force upon
things. Use of force upon things – entrance to the building by means described in arts 299 and 302
(offender must enter)
Belonging to another – person from whom property was taken need not be the owner, legal
possession is sufficient * The other kind of robbery is one that is committed with the use of force upon anything in order
to take with intent to gain, the personal property of another. The use of force here must refer to
* The property must be personal property and cannot refer to real property. the force employed upon things in order to gain entrance into a building or a house. (People vs.
Adorno, C. A. 40 O. G. 567)
* Name of the real owner is not essential so long as the personal property taken does not belong
to the accused except if crime is robbery with homicide * When both violence or intimidation and force upon things concur – it is robbery with violence
* The owner of the property may be held liable for robbery where he forcible takes the property Robbery and Theft, compared.
from the possession of the bailee with intent to charge the latter with its value. (U. S. vs. Albao, 1. Both robbery and theft involve unlawful taking or asportation as an element;
29 Phil. 86)
2. Both involve personal property belonging to another;
* In the absence of any explanation as to how one has come into possession of stolen effects
belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed, the possessor must necessarily be 3. In both crimes, the taking is done with intent to gain;
considered the author of the aggression and death of the victim as well as of the robbery
committed. (People vs. Rapuela. G. R. NO. 85178, March 15, 1990) 4. In robbery, the taking is done either with the use of violence or intimidation of person or the
employment of force upon things; whereas in theft, the taking is done simply without the
Suppose the property is res nullus or without an owner? knowledge and consent of the owner.
The crime of robbery or theft cannot be committed if the property is without an owner for the Robbery with violence Grave threats Grave coercion
simple reason that no one can be prejudiced by the taking of the personal property, even though Intent to gain No intent to gain None
the intent to gain is present in the taking. Immediate harm Intimidation; promises some Intimidation (effect) is immediate and offended party
future harm or injury is compelled to do something against his will (w/n
Taking of personal property – must be unlawful; if given in trust – estafa right or wrong)
* The taking of the property must be coupled with the intention to permanently deprive the Robbery Bribery
offended party of his possession of the things taken . (People vs. Kho Choc, C. A., 50 O. G. X didn’t commit crime but is intimidated to deprive him of his X has committed a crime and gives money as way to
1667) property avoid arrest or prosecution
Deprived of money thru force or intimidation Giving of money is in one sense voluntary
As to robbery with violence or intimidation – from the moment the offender gains Neither Transaction is voluntary and mutual
possession of the thing even if offender has had no opportunity to dispose of the same, the
Ex. defendant demands payment of P2.00 with threats of arrest
unlawful taking is complete
and prosecution, therefore, robbery because (a) intent to gain
and (b) immediate harm
As to robbery with force upon things – thing must be taken out of the building
ANTI – CARNAPPING ACT ( RA # 6539 )
Intent to gain – presumed from unlawful taking
“Carnapping” is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without
* Intent to gain may be presumed from the unlawful taking of another’s property. However,
the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
when one takes a property under the claim of ownership or title, the taking is not considered to
upon things.
be with intent to gain. (U. S. vs. Manluco, et al., 28 Phil. 360)

Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are public, not exclusively for private use
is covered within the concept of motor vehicle under the Anti-Carnapping Law. A tricycle which is * As long as the criminal objective or plan is to rob, whether the killing committed by reason or
not included in the enumeration of exempted vehicles under the Carnapping Law is deemed to be on occasion thereof is intentional or accidental, the crime is Robbery with Homicide. ( Pp vs.
motor vehicle as defined in the law, the stealing of which comes within its penal sanction. Pecato, 151 scra 14 ) As long as there was killing when Robbery was taking place, Robbery
with Homicide was committed, the killing occurring on the occasion thereof.
If the vehicle uses the streets with or without the required license, the same comes within the
protection of the law, for the severity of the offense is not to be measured by what kind of street Problem:
or highway the same is used but by the nature of the vehicle itself and the case to which it is A, B, C and D robbed a bank. When they were
devoted. (Izon, et al., vs. People, 107 SCRA 118) about to flee, policemen came, and they traded shots
Article 294 with them. If one of the policemen was killed, the
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSON offense is Robbery with Homicide. If one of the robbers
was the one killed, the remaining robbers shall be
Acts punished as robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons charged also with Robbery with Homicide. If a bank
employee was the one killed either by the robbers or by
By reason or on occasion of the robbery, the following are committed: the policemen in the course of the latter’s action of
arresting or trying to arrest the robbers, the crime is still
1. homicide Robbery with Homicide.
2. robbery accompanied with rape or intentional mutilation, SPI – insane, * As long as the criminal intent is to rob, that is, robbery was the real motive, the offense would
imbecile, impotent or blind still be classified as Robbery with Homicide even if the killing preceded or was done ahead of the
robbing. (People vs. Tolentino, 165 SCRA 490).
3. SPI – lost the use of speech, hear, smell, eye, hand, foot, arm, leg, use of any
such member, incapacitated for work habitually engaged in * Thus, as a member of the “agaw-armas” gang whose plan and design is to rob a policeman of
his service revolver, but because he fears that said policeman may beat him to the draw, first
4. Violence/intimidation shall have been carried to a degree clearly shoots the policeman fatally and only after when the latter lies dead, does he get the gun – the
unnecessary for the crime or when in the cause of its execution – crime is still considered Robbery with Homicide.
SPI/deformity, or shall have lost any part of the body or the use thereof or
shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work for > 90 * This is a crime against property, and therefore, you contend not with the killing but with the
days; > 30 days robbery.
5. Any kind of robbery with less serious physical injuries or slight physical * As long as there is only one (1) robbery, regardless of the persons killed, the crime will only be
injuries one (1) count of robbery with homicide. The fact that there are multiple killings committed in the
course of the robbery will be considered only as aggravating so as to call for the imposition of the
Notes: maximum penalty prescribed by law.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES (specific penalties prescribed) * If, on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, somebody is killed, and there are also physical
injuries inflicted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, don’t think that those who
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE – sustained physical injuries may separately prosecute the offender for physical injuries. Those
a. if original design is robbery and homicide is committed – robbery with homicide physical injuries are only considered aggravating circumstances in the crime of robbery with
even though homicide precedes the robbery by an appreciable time. homicide.
b. If original design is not robbery but robbery was committed after homicide as an * This is not a complex crime as understood under Article 48, but a single indivisible crime. This
afterthought – 2 separate offenses. is a special complex crime because the specific penalty is provided in the law.
c. Still robbery with homicide – if the person killed was an innocent bystander and * The term “homicide” is used in the generic sense , and the complex crime therein contemplated
not the person robbed and if death supervened by mere accident. comprehends not only robbery with homicide in its restricted sense, but also with robbery with
murder. So, any kind of killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery will bring about the
* The original criminal design of the culprit must be Robbery and the Homicide is perpetrated crime of robbery with homicide even if the person killed is less than three days old, or even if the
with a view to the consummation of the Robbery. person killed is the mother or father of the killer, or even if on such robbery the person killed was
done by treachery or any of the qualifying circumstances. In short, there is no crime of robbery
* If death results or even accompanies a robbery, the crime will be robbery with homicide with parricide, robbery with murder, robbery with infanticide – any and all forms of killing is
provided that the robbery is consummated. referred to as homicide.

On the occasion of a robbery, one of the offenders placed his firearm on the table. While they
Illustration: were ransacking the place, one of the robbers bumped the table. As a result, the firearm fell on
the floor and discharged. One of the robbers was the one killed . Even though the placing of the
The robbers enter the house. In entering through the window, one of the robbers stepped on a firearm on the table where there is no safety precaution taken may be considered as one of
child less than three days old. The crime is not robbery with infanticide because there is no such negligence or imprudence, you do not separate the homicide as one of the product of criminal
crime. The word homicide as used in defining robbery with homicide is used in the generic negligence. It will still be robbery with homicide, whether the person killed is connected with the
sense. It refers to any kind of death. robbery or not. He need not also be in the place of the robbery.
* Although it is a crime against property and treachery is an aggravating circumstance that * In one case, in the course of the struggle in a house where the robbery was being committed,
applies only to crimes against persons, if the killing in a robbery is committed with treachery, the the owner of the place tried to wrest the arm of the robber. A person several meters away was
treachery will be considered a generic aggravating circumstance because of the homicide . the one who got killed. The crime was held to be robbery with homicide.
* When two or more persons are killed during the robbery , such should be appreciated as an * Note that the person killed need not be one who is identified with the owner of the place where
aggravating circumstance. the robbery is committed or one who is a stranger to the robbers. It is enough that the homicide
was committed by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof.
* As long as there is only one robbery, regardless of the persons killed, you only have one crime
of robbery with homicide . Note, however, that “one robbery” does not mean there is only one Illustration:
taking.
There are two robbers who broke into a house and carried away some valuables. After they left
Illustration: such house these two robbers decided to cut or divide the loot already so that they can go of
them. So while they are dividing the loot the other robber noticed that the one doing the division
Robbers decided to commit robbery in a house, which turned out to be a boarding house. Thus, is trying to cheat him and so he immediately boxed him. Now this robber who was boxed then
there were different boarders who were offended parties in the robbery. There is only one count pulled out his gun and fired at the other one killing the latter. Would that bring about the crime
of robbery. If there were killings done to different boarders during the robbery being committed of robbery with homicide? Yes. Even if the robbery was already consummated, the killing was
in a boarder’s quarter, do not consider that as separate counts of robbery with homicide because still by reason of the robbery because they quarreled in dividing the loot that is the subject of the
when robbers decide to commit robbery in a certain house, they are only impelled by one robbery.
criminal intent to rob and there will only be one case of robbery. If there were homicide or death
committed, that would only be part of a single robbery. That there were several killings done * In People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, on the occasion of the robbery, the storeowner, a
would only aggravate the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide . septuagenarian, suffered a stroke due to the extreme fear which directly caused his
death when the robbers pointed their guns at him. It was held that the crime
* In People v. Quiñones, 183 SCRA 747 , it was held that there is no crime of robbery with committed was robbery with homicide. It is immaterial that death supervened as a
multiple homicides. The charge should be for robbery with homicide only because the mere accident as long as the homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion of
number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in the robbery, because it is only the result which matters, without reference to the
Article 294. All the killings are merged in the composite integrated whole that is circumstances or causes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime which
robbery with homicide so long as the killings were by reason or on occasion of the must be considered.
robbery.
* Remember also that intent to rob must be proved. But there must be an allegation as to the
* In another case, a band of robbers entered a compound, which is actually a sugar mill. Within robbery not only as to the intention to rob.
the compound, there were quarters of the laborers. They robbed each of the quarters. The
Supreme Court held that there was only one count of robbery because when they decided and * If the motive is to kill and the taking is committed thereafter, the crimes committed are
determined to rob the compound, they were only impelled by one criminal intent to rob. homicide and theft. If the primordial intent of the offender is to kill and not to rob but after the
killing of the victims a robbery was committed, then there are will be two separate crimes.
* With more reason, therefore, if in a robbery, the offender took away property belonging to
different owners, as long as the taking was done at one time, and in one place, impelled by the Illustration:
same criminal intent to gain, there would only be one count of robbery.
If a person had an enemy and killed him and after killing him, saw that he had a beautiful ring
* In robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense, it is immaterial who gets killed. Even and took this, the crime would be not robbery with homicide because the primary criminal intent
though the killing may have resulted from negligence , you will still designate the crime as robbery is to kill. So, there will be two crimes: one for the killing and one for the taking of the property
with homicide. after the victim was killed. Now this would bring about the crime of theft and it could not be
Illustration: robbery anymore because the person is already dead.

* For robbery with homicide to exist, homicide must be committed by reason or on the occasion remove any opposition which the victim may put up as regards the taking of his personal
of the robbery, that is, the homicide must be committed “in the course or because of the belongings. 3) The killing may also result from the offender’s defense of his possession of the
robbery.” Robbery and homicide are separate offenses when the homicide is not committed “on stolen goods. 4) Or it may be resorted to by the offender to facilitate his escape after the
the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery. commission of the robbery.
* Where the victims were killed, not for the purpose of committing robbery, and the idea of * In People vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil. (1907), the Supreme Court ruled that whenever homicide is
taking the money and other personal property of the victims was conceived by the committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the
culprits only after the killing, it was held in People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, that commission of the robbery are guilty as principals in the crime of robbery with homicide unless it
the culprits committed two separate crimes of homicide or murder (qualified by abuse appears that the principal claiming innocence in the killing, has attempted or tried to prevent the
of superior strength) and theft. killing. The burden of proving the attempt to prevent others from killing the victim rests on the
co-principal of the crime who makes such assertion or claim.
* The victims were killed first then their money was taken the money from their dead bodies.
This is robbery with homicide . It is important here that the intent to commit robbery * The same principle has been applied by the Supreme Court where the crime committed is
must precede the taking of human life in robbery with homicide . The offender must robbery accompanied by rape. The criminal liability of the person or persons who took no part in
have the intent to take personal property before the killing. the commission of the rape which accompanied the robbery is the same as the robber or robbers
who actually committed the rape unless the robber or robbers claiming innocence of the rape
* It must be conclusively shown that the homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the had endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. (People vs. Tiongco, 37 Phil. 95)
victim. In People v. Hernandez, appellants had not thought of robbery prior to the
killing. The thought of taking the victim’s wristwatch was conceived only after the ROBBERY WITH RAPE –
killing and throwing of the victim in the canal. Appellants were convicted of two
separate crimes of homicide and theft as there is absent direct relation and intimate * intent to commit robbery must precede rape.
connection between the robbery and the killing.
* Prosecution of the crime need not be by offended party – fiscal can sign the information.
* However, if the elements of the crime of robbery with violence employed against persons, fail
to meet the requirements of Article 294, as when the robbery resulted only in the commission of * When rape and homicide co-exist, rape should be considered as aggravating only and the crime
frustrated homicide, then Article 294 should be ignored and the general provision of the law is still robbery with homicide
should be applied, such as the provision of Article 48.
* Article 48 is not applicable to this crime because robbery is not a necessary means for the
* If robbery is proved but the homicide is not proven , the accused should be convicted of robbery commission of rape. Neither is rape necessary to commit robbery.
only and the penalty shall not be based under paragraph 1 but on paragraph 5 of the same
article, since only intimidation or violence was employed and it did not result in any of the * This is another form of violence or intimidation upon person. The rape accompanies the
situations mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4. robbery. In this case where rape and not homicide is committed, there is only a crime of robbery
with rape if both the robbery and the rape are consummated . If during the robbery, attempted
* If the robbery is not proven but the homicide is established , then the accused should be held rape were committed, the crimes would be separate, that is, one for robbery and one for the
liable only for homicide and the penalty shall be taken from Article 249, which deals with crimes attempted rape.
against property, so, if several homicides are alleged in the information for robbery with
homicide, and all of these homicides are proven beyond reasonable doubt, the court will impose a * The rape committed on the occasion of the robbery is not considered a private crime because
separate penalty for each of the homicide that is established by the evidence. (People vs. the crime is robbery, which is a crime against property. So, even though the robber may have
Barruga, 61 Phil. 318) married the woman raped, the crime remains robbery with rape . The rape is not erased. This is
because the crime is against property which is a single indivisible offense.
* It is important to remember that the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is
committed, where there exists a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and * If the woman, who was raped on the occasion of the robbery, pardoned the rapist who is one
the killing, irrespective of whether the killing be prior or subsequent to the robbery; or whether of the robbers, that would not erase the crime of rape. The offender would still be prosecuted
both crimes were committed at the same time. (People vs. Puesca, 87 SCRA 130) for the crime of robbery with rape, as long as the rape is consummated.
* Robbery with homicide need not be committed inside a building . What constitutes the crime as * Pardon by the offended party will not alter the criminal liability of the offender because in
robbery with homicide is the killing of a person on the occasion or by reason of the taking of robbery with rape, the crime committed is not a crime against chastity but a crime against
personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. property. Even under the present amendment which classifies rape as a crime against person, the
change has no legal effect on the provision of Article 294 since the special complex crime of
* The killing on the occasion of robbery may come in different forms . 1) It may be done by the robbery with rape is considered, by express provision of law, a single crime notwithstanding that
offender for the purpose of suppressing evidence, like when the victim is killed because he there is a plurality of crimes committed.
happens to know the person of the offender; or 2) when the killing is done in order to prevent or

* If the rape is attempted, since it will be a separate charge and the offended woman pardoned
the offender, that would bring about a bar to the prosecution of the attempted rape . If the * acts done by the accused which by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances inspire
offender married the offended woman, that would extinguish the criminal liability because the fear in the person against whom they are directed
rape is the subject of a separate prosecution.
* In the taking of personal property, it is necessary that violence must be employed by the
* The intention must be to commit robbery and even if the rape is committed before the robbery , offender in order that the taking may be considered as robbery . So, where the taking is without
robbery with rape is committed. But if the accused tried to rape the offended party and because violence or intimidation and the same is complete, but the victim pursued the offender in order to
of resistance, he failed to consummate the act, and then he snatched the vanity case from her recover the personal property taken and by the reason thereof, he suffers less serious or slight
hands when she ran away, two crimes are committed: attempted rape and theft. physical injuries in the hands of the offender, the violence employed on the victim which resulted
to his injuries will not convert the taking of his personal property to robbery. In such a case, the
* There is no complex crime under Article 48 because a single act is not committed and offender is liable for two crimes, namely, theft and less serious or slight physical injuries.
attempted rape is not a means necessary to commit theft and vice-versa.
* The intimidation must be present at the time of the taking before it is completed . If the taking
* The Revised Penal Code does not differentiate whether rape was committed before, during or is completed without intimidation and it is employed by the offender only to prevent the owner
after the robbery. It is enough that the robbery accompanied the rape. Robbery must not be a from recovering his stolen property, two crimes are committed by the offender: theft and grave
mere accident or afterthought. threat.
* If the two (2) crimes were separated both by time and place, there is no complex crime of * If violence is employed against the offended party in order to deprive him of his personal
Robbery with Rape. Thus, when complainant went out of her room about 1:30 a.m. to urinate, property and the violence resulted to the infliction of less serious or slight physical injuries, the
one of the accused grabbed her, poked an icepick on her neck , and dragged her out of the crime committed would only be robbery. Hence, there is no crime of robbery with less serious or
house and was made to board a taxi; and before boarding, she saw the two (2) companions of slight injuries. (U. S. vs. Barroga, 21 Phil 161)
the man carrying her typewriter and betamax and then joining them in the taxi, and that after
alighting from the taxi, the two (2) companions left her, and the man who had grabbed her On ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES
brought her to a motel, where by means of force and intimidation he was able to have sex with
her, the crimes committed are Robbery and Forcible Abduction with Rape. The Rape committed * To be considered as such, the physical injuries must always be serious. If the physical injuries
cannot be complexed with Robbery. (People vs. Angeles, 222 SCRA 451). are only less serious or slight, they are absorbed in the robbery . The crime becomes merely
robbery. But if the less serious physical injuries were committed after the robbery was already
* In People v. Flores, 195 SCRA 295, although the offenders plan was to get the victim’s consummated, there would be a separate charge for the less serious physical injuries . It will only
money, rape her and kill her, but in the actual execution of the crime, the thoughts of depriving be absorbed in the robbery if it was inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery. The
the victim of her valuables was relegated to the background and the offender’s prurient desires same is true in the case of slight physical injuries.
surfaced. They persisted in satisfying their lust. They would have forgotten about their intent to
rob if not for the accidental touching of the victim’s ring and wristwatch. The taking of the Illustration:
victim’s valuables turned out to be an afterthought. It was held that two distinct crimes were
committed: rape with homicide and theft. After the robbery had been committed and the robbers were already fleeing from the house
where the robbery was committed, the owner of the house chased them and the robbers fought
* In People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493, it was held that if the original criminal design of the back. If only less serious physical injuries were inflicted, there will be separate crimes: one for
accused was to commit rape and after committing the rape, the accused committed robbery robbery and one for less serious physical injuries.
because the opportunity presented itself, two distinct crimes – rape and robbery were committed
– not robbery with rape. In the latter, the criminal intent to gain must precede the intent to * But if after the robbery was committed and the robbers were already fleeing from the house
rape. where the robbery was committed, the owner or members of the family of the owner chased
them, and they fought back and somebody was killed, the crime would still be robbery with
* If rape was the primary objective of the accused and the taking of her jewelries was not done homicide. But if serious physical injuries were inflicted and the serious physical injuries rendered
with intent to gain but as a token of her supposed consent to the sexual intercourse, the accused the victim impotent or insane or the victim lost the use of any of his senses or lost a part of his
is guilty of two distinct crimes: rape and unjust vexation. (People vs. Villarino, C. A. G. R. No. body, the crime would still be robbery with serious physical injuries. The physical injuries
6342-R, Nov. 26, 1951) (serious) should not be separated regardless of whether they retorted in the course of the
commission of the robbery or even after the robbery was consummated.
* In Article 299, it is only when the physical injuries resulted in the deformity or incapacitated the
offended party from labor for more than 30 days that the law requires such physical injuries to
have been inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery, and only upon persons who are
not responsible in the commission of the robbery.
ROBBERY WITH INTIMIDATION –

* But if the physical injuries inflicted are those falling under subdivision 1 and 2 of Article 263 , necessary means to facilitate the robbery; thus, the complex crimes of robbery with serious
even though the physical injuries were inflicted upon one of the robbers themselves, and even physical injuries and serious illegal detention.
though it had been inflicted after the robbery was already consummated, the crime will still be
robbery with serious physical injuries. There will only be one count of accusation. * But if the victims were detained because of the timely arrival of the police, such that the
offenders had no choice but to detain the victims as hostages in exchange for their safe
Illustration: passage, the detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery and is not a separate crime.
This was the ruling in People v. Astor.
After the robbers fled from the place where the robbery was committed, they decided to divide
the spoils and in the course of the division of the spoils or the loot, they quarreled. They shot it On ROBBERY WITH ARSON
out and one of the robbers was killed . The crime is still robbery with homicide even though one
of the robbers was the one killed by one of them. If they quarreled and serious physical injuries * Another innovation of Republic Act No. 7659 is the composite crime of robbery with arson if
rendered one of the robbers impotent, blind in both eyes, or got insane, or he lost the use of any arson is committed by reason of or on occasion of the robbery . The composite crime would only
of his senses, lost the use of any part of his body , the crime will still be robbery with serious be committed if the primordial intent of the offender is to commit robbery and there is no killing,
physical injuries. rape, or intentional mutilation committed by the offender during the robbery. Otherwise, the
crime would be robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with intentional
* If the robbers quarreled over the loot and one of the robbers hacked the other robber causing a mutilation, in that order, and the arson would only be an aggravating circumstance. It is
deformity in his face, the crime will only be robbery and a separate charge for the serious essential that robbery precedes the arson, as in the case of rape and intentional mutilation,
physical injuries because when it is a deformity that is caused, the law requires that the because the amendment included arson among the rape and intentional mutilation which have
deformity must have been inflicted upon one who is not a participant in the robbery . Moreover, accompanied the robbery.
the physical injuries which gave rise to the deformity or which incapacitated the offended party
from labor for more than 30 days, must have been inflicted in the course of the execution of the * Moreover, it should be noted that arson has been made a component only of robbery with
robbery or while the robbery was taking place. violence against or intimidation of persons in said Article 294, but not of robbery by the use of
force upon things in Articles 299 and 302.
* If it was inflicted when the thieves/robbers are already dividing the spoils, it cannot be
considered as inflicted in the course of execution of the robbery and hence, it will not give rise to * So, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson was committed , two
the crime of robbery with serious physical injuries. You only have one count of robbery and distinct crimes are committed.
another count for the serious physical injuries inflicted.
* If, during or on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, a killing, rape or serious physical Article 295
injuries took place, there will only be one crime of robbery with homicide because all of these – QUALIFIED ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
killing, rape, serious physical injuries -- are contemplated by law as the violence or intimidation
which characterizes the taking as on of robbery. You charge the offenders of robbery with Qualifying circumstances in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons, if any of the
homicide. The rape or physical injuries will only be appreciated as aggravating circumstance and offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Art 294 is committed:
is not the subject of a separate prosecution. They will only call for the imposition of the penalty
in the maximum period. a. in an uninhabited place or
* If on the occasion of the robbery with homicide, robbery with force upon things was also b. by a band or
committed, you will not have only one robbery but you will have a complex crime of robbery with
homicide and robbery with force upon things (see Napolis v. CA). This is because robbery with c. by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or
violence or intimidation upon persons is a separate crime from robbery with force upon things.
d. by entering the passenger’s compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the
* Robbery with homicide, robbery with intentional mutilation and robbery with rape are not passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or
qualified by band or uninhabited place . These aggravating circumstances only qualify robbery
with physical injuries under subdivision 2, 3, and 4 of Article 299. e. on a street, road, highway or alley and the intimidation is made with the use of
firearms, the offender shall be punished by the max period of the proper penalties
* When it is robbery with homicide, the band or uninhabited place is only a generic aggravating prescribed in art 294
circumstance. It will not qualify the crime to a higher degree of penalty.
Notes:
* In People v. Salvilla, it was held that if in a robbery with serious physical injuries, the * Must be alleged in the information
offenders herded the women and children into an office and detained them to compel the
offended party to come out with the money, the crime of serious illegal detention was a * Can’t be offset by generic mitigating

* Art 295 will not apply to: robbery w/ homicide, rape or SPI under par 1 of art 263 * Whether robbery is attempted or frustrated, penalty is the same
* When the robbery is attempted or frustrated, Art. 294 has no application because the robbery
Article 296 and the homicide must be both consummated.
ROBBERY BY A BAND
* Where the homicide is only attempted or frustrated, Article 297 does not apply. In the same
Notes: manner, where the attempted or frustrated robbery results in the commission of serious physical
injuries, Article 297 has no application. In such a case, the crime shall be treated under the
BAND is defined as consisting of at least four armed malefactors organized with the intention of provisions of Article 48 on ordinary complex crimes. Consequently, the penalty prescribed by
carrying out any unlawful design . Their participation in the commission of the crime must be Article 48 shall be observed.
actual. The offender must be principal by direct participation, so that, a principal by inducement
cannot be convicted of this crime where the aggravating circumstance of band shall be
appreciated against him, since the law requires as a condition to its commission the actual Article 298
participation of the offender in the execution of the crime. In such a case, the conviction of a EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
principal by inducement will only be limited to his criminal liability as a co-conspirator.
ELEMENTS:
Liability for the acts of the other members of the band 1. That the offender has intent to defraud another.
a. he was a member of the band
2. That the offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument
b. he was present at the commission of a robbery by that band or document.
c. other members of the band committed an assault 3. That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.
d. he did not attempt to prevent the assault * The element of intent to gain or fraudulent intent is what distinguishes this felony from grave
coercion. Although both crimes share a common element which is the compelling of any person
Conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide – even if less than 4 armed men to do something against his will, nonetheless, in coercion, the fear created in the mind of the
offended party is not immediate but remote. In this type of robbery, the fear is immediate and
Conspiracy to commit robbery only but homicide was committed also on the occasion not remote. In coercion, there is no intent to gain whereas in this form of robbery, intent to gain
thereof – all members of the band are liable for robbery with homicide is an indispensable element.
* Even if the agreement refers only to the robbery, nonetheless, where the robbery is committed
by a band and a person is killed, any member who was present at the commission of the robbery Article 299
and who did not do anything to prevent the killing of the victim on the occasion of the robbery ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO
shall be held liable for the crime of robbery with homicide. (People vs. Cinco, 194 SCRA 535) WORSHIP
* Conspiracy is presumed when 4 or more armed persons committed robbery ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender entered (a) an inhabited house, or (b) public buildings, or (c)
* Unless the others attempted to prevent the assault – guilty of robbery by band only edifice devoted to religious worship.
* Band is a generic aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide or rape. But 2. That the entrance was effected by any of the following means:
in the other circumstances provided under Article 294 particularly paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, band is
a special aggravating circumstance which must be alleged in the information. a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.
* Band is a special aggravating circumstance if the robbery results in the infliction of serious b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
physical injuries.
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools or.
* The arms contemplated under this article refers to any deadly weapon and is not limited to
firearms, whether long or short. d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public
Article 297 authority.
ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
3. That once inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to
Notes: another with intent to gain.

* Modes of entering that would give rise to the crime of robbery with force upon things if
Notes: something is taken inside the premises: entering into an opening not intended for entrance or
* In this kind of Robbery, no violence or intimidation against persons is ever used. egress, under Article 299 (a).
* Includes dependencies (stairways, hallways, etc.) Illustration:

The entry was made through a fire escape. The fire escape was intended for egress . The entry
* A small store located on the ground floor of a house is a dependency of the house, there being will not characterize the taking as one of robbery because it is an opening intended for egress,
no partition between the store and the house and in going to the main stairway, one has to enter although it may not be intended for entrance. If the entering were done through the window ,
the store which has a door. (U.S. vs. Ventura, 39 Phil. 523). even if the window was not broken, that would characterize the taking of personal property inside
INHABITED HOUSE – any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more as robbery because the window is not an opening intended for entrance.
person even though temporarily absent – dependencies, courts, corals, barns, etc.
Illustration:
* NOT INCLUDED – ORCHARD, LANDS FOR CULTIVATION. On a sari-sari store, a vehicle bumped the wall. The wall collapsed. There was a small opening
there. At night, a man entered through that opening without breaking the same . The crime will
* Important for robbery by use of force upon things, it is necessary that offender enters the already be robbery if he takes property from within because that is not an opening intended for
building or where object may be found. NO ENTRY, NO ROBBERY the purpose.
Even of there is a breaking of wall, roof, floor or window, but the offender did not enter, it would
* In the absence of evidence to show how bandits effected an entrance into the convent which not give rise to robbery with force upon things.
they robbed, there can be no conviction under this article. The act would be treated as Theft.
( U.S. vs. Callotes, 2 PHIL 16 ) * Note that in the crime of robbery with force upon things, what should be considered is the
means of entrance and means of taking the personal property from within. If those means do
"FORCE UPON THINGS" has a technical meaning in law. Not any kind of force upon things not come within the definition under the Revised Penal Code, the taking will only give rise to
will characterize the taking as one of robbery. The force upon things contemplated requires theft.
some element of trespass into the establishment where the robbery was committed . In other
words, the offender must have entered the premises where the robbery was committed . If no * Those means must be employed in entering. If the offender had already entered when these
entry was effected, even though force may have been employed actually in the taking of the means were employed, anything taken inside, without breaking of any sealed or closed
property from within the premises, the crime will only be theft. receptacle, will not give rise to robbery.
* The term force upon things has a legal meaning. It means the employment of force to effect
entrance into the house or building by destroying the door, window, roof, wall or floor of the
aforesaid house or building. In other words, the force upon things has no reference to personal Illustration:
property but to a house or building which is ordinarily classified as real property.
A found B inside his (A’s) house. He asked B what the latter was doping there. B claimed he is
* Entrance is necessary – mere insertion of hand is not enough (whole body); not to get out an inspector from the local city government to look after the electrical installations. At the time B
but to enter – therefore, evidence to such effect is necessary was chanced upon by A, he has already entered. So anything he took inside without breaking of
any sealed or closed receptacle will not give rise to robbery because the simulation of public
Two predicates that will give rise to the crime as robbery: authority was made not in order to enter but when he has already entered.
1. By mere entering alone, a robbery will be committed if any personal property is taken P v. Lamahang – intent to rob being present is necessary
from within;
Place: house or building; not car
2. The entering will not give rise to robbery even if something is taken inside. It is the
breaking of the receptacle or closet or cabinet where the personal property is kept that PUBLIC BUILDING – every building owned, rented or used by the government (though owned
will give rise to robbery, or the taking of a sealed, locked receptacle to be broken by private persons) though temporarily vacant
outside the premises.
* Not robbery – passing through open door but getting out of a window
* If by the mere entering, that would already qualify the taking of any personal property inside as
robbery, it is immaterial whether the offender stays inside the premises. The breaking of things * If accused entered the house through a door, and it was while escaping that he broke any wall,
inside the premises will only be important to consider if the entering by itself will not characterize floor or window after taking personal property inside the house – there is no Robbery committed,
the crime as robbery with force upon things. only Theft.

* Outside door must be broken, smashed. Theft – if lock is merely removed or door was merely
Question & Answer
pushed
* Breaking of the door under Article299 (b) – Originally, the interpretation was that in order that Certain men pretended to be from the Price Control Commission and went to a
there be a breaking of the door in contemplation of law, there must be some damage to warehouse owned by a private person. They told the guard to open the warehouse purportedly
the door. to see if the private person is hoarding essential commodities there. The guard obliged. They
went inside and broke in . They loaded some of the merchandise inside claiming that it is the
* Before, if the door was not damaged but only the lock attached to the door was broken, the product of hoarding and then drove away. What crime was committed ?
taking from within is only theft. But the ruling is now abandoned because the door is considered
useless without the lock. Even if it is not the door that was broken but only the lock, the It is only theft because the premises where the simulation of public authority was
breaking of the lock renders the door useless and it is therefore tantamount to the breaking of committed is not an inhabited house, not a public building, and not a place devoted to religious
the door. Hence, the taking inside is considered robbery with force upon things. worship. Where the house is a private building or is uninhabited, even though there is simulation
of public authority in committing the taking or even if he used a fictitious name, the crime is only
FALSE KEYS – genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other than those intended by the theft.
owner for use in the lock
PICKLOCKS – specially made, adopted for commission of robbery ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS, SUBDIVISION (B) ART. 299
KEY – stolen not by force, otherwise, it’s robbery by violence and intimidation against persons 1. That the offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to
religious worship, regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it
* False key – used in opening house and not furniture inside, otherwise, theft (for latter to be
robbery., must be broken and not just opened) 2. That the offender takes personal property belonging to another with intent to
gain, under any of the following circumstances.
* Use of picklocks or false keys refers to the entering into the premises – If the picklock or false
key was used not to enter the premises because the offender had already entered a. by the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked
but was used to unlock an interior door or even a receptacle where the valuable or or sealed furniture or receptacle, or
personal belonging was taken, the use of false key or picklock will not give rise to
the robbery with force upon things because these are considered by law as only a b. by taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open
means to gain entrance, and not to extract personal belongings from the place outside the place of the robbery.
where it is being kept.
Notes:
GEN. RULE: outside door. EXCEPTION: inside door in a separate dwelling
* Entrance ( no matter how done)
* If in the course of committing the robbery within the premises some interior doors are broken,
the taking from inside the room where the door leads to will only give rise to theft. The breaking * If the entering does not characterize the taking inside as one of robbery with force upon things,
of doors contemplated in the law refers to the main door of the house and not the interior door. it is the conduct inside that would give rise to the robbery if there would be a breaking of sealed,
locked or closed receptacles or cabinet in order to get the personal belongings from within such
* But if it is the door of a cabinet that is broken and the valuable inside the cabinet was taken, receptacles, cabinet or place where it is kept.
the breaking of the cabinet door would characterize the taking as robbery. Although that
particular door is not included as part of the house, the cabinet keeps the contents thereof safe. * Offender may be servants or guests
> E.g. pretending to be police to be able to enter (not pretending after entrance) * A friend who has invited in a house and who enters a room where he finds a closed cabinet
where money is kept, is guilty of robbery if he forcibly opens the said cabinet and takes the
* When the robbery is committed in a house which is inhabited, or in a public building or in a money contained therein.
place devoted to religious worship, the use of fictitious name or pretension to possess authority in
order to gain entrance will characterize the taking inside as robbery with force upon things. * When sealed box is taken out for the purpose of breaking it, no need to open – already
consummated robbery
* If A and B told the occupant of the house that they were the nephews of the spouse of the
owner of the house, and because of that, the closed door was opened, or that they were NBI Estafa – if box is in the custody of accused
agents executing a warrant of arrest, and so the occupant opened the door, any taking personal
property thereat with intent to gain, would be Robbery. Theft – if box found outside and forced open

c. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other
Article 300 similar tools.
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was
* When the robbery with force upon things is committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, broken or
the robbery becomes qualified . In the same manner, where robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons is committed by a band or in an uninhabited place, the crime becomes e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken open
qualified. elsewhere.
* The place considered uninhabited when it is not used as a dwelling. It may refer to a building 3. That with intent to gain the offender took therefrom personal property belonging
or a house which is not used as a dwelling. to another.
* If a house is inhabited and its owners or occupants temporarily left the place to take a short Notes:
vacation in another place, their casual absence will not make the place or house uninhabited. (U.
S. vs. Ventura, 39 Phil. 523) * Second kind of robbery with force upon things
* It must be taken note of, that the entrance by using any fictitious name or pretending the
Article 301 exercise of public authority is not among those mentioned in Article 302 because the place is
WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING OR BUILDING DEDICATED TO Uninhabited and therefore without person present. Likewise, in this class of Robbery, the penalty
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES depends on the amount taken disregarding the circumstances of whether the robbers are armed
or not as in the case in Robbery in Inhabited Place.
Notes:
Inhabited house – Any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more UNINHABITED PLACE – is an uninhabited building (habitable, not any of the 3 places
persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the mentioned)
robbery is committed.
Ex. warehouse, freight car, store. Exception: pigsty
Public building – Includes every building owned by the government or belonging to a private
person but used or rented by the government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same. * A store may or may not be an inhabited place depending upon the circumstances of whether or
not it is usually occupied by any person lodging therein at night. Although it may be used as a
dependencies – are all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries or enclosed places: dwelling to sustain a conviction under Article 299, the information must allege that the same was
a. contiguous to the building used and occupied as a dwelling (People vs. Tubog, 49 Phil. 620 ), otherwise Art. 302 is
b. having an interior entrance connected therewith applicable.
c. which form part of the whole
* Same manner as 299 except that was entered into was an uninhabited place or a building other
Garage – must have 3 requirements. Exception: orchards/lands than the 3 mentioned in 299. Exception: does not include use of fictitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority
Article 302 * Breaking of padlock (but not door) is only theft

ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR IN A PRIVATE BUILDING
False keys – genuine keys stolen from the owner or any other keys other than those intended
ELEMENTS: by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened
1. That the offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a
dwelling house, not a public building, or not an edifice devoted to religious
worship. Article 303
ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR FIRE WOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR
2. that any of the following circumstances was present: PRIVATE BUILDING
a. That entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or * Under Article 303, if the robbery under Article 299 and 302 consists in the taking of cereals,
egress. fruits, or firewood, the penalty imposable is lower.
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken. * The word cereals however must be understood to mean “seedlings” or “semilla.” It does not
include hulled rice. It may include palay or unhulled palay.

* While the law uses the term uninhabited place, it however refers to uninhabited building and its Elements of brigandage:
dependencies. If the cereals, fruits or firewood were taken outside a building and its 1. There are least four armed persons;
dependencies, the crime committed would only be theft even though the taking was done in an
uninhabited place. 2. They formed a band of robbers;
3. The purpose is any of the following:

Article 304
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS a. To commit robbery in the highway;
ELEMENTS: b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom;

1. That the offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools. or
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to the commission of c. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose.
robbery.
Presumption of Brigandage:
3. That the offender does not have lawful cause for such possession. a. if members of lawless band and possession of unlicensed firearms (any of them)
Note: Actual use of the same is not necessary b. possession of any kind of arms (not just firearm)
* The law also prohibits the manufacture or fabrication of such tools. If the manufacturer or BRIGANDAGE ROBBERY IN BAND
maker or locksmith himself is the offender, a higher penalty is prescribed by law. Purposes are given Only to commit robbery, not necessarily in hi-way
Supposing that in the crime of robbery, the offender used a picklock to enter a building. Can he Mere formation of a band for the above If the purpose is to commit a part robbery
be charged of illegal possession of picklocks or similar tools ? The answer is NO since the same purpose
possession of these tools is already absorbed in the graver crime of robbery. Necessary to prove that band actually committed robbery
* There is no need for the band robbers to execute the object of their association in order to hold
Article 305 them criminally liable for the crime of brigandage.
FALSE KEYS
* The primary object on the law on brigandage is to prevent the formation of bands of robbers .
WHAT CONSTITUTES: Hence, if the formed band commits robbery with the use of force upon persons or force upon
1. Picklocks, etc. things, their criminal liability shall be limited to the commission of such crimes.
2. Genuine key stolen from owner.
3. Any key other than those intended by owner for use in the lock forcibly opened * Likewise, if the offenders are charged with robbery but the same is not established by the
by the offender evidence and what appears clear are the elements of brigandage where the allegation in the
information necessarily includes such offense, the offender can be convicted of the crime of
Notes: brigandage.
* Possession of false keys here not punishable * It does not mean however that to constitute violation of P.D. 532, there must be a band. One
or two persons can be held liable under this law if they perpetrated their acts of depredation in
* If key was entrusted and used to steal, not robbery (not stolen) Philippine Highways against persons who are not pre-determined victims.
BRIGANDAGE
* If the agreement among more than three armed men is to commit a particular robbery,
Brigandage – This is a crime committed by more than three armed persons who form a band of brigandage is not committed because the latter must be an agreement to commit robbery in
robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway or kidnapping persons for the general or indiscriminately.
purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by means of
force and violence.
Article 307
Article 306 AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF BRIGANDS
WHO ARE BRIGANDS
ELEMENTS:
BRIGANDS – more than three armed persons forming a band 1. That there is a band of brigands.

* In People v. Puno, decided February 17, 1993, the trial court convicted the accused of
2. That the offender knows the band to be of brigands. highway robbery/ brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 and sentenced them
to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and
3. That the offender does any of the following acts: found the accused guilty of simple robbery as punished in Article 294 (5), in relation to
Article 295, and sentenced them accordingly. The Supreme Court pointed out that the
a. he in any manner aids, abets or protects such band of brigands, or purpose of brigandage “is, inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery. And that PD 532
punishes as highway robbery or Brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by
b. he gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on a Philippine highway as
officers of the government or defined therein, not acts committed against a predetermined or particular victim” . A
single act of robbery against a particular person chosen by the offender as his specific
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands. victim, even if committed on a highway, is not highway robbery or brigandage.
Notes: * In US v. Feliciano, 3 Phil. 422, it was pointed out that highway robbery or brigandage is
more than ordinary robbery committed on a highway. The purpose of brigandage is
PD 532 – brigandage. indiscriminate robbery in highways. If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only
> Seizure of any person for: (a) ransom; (b) extortion or other unlawful purpose; (c) taking robbery or robbery in band, if there are at least four armed participants.
away of property by violence or intimidation or force upon things or other unlawful means
* Presidential Decree No. 532 introduced amendments to Article 306 and 307 by increasing the
> Committed by any person penalties. It does not require at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers. It does not
create a presumption that the offender is a brigand when he an unlicensed firearm is used unlike
> On any Phil hi-way the Revised Penal Code. But the essence of brigandage under the Revised Penal Code is the
same as that in the Presidential Decree, that is, crime of depredation wherein the unlawful acts
Distinction between brigandage under the Revised Penal Code and highway are directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived victims, but against any and all
robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532: prospective victims anywhere on the highway and whoever they may potentially be.
(1) Brigandage as a crime under the Revised Penal Code refers to the formation of a band
of robbers by more than three armed persons for the purpose of committing robbery in
the highway, kidnapping for purposes of extortion or ransom, or for any other purpose
to be attained by force and violence. The mere forming of a band, which requires at
least four armed persons, if for any of the criminal purposes stated in Article 306, gives THEFT
rise to brigandage. Article 308
THEFT
(2) Highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 is the seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or for any other lawful purposes, or the taking away of ELEMENTS:
the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force 1. That there be taking of personal property.
upon things or other unlawful means committed by any person on any Philippine
highway. 2. That said property belongs to another.
* Brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 refers to the actual commission of the robbery 3. That the taking be done with intent to gain.
on the highway and can be committed by one person alone. It is this brigandage which deserves
some attention because not any robbery in a highway is brigandage or highway robbery. A 4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner.
distinction should be made between highway robbery/brigandage under the decree and ordinary
robbery committed on a highway under the Revised Penal Code. 5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Those who
a) with intent to gain
b) But without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon

things

c) take personal property of another

4. Those who
d) without the latter’s consent a) enter an enclosed estate or a field where
 The taking from an enclosed corral of a carabao belonging to another, after force is b) trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and, without the consent
employed to destroy a part of the corral to enter the same, is considered merely as theft of its owner
because corral is not a building nor a dependency of a building. (U. S. vs. Rosales, et al.,
1 Phil. 300) c) hunts or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products
2. Those who
a) having found lost property Notes:
b) fail to deliver the same to local authorities or its owner Theft is consummated when offender is able to place the thing taken under his control and in
such a situation as he could dispose of it at once (though no opportunity to dispose) i.e, the
Notes: control test
* Retention of money/property found is theft. Retention is failure to return (intent to gain) * In the crime of theft, the law makes only of the term “ taking” and not “taking away.” The non-
inclusion of the word “away” is significant because it means that as soon as the culprit takes
* The word “lost” is used in the generic sense. It embraces loss by stealing or any act of a person possession of the things taken by him, the crime of theft is already consummated since the law
other than the owner, as well as the act of the owner, or through some casual occurrence. does not require that the thief be able to carry away the thing taken from the owner. (People
(People vs. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA 475) vs. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563)
* The felony is not limited to the actual finder. Theft of a lost property may be committed even * The consummation of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of
by a person who is not the actual finder. (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720) the property belonging to another which is realized by the material occupation of the thing . The
property need not be actually taken away by the thief. It is enough that he has obtained, at some
* Knowledge of owner is not required, knowledge of loss is enough particular moment, complete control and possession of the thing desired, adverse to the right of
the lawful owner. (People vs. Naval, 46 O. G. 2641)
* It is not necessary that the owner of the lost property be known to the accused. What is
important is that he knows or has reason to know that the property was lost and for this fact P v. Dino – applies only in theft of bulky goods (meaning there has to be capacity to dispose of
alone, it is his duty to turn it over to the authorities. If he does otherwise, like, if he sells the the things). Otherwise, P v. Espiritu – full possession is enough
thing to another, then the crime of theft is committed.
* Servant using car without permission deemed qualified theft though use was temporary
* Finder in law is liable
Reyes says: there must be some character of permanency in depriving owner of the use of the
Hidden Treasure object and making himself the owner, therefore must exclude “joyride”
Under Article 438 and 439 of the Civil Code, the finder of hidden treasure on the property of Theft: if after custody (only material possession) of object was given to the accused, it is actually
another and by chance is entitled to one-half of the treasure that he found. His duty is to tell the taken by him (no intent to return) e.g. felonious conversion. But it is estafa if juridical
owner about the treasure. If he appropriates the other half pertaining to the owner of the possession is transferred e.g., by contract of bailment
property, he is liable for theft as to that share. (People vs. Longdew, C. A. G. R. No. 9380-R,
June 4, 1953) * Juridical possession of a thing is transferred to another when he receives the thing in trust or
3. Those who on commission or for administration, or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment. When
a) after having maliciously damaged the property of another possession by the offender is under any of these circumstances and he misappropriates the thing
received, he cannot be held guilty of theft but of estafa because here, he has both the physical
b) remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them and juridical possession of the property.
* Theft of damaged property occurs only after the accused has committed the crime of malicious * Includes electricity and gas
mischief. In malicious mischief, the offender destroys the property of another because of hatred, a. inspector misreads meter to earn
resentment or other evil motive against the owner. So, a neighbor who shoots and kills a goat b. one using a jumper
which has destroyed his flower plants and thereafter slaughters and eats the meat of the
wandering goat is guilty of theft. Personal Property

Personal property in the crime of theft includes electric current or properties that may have no
material or concrete appearance. The test is not whether the subject is corporeal or incorporeal A person found in possession of a thing taken in the recent doing of a wrongful act is the taker of
but whether it is incapable of appropriation by another from the owner . Hence, checks, the thing and the doer of the whole act.
promissory notes, and any other commercial documents may be the object of theft because while
they may not be of value to the accused, they are without doubt of value to the offended party. * Possession is not limited to actual personal custody. One who deposits stolen property in a
(U. S. vs. Raboy, 25 Phil. 1) In such a case, the penalty shall be based on the amount of place where it cannot be found may be deemed to have such property in his possession.
money represented by the checks or promissory note since, while it may not of value to the thief,
it is undoubtedly of value to the offended party. (People vs. Koc Song, 63 Phil. 369).
* Selling share of co-partner is not theft
The personal property must belong to another.

ELEMENTS OF HUNTING, FISHING OR GATHERING FRUITS, ETC. IN ENCLOSED
1. A joint owner or partner who sells the palay to other persons or a co-owner or co-heir whp ESTATE (PAR. NO.3, ART. 308)
appropriates the whole property cannot be guilty of theft since the property cannot be said
to belong to another. (U. S. Reyes, 6 Phil. 441) 1. That there is an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another;
2. One who takes away the property pledged by him to another without the latter’s consent,
does not commit theft for the simple reason that he is the owner of the thing taken by him. 2. That the offender enters the same.
(L. B. Reyes)
3. That the offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or
* Salary must be delivered first to employee; prior to this, taking of Php is theft other forest or farm products, and
* If offender claims property as his own (in good faith) – not theft (though later found to be 4. That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the
untrue. If in bad faith – theft) owner.
* Gain is not just Php – satisfaction, use, pleasure desired, any benefit (e.g. joyride) Note: Fish not in fishpond, otherwise, qualified
Gain means the acquisition of a thing useful for the purpose of life. It includes the benefit which Ortega Notes:
in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act performed.
Fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612 is a distinct crime from theft and robbery . If
* Actual gain is not necessary (intent to gain necessary) the participant who profited is being prosecuted with person who robbed, the person is
prosecuted as an accessory. If he is being prosecuted separately, the person who partook of the
* Allege lack of consent in info is important proceeds is liable for fencing.
Consent as an element of the crime of theft must be in the concept of consent that is freely In People v. Judge de Guzman, it was held that fencing is not a continuing offense .
given and not one which is inferred from mere lack of opposition on the part of the owner. Jurisdiction is with the court of the place where the personal property subject of the robbery or
theft was possessed, bought, kept, or dealt with. The place where the theft or robbery was
* Where the charge of theft under the first sentence of Article 308, the information must allege committed was inconsequential.
lack of consent. The allegation of “lack of consent” is indispensable under the first paragraph of
Article 308 since the language or epigraph of the law expressly requires that the (unlawful) taking Since Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612 expressly provides that mere possession of
should be done without the consent of the owner. In view of the clear text of the law, an anything of value which has been subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie
information which does not aver “lack of consent of the owner” would render the allegation evidence of fencing, it follows that a possessor of stolen goods is presumed to have
insufficient and the information may be quashed for failure to allege an essential element of the knowledge that the goods found in his possession after the fact of theft or robbery has
crime. (Pua Yi Kun vs. People, G. R. No. 26256, June 26, 1968) been established. The presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence in
the fundamental law. This was the ruling in Pamintuan v. People, decided on July
Robbery and theft distinguished. 11, 1994.
For robbery to exist, it is necessary that personal property be taken against the will of the owner; Burden of proof is upon fence to overcome presumption ; if explanation insufficient or
whereas in theft, it is sufficient that consent on the part of the owner is lacking. unsatisfactory, court will convict. This is a malum prohibitum so intent is not material . But if
prosecution is under the Revised Penal Code, as an accessory, the criminal intent is controlling.
Presumption:

When there is notice to person buying, there may be fencing such as when the price is way below Article 310
ordinary prices; this may serve as notice. He may be liable for fencing even if he paid the price QUALIFIED THEFT
because of the presumption.
THEFT IS QUALIFIED WHEN:
Cattle Rustling and Qualified Theft of Large Cattle – The crime of cattle-rustling is defined 1. Committed by domestic servant, or
and punished under Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling law of 1974, as the
taking by any means, method or scheme, of any large cattle, with or without intent to gain and 2. With grave abuse of confidence, or
whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of person or force upon
things, so long as the taking is without the consent of the owner/breed thereof. The crime 3. Property stolen is:
includes the killing or taking the meat or hide of large cattle without the consent of the owner. a. motor vehicle
b. mail matter
Since the intent to gain is not essential, the killing or destruction of large cattle, even without c. large cattle
taking any part thereof, is not a crime of malicious mischief but cattle-rustling. d. coconut from plantation
e. fish from fishpond or fishery, or
The Presidential Decree, however, does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of large cattle
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, but merely modified the penalties provided for theft 4. On occasion of calamities and civil disturbance.
of large cattle and, to that extent, amended Articles 309 and 310. Note that the overt act that
gives rise to the crime of cattle-rustling is the taking or killing of large cattle . Where the large Notes:
cattle was not taken, but received by the offender from the owner/overseer thereof, the crime is
not cattle-rustling; it is qualified theft of large cattle. * When the theft is committed by a domestic servant, the offended party may either be the
employer where the offender is working as a household help, or a third person as a guest in the
Where the large cattle was received by the offender who thereafter misappropriated it, the crime house. The roomboy is a hotel is embraced within the term “domestic servant.”
is qualified theft under Article 310 if only physical or material possession thereof was yielded to
him. If both material and juridical possession thereof was yielded to him who misappropriated “GRAVE ABUSE” – high degree of confidence e.g. guests
the large cattle, the crime would be estafa under Article 315 (1b).
* In the case of abuse of confidence, the latter must be “grave” in order to comply with the
Presidential Decree No. 533 is not a special law in the context of Article 10 of the Revised Penal requirement of the law because abuse of confidence is not enough . There must be an allegation
Code. It merely modified the penalties provided for theft of large cattle under the in the information that there is a relation between the accused and the offended party wherein
Revised Penal Code and amended Article 309 and 310. This is explicit from Section 10 the latter confided his security as to his person, life and property to the accused with such degree
of the Presidential Decree. Consequently, the trial court should not have convicted the of confidence and that the accused abused the same.
accused of frustrated murder separately from cattle-rustling, since the former should
have been absorbed by cattle-rustling as killing was a result of or on the occasion of * Abuse of confidence is determined from the trust reposed by the offended party to the
cattle-rustling. It should only be an aggravating circumstance. But because the offender. It may also refer to the nature of the work of the offender which must necessarily
information did not allege the injury, the same can no longer be appreciated; the crime involve trust and confidence.
should, therefore be only, simple cattle-rustling. (People v. Martinada, February 13,
1991) * Abuse of confidence is also an element of estafa . To avoid confusion between theft with abuse
of confidence (qualified theft) and estafa with abuse of confidence, where the offender
PENALTIES FOR QUALIFIED THEFT; (309) misappropriates a thing after he receives it from the victim, the student must remember that in
qualified theft, only the physical or material possession of the thing is transferred. If the offender
* The basis of the penalty is the value of the things stolen. acquires the juridical as well as the physical possession of the thing and he misappropriates it,
the crime committed is estafa . Juridical possession of the thing is acquired when one holds the
* If the property has some value but is not proven with reasonable certainty, the minimum thing in trust, or on commission, or for administration or under any other obligation involving the
penalty shall be imposed under par. 6 of Art. 309 (People vs. Reyes, 58 Phil. 964). duty to deliver or to return the thing received. If the possession of the offender is not under any
of these concepts, the crime is qualified theft.
* When there is no evidence as to the value of the property stolen, the court is allowed to take
judicial knowledge of the value of such property. (People vs. dela Cruz, 43 O. G. 3206) * no confidence, not qualified theft
* When the resulting penalty for the accessory to the crime of theft has no medium period, the THEFT – material possession’ ESTAFA – juridical possession
court can impose the penalty which is found favorable to the accused. (Cristobal vs.
People, 84 Phil. 473). * Where only the material possession is transferred, conversion of the property gives rise to the
crime of theft. Where both the material and juridical possession is transferred, misappropriation
of the property would constitute estafa. When the material and juridical possession of the thing

transfers ownership of the property to the possessor, any misappropriation made by the 2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of
possessor will not result in the commission of any crime, either for theft of estafa. violence against or intimidation of persons.
Qualified: if done by one who has access to place where stolen property is kept e.g., guards, ELEMENTS:
tellers 1. That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights
in property.
* novation theory applies only if there’s a relation
2. That the real property or real rights belong to another.
* industrial partner is not liable for QT (estafa) 3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in
occupying real property or usurpation real rights in property.
* when accused considered the deed of sale as sham (modus) and he had intent to gain, his
absconding is QT 4. That there is intent to gain.
* motor vehicle in kabit system sold to another-theft. Motor vehicle not used as PU in kabit * Since this is a crime against property, there must be intent to gain. In the absence of the
system but under K of lease-estafa intent to gain, the act may constitute Coercion.
On carnapping and theft of motor vehicle * Use the degree of intimidation to determine the degree of the penalty to be applied for the
usurpation.
When the subject is motor vehicle, the Theft becomes qualified. Under R.A. 6539, Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972, the term motor vehicle includes, within its protection, any vehicle which * Usurpation under Article 312 is committed in the same way as robbery with violence or
uses the streets, with or without the required license, or any vehicle which is motorized using the intimidation of persons. The main difference is that in robbery, personal property is
streets, such as a motorized tricycle. (Izon vs. People, 107 SCRA 123) involved; while in usurpation of real rights, it is real property . (People v. Judge
Alfeche, July 23, 1992)
* The taking with intent to gain of a motor vehicle belonging to another, without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things is * The possession of the land or real rights must be done by means of violence or intimidation. So,
penalized as carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 (An Act Preventing and Penalizing if the evidence of the prosecution shows that the accused entered the premises by means of
Carnapping), as amended. The overt act which is being punished under this law as carnapping strategy, stealth or methods other than the employment of violence, no crime was committed by
is also the taking of a motor vehicle under circumstances of theft or robbery. If the motor vehicle the offender. (People vs. Alfeche, Jr., 211 SCRA 770)
was not taken by the offender but was delivered by the owner or the possessor to the offender,
who thereafter misappropriated the same, the crime is either qualified theft under Article 310 of * Usurpation of real rights and property should not be complexed using Article 48 when violence
the Revised Penal Code or estafa under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified theft or intimidation is committed. There is only a single crime, but a two-tiered penalty is prescribed
of a motor vehicle is the crime if only the material or physical possession was yielded to the to be determined on whether the acts of violence used is akin to that in robbery in Article 294,
offender; otherwise, if juridical possession was also yielded, the crime is estafa. grave threats or grave coercion and an incremental penalty of fine based on the value of the gain
obtained by the offender.
* mail matter – private mail to be QT, Not postmaster – Art. 226
* There is no crime of threat and usurpation of real property since threat is an indispensable
* theft of large cattle element of usurpation of real rights. Hence, where threats are uttered to the owner of real
property by one illegally occupying it, the crime committed is not the complex crime of usurpation
of real property with grave threats because making a threat is an inherent element of usurpation
Article 311 of real property. (Castrodes vs. Cubelo, 83 SCRA 670)
THEFT OF PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
* The complainant must be the person upon whom violence was employed. If a tenant was
occupying the property and he was threatened by the offender, but it was the owner who was
USURPATION not in possession of the property who was named as the offended party, the same may be
Article 312 quashed as it does not charge an offense. The owner would, at most, be entitled to civil recourse
OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY only.
Acts punished: On squatting
1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of According to the Urban Development and Housing Act, the following are squatters:
violence against or intimidation of persons;

1. Those who have the capacity or means to pay rent or for legitimate housing but are * The law on fraudulent insolvency is different from the Insolvency Law . For the Insolvency Law
squatting anyway; to apply, the criminal act must have been committed after the institution of the insolvency
proceedings against the offending debtor. But under the present article, there is no requirement
2. Also the persons who were awarded lots but sold or lease them out; that the accused should be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.
3. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing, pre-empting possession by occupying

the same. SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
* Note that violation of Article 312 is punishable only with fine. So, if physical injuries are inflicted ESTAFA is embezzlement under common law. It is a well-known crime to lawyers and
on the victim due to the violence employed by the offender in the usurpation of real rights, the businessmen. It is a continuing crime unlike theft. Being a public crime, it can be prosecuted de
latter shall be punished separately for the crime of physical injuries. officio.
* Violence employed results to the death of the offended party. When such eventuality does Article 315
occur, then the crime may rightfully be denominated as usurpation of real rights resulting to A. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA IN GENERAL: (315)
homicide, murder, parricide, or infanticide as the case may be. 1. That the accused defrauded another (a.) by abuse of confidence, or (b) or means
of deceit and
Article 313 2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS offended party or third person
ELEMENTS: * The concept of damage under this article does not mean actual or real damage. It may consist
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or in mere disturbance of the property rights of the offended party. However, the damage must be
any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same. capable of pecuniary estimation. This requirement is important because in estafa, the penalty is
dependent on the value of the property.
2. That the offender alters said boundary marks.
* Since estafa is a material crime, it can be divided into consummated, attempted or frustrated
stages. In the latter case, the damage can be in the form of temporary prejudice or suffering, or
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY inconvenience capable of pecuniary estimation.
Article 314
FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY (culpable insolvency) B. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS: (315)
1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value.
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender is a debtor; that is, he was obligations due and payable. 2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality.
2. That he absconds with his property. 3. That damage or prejudice is caused to another.
3. That there be prejudice to his creditors. * The accused does not receive the goods but delivers a thing under an onerous obligation which
is not in accordance with the substance, quantity or quality agreed upon. It is the altering of the
* To be liable for fraudulent insolvency, the disposal of the merchandise must be done with substance, quality or quantity of the thing delivered which makes the offender liable for the crime
malice. The mere circumstance that a person has disposed of his merchandise by removing them of estafa.
from the place where they were kept would necessarily imply fraud. What is required is actual
prejudice to the creditor. The intention of the accused alone is not enough. (People vs. * The word “onerous” means that the offended party has fully complied with his obligations to
Guzman, C. A. 40 O. G. 2655) pay. So, if the thing delivered whose substance was altered, is not yet fully or partially paid, then
the crime of estafa is not committed.
* The law does not require the offender to be a merchant. The law says “any person,” and this
refers to anyone who becomes a debtor and performs the acts made punishable by the law.
C. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE UNDER SUBDIVISION NO.1
* The property which the offender may abscond which consists of both real and personal PAR. (B), OF ART.315
property. (People vs. Chong Chuy Lingobo, 45 Phil. 372) 1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in
trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return, the same.

b. under PD 115 (Trust Receipts Law) – failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the of the sale of the goods covered by TR – Estafa
offender, or dental on his part of such receipt.
c. same thing received must be returned otherwise estafa; sale on credit by agency when
3. that such misappropriation or conversion or dental is to the prejudice of another it was to be sold for cash – estafa
and
d. Estafa – not affected by Novation of Contract because it is a public offense
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.
e. Novation must take place before criminal liability was incurred or perhaps prior to the
(The fourth element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by filing of the criminal information in court by state prosecutors
the defendant. [Tubb v. People, et al., 101 Phil. 114] ).
f. Misappropriating – to take something for one’s own benefit
* It is necessary in this kind of estafa, for the money, goods or personal property to have been
received by the offender in trust, or on commission or for administration. He must acquire both g. Converting – act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it was one’s own;
material or physical as well as juridical possession of the thing received. In these instances, the thing has been devoted for a purpose or use different from that agreed upon
offender, who is the transferee, acquires a right over a thing which he may set up even against
the owner. h. There must be prejudice to another – not necessary that offender should obtain gain
* A money market transaction however partakes of the nature of a loan, and non-payment * There is no estafa through negligence. There is likewise no estafa where the accused did not
thereof would not give rise to criminal liability for Estafa through misappropriation or conversion. personally profit or gain from the misappropriation.
In money market placements, the unpaid investor should institute against the middleman or
dealer, before the ordinary courts, a simple action for recovery of the amount he had invested, i. Partners – No estafa of money or property received for the partnership when the
and if there is allegation of fraud, the proper forum would be the Securities and Exchange business is commercial and profits accrued. BUT if property is received for specific
Commission. (Sesbreno vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 240 SCRA 606). purpose and is misappropriated – estafa!
j. Failure to account after the DEMAND is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation

D. 2ND ELEMENT OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE UNDER PARAGRAPH (B),
SUBDIVISION N0.1, ART. 315 = 3 WAYS OF COMMITTING: k. DEMAND is not a condition precedent to existence of estafa when misappropriation
may be established by other proof
1. By misappropriating the thing received.
l. In theft, upon delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner expects an immediate
2. By converting the thing received. return of the thing to him – otherwise, Estafa
3. By denying that the thing was received. m. Servant, domestic or employee who misappropriates a thing he received from his
master is NOT guilty of estafa but of qualified theft
Notes:
 When in the prosecution for malversation the public officer is acquitted, the private
Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence individual allegedly in conspiracy with him may be held liable for estafa
a. by altering the substance
ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE MALVERSATION
b. existing obligation to deliver – even if it is not a subject of lawful commerce
Offenders are entrusted with funds or property and are offenders are entrusted with funds or property and are
c. thing delivered has not been fully or partially paid for – not estafa continuing offenses continuing offenses
Funds: always private Funds: public funds or property
c. no agreement as to quality – No estafa if delivery is unsatisfactory Offender: private individual, or public officer not accountable Offender: public officer accountable for public funds
Committed by misappropriating, converting, denying having Committed by appropriating, taking,
received money misappropriating
By misappropriating and converting
a. thing is received by offender under transactions transferring juridical possession, not
ownership E. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIGNATURE IN
BLANK: (315)

1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank. Acts punished under paragraph (a)
2. That the offended party should have delivered it to offender. 1. Using fictitious name;
3. That above the signature of the offended party a document is written by the 2. Falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
offender without authority to do so. business or imaginary transactions; or
4. That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the 3. By means of other similar deceits.
offended party or any third person.
* In the prosecution of estafa under Article 315, no. 2(a), it is indispensable that the element of
* The element of this estafa is also abuse of confidence. The offended party leaves a blank paper deceit consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made
with his signature to another, with specific instructions to make entries thereon according to the prior to, before or at least simultaneously with the delivery of the thing by the offended party.
wishes of the offended party. But contrary to such instructions and wishes, the accused makes The added requirement that such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the
entries in writing which creates liabilities against the owner of the signature. very motive or the only reason or cause which induces the offended party to part with the thing
while they may be false representation after the delivery of the goods or the thing by the
* If the unauthorized writings were done by a person other than the one to whom the owner of aggrieved party, such false statement or false representation, no matter how fraudulent and
the signature delivered the paper in blank, and it caused damage to the offended party, the crime obnoxious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis for prosecution under this category of estafa.
committed by the third party is not estafa but falsification. For the case to prosper against the accused, the prosecution must prove two indispensable
elements: deceit and damage to another. (Celino vs. Court of Appeals, 163 SCRA 97)
Note: If the paper with signature in blank was stolen – Falsification if by making it appear that
he participated in a transaction when in fact he did not so participate CREDIT means the ability to buy things or merchandise on the basis of one’s character, capacity
to pay or goodwill in the business community. So, if it is used to deceive another and the
deception is the principal reason for the delivery of the goods which results in damage to the
F. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT: (315) offended party, the crime committed is estafa.
Under paragraph (b)
1. that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Under paragraph (c)
3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or Pretending to have bribed any government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender.
because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. G. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY POSTDATING A CHECK OR ISSUING A CHECK IN
PAYMENT OF AN OBLIGATION: (315)
Notes:
1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of an
FALSE PRETENSES OR FRAUDULENT ACTS – executed prior to or simultaneously with obligation.
delivery of the thing by the complainant
2. That such postdatig or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds
* There must be evidence that the pretense of the accused that he possesses power/influence is in the bank or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
false amount of the check.
* The representation that accused possessed influence, to deceive and inveigle the complainant Notes:
into parting with his money must however be false to constitute deceit under No. 2 of Article
315, RPC. (Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 265 SCRA 299). Note that this only applies if –
Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315 (1) The obligation is not pre-existing;
(2)
(2) The check is drawn to enter into an obligation;

(Remember that it is the check that is supposed to be the sole consideration for the 1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.
other party to have entered into the obligation. For example, Rose wants to purchase
a bracelet and draws a check without insufficient funds. The jeweler sells her the 2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.
bracelet solely because of the consideration in the check.)
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of
(3) It does not cover checks where the purpose of drawing the check is to guarantee a issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
loan as this is not an obligation contemplated in this paragraph the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
* The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is cashed with the bank or exchanged 4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency
for cash, the crime is estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawee, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
* The general rule is that the accused must be able to obtain something from the offended
party by means of the check he issued and delivered. Exception: when the check is issued not Note: Failure to make good within 5 banking days prima facie evidence of knowledge of lack
in payment of an obligation. and insufficiency
* It must not be promissory notes, or guaranties.

I. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1:
* good faith is a defense. (PP. VS. VILLAPANDO, 56 PHIL.31) BP 22
* dishonor for lack of funds - prima facie evidence of deceit or failure to make good within three 1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he
days after notice of. makes or draws and issues a check.
* If the checks were issued by the defendant and he received money for them, then stopped 2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
payment and did not return the money, and he had an intention to stop payment when he amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date
issued the check, there is estafa. appearing thereon.
* Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check 3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor or insufficiency of funds in the bank.
Note: Failure to make good within 5 banking days prima facie evididence of knowledge of lack
* If check was issued in payment of pre-existing debt – no estafa and insufficiency
* It is therefore essential that the check be issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation . The Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code and
check in question must be utilized by the offender in order to defraud the offended party. So, if violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
the check was issued in payment of a promissory note which had matured and the check was
dishonored, there is not estafa since the accused did not obtain anything by means of said check. (1) Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, there is criminal liability if
(People vs. Canlas, O. G. 1092) the check is drawn for non-pre-existing obligation.
* If a bouncing check is issued to pay a pre-existing obligation , the drawer is liable under B. P. If the check is drawn for a pre-existing obligation, there is criminal liability only under
Blg. 22 which does not make any distinction as to whether a bad check is issued in payment of an Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
obligation or to guarantee an obligation. (Que vs. People, 73217-18, Sept. 21, 1987)
* Offender must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check he (2) Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against property while Batas Pambansa Blg.
issues and delivers 22 is a crime against public interest. The gravamen for the former is the deceit
employed, while in the latter, it is the issuance of the check. Hence, there is no double
* The check must be issued in payment of an obligation . If the check was issued without any jeopardy.
obligation or if there is lack of consideration and the check is subsequently dishonored, the crime
of estafa is not committed. (3) In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), deceit and damage are material, while in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, they are immaterial.
* If postdating a check issued as mere guarantee/promissory note – no estafa
(4) In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), knowledge by the drawer of insufficient funds is not
required, while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, knowledge by the drawer of insufficient
H. ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1: BP 22 funds is reqired.

* When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds? Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a drawer must be given notice of dishonor and given five
banking days from notice within which to deposit or pay the amount stated in the check to
* There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was negate the presumtion that drawer knew of the insufficiency . After this period, it is conclusive
presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored. that drawer knew of the insufficiency, thus there is no more defense to the prosecution under
Exceptions Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date; * The mere issuance of any kind of check regardless of the intent of the parties, whether the
check is intended to serve merely as a guarantee or as a deposit, makes the drawer liable under
2. When the maker or drawer -- Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 if the check bounces. As a matter of public policy, the issuance of a
worthless check is a public nuisance and must be abated.
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee; * Each act of drawing and issuing a bouncing check constitutes a violation of B. P. Blg. 22.
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within * In De Villa v. CA, decided April 18, 1991, it was held that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
five banking days after notice of non-payment there is no distinction as to the kind of check issued . As long as it is delivered within Philippine
territory, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction. Even if the check is only presented to and
* The drawee must cause to be written or stamped in plain language the reason for the dishonor. dishonored in a Philippine bank, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 applies. This is true in the case of dollar
or foreign currency checks. Where the law makes no distinction, none should be made.
* If the drawee bank received an order of stop-payment from the drawer with no reason, it must
be stated that the funds are insufficient to be prosecuted here. * In People v. Nitafan, it was held that as long as instrument is a check under the negotiable
instrument law, it is covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A memorandum check is not a
* If the drawer has valid reasons for stopping payment, he cannot be held criminally liable under promissory note, it is a check which have the word “memo,” “mem”, “memorandum” written
B.P. Blg. 22. across the face of the check which signifies that if the holder upon maturity of the check presents
the same to the drawer, it will be paid absolutely. But there is no prohibition against drawer from
* The unpaid or dishonored check with the stamped information re: refusal to pay is prima facie depositing memorandum check in a bank. * Whatever be the agreement of the parties in respect
evidence of (1) the making or issuance of the check; (2) the due presentment to the drawee for of the issuance of a check is inconsequential to a violation to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 where the
payment & the dishonor thereof; and (3) the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the check bounces.
reason stamped on the check.
* Cross checks do not make them non-negotiable and therefore they are within the coverage of
On issuance of a bouncing check B. P. Blg. 22.
The issuance of check with insufficient funds may be held liable for estafa and Batas Pambansa * The law does not distinguish between foreign and local checks. (De Villa vs. Court of
Blg. 22. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 expressly provides that prosecution under said law is without Appeals, et al., 195 SCRA 722).
prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision in the Revised Penal Code. Double
Jeopardy may not be invoked because a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a malum * But overdraft or credit arrangement may be allowed by banks as to their preferred clients and
prohibitum and is being punished as a crime against the public interest for undermining the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not apply. If check bounces, it is because bank has been remiss in
banking system of the country, while under the Revised Penal Code, the crime is malum in se honoring agreement.
which requires criminal intent and damage to the payee and is a crime against property.
* The check must be presented for payment within a 90-day period. If presented for payment
In estafa, the check must have been issued as a reciprocal consideration for parting of goods beyond the 90 day period and the drawer’s funds are insufficient to cover it, there is no Batas
(kaliwaan). There must be concomitance. The deceit must be prior to or simultaneous with Pambansa Blg. 22 violation.
damage done, that is, seller relied on check to part with goods. If it is issued after parting with
goods as in credit accommodation only, there is no estafa. If the check is issued for a pre- * Where check was issued prior to August 8, 1984, when Circular No. 12 of the Department of
existing obligation, there is no estafa as damage had already been done. The drawer is liable the Justice took effect, and the drawer relied on the then prevailing Circular No. 4 of
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. the Ministry of Justice to the effect that checks issued as part of an
arrangement/agreement of the parties to guarantee or secure fulfillment of an
For criminal liability to attach under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 , it is enough that the check obligation are not covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no criminal liability should be
was issued to "apply on account or for value" and upon its presentment it was dishonored by the incurred by the drawer. Circular should not be given retroactive effect. (Lazaro v. CA,
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, provided that the drawer had been notified of the November 11, 1993, citing People v. Alberto, October 28, 1993)
dishonor and inspite of such notice fails to pay the holder of the check the full amount due
thereon within five days from notice.

J. BY OBTAINING FOOD OR CREDIT AT HOTELS, INNS, RESTAURANTS ETC.

3. That the offender had intent to defraud another.
Acts punished under paragraph (e)
* In order to commit a crime, the offender must have the intention to defraud . In other words,
1. a. Obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, the removal, concealment or destruction of the court record should be done with the intent to
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house; defraud the victim. This is distinguished from the crime of removal, concealment or destruction of
documents under Article 226 wherein fraud is not an element of the crime, and which is
b. Without paying therefor; committed only by public officers. What is punished under this Article is the damage to public
interest.
c. With intent to defraud the proprietor or manager.
* If the act of removing, concealing or destroying results from hatred, revenge, or other evil
2. a. Obtaining credit at motive, the crime committed is malicious mischief under Article 327.
any of the establishments;
Note: No intent to defraud – destroying or removal = malicious mischief
b. Using false pretense; When a lawyer, pretending to verify a certain pleading in a case pending before a court, borrows
the folder of the case, and removes or destroys a document which constitute evidence in the said
3. a. Abandoning or case, said lawyer is guilty of Estafa under par. 3 (c) of Article 315, RPC.
surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage in the establishment;
SYNDICATED ESTAFA.
b. After obtaining credit, food, refreshment, accommodation;
A syndicate of five or more persons formed with intent to carry out an unlawful or illegal act,
c. Without paying. transaction or scheme and defraudation which results in misappropriation of money contributed
by stockholders or members of rural banks, cooperatives, samahang nayon or former’s
* Failure to pay food or accommodation in a hotel, restaurant or inn usually gives rise to civil association; or funds contributed by corporations or associations for the general welfare.
liability but if the intent to defraud is clear like a surreptitious removal of baggage from the hotel,
or resorting to deceitful means to evade payment, the act shall be punished criminally as Estafa.
M. DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION: (315) (second
element of any form of estafa)
K. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY INDUCING ANOTHER TO SIGN ANY DOCUMENTS: (315)
THE ELEMENTS OF DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE MAY CONSIST OF THE FF.:
1. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document.
1. The offender party being deprived of his money or property, as a result of the
2. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document. defraudation.
3. That the offended party personally signed the document. 2. Disturbance in property right or
4. That prejudice be caused. 3. Temporary prejudice.
Note: If offended party willingly signed the document and there was deceit as to the character
or contents of the document – falsification; but where the accused made representation to N. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR.1) BY CONVEYING, SELLING, ENCUMBERING, OR
mislead the complainants as to the character of the documents - estafa MORTGAGING ANY REAL PROPERTY, PRETENDING TO BE THE OWNER OF THE SAME:
Under paragraph (b) (316)
Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game; 1. That the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building.
2. That the offender who is not the owner of said property represented that he is
L. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY REMOVING, CONCEALING OR DESTROYING DOCUMENTS: the owner thereof.
(315)
3. That the offender should have executed an act of ownership (selling, leasing,
1. That there be court records, office files, documents or any other papers. encumbering or mortgaging the real property).
2. That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed any of them. 4. That the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a third person.

2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property or
ESTAFA INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS properties.
Private individual was entrusted Public officer entrusted
Intent to defraud No intent to defraud 3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner encumbers said real property.
4. That such sale, mortage or encumbrance is (a) without express authority from
the court, or (b) made before the cancellation of his bond, or (c) before being
O. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR. 2) BY DISPOSING OF REAL PROPERTY AS FREE relieved from the obligation contracted by him.
FROM ENCUMBRANCE, ALTHOUGH SUCH ENCUMBRANCE BE NOT RECORDED: (316)
1. that the thing disposed of be real property.
2. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the
encumbrance is recorded or not.
R. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING A MINOR: (317)
3. That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property
is free from encumbrance. 1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of
a minor.
4. That the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another.
2. That he induces such minor (a) to assume an obligation, or (b) to give release, or
* In Saddul Jr. v. CA, 192 SCRA 277, it was held that the act of using or disposing of (c) to execute a transfer of any property right.
another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from
that agreed upon, is a misappropriation and conversion to the prejudice of the owner . 3. That the consideration is (a) some loan of money (b) credit or (c) other personal
Conversion is unauthorized assumption an exercise of the right of ownership over goods and property.
chattels belonging to another, resulting in the alteration of their condition or exclusion of the
owner’s rights. 4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
* The property referred to in this article is not real property. It is limited to personal property
P. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR.3) BY WRONGFULLY TAKING BY THE OWNER HIS since a minor cannot convey real property without judicial intervention . So, if what is involved is
PERSONAL FROM ITS LAWFUL POSSESSOR: (316) real property, the crime of swindling a minor under this article is not committed even if the
offender succeeds in inducing the minor to deal with such real property since no damage or
1. That the offender is the owner of personal property. detriment is caused against the minor.
2. That said personal property is in the lawful possession of another.

S. ELEMENTS OF OTHER DECEITS: (318)
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor.
1. not mentioned above;
4. That prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third person.
2. interpretation of dreams, forecast, future-telling for profit or gain.
Under paragraph 4 – by executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another * The meaning of other deceits under this article has reference to a situation wherein fraud or
damage is done to another by any other form of deception which is not covered by the preceding
Under paragraph 5 – by accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not articles.
performed
* Another form of deceit would be in the nature of interpreting dreams, or making forecasts,
telling fortunes or simply by taking advantage of the credulity of the public by any other similar
Q. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR. 6) BY SELLING, MORTGAGING OR ENCUMBERING manner, done for profit or gain.
REAL PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES WITH WHICH THE OFFENDER GUARANTEED THE
FULFILLMENT OF HIS OBLIGATION AS SURETY: (316)
CHATTEL MORTGAGE
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action.

Article 319
A. SELLING OR PLEDGING PERSONAL PROPERTY ALREADY PLEDGED 2. That the destruction was done by means of:
ELEMENTS: a. explosion
1. That personal property is already pledged under the terms of the chattel
mortgage law. b. discharge of electric current
2. That the offender, who is the mortgagee of such property, sells or pledges the c. inundation
same or any part thereof.
d. sinking or stranding of a vessel
3. That there is no consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage
and noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds. e. damaging the engine of the vessel
f. taking up rails from the railway track

B. KNOWINGLY REMOVING MORTGAGED PERSONAL PROPERTY
g. destroying telegraph wires and posts or those of any other system
ELEMENTS:
1. that personal property is mortgaged under the chattel mortage law. h. other similar effective means of destruction
2. That the offender knows that such property is so mortaged.

C. ELEMENTS OF BURNING ONE’S PROPERTY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT ARSON
3. That he removes such mortgaged personal to any province or city other than the
one in which it was located at the time of the execution of the mortgage. 1. That the offender set fire to or destroyed his own property
4. that the removal is permanent. 2. That the purpose of the offender in doing so was to commit arson or to cause a
great destruction
5. That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or his executors,
administration or assigns to such removal. 3. That the property belonging to another was burned or destroyed
* It would be the mortgagor who is made liable if the personal property is transferred to the
prohibited place. The liability extends to third persons who shall knowingly remove the
mortgaged to another city or province. D. ELEMENTS OF ARSON
* If the chattel mortgage is not registered, there is no violation of Article 319 1. That the property burned is the exclusive property of the offender
2. That (a) the purpose of the offender is burning it is to defraud or cause damage
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS to another or (b) prejudice is actually caused, or (c) the thing burned is a
building in an inhabited place
(Note: PD 1613 expressly repealed or amended Arts 320-326, but PD 1744 revived Art 320 )
Palattao notes:
A. ELEMENTS OF ARSONS OF PROPERTY OF SMALL VALUES
Arson is defined as the intentional or malicious destruction of a property by fire.
1. That an uninhabited hut, storehouse, barn, shed or any other property is burned Legal effect if death results from arson.
2. That the value of the property burned does not exceed 25 pesos The crime committed is still arson. Death is absorbed in the crime of arson but the penalty to be
imposed ranges from reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1613)
3. That the burning was done at a time or under circumstances which clearly
exclude all danger of the fire spreading How arson is established.
Arson is established by proving the corpus delicti, usually in the form of circumstancial evidence
B. ELEMENTS OF CRIME INVOLVING DESTRUCTION such as the criminal agency, meaning the substance used, like gasoline, kerosene or other form
of bustible materials which caused the fire. It can also be in the form of electrical wires,
1. That the offender causes destruction of the property

mechanical, chemical or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire; ashes or traces of such > It means not only loss but a diminution of the value of one’s property. It includes defacing,
objects which are found in the ruins of the burned premises. deforming or rendering it useless for the purpose for which it was made.
* But after damaging the thing, he used it = theft
Notes:
* There is destruction of the property of another but there is no misappropriation. Otherwise, it
* If the crime of arson was employed by the offender as a means to kill the offended party , the would be theft if he gathers the effects of destruction.
crime committed is murder. The burning of the property as the means to kill the victim is
what is contemplated by the word “ fire” under Article 248 which qualifies the crime to * Damage is not incident of a crime (breaking windows in robbery)
murder. (People vs. Villarosa, 54 O. G. 3482)
* When the burning of the property was done by the offender only to cause damage but the Article 328
arson resulted to death of a person, the crime committed is still arson because the death of SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
the victim is a mere consequence and not the intention of the offender. (People vs.
Paterno, 47 O. G. 4600) 1. Obstruct performance of public functions.
* There is no special complex crime of arson with homicide . What matters in resolving cases 2. Using poisonous or corrosive substances.
involving intentional arson is the criminal intent of the offender.
3. Spreading infection or contagious among cattle.
* There is such a crime as reckless imprudence resulting in the commission of arson . When the
arson results from reckless imprudence and it leads to death, serious physical injuries and 4. Damage to property of national museum or library, archive, registry,
damage to the property of another, the penalty to be imposed shall not be for the crime of waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public.
arson under P. D. No. 1613 but rather, the penalty shall be based on Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code as a felony committed by means of culpa. * The cases of malicious mischief enumerated in this article are so-called qualified malicious
mischief. The crime becomes qualified either because of the nature of the damage caused to
obstruct a public; or because of the kind of substance used to cause the damage. The crime is
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF still malicious mischief because the offender has no intent to gain but derives satisfaction from
the act because of hate, revenge or other evil motive.
Article 326 Note: Qualified malicious mischief – no uprising or sedition (#1)

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
ELEMENTS: Article 329

1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another. OTHER MISCHIEF
2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. ELEMENTS:
3. That the act damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of 1. Not included in 328
damaging it. a. scattering human excrement
b. killing of cow as an act of revenge
Notes:
* The offender is punished according to the value of the damage caused to the offended party. If
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF – willful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing the damages cannot be estimated, the minimum penalty is arresto menor or a fine of not more
damage due to hate, revenge or other evil motive than 200 pesos shall be imposed on the offender.
* No negligence
Article 330
Example. Killing the cow as revenge DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
* If no malice – only civil liability done by damaging railways, telegraph, telephone lines, electric wires, traction cables,
signal system of railways
Meaning of “damage” in malicious mischief.
Notes:

* removing rails from tracks is destruction (art 324) Persons exempt include:
* not applicable when telegraph/phone lines don’t pertain to railways (example: for transmission a. stepfather/mother (ascendants by affinity)
of electric power/light)
b. adopted children (descendants)
people killed as a result:
a. murder – if derailment is means of intent to kill c. concubine/paramour (spouse)
b. none – art 48 d. common law spouse (property is part of their earnings)
* If the damage was intended to cause derailment only without any intention to kill, it will be a * Only the relatives enumerated incur no liability if the crime relates to theft (not robbery),
crime involving destruction under Article 324. If the derailment is intentionally done to cause the swindling, and malicious mischief. Third parties who participate are not exempt. The relationship
death of a person, the crime committed will be murder under Article 248. between the spouses is not limited to legally married couples; the provision applies to live-in
partners.
* circumstance qualifying the offense if the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision
or other accident – a higher penalty shall be imposed * Estafa should not be complexed with any other crime in order for exemption to operate.
Article 331
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
Article 332
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY TITLE ELEVEN
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Persons exempt from criminal liability
Crimes against chastity
1. Spouse, ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line 1. Adultery (Art. 333);
2. Concubinage (Art. 334);
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property w/c belonged to the 3. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336);
deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another 4. Qualified seduction (Art. 337);
5. Simple seduction (Art. 338);
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living 6. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party (Art. 339);
together 7. Corruption of minors (Art. 340);
8. White slave trade (Art. 341);
Offenses involved in the exemption 9. Forcible abduction (Art. 342);
1. Theft ( not robbery ) 10. Consented abduction (Art. 343).
2. Swindling * The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness are the
so-called private crimes. They cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the
3. Malicious mischief offended party. The law regards the privacy of the offended party here as more important than
the disturbance to the order of society. For the law gives the offended party the preference
Notes: whether to sue or not to sue. But the moment the offended party has initiated the criminal
complaint, the public prosecutor will take over and continue with prosecution of the offender.
* Exemption is based on family relations That is why under Article 344, if the offended party pardons the offender, that pardon will only be
valid if it comes before the prosecution starts. The moment the prosecution starts, the crime has
* For the exemption to apply insofar as brothers and sisters, and brothers-in-law and sisters-in- already become public and it is beyond the offended party to pardon the offender.
law are concerned, they must be living together at the time of the commission of the crime of
theft, estafa or malicious mischief.
Article 333
* Parties to the crime not related to the offended party still remains criminally liable ADULTERY

* There are two counts of adultery committed in this instance: one adultery in Bulacan, and
ELEMENTS: another adultery in Dagupan City. Even if it involves the same man, each intercourse is a
1. That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared void) separate crime of adultery.
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband. * Mitigated if wife was abandoned without justification by the offended spouse (man is entitled
to this mitigating circumstance)
3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourses, he must know
her to be married. * Abandonment without justification is not exempting but only a mitigating circumstance. One
who invokes abandonment in the crime of adultery hypothetically admits criminal liability for the
Notes: crime charged. (U. S. vs. Serrano, et al., 28 Phil. 230)
* There are two reasons why adultery is made punishable by law . Primarily, it is a * While abandonment is peculiar only to the accused who is related to the offended party and
violation of the marital vow and secondarily, it paves the way to the introduction of a spurious must be considered only as to her or him as provided under Article 62, paragraph 3, nonetheless,
child into the family. judicially speaking, in the crime of adultery, there is only one act committed and consequently
both accused are entitled to this mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Avelino, 40 O.G. Supp.
* Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse 11, 194)
with a married woman knowing her to be married . Even if the man proves later on that he does
not know the woman to be married, at the beginning, he must still be included in the complaint Attempted: caught disrobing a lover
or information. This is so because whether he knows the woman to be married or not is a matter
of defense and its up to him to ventilate that in formal investigations or a formal trial. * There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense.
* If after preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor is convinced that the man did not know * In the case of People vs. Pontio Guinucud , et al., (58 Phil. 621), a private agreement was
that the woman is married, then he could simply file the case against the woman. entered into between the husband and wife for them to separate from bed and board and for
each of them to go for his and her own separate way. Thereafter, the wife Rosario Tagayum lived
* The acquittal of the woman does not necessarily result in the acquittal of her co-accused. with her co-accused Pontio Guinucud in a nearby barangay. Their love affair ultimately embroiled
In order to constitute adultery, there must be a joint physical act . Joint criminal intent is not the spouses’ conservative and reputable families in a human drama exposed in legal battles and
necessary. Although the criminal intent may exist in the mind of one of the parties to the whispers of unwanted gossips. In dismissing the complaint, the Court ruled that while a private
physical act, there may be no such intent in the mind of the other party. One may be guilty of agreement between the husband and wife was null and void, the same was admissible proof of
the criminal intent, the other innocent, and yet the joint physical act necessary to constitute the the express consent given by the condescending husband to the prodigal wife, a license for her
adultery may be complete. So, if the man had no knowledge that the woman was married, he to commit adultery. Such agreement bars the husband from instituting a criminal complaint for
would be innocent insofar as the crime of adultery is concerned but the woman would still be adultery.
guilty; the former would have to be acquitted and the latter found guilty, although they were
tried together. * After filing the complaint for adultery and while the case is pending trial and resolution by the
trial court, the offended spouse must not have sexual intercourse with the adulterous wife since
* A husband committing concubinage may be required to support his wife committing adultery an act of intercourse subsequent to the adulterous conduct is considered as implied pardon .
under the rule in pari delicto. (People vs. Muguerza, et al., 13 C.A. Rep. 1079)
* For adultery to exist, there must be a marriage although it be subsequently annulled. There is * It is seldom the case that adultery is established by direct evidence. The legal tenet has been
no adultery, if the marriage is void from the beginning. and still is “circumstancial and corroborative evidence as will lead the guarded discretion of a
reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the criminal act of adultery has been committed
* Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and completed at the moment of the will bring about conviction for the crime.” (U. S. vs. Feliciano, 36 Phil. 753)
carnal union. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. Adultery is not a
continuing crime unlike concubinage.
Illustration:
Madamme X is a married woman residing in Pasay City. He met a man, Y, at Roxas Boulevard.
She agreed to go with to Baguio City, supposedly to come back the next day. When they were in
Bulacan, they stayed in a motel, having sexual intercourse there. After that, they proceeded
again and stopped at Dagupan City, where they went to a motel and had sexual intercourse.

* When spies are employed to chronicle the activities of the accused and the evidence presented
Article 334 to prove scandalous circumstances are those taken by the detectives, it is obvious that the sexual
CONCUBINAGE intercourse done by the offenders was not under scandalous circumstances. (U.S. vs. Campos-
Rueda, 35 Phil. 51)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the man must be married. * Causal sexual intercourse with a woman in a hotel is not concubinage . Likewise, keeping of a
mistress in a townhouse procured and furnished by a married man who does not live or sleep
2. That he committed any of the following acts: with her in said townhouse does not constitute concubinage since there is no cohabitation.
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. * The rule is that, if a married man’s conduct with a woman who is not his wife was not confined
to occasional or transient interview for carnal intercourse but is carried n in the manner of
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a husband and wife and for some period of time, then such association is sufficient to constitute
woman who is not his wife. cohabitation. (People vs. Zuniga, CA 57 O.G. 2497)
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place. * If the evidence of the prosecution consists of a marriage contract between the offender and the
offended party, and the additional fact of the birth certificate of a child showing the accused to be
3. That as regards the woman she must know him to be married. the father of the child with the alleged cocubine, the same will not be sufficient to convict the
accused of concubinage since the law clearly states that the act must be one of those provided by
Note: “Scandal” consists in any reprehensible word/deed that offends public conscience, law.
redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest persons and gives occasions to the neighbor’s
spiritual damage and ruin
Article 335. Rape
* With respect to concubinage the same principle applies: only the offended spouse can bring the
prosecution. This is a crime committed by the married man, the husband. Similarly, it includes This has been repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. See Article
the woman who had a relationship with the married man. 266-A.
* It has been asked why the penalty for adultery is higher than concubinage when both crimes
are infidelities to the marital vows. The reason given for this is that when the wife commits Article 336
adultery, there is a probability that she will bring a stranger into the family. If the husband ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
commits concubinage, this probability does not arise because the mother of the child will always
carry the child with her. So even if the husband brings with him the child, it is clearly known that ELEMENTS:
the child is a stranger. Not in the case of a married woman who may bring a child to the family 1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness.
under the guise of a legitimate child. This is the reason why in the former crime the penalty is
higher than the latter. 2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
* Unlike adultery, concubinage is a continuing crime. a. by using force or intimidation, or
* If the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, there is no need for proof b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
of sexual intercourse. The conjugal dwelling is the house of the spouse even if the wife happens unconscious, or
to be temporarily absent therefrom. The woman however must be brought into the conjugal
house by the accused husband as a concubine to fall under this article. Thus, if the co-accused c. when the offended party is under 12 years of age.
was voluntarily taken and sheltered by the spouses in their house and treated as an adopted child
being a relative of the complaining wife, her illicit relations with the accused husband does not 3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
make her a mistress. (People vs. Hilao, et al., (C.A.) 52 O.G. 904).
Note that there are two kinds of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code: (1) under
* It is only when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere that “ scandalous Article 336, and (2) under Article 339.
circumstances” becomes an element of crime.
1. Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness
* For the existence of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances, the latter must be imprudent and wanton as to offend modesty and sense of Under this article, the offended party may be a man or a woman . The crime
morality and decency. committed, when the act performed with lewd design was perpetrated under
circumstances which would have brought about the crime of rape if sexual intercourse

was effected, is acts of lasciviousness under this article. This means that the offended Two classes of qualified seduction:
party is either –
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such
(1) under 12 years of age; or as a person in authority, priest, teachers etc and
(2) being over 12 years of age, the lascivious acts were committed on him or her 2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her ascendant, regardless
through violence or intimidation, or while the offender party was deprived of of her age or reputation (incestuous seduction)
reason, or otherwise unconscious.
Elements:
2. Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party: 1. That the offended party is a virgin, (presumed if she unmarried and of good
reputation.)
Under this article, the victim is limited only to a woman . The circumstances under
which the lascivious acts were committed must be that of qualified seduction or simple 2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
seduction, that is, the offender took advantage of his position of ascendancy over the
offender woman either because he is a person in authority, a domestic, a househelp, a 3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.
priest, a teacher or a guardian, or there was a deceitful promise of marriage which
never would really be fulfilled. 4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the
offender ( person entrusted with education or custody of victim; person in public
* Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts of lasciviousness, rape or adultery authority, priest; servant)
because no matter how far the offender may have gone towards the realization of his purpose, if
his participation amounts to performing all the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily Persons liable:
produced as a consequence thereof.
1. Those who abuse their authority:
* Intent to rape is not a necessary element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness . Otherwise, a. persons in public authority
there would be no crime of attempted rape. b. guardian
c. teacher
* In the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the intention of the wrongdoer is not very material. The d. person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the
motive that impelled the accused to commit the offense is of no importance because the essence woman seduced
of lewdness is in the act itself.
2. Those who abused the confidence reposed in them:
* What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of a. priest
each case. The demarcation line is not always easy to determine but in order to sustain a b. house servant
conviction for acts of lasciviousness , it is essential that the acts complained of be prompted by c. domestic
lust or lewd designs and the victim did not consent to nor encouraged the act.
3. Those who abused their relationship:
* To be guilty of this crime however, the acts of lasciviousness must be committed under any of a. brother who seduced his sister
the circumstances that had there been sexual intercourse, the crime would have been Rape. b. ascendant who seduced his descendant
Where circumstances however are such, indicating a clear intention to lie with the offended party,
the crime committed as Attempted Rape. * This crime also involves sexual intercourse. The offended woman must be over 12 but below
18 years.
* This crime (Art. 336) can be committed by either sex unlike in Acts of Lasciviousness with
Consent under Article 339. Thus, a lesbian who toyed with the private part of an eleven-year-old * The distinction between qualified seduction and simple seduction lies in the fact, among others,
girl who enjoyed it since she was given $50 dollars before the act, is guilty of Act of that the woman is a virgin in qualified seduction, while in simple seduction, it is not necessary
Lasciviousness under this Article as the victim is below twelve year old; and had sexual that the woman be a virgin. It is enough that she is of good repute.
intercourse been possible and done, the act would have been Rape.
* For purposes of qualified seduction, virginity does not mean physical virginity. It means that
the offended party has not had any experience before.
SEDUCTION
* The virginity referred to here, is not to be understood in so material a sense as to exclude the
Article 337 idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of a good reputation. Thus, when the accused claims he
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN had prior intercourse with the complainant, the latter is still to be considered a virgin (U.S. vs.

Casten, 34 Phil. 808). But if it was established that the girl had a carnal relations with other
men, there can be no crime of Seduction as she is not a virgin.
* Although in qualified seduction, the age of the offended woman is considered, if the offended
party is a descendant or a sister of the offender – no matter how old she is or whether she is a
prostitute – the crime of qualified seduction is committed.
Illustration:
Article 338
If a person goes to a sauna parlor and finds there a descendant and despite that, had sexual SIMPLE SEDUCTION
intercourse with her, regardless of her reputation or age, the crime of qualified seduction is
committed. ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age.
* In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the offended woman be his student. It is
enough that she is enrolled in the same school. 2. That she must be of good reputation, single or widow.
* Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction . Qualified seduction is committed even though no 3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her.
deceit intervened or even when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin.
This is because in such a case, the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral 4. That it is committed by means of deceit.
element of the crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction,
taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent. Abuse of confidence here * Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise to marry . The promise of marriage must
implies fraud. serve as the inducement. The woman must yield on account of the promise of marriage or other
forms of inducement. (People vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)
* The fact that the offended party gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is not a defense.
Lack of consent on the part of the complainant is not an element of the crime. * Where the accused failed to have sex with this sweetheart over twelve (12) but below eighteen
(18) years old because the latter refused as they were not yet married, and the accused procured
* The term domestic refers to a person usually living under the same roof with the offended the performance of a fictitious marriage ceremony because of which the girlfriend yielded, he is
party. It includes all those persons residing with the family and who are members of the same guilty of Simple Seduction. (U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109). Here, there was deceit
household, regardless of the fact that their residence may only be temporary or that they may be employed. This act may now be considered Rape under R.A. 8353, Sec. 2 par. 6.
paying for their board and lodging.
* A promise of material things in exchange for the woman’s surrender of her virtue does not
* A domestic should not be confused with a house servant. A domestic is not necessarily a house constitute deceit.
servant.
* If a woman under 18 years of age but over 12 agrees to a sexual intercourse with a man who
* Where the offended party is below 12 years of age, regardless of whether the victim is a sister promised her precious jewelries but the man reneges on his promise, there is no seduction that
or a descendant of the offender, the crime committed is rape. the woman is of loose morals. (Luis B. Reyes)
* If the offended party is married and over 12 years of age, the crime committed will be adultery. Promise of marriage must precede sexual intercourse.
> A promise of marriage made by the accused after sexual intercourse had taken place, or after
* An essential element of a qualified seduction is virginity (doncella). It is a condition existing in a the woman had yielded her body to the man by mutual consent will not render the man liable for
woman who has had no sexual intercourse with any man. It does not refer to the condition of the simple seduction.
hymen as being intact.
* The offended woman must be under 18 but not less than 12 years old ; otherwise, the crime is
* One who is charged with qualified seduction can be convicted of rape. But one who is charged statutory rape.
with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information. (People vs.
Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144) * Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not essential in this crime . What is required is that the
woman be unmarried and of good reputation . Simple seduction is not synonymous with loss of
* Even if the woman has already lost her virginity because of rape, in the eyes of the law, she virginity. If the woman is married, the crime will be adultery.
remains a virtuous woman even if physically she is no longer a virgin.
Article 339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

ELEMENTS: * Young minor should enjoy a good reputation. Apparently, a prostitute above 12 and under 18
years of age cannot be the victim in the crime of corruption of minors.
1. that the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness.
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of Article 341
good reputation, under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister or WHITE SLAVE TRADE
descendant regardless of her reputation or age.
Acts penalized:
3. that the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence,
relationship, or deceit. 1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
* When the acts of lasciviousness is committed with the use of force or intimidation or when the 2. Profiting by prostitution
offended party is under 12 years of age, the object of the crime can either be a woman or a man.
3. Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution
* Where the acts of the offender were limited to acts of lewdness or lasciviousness, and no carnal
knowledge was had; but had there been sexual intercourse, the offense would have been * The person liable under Article 341 is the one who maintains or engages in the trade of
Seduction, he is guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under this article. prostitution. A white slave is a woman held unwillingly for purposes of commercial prostitution.
A white slaver on the other hand is one engaged in white slave traffic, procurer of white slaves
* The crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 339 is one that is done with the consent of the or prostitutes.
offended party who is always a woman . The lewd acts committed against her is with her consent
only because the offender took advantage of his authority, or there was abuse of confidence, or * The most common way of committing this crime would be through the maintenance of a bar or
the employment of deceit, or the offender is related to the victim. saloon where women engage in prostitution. For each intercourse, the women pay the maintainer
or owner of a certain amount in this case, the maintainer of owner of the bar or saloon is liable
* In the commission of the acts of lasciviousness either by force or intimidation, or with the for white slave trade. (People vs. Go Lo, 56 O.G. 4056)
consent of the offended party, there must be no sexual intercourse, or the acts performed are
short of sexual intercourse. In the first situation, the crime would either be qualified seduction or
simple seduction if the offender succeeds in having sexual intercourse with the victim. In these
two cases, there is consent but the same is procured by the offender through the employment of ABDUCTION
deceit, abuse of confidence, abuse of authority or because of the existence of blood relationship.
Article 342
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
Article 340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS ELEMENTS:
1. That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or
Act punishable: reputation.
By promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to 2. That the abduction is against her will.
satisfy the lust of another
3. That the abduction is with lewd designs.
* It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the minor.
Note: Sexual intercourse is NOT necessary
* It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law merely punishes the
act of promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor and that he acted in Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of victim are immaterial: rape, acts
order to satisfy the lust of another. of lasciviousness, qualified seduction of sister/descendant, forcible abduction
* A single act of promoting or facilitating the corruption or prostitution of a minor is sufficient to Forcible abduction defined.
constitute violation of this article. > It is the taking away of any woman against her will, from her house or the place where she
may be, for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to marry or corrupt her.
* What the law punishes is the act of pimp ( bugaw) who facilitates the corruption of a minor. It is
not the unchaste act of the minor which is being punished. So, a mere proposal to promote or * A woman is carried against her will or brought from one place to another against her will with
facilitate the prostitution or corruption of a minor is sufficient to consummate the crime. lewd design.

* If the main object of the offender is to rape the victim , and the forcible abduction was resorted
* Unlike in Rape and Seduction, in the crime of Abduction, whether Forcible or Consented, there to by the accused in order to facilitate the commission of the rape, then the crime committed is
is no sexual intercourse. The acts are limited to taking away from a place the victim, but the only rape. (People vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777)
same must be with lewd designs, that is, with unchaste design manifested by kissing and
touching the victim’s private parts. * Where the victim was taken from one place to another, solely for the purpose of killing him and
not detaining him for any legal length of time, the crime committed is murder. (People vs. Ong,
* If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the woman would qualify as abduction; 62 SCRA 174)
otherwise, it would amount to kidnapping. If the woman was only brought to a certain place in
order to break her will and make her agree to marry the offender, the crime is only grave * True intention of the offender should be ascertained. If the detention is only incidental, the
coercion because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the woman and not same should be considered as absorbed. Otherwise, it should be treated as a separate offense.
really to restrain the woman of her liberty. When such a situation arises, we should consider the application of Article 48 on complex crimes.
* Where lewd design was not proved or shown, and the victim was deprived of her liberty, the * The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit at the beginning and
crime is Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention under this Article 267, RPC. then by means of violence and intimidation later.
* The element of lewd designs, which is essential to the crime of abduction through violence * The virginity of the complaining witness is not a determining factor in forcible abduction .
refers to the intention to abuse the abducted woman. If such intention is lacking or does not
exist, the crime may be illegal detention. It is necessary to establish the unchaste design or * In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design, illicit criminal relations with the
purpose of the offender. But it is sufficient that the intent to seduce the girl is present. The evil person abducted need not be shown. The intent to seduce a girl is sufficient.
purpose of the offender may be established or inferred from the overt acts of the accused.
* If there is a separation in fact, the taking by the husband of his wife against her will constitutes
* If the offended woman is under 12 years old , even if she consented to the abduction, the crime grave coercion.
is forcible abduction and not consented abduction.
Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal detention:
* Where the offended woman is below the age of consent, even though she had gone with the
offender through some deceitful promises revealed upon her to go with him and they live When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs, the crime committed is forcible
together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, the ruling is that forcible abduction abduction.
is committed by the mere carrying of the woman as long as that intent is already shown. In When the kidnapping is without lewd designs, the crime committed is illegal detention.
other words, where the man cannot possibly give the woman the benefit of an honorable life, all
that man promised are just machinations of a lewd design and, therefore, the carrying of the > But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the defendant to coerce her to
woman is characterized with lewd design and would bring about the crime of abduction and not marry him, it was held that only grave coercion was committed and not illegal detention.
kidnapping. This is also true if the woman is deprived of reason and if the woman is mentally
retardate. Forcible abduction is committed and not consented abduction. * Forcible abduction must be distinguished from the crime of kidnapping . When the violent taking
of a woman is motivated by lewd design, the crime committed is forcible abduction. But if the
* Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts performed by the offender on her. motive of the offender is to deprive the woman of her liberty, the crime committed is kidnapping.
Since this crime does not involve sexual intercourse, if the victim is subjected to this, then a Abduction is a crime against chastity while kidnapping is a crime against personal liberty.
crime of rape is further committed and a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is
committed.
Article 343
* Lewd design does not include sexual intercourse . So, if sexual intercourse is committed against CONSENTED ABDUCTION
the offended party after her forcible abduction, the offender commits another crime separate and
distinct from forcible abduction. In this case, the accused should be charged with forcible ELEMENTS:
abduction with rape. (People vs. Jose, et al., 37 SCRA 450) 1. That the offended party must be a virgin.
* If the accused carried or took away the victim by means of force and with lewd design and 2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
thereafter raped her, the crime is Forcible Abduction with Rape, the former being a necessary
means to commit the latter. The subsequent two (2) other sexual intercourse committed against 3. That the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after
the will of the complainant would be treated as independent separate crimes of Rape. (People solicitation or cajolery from the offender.
vs. Bacalso, 210 SCRA 206).
4. That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.

VIRGINITY may be presumed from the fact that the offended party is unmarried and has been * The crimes of adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon a complaint signed by the
leading moral life. Virginity or maidenhood should not be understood in such a matter of fact as offended spouse. In the complaint, the offended party must include both guilty parties if they are
to completely exclude a woman who has had previous sexual intercourse. If the previous sexual both alive.
intercourse was the result of the crime of rape, the intercourse committed with her against he will
and over her violent objection should not render her unchaste and a woman of bad reputation. * Distinguished between a private crime and a public crime. In the case of a private crime, the
same cannot be prosecuted de oficio, meaning it cannot be initiated by any person except the
* If the virgin in under 12 years old, the crime committed is forcible abduction because of the offended party. These are the crimes against chastity such as seduction, adultery, concubinage
theory that a child below 12 years of age has no will of her own. and acts of lasciviousness. These are crimes which are initiated with the filing of an information.
A public crime is one which can be prosecuted de officio, meaning it can be prosecuted by any
* The purpose of the law on consented abduction is to punish the offender for causing disgrace person interested to prosecute the same. The accusation is usually initiated with the filling of an
and scandal to the family of the offended party. The law does not punish the offender for the information.
wrong done to the woman since in the eyes of the law, she consented to her seduction.
* The law requires that the complaint must be initiated by the said persons in order that they are
* The deceit which is termed by the law as solicitation or cajolery maybe in the form of honeyed named or enumerated in the article. If this legal requirement is not observed, the case should be
promises of marriage. dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
* In consented Abduction, it is not necessary that the young victim, (a virgin over twelve and * If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her mental faculties, she alone
under eighteen) be personally taken from her parent’s home by the accused; it is sufficient that can file the complaint (People vs. Mandia, 60 Phil. 372)
he was instrumental in her leaving the house. He must however use solicitation, cajolery or
deceit, or honeyed promises of marriage to induce the girl to escape from her home. * If the offended party cannot sign the complaint because of her tender age, the parents can do
it for her. The same can be done either by the father or the mother. (U.S. vs. Gariboso, 25
* In consented abduction, the taking away of the virgin must be with lewd design. Actual sexual Phil 171 )
intercourse with the woman is not necessary. However, if the same is established, then it will be * The word guardian as mentioned in the law refers to the guardian appointed by the court.
considered as a strong evidence to prove lewd design. (People vs. Formento, et al., 60 Phil. 434)
* Where several persons participated in the forcible abduction and these persons also raped the What is the meaning of “shall have consented” which bars the institution of criminal
offended woman, the original ruling in the case of People v. Jose is that there would be one action for adultery or concubinage?
count of forcible abduction with rape and then each of them will answer for his own rape and the The term “consent” has reference to the tie prior to the commission of the crime. In other words,
rape of the others minus the first rape which was complexed with the forcible abduction. This the offended party gives his or her consent to the future infidelity of the offending spouse.
ruling is no longer the prevailing rule. The view adopted in cases of similar nature is to the effect
that where more than one person has effected the forcible abduction with rape, all the rapes are > And so, while consent refers to the offense prior to its commission, pardon refers to the
just the consummation of the lewd design which characterizes the forcible abduction and, offense after its commission. (People vs. Schnekenburger, et al., 73 Phil. 413)
therefore, there should only be one forcible abduction with rape.
Note: Marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action or remit
the penalty already imposed upon him. This applies as well to the accomplices, accessories-after-
Article 344 the-fact. But marriages must be in good faith. This rule does not apply in case of multiple rape
PROSECUTION OF ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION RAPE AND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS * In the crimes involving rape, abduction, seduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the marriage by
the offender with the offended woman generally extinguishes criminal liability, not only of the
1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by the principal but also of the accomplice and accessory. However, the mere fact of marriage is not
offended spouse enough because it is already decided that if the offender marries the offended woman without
any intention to perform the duties of a husband as shown by the fact that after the marriage, he
2. Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness must be prosecuted upon already left her, the marriage would appear as having been contracted only to avoid the
complaint signed by: punishment. Even with that marriage, the offended woman could still prosecute the offender and
that marriage will not have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability.
a. offended party
b. by her parents * Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a manner of extinguishing criminal
c. grandparents liability but only a bar to the prosecution of the offender . Therefore, that pardon must come
d. guardians in the order in which they are named above before the prosecution is commenced. When the prosecution is already commenced or initiated,
pardon by the offended woman will no longer be effective because pardon may preclude
prosecution but not prevent the same.

* Pardon in crimes against chastity, is a bar to prosecution. But it must come before the LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY OF
institution of the criminal action. ( See the cases of People vs. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647; OFFENDED PARTY WHO BY ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR CONFIDENCE SHALL
People vs. Avila, 192 SCRA 635) To be effective, it must include both accused. COOPERATE AS ACCOMPLIES
How about pardon declared by the offended party during the trial of the case? Such a
declaration is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. Pardon is a matter of defense which the
accused must plead and prove during the trial. (People vs. Riotes, C.A., 49 O.G.3403). TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
* All these private crimes – except rape – cannot be prosecuted de officio. If any slander or
written defamation is made out of any of these crimes, the complaint of the offended party is still Crimes against the civil status of persons
necessary before such case for libel or oral defamation may proceed. It will not prosper because 1. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over these crimes unless there is a complaint from the abandonment of a legitimate child (art. 347);
offended party. The paramount decision of whether he or she wanted the crime committed on 2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348);
him or her to be made public is his or hers alone, because the indignity or dishonor brought 3. Bigamy (Art. 349);
about by these crimes affects more the offended party than social order. The offended party 4. Marriage contracted against provisions of law (Art. 350);
may prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than to vindicate his honor in public . 5. Premature marriages (Art. 351);
6. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art. 352).
Article 345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF RAPE, SEDUCTION OR ABDUCTION Article 347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND
1. To idemnify the offended women CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so Acts Punished:
3. In every case to support the offspring 1. Simulation of births
* The civil liability of the adulterer and the concubine is limited to indemnity for damages caused 2. Substitution of one child for another
to the offended spouse. The law does not mention the adulteress in the crime of adultery such
that only the adulterer shall be held civilly liable. 3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with the intent to cause such
child to lose its civil status
* There is likewise no mention of the offender in the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as being held
liable for civil damages under Article 345, the law only mentioned the crimes of rape, seduction Requisites:
and abduction. 1. The child must be legitimate
* Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in seduction, abduction,
rape or other lascivious acts. The crimes of adultery and concubinage are also included. 2. The offender conceals or abandons such child
* In the crimes of rape, abduction and seduction, if the offended woman had given birth to the 3. The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose its civil status
child, among the liabilities of the offender is to support the child. This obligation to support the
child may be true even if there are several offenders. As to whether all of them will acknowledge Elements of Simulation of Birth
the child, that is a different question because the obligation to support here is not founded on 1. Child is baptized or registered in the Registry of birth as hers
civil law but is the result of a criminal act or a form of punishment.
2. Child loses its real status and acquiires a new one
* It has been held that where the woman was the victim of the said crime could not possibly
conceive anymore, the trial court should not provide in its sentence that the accused, in case a 3. Actor’s purpose was to cause the loss of any trace as to the child’s true filiation
child is born, should support the child. This should only be proper when there is a probability
that the offended woman could give birth to an offspring. Simulation of birth takes place when a woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not
and on the day of the supposed delivery, she takes the child of another and declares the child to
be her own. This is done by entering in the birth certificate of the child that the offender is the
Article 346 alleged mother of the child when in fact the child belongs to another.
Illustration:

People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going through legal adoption. Circumstances qualifying the offense: penalty is heavier when the purpose of the
If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not the real parents of impersonation is to defraud the offended party or his heirs
their child, then simulation of birth is committed. If the parents are parties to the simulation by
making it appear in the birth certificate that the parents who bought the child are the real
parents, the crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but
simulation of birth.
Questions & Answers
1. A woman who has given birth to a child abandons the child in a certain place Article 349
to free herself of the obligation and duty of rearing and caring for the child. What crime is BIGAMY
committed by the woman?
ELEMENTS:
The crime committed is abandoning a minor under Article 276. 1. That the offender has been legally married.
2. Suppose that the purpose of the woman is abandoning the child is to 2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
preserve the inheritance of her child by a former marriage, what then is the crime committed? absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the
civil code.
The crime would fall under the second paragraph of Article 347. The purpose of the
woman is to cause the child to lose its civil status so that it may not be able to share in the 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
inheritance.
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for
3. Suppose a child, one day after his birth, was taken to and left in the midst of validity.
a lonely forest, and he was found by a hunter who took him home. What crime was committed
by the person who left it in the forest? Notes:
It is attempted infanticide, as the act of the offender is an attempt against the life of * The crime does not fall within the category of private crimes that can be prosecuted only at the
the child. See US v. Capillo, et al., 30 Phil. 349. instance of the offended party PUBLIC CRIME
 For the crime of bigamy to prosper the first marriage must be valid. If the first marriage is
Article 348 void from the beginning, such nullity of the marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy.
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS Consequently, when raised as a defense, the accused should be convicted since until and
unless annulled, the bond of matrimony remains or is maintained.
Committed by a person who represents himself as another and assumes the filiation
or rights pertaining to such person  Need for judicial declaration of nullity
Notes:  The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity were it not for the
existence of the first marriage.
* There must be criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another by the offender knowing he is
not entitled thereto
* A simulated marriage is not marriage at all and can be used as a defense for bigamy
* The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the rights, duties, capacities and
incapacities which determine a person to a given class. It seems that the term "civil status" * Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
includes one's profession.
* One who, although not yet married before, knowingly consents to be married to one who is
* Committed by asuming the filiation, or the parental or conjugal rights of another already married is guilty of bigamy knowing that the latter’s marriage is still valid and subsisting.
* Usurpation is committed by assuming the filiation or parental (when maternal, paternal or * In the crime of bigamy, the second spouse is not necessarily liable . The language of Article 349
conjugal) claim of another. To be liable for usurpation of civil status, the offender must have the indicates the crime of bigamy is committed by one person who contracts a subsequent marriage
intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of another.

while the former marriage is valid and subsisting. If the second wife knew of the previous b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.
marriage of the accused, she will be liable for the crime of bigamy but only as an accomplice.
Note: Circumstance qualifying the offense: if either of the contracting parties obtains the
* There must be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse presumptively dead for consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud
purposes of remarriage
The requirements of the law for a valid marriage are:
* Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the 1 st wife is bigamy through
reckless imprudence 1. The legal capacity of the contracting parties;
* A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage void ab initio is now required 2. Their consent freely given;
* The language of the law is clear when it declared “ before the former marriage has been legally 3. Authority of the person performing the marriage; and
dissolved.” The Supreme Court said the even if the accused, as plaintiff in the civil case prevails,
and his first marriage is annulled, such pronouncement has no retroactive effect as to exculpate 4. Marriage license, except in marriage under exceptional circumstances.
him in the bigamy case. Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge its nullity, for only
competent courts have such authority. (Landicho vs. Relova, 22 SCRA 731, 735) * The law further provides that for accused to be liable under this article, he should not be guilty
of bigamy because otherwise, the crime punished under Article 350 is deemed absorbed in the
* The civil case for annulment of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial question as to bigamy.
warrant the suspension of the trial and proceeding in the criminal case for bigamy. (Roco, et al.,
Cinco, et al., 68 O.G.2952) Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws
* One convicted for bigamy may be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses 1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.
* One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses. 2. The marriage is contracted knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied
The first is an offense against civil status, which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state; with or in disregard of legal impediments.
the second is an offense against chastity, and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the
offended party. The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, 3. One where the consent of the other was obtained by means of violence, intimidation or fraud.
but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense.
4. If the second marriage is void because the accused knowingly contracted it without
* One who vouches that there is no legal impediment knowing that one of the parties is already complying with legal requirements as the marriage license, although he was previously
married is an accomplice married.
Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage: 5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who does not have the required authority to
solemnize marriages.
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The offender must have a valid and subsisting marriage.
Despite the fact that the marriage is still subsisting, he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which are performed without complying with
the requirements of law, or such premature marriages, or such marriage which was solemnized Article 351
by one who is not authorized to solemnize the same. PREMATURE MARRIAGE
Acts punished:
Article 350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS 1. A widow who within 301 days from death of husband, got married or before her
delivery, if she was pregnant at the time of his death
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender contracted marriage. 2. A woman whose marriage having been dissolved or annulled, married before her
delivery or within 301 days after the legal separation
2. That he knew at the time that
* The Supreme Court has already taken into account the reason why such marriage within 301
a. the requirement of the law were not complied with, or days is made criminal, that is, because of the probability that there might be a confusion
regarding the paternity of the child who would be born . If this reason does not exist because the

former husband is impotent, or was shown to be sterile such that the woman has had no child Notes:
with him, that belief of the woman that after all there could be no confusion even if she would
marry within 301 days may be taken as evidence of good faith and that would negate criminal LIBEL is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary or
intent. any act, commission, condition, status or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit
or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead
* Article 84 of the Civil Code provides that no marriage license shall be issued to a widow until
after 300 days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime she has given birth to Character of the words used to make it defamatory.
a child.
Words calculated to induce suspicion are more effective in destroying reputation than false
charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A
Article 352 charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearer to suppose and understand
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY that the person against whom they are uttered is guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to public ridicule . (U.S. vs.
Act punished: O’Connell, 37 Phil. 767)
performance of any illegal marriage ceremony by a priest or minister of any religious Malice has been defined as a term used to indicate the fact that the defamer is prompted by
denomination or sect or by civil authorities personal ill or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the
person defamed.
Kinds of Malice.
TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Malice in law – This is assumed and is inferred from the defamatory character of an imputation.
The presumption of malice attaches to the defamatory statement especially if it appears to
Crimes against honor be insulting per se. The law presumes that the defamer made the imputation without good
1. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355); intention or justifiable motive.
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art.
356); Malice in fact – This refers to malice as a fact. The presence and existence of personal ill-will or
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. 357); spite may still appear even if the statement is not defamatory. So, where the defamatory
4. Slander (Art. 358); acts may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory acts imputed refer to the
5. Slander by deed (Art. 359); private life of the individual, malice may be presumed from the publication of the
6. Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363); defamatory statement because no one has a right to invade another’s privacy.
7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law
Article 353 Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from every statement whose tenor is
LIBEL defamatory. It does not need proof . The mere fact that the utterance or statement is
defamatory negates a legal presumption of malice.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there is no need for the prosecution to
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances. present evidence of malice. It is enough that the alleged defamatory or libelous statement be
presented to the court verbatim. It is the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not.
2. That the imputation must be made publicly. If the tenor of the utterance or statement is defamatory, the legal presumption of malice arises
even without proof.
3. That it must be malicious.
Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted . Otherwise, there is
4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who no need to adduce evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice in law does not require evidence,
is dead. malice in fact requires evidence.
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous or defamatory
the person defamed. utterance was made with good motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the utterance was
privileged in character.

In law, however, the privileged character of a defamatory statement may be absolute or

qualified. > The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed.
When the privileged character is said to be absolute , the statement will not be actionable whether * Person libeled must be identified . But the publication need not refer by name to the libeled
criminal or civil because that means the law does not allow prosecution on an action based party. If not named it must be shown that the description of the person referred to in the
thereon. defamatory publication was sufficiently clear so that at least a 3 rd person would have identified
the plaintiff.
Illustration:
As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are deliberating or discussing in * When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they are identified in the same libel, even
Congress, when the privileged character is qualified, proof of malice in fact will be admitted to if there are several persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement , there will only be
take the place of malice in law. When the defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly one count of libel.
privileged, the malice in law is negated . The utterance or statement would not be actionable
because malice in law does not exist. Therefore, for the complainant to prosecute the accused * If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, even though the libel was
for libel, oral defamation or slander, he has to prove that the accused was actuated with malice committed at one and the same time, there will be as many libels as there are persons
(malice in fact) in making the statement. dishonored.
* Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications Illustration:
* Where the imputation is based upon matters of public interest, the presumption of malice does If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be one libel because these
not arise from the mere publication of the defamatory statement. A matter of public interest is particular Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically identified.
common property. Malice in fact comes into play when the statement made is not defamatory
per se, as when the offender resorts to underserved praises or satirical method of impeaching the If the offender said, “All the Marcoses – the father, mother and daughter are thieves.” There will
virtue, honesty and reputation of the offended party. It can also appear in the form of innuendos. be three counts of libel because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored.
* This discussion leads to the conclusion that the determination of libelous meaning is left to the * If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider one libel as giving rise to
good judgment of the court after considering all the circumstances which lead to the utterance or several counts of libel . In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered
publication of the defamatory statement. The question is not what the writer of an alleged libel as having dishonored more than one person, those persons dishonored must be identified.
means but what the words used by him mean. The meaning given by the writer or the words Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.
used by him is immaterial. The question is not what the writer meant but what he conveyed to
those who heard or read him (People vs. Encarnacion, 204 SCRA 1) * Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified . It is enough that he
could possibly be identified because “innuendos may also be a basis for prosecution for libel. As
How to overcome the presumption of malice. a matter of fact, even a compliment which is undeserved, has been held to be libelous.
* To presume publication there must be a reasonable probability that the alleged a libelous
The presumption of malice is rebutted by showing : matter was thereby exposed to be read or seen by 3rd persons.
1. that the accused published the defamatory imputation with good intention; Republication of defamatory article is punishable.
2. that there is justifiable motive for making it; One is liable for publication of defamatory words against another although he is only repeating
what he heard and names the source of his information. A person who repeats a slander or
3. that the communication made is privileged; and libelous publication heard or read from another is presumed to indorse it. (People vs.
Salumbides and Reanzares, C.A., 55 O.G. 2638)
4. accused must prove the truth of the defamatory imputation in those cases wherein truth is a
defense. Criterion to determine whether statements are defamatory
PUBLICATION is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person/s 1) words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person
against who they are uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach
Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person or persons. So, the their honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold the person up to public ridicule (US v
delivery of a defamatory writing to a typesetter is sufficient publication. Writing a letter to O’Connel)
another person other than the person defamed is sufficient publication. (See Sazon vs. Court
of Appeals, 255 SCRA 692) 2 )construed not only as to the expression used but also with respect to the whole scope
and apparent object of the writer.(P v Encarnacion)
> The crime is libel if the defamation is in writing or printed media.

* The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a sentence into component phrases with the cannot be done by resort to filing a class suit as each victim has his specific reputation to protect.
meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed by the entirety of the In this case, each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the community.
language to the ordinary reader. (Lacsa vs. FAC, et al., 161 SCRA 427).
Rule regarding Public Officers:
* In libel cases, the question is not what the offender means but what the words used by him
mean. ( Sazon vs. CA, 255 SCRA 692) Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are
related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the accused proves the
Praises undeserved are slander in disguise. truth of the imputation. But any attack upon the private character of the public officers on
matters which are not related to the discharge of their official functions may constitute Libel.
Where the comments are worded in praise of the plaintiff, like describing him with qualities which
plaintiff does not deserve because of his social, political and economic status in the community * Where malice cannot be inferred from false defamatory statements, the ruling appears to be
which is too well known to all concerned, are which intended are intended to ridicule rather than the true only if the offended party is a government employee, with respect to facts related to the
praise him, the publication is deemed libelous (Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27 SCRA 52) discharge of his official duties. With his jurisprudence, it should now be emphasized that ‘ actual
malice” is now required to be proven. It is enough to rely on presumed malice in libel cases
* Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is committed unless one acted with good involving a public official or public figure.
motives or justifiable end. Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is not even admissible in
evidence, unless what was imputed pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and when the * Malice is now understood to mean publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless
person to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the imputation pertains to the disregard of the statement’s veracity. The burden of proof has not only been shifted to the
performance of official duty. Other than these, the imputation is not admissible. plaintiff in libel, but proof has not only been shifted to the plaintiff in libel, but proof of malice
must now be clear and convincing.
When proof of truth is admissible
Case Doctrines:
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the
offended party is a private individual or a public officer; * The fact that a communication is privileged is not a proper ground for the dismissal of a
complaint for libel. In the first place, it is a matter of defense. Secondly, the fact that a
2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable. The privileged character
imputed does not constitute a crime, provided if its related to the discharged of his simply does away with the presumption of malice which the prosecution has to prove in such a
official duties. case. (Lu Chu Sing, et al., vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)
Requisites of defense in defamation * Libel in answer to another libel is not a defense. (Pellicena vs. Gonzales, 6 Phil. 50)
1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true; * If the defamatory imputation is in the nature of self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code such that the publication was done in good faith, without malice and just adequate
2. It was published with good motives; enough to protect his good name, the statement may be considered privileged. (People vs.
Baja, 40 O.G. 206; People vs. Mendoza, C.A. 74 O.G. 5607)
3. It was for justifiable ends.
* The fair and true report of official proceedings refer to proceedings in the three branches of
government, to wit: judicial, legislative and executive. The publisher is limited only to the
If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be prosecuted de officio. A complaint from the offended narration of what had taken place even if the report contains defamatory and injurious matter
party is necessary. affecting another person, libel is not committed for as long as what is contained is a fair and true
report of the proceedings.
Libel Perjury
-false accusation need not be made under oath -false accusation is made under oath * Under Article 354, the publisher becomes liable when he makes comments or remarks upon the
private character of person, which are not relevant or related to the judicial, legislative or
executive proceedings.
Newsweek v IAC
Newsweek portrayed the island province of Negros Occidental as a place dominated by big * Under our libel law, defamatory remarks against government employees with respect to facts
landowners. Plaintiffs are associations of sugarcane planters. HELD: Dismissed. To maintain a related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel, if defendant is able to
libel suit, the specific victim must be identifiable. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of prove the truth of the imputations. But any attack on the private character of the officer on
persons are not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for matters which are not related to the discharge of his official functions may constitute libel since
victim to be identifiable . An action for libel allegedly directed against a group of sugar planters under our laws, the right of the press to criticize public officers does not authorize defamation.
(U.S. vs. Bustos, supra; Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, supra).

confidential nature, or of a statement, report, or speech delivered in said

proceedings, or of any other act performed by a public officer
2. that it is made in good faith

Article354
REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY 3. that it is made without any comments or remarks
Kinds of privileged communication Doctrine of fair comment
a. ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED – not actionable even if the actor has acted in bad “A fair comment on matters of public interest is included and is covered by the mantle of
faith privileged communication which constitutes a valid defense against libel and slander.” “If the
comment is an expression of opinion based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the
b. QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED – those which although containing defamatory opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts.”
imputations could not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith Further explaining the right to comment on a public issue, the Court said, “If a matter is a subject
of public or general interest, it cannot become less so merely because a private individual is
* When the defamatory imputation comes under the criteria of an absolute privileged involved. The public primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the
communication, the presumption of malice under Article 354 has no application. participants and not on their prior anonymity or notoriety. ( Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1 )
* The presumption of malice, however, comes into play when the defamatory statement is a Santos v CA
conditional or qualified privileged communication. To overcome this presumption of malice in law, HELD: No malice, he simply furnished the readers with the info that a complaint has been filed
the defamer must prove during the proceeding that the defamatory imputation was committed against the brokerage firm and reproduced the pleading verbatim with no embellishments.
because of a legal, moral or social duty.
* Privileged communication as categorized in this discussion is a matter of defense. It is not a Article 355
ground for a motion to quash after the arraignment of the accused. (See Mercado vs. CFI of LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
Rizal, 116 SCRA 93). If after the prosecution has presented its evidence, it becomes evident
that the defamatory statement was made by the accused because of a legal, moral or social duty, A libel may be committed by means of –
then the accused can file a demurrer to evidence, as in the meantime, there is absence of malice
in law which is presumed in all defamatory imputations. 1. Writing;
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious even if it be true, if no 2. Printing;
good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown
3. Lithography;
EXCEPTION:
a. private communication in performance of legal, moral or social duty 4. Engraving;
Requisites 5. Radio;
1. that the person who made the communication had a legal, moral
or social duty to make the communication or at least he had an interest to be 6. Photograph;
upheld
7. Painting;
2. that the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or
superior, having some interest or duty on the matter 8. Theatrical exhibition;
3. that the statements in the communication are made in good faith 9. Cinematographic exhibition; or
without malice in fact
10. Any similar means.
b. fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments and remarks
* In the enumeration above, television is not included, probably because at the time the Revised
Requisites Penal Code was conceived, television had not yet been invented. However, the law provides, “ or
1. that the publication of a report of an official proceeding is a fair and any similar means” which easily qualifies television is such species or category. (People vs.
true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of Casten, C.A., G.R. No. 07924-CR promulgated December 13, 1974)

family and home. Occasionally, it involves conjugal troubles and quarrels because of infidelity,
adultery or crimes involving chastity.
Article 356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH LIBEL AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR Lacsa v IAC
A COMPENSATION Lacsa found that Marquez was not a proprietary member of PCA thus not qualified to be
president. He wrote to the BOD and to Marquez. He caused to publish the second letter. HELD:
Acts punished Letter is not privileged communication. To be classified as such it must be free from malice.
Granting that the letter was privileged communication, written out of a duty of an officer towards
1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or the members, such character was lost when it was published.
other members of his family;
* Under Republic Act No. 1477, amending Rep. Act. No. 58, the publisher, editor, columnist or
2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot
consideration. be compelled to reveal the source of any news report information appearing in the said
publication which was related to him in confidence unless the court or a house or committee of
* It involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the victim, through Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
threats of accusation or exposure. It contemplates of two offenses: a threat to establish a libel
and an offer to prevent such publication. The gravamen of the crime is the intent to extort money
or other things of value. Article 358
ORAL DEFAMATION / SLANDER
Blackmail – In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be defined as any unlawful extortion of
money by threats of accusation or exposure. Two words are expressive of the crime – hush Two Kinds of Oral Defamation:
money. (US v. Eguia, et al., 38 Phil. 857) Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under
Article 283; and (2) threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for 1. action of a serious and insulting nature (Grave slander)
compensation, under Article 356.
2. light insult or defamation – not serious in nature (simple slander)
Factors that determine gravity of the offense:
a) expressions used
b) personal relations of the accused and the offended party

Article 357
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL c) circumstances surrounding the case
PROCEEDINGS
Notes:
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or * The gravity of oral defamation depends not only on the expressions but also on the personal
magazine. relation of the accused with the offended party. Other circumstances like the presence of
important people when the crime was committed, the social standing and position of the
2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another. offended party are factors which may influence the gravity and defamatory imputation (Victorio
vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 645).
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person.
* Note that slander can be committed even if the defamatory remark was done in the absence of
Note: the offended party. (People vs. Clarin, C.A., 37 O.G. 1106)
* Even though made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration * Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light oral defamation (P v Doronilla)
of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.
* If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused at the
* With its provisions, Article 357 has come to be known as the “Gag Law.” It prohibits same time levelled his finger at the complainant, oral defamation is committed (P v Salleque)
reporters, editors or managers of newspapers from publishing articles containing facts connected
with the private life of an individual; facts which are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation * The word “puta ” does not impute that the complainant is prostitute. (People vs. Atienza,
of persons. But these must refer to facts which are intimately related to the offended party’s G.R. No. L-19857, Oct. 26, 1968 ) It is a common expression of anger or displeasure. It is

seldom taken in its literal sense by the hearer. It is viewed more as a threat on the part of the c. Acts of lasciviousness -irritation or annoyance + any of 3 circumstance provided in Art335
accused to manifest and emphasize a point. (Reyes vs. People, 27 SCRA 686) of RPC on rape
i. use of force or intimidation
ii. deprivation of reason or rendering the offended unconscious
Article 359 iii. offended party under 12 yrs of age+lewd designs
SLANDER BY DEED
ELEMENTS: Article 360

1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
honor.
Who are liable:
2. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons. a. person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means(par.1)
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
b. author or editor of a book or pamphlet
Notes:
c. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial
Slander by deed is a defamation committed by the offender against the complainant through publication(par.2)
the performance of any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.
d. owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent
* Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of words. and all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its
publication (US v Ortiz)
Two kinds of slander by deed * A defamatory statement by itself is not a crime. It is the undue publication of the defamatory
imputation which makes it a crime. It is therefore in this concept that proprietors and editors of
1. Simple slander by deed; and periodicals are also made responsible for the appearance of defamatory matters in any
newspaper under their management.
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious nature.
Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation:
* Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious nature or not , a. where the libelous article is printed and 1st published OR
depends on the social standing of the offended party, the circumstances under which the act was
committed, the occasion, etc. b. where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense
* The acts of slapping and boxing the woman, a teacher, in the presence of many people has put
her to dishonor, contempt and ridicule. (P v Costa) * Libel cases are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Inferior
courts have no jurisdiction to try written defamation. (People vs. Hechanova, 54 SCRA 101)
* If the acts committed against the offended party caused her physical injury which did not
require medical attendance, then the crime would be maltreatment which is classified as slight Where one of the offended parties is a public officer:
physical injuries.
a. if his office is in the City of Manila
P v Motita - RTC of Manila OR
> Accused held a mirror between the legs of complainant to reflect her private parts. The crowd - city/province where the article is printed and 1st published
laughed. Guilty of slander by deed.
b. Otherwise
Distinctions: - RTC of the city/province where he held office at the time of offense OR
- where the article is 1st published
a. Unjust Vexation-irritation or annoyance/anything that annoys or irritates without
justification. Where one of the offended parties is a private individual:
- RTC of province/city where he actually resides at the time of the crime
b. Slander by Deed-irritation or annoyance + attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt. - where article was printed or 1st published

* In order to prevent controversies as to the venue of criminal actions for written defamation, the
information or complaint must contain averments as to whether the offended party is a private or Libelous remarks or comments on privileged matters (under Art. 354) if made with
public officer at the time of the commission of the offense and whenever possible, the place malice in fact will not exempt the author and editor.
where the written defamation was printed and first published. (Agbayani, et al., vs. Hon.
Sayo, et al., L-47880, April 30, 1979) * This article is a limitation to the defense of privileged communication.
Note: Offended party must file complaint for defamation imputing a crime which cannot be * The main thrust of the law is to punish libelous remarks or comments on matters which are
prosecuted de oficio (e.g. adultery, concubinage, rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of privileged, if made with malice in fact. So, a newspaper reporter who distorts facts connected
lasciviousness) with official proceedings or who adds comments thereon as to cast aspersion on the character of
the parties involved, is guilty of libel even through the defamatory matter is published in
* Under the last paragraph of Article 360, only defamation consisting of the imputation of private connection with a privileged communication. (Dorr vs. U. S., 11 Phil. 706)
offenses such as adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall be
prosecuted by the offended party by filing a complaint. Outside of this enumeration by law, the
crime is considered a public crime which may be prosecuted de oficio.
Soriano v IAC
> The Philippines follows the multiple publication rule which means that every time the same
written matter is communicated, such communication is considered a distinct and separate
publication of libel.
* Where the publication is libelous per se, actual damages need not be established . This is so
because libel, by its very nature, causes dishonor, disrepute and discredit and injury to the
reputation of the offended party. It is something inherent and natural in the crime of libel. (Lu INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Chu Sing vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669)
Article363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
Article 361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs an act.
Admissible when:
a. the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended 2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the
party is a private individual or a public officer commission of a crime.
b. the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed 3. That such act does not constitute perjury.
does not constitute a crime provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties
Two Kinds:
Requisites for Acquittal: a. making a statement which is
a. it appears that the matter charged as libelous is TRUE (for situations 1 and 2 above) b i. defamatory or
ii. perjurious (if made under oath and is false)
b. it was published with good motives and for a justifiable end (for situation 1 only)
b. planting evidence
Notes: The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay,
rumors, or suspicion. It must rest upon positive direct evidence, upon which a definite finding Note: article is limited to planting evidence and the like
may be made by the court (US v Sotto)
* This crime cannot be committed through verbal incriminatory statements . It is defined as an
* Admission on the part of the accused that he committed a mistake will not serve to free him act and, therefore, to commit this crime, more than a mere utterance is required.
from criminal liability. But it may serve to mitigate the penalty imposed on him or lessen his civil
liability. ( Phee vs. La Vanguardia, 45 Phil 211 ) * If the incriminating machination is made orally , the crime may be slander or oral defamation.
* If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath , the crime may be perjury
Article 362 if there is a willful falsity of the statements made.
LIBELOUS REMARKS

* If the statement in writing is not under oath , the crime may be falsification if the crime is a
material matter made in a written statement which is required by law to have been rendered. In incriminating an innocent person , the offender performs an act by which he directly
incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.
* As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted to be possible only in the so-called
planting of evidence.
RA4200 The Anti - Wire Tapping Act
* There is such a crime as incriminating an innocent person through unlawful arrest. (People vs.
Alagao, et al., G.R. No. L-20721, April 30, 1966) Acts punished:
1) any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word
Article 364 a) taps any wire of cable OR
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
b) uses any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record
How committed: such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie talkie or tape recorder
-by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor or reputation of another person 2) any person, whether or not a participant in the above-mentioned acts:
Notes: a) knowingly possesses any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
record or copies thereof of any communication or spoken word
* The crime is committed by resorting to any form of scheme or plot designed to blemish the
reputation of a person. The offender does not employ written or spoken words, pictures or b) replays the same for any other person
caricatures to ridicule the victim. Rather, he uses some ingenious, crafty and secret ploy which
produces the same effect. c)communicates the contents thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person
* Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping . The offender, without ascertaining the Notes:
truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the same and pass it on to another, to the damage of
the offended party. Who started the defamatory news is unknown. * Peace officer is exempt if acts done under lawful order of the court. You can only use the
recording for the case for which it was validly requested.
* Where the source of polluted information can be traced and pinpointed, and the accused
adopted as his own the information he obtained, and passed it to another in order to cause * Information obtained in violation of the Act is inadmissible in evidence in any hearing or
dishonor to the complainant’s reputation, the act is Slander and not Intriguing Against Honor. investigation.
But where the source or the author of the derogatory information can not be determined and the
accused borrows the same, and without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it to others, the Gaanan v IAC
act is one of Intriguing Against Honor. > An extension phone is not one of those prohibited under RA 4200. There must be either a
* Committed by saying to others an unattributable thing, if said to the person himself it is physical interruption through the wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement
slander. in order to overhear, intercept or record the spoken words. The extension phone was not
installed for such purpose.
Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander:
When the source of the defamatory utterance is unknown and the offender simply repeats or
passes the same, the crime is intriguing against honor.
If the offender made the utterance, where the source of the defamatory nature of the utterance
is known, and offender makes a republication thereof, even though he repeats the libelous
statement as coming from another, as long as the source is identified, the crime committed by
that offender is slander.
Distinction between intriguing against honor and incriminating an innocent person: CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
In intriguing against honor, the offender resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of blemishing the Article 365
honor or reputation of another person.

ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE: Test for determining whether or not a person is negligent of doing of an act which
1. That the offender does or fails to do an act. results in injury or damages to another person or his property.
2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary. Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee
harm to the person injured? If so, the law imposes on the doer, the duty to refrain from the
3. That it be without malice. course of action, or to take precaution against such result. Failure to do so constitutes
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring the admonition borne of this
4. That material damage results. provisions, is the constitutive fact of negligence. (Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809, 813)
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking
into consideration
a. his employment or occupation Test of Negligence.
b. degree of intelligence, physical condition, and Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use the reasonable care and caution which
an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
c. other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. negligence.
The penalties under Article 365 has no application in the following cases:
ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:
1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender. 1. When the penalty provided for the offense ifs equal or lower than that provided in pars.1 and
2 of Article 365. In this case, the penalty shall be that which is next lower in degree than
2. That the damage impending to be caused in not immediate or the danger is not that which should be imposed, in the period which the court may deem proper to apply.
clearly manifest.
2. When by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a
Quasi-offenses punished person is caused, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would 1) Art.64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances not applicable.
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
2) Failure to lend on the spot assistance to victim of his negligence: penalty next higher in
2. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise degree.
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3) Abandoning usually punishable under Art 275, if charged under Art 365 is only qualifying
3. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple and if not alleged cannot even be an aggravating circumstance.
imprudence or negligence;
4) Contributory negligence—not a defense, only mitigating
4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony. * The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence. It is against public policy to invoke the negligence of another to escape
Distinction between reckless imprudence and negligence: criminal liability. (People vs. Quiñones, C.A., 44 O.G. 1520)
The two are distinguished only as to whether the danger that would be impending is easily * The above-mentioned doctrine should be reconciled with the doctrine of “concurrent
perceivable or not. If the danger that may result from the criminal negligence is clearly proximate cause of two negligent drivers.”
perceivable, the imprudence is reckless. If it could hardly be perceived, the criminal negligence
would only be simple. * In the case of People vs. Desalis, et al., C.A., 57 O.G. 8689 , the two accused were drivers
of two speeding vehicles which overtook vehicles ahead of them and even encroached on the
* There is no more issue on whether culpa is a crime in itself or only a mode of incurring criminal other’s lane without taking due precaution as required by the circumstances. The court found the
liability. It is practically settled that criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal concurrent or successive negligent act or omission of the two drivers as the direct and proximate
liability. This is so because under Article 3, a felony may result from dolo or culpa. cause of the injury caused to the offended party. The court could not determine in what
proportion each driver contributed to the injury. Both were declared guilty for the injury suffered
Notes: by the third person.

* When negligence does not result in any injury to persons or damage to property, then no crime * If you split the criminal negligence, that is where double jeopardy would arise.
is committed. Negligence becomes punishable when it results in the commission of a crime.
(Lantok, Jr. vs. Hon. Gorgonio, L-37396, April 30, 1979, 75 O.G. 7763) * Accused is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his negligence to trespassers
whose presence in the premises he was not aware of. In the case of People vs. Cuadra, C.A.,
Last clear chance doctrine- 53 O.G. 7265, accused was a truck driver. Unknown to him, several persons boarded his truck
> The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the action if it be shown that and while driving along a slippery road which has a declinations of 25 degrees, the left front
the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the wheel of the truck fell into a ditch. In his effort to return the truck to the center of the road, the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party truck turned turtle, throwing off two of the passengers who boarded the truck without his
knowledge. As a consequence, one of them died. Cuadra was acquitted of the crime of reckless
Emergency rule- imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries.
> An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another, is suddenly placed in an emergency
and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes * Overtaking of another vehicle is a normal occurrence in driving. But when the overtaking is
a choice which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though done from right, it shows recklessness and disregard of traffic laws and regulations. It is likewise
he did not make the wisest choice. so when the overtaking is done while another vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction.
This is a violation of Section 59(b) of the Motor Vehicle Law (People vs. Songalla, C.A., 67
Doctrine of Pre-emption O.G. 8330)
> It is a rule in collision cases which the driver of a motor vehicle to make a full stop when
crossing a thru-street. Any accident therefore which takes place in said corner gives to rise to the * Driving within the speed limit is not a guaranty of due care. Speed limits impose the maximum
presumption of negligence on the part driver of the motor vehicle running thru-street has already speed which should not be exceeded. The degree of care required of a motorist is not governed
reached the middle part of the intersection. In such a case, the other driver who has the right of by speed limits but by the circumstances and conditions obtaining in the place at the particular
way has the duty to stop his motor vehicle in order to avoid a collision. (People vs. Taradji, 3 time. So, if the maximum speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour and the vehicle driven at 30
C.A. Rep. [25] 460) kilometers per hour, but because of the very slow pace of the vehicle, an accident occurs, the
P v Cano observation of the speed limit will not be acceptable evidence of due care. (people vs. Caluza,
> Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence but the C.A., 58 O.G. 8060)
recklessness of the accused.
Force majeure in relation to negligence.
P v Carillo > Force majeure has reference to an event which cannot be foreseen or which being foreseen, is
> 13 yr old girl dies 3 days after surgery due to an overdose of Nubain which triggered a heart inevitable. It implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor or
attack that caused brain damage. HELD: Guilty of simple negligence resulting to homicide. Carillo perpetrator. In negligence, the immediate personal harm or damage to property is perceivable
was the anesthesiologist, he and his co-accused failed to monitor and provide close patient care, and can be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. As the event is foreseeable, the failure
to inform the parents of the child’s true condition, to prove that they exercised necessary and of the actor to use reasonable care to prevent harm or damage constitutes reckless imprudence
appropriate degree of care and diligence to prevent the condition. or simple negligence. (People vs. Eleazar )
Buearano v CA
> Conviction of the accused in the charge of slight and less serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of the crime of damage to
property through reckless imprudence.
* Since this is the mode of incurring criminal liability, if there is only one carelessness, even if
there are several results, the accused may only be prosecuted under one count for the criminal
negligence. So there would only be one information to be filed, even if the negligence may bring
about resulting injuries which are slight.
* Do not separate the accusation from the slight physical injuries from the other material result of
the negligence.
* If the criminal negligence resulted, for example, in homicide, serious physical injuries and slight
physical injuries, do not join only the homicide and serious physical injuries in one information for
the slight physical injuries. You are not complexing slight when you join it in the same
information. It is just that you are not splitting the criminal negligence because the real basis of
the criminal liability is the negligence.

Criminal Law Book II Treason Elements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Book II Treason Elements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA

Crimes against national security a. 2 witnesses testifying to same overt act

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 1

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 2

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 3

 Inciting to war – offender is any person  Circumstances qualifying the offense:

ELEMENTS:  If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 4

 For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft

Article 121 PIRACY MUTINY

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 5

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 6

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 7

CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION:  Grounds for warrantless arrest:

Article 124  For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 8

1. In arbitrary detention --  ELEMENTS:

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 9

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 10

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 11

c. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 12

b. He performs any of the ff. acts:

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 13

c. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same

 When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases,

1. in a place devoted to religious worship, or (for this element, no need of

c. The offender is any person

d. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 14

 Persons liable for rebellion

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 15

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 16

b. Accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 17

Article 135  ELEMENTS:

NOTES: Article 137

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 18

c. Accepting appointment to office under rebels Article 139

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 19

* Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 20

 ELEMENTS: 2. expressing his opinions or

Article 145 a. Meeting of the first form

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 21

Two forms of illegal assembly

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 22

 ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT: Force Employed Intimidation/Resistance

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 23

 Circumstances qualifying the offense (Qualified Assault): Article 150

b. when the offender is a public officer or employee  Acts punishable:

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 24

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 25

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 26

CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 27

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 28

 Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer, a sedition, a revolt

b. That there is disorder, resulting from- 1. conflagration,

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers 29

VIOLATION OF PARDON ORDINARY EVASION

 Two penalties provided: Crimes against public interest