V The Revised Penal Code *

A BRIEF REVIEW
GENERAL FEATURES
By PROFESSOR FRANCISCO CAPISTRANO, College of Law, U. P.

The Revised Penal Code, which will take effect January 1,

has properly been regarded as being in the main a conso-
. n of penal statutes in force at the time the work was
ken. It is not a codification in the strict sense of the
(Sinco, The Revised Penal Code, Phil. Law Journal, vol.
o. 4, p. 166.) About one half of its 367 articles are provi-
of the old Penal Code (Spanish Penal Code of 1870),
of which were rewritten; the other half, about thirty of
are new provisions, consist of provisions of special laws,
tten mainly in the light of pertinent provisions of the pro-
Correctional Code of 1916. About twenty five of the
new provisions were taken from the proposed Correc-
Code, and five were contributed by the Code Committee.
-Code contains two books. Book One contains a prelimin-
title, providing for the time when the Act takes effect and
pplication of its provisions, and five other titles as follows:
One-Felonies and circumstances which affect criminal
.ty; Title Two-Persons criminally liable for Felonies;
Three--Penalties; Title Four-Extinction of Criminal
• ity and of Civil Liability Resulting from Crime; and Title
ivil Liability. Book Two, which deals with "Crimes and
ties," has fifteen titles, as follows: Title one-Crimes
National Security and the Law of Nations; Title Two-
against the Fundamental Laws of the State; Title Three
s Against Public Order; Title Four-Crimes Against
e Interest; Title Five-Crimes Relative to Opium and
Prohibited Drugs; Title Six-Crimes Against Public
; Title Seven-Crimes Committed by Public Officers;
Eight--Crimes Against Persons; Title Nine-Crimes
st Personal Liberty and Security; Title Ten-Crimes
Property; Title Eleve~-Crimes Against Chastity; Ti-
elve-:Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons; Title
n-Crimes Against Honor; Title Fourteen-Quasi Of-
; and Title Fifteen-Final Provisions, the repealing
of which (Art. 367) repeals "the present Penal Code,
the Provisional Law for the application of its provisions," and
several penal Acts of the former Philippine Commission and
of the Philippine Legislature.
PARTICULAR FEATURES
1. Exterritoriality of Penal Law.
Article 2, a new provision based on Art. 2 of the proposed
Correctional Code of 1916, extends the application of the pro-
visions of the Code outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines against those who "should commit an offense while
on a Philippine ship or airship;" "should forge or counterfeit
any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obliga_
tions and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine
Islands;" "should be liable for acts connected with the intro-
duction into these Islands of the obligations and securities men.
tioned;" "while being public officers or employees, should com-
mit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or "should
commit any of the crimes (treason and espionage, provoking
war and disloyalty in case of war, and piracy and mutiny on
the high seas,) against national security and the law of na-
tions defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code."
2. Impossible Crimes now punished.
Article 4, par. 2, a new provision contributed by the Code
Committee, provides that criminal liability shall be incurred
"by any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property were it not for the inherent impos-
sibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means." This provision penalizes
the so called "impossible Crime." For example, a person who
attempts to poison another with common salt believing that it
is arsenic, or one who performs acts upon a woman to cause
abortion believing that the woman is pregnant when in fact she
is not, will be guilty of an offense under this article. The act
here performed by the offender undoubtedly shows a criminal
intent, and reveals him as a criminal personality. The act in
itself is not dangerous, but it reveals the danger which may
proceed from the actor, who has stamped himself as a danger-
ous person to the commuriity and who, according to the positi-
vist school of penal philosophy, should be punished. Cuello
Calon, De1'echo Penal, pp. 375, 376; GMofalo, Oriminology,
p. 294. The penalty, according to article 59, is myesto mayor-
(from 1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine ranging frona
200 to 500 pesos, the court, in imposing the penalty, to b
/n mind the social danger and the degree of criminality sho
 the offender." On the other hand, the classical school of
I philosophy, claims that an impossible attempt is not real-
an attempted crime because there could be no commencement
the execution of that which is impossible to be executed, and
t the acts performed are purely a manifestation of criminal
t, but this alone is not sufficient for the imposition of a
Ity. Cuello Cal6n, Derecho Penal, p. 375; Dec. Sup. Ct. of
·n, Nov. 26, 1879.
No Penal Code in force in Continental Europe or South
erica seems to contain a provision similar to Article 4, par.
ol our Revised Penal Code. The proposed Italian Penal
e of 1921, however, in Article 16, recognized the necessity
~unishing"the impossible crime. Jiminez Asua, Estudio Cri-
del Proyecto de Codigo Penal Italiano de 1921, p. 59. In
connection, it is to be noted that Italy is recognized the
Id over as the seat particularly of modern penal philosophy.
auld seem, therefore, that while criminologists and courts
Continental Europe and South America are s,till discussing
subject as unsettled, we have gone farther, and without
the bench and bar having had a real chance as yet to dis-
the matter, we have provided in our new Code a penalty
the "impossible Crime." It must be stated, however, that
has been a tendency to punish "impossible crimes" as at-
pted felonies, under the common and usual code provision
the matter. Under our Code, there is an attempt i'When
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which
d produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
than his own spontaneous desistance." The highest Court
rmany, in recent celebrated decisions, has held the exist-
of an attempted infanticide in a case where it took place
child born dead, and of an attempted abortion in a case
e a person performed acts calculated to produce abortion,
a woman who was not actually pregnant. These deci-
, ftowever, were combated by the majority of German com-
tors. French jurisprudence has declared in certain cases
an impossible attempt constituted a punishable offense, as
e case of a person who attempted to steal from an empty
box:in 'a church, but in others, it has denied the existence
PUJl.ishableact. Cuello Cal6n, Derecho Penal, p. 376, Note:
In the common law, if the means are apparently and ab-
ly unfit, there is no attempted crime, but capability of suc-
is not essential to an attempt. It is also held that there
•. probable object within reach, as in the case of a thief
attempting to steal from an empty pocket, in which case there
is an indictable offense because it is "public, indictable as a
scandal and breach of public peace, irrespective of the question
of personal loss." But it is held that where the object is abso-
lutely non-existent, as where a person takes aim at a shadow or
a tree, imagining it to be an enemy, there is no indictable of.
fense, unless under circumstances disturbing public peace. Yet,
where there is actual injury to the person or property of an-
other, though, from circumstances exterior to the actor's will,
this injury does not produce its immediate contemplated result ,
there is an offense. Thus, an attempt at miscarriage may be
proved, though it turns out the woman was not actually preg-
nant; and an attempt at forgery could be sustained, although
the forged paper attempted to be made could not by any pos-
sibility defraud. Wharton's Criminal Law, secs. 222 to 225.
3. State of necessity as a justifying circumstance.
Article 11, par. 4, which according to a member of the
Code Committee (Guevara, Comm. on the Revised Penal Code,
p. 33) is an improvement on Art. 7, par. 8, of the old Penal
Code, states that no criminal liability is incurred by "any per-
son who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which
causes damage to another, provided that the following requi.
sites appear present: first, that the evil sought to be avoided
exists; second, that the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it; third, that there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it." The old provision stated,
"Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to the prope'Y·ty of another etc." The
new provision merely says "damage to another," having omit-
ted the words "the property of," which ommission is the im-
provement claimed by the Code Committee, which believed that
the new provision would now cover physical injury, or homi-
cide through necessity. The old provision was unanimously
conceded to be applicable only to conflicts between property
or rights, which demanded the destruction or injury of one or
of some for the benefit of another or others, but not to a con-
flict between two lives which would demand the destruction of
one in order that the other might be saved .. The act of one
who in order to save his own life caused the death of another a
in a shipwreck, is not a justified act, nor could such state of
necessity be considered as a justifying circumstance because the
right of the person sacrificed to live is just as legitima~e ::
that of the one who caused his death. The person sacnfic
was innocent, he did nothing to bring about the state of da
 h menaced the life of the other who chose to save himself.
all commentators are agreed that although the act done in
a case is not justified, nevertheless it is not punishable.
real reason for its non-punishability, according to Cuello
n is that the act is "outside th~ domain of the penal law", "it
'be accepted as an act which fate decrees, as an inevitable
ortune."
Without, therefore, discussing whether the words "dam-
to another" now found in Art. 11, par. 4, would include de-
'on of life or physical injury through necessity or whether
ordinary import would be limited to destruction of prop-
'Or riglats, as in the old Code, we merely point out that the
d requisite stated in the article, namely, "that the in-
feared be greater than that done to avoid it," would pre-
the application of the article to the destruction of human
n order to save another, for the reason that one life has
as much right to live as another. However, as pointed
the preceeding paragraph, homicide through necessity is
unishable as being beyond the pale of the penal law, as
. an inevitable misfortune. The same view is sustained
the common law and even by the canon law. Wharton's
'nal Law, sees. 126, 641-642. It may also come under
pting circumstance no. 6 of Article 12 of our Revised Pe-
Code, which states that "Any person who· acts under the
Ise of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury",
em.pt from criminal responsibility. CueUo Cal6n, Derecho
p.316.
It may be of interest to note that the new Spanish Penal
of 1928, in article 60, preserved substantially the meaning
import of Art. 7, par. 8, of the Code of 1870, which is the
as our ola Penal Code, refusing thus to extend its scope
omicide or physical injury through necessity on the ground,
ding to the explanatory note (Exposici6n de Motivos),
to do otherwise would be to sanction a principle which
be aualified as egoistic and cruel. Alcubilla, Anuario de
t p. 276. -
. Delay in delivery of person arrested to judicial author-

Artn~le 125, based on Art. 202 of the old Code and Art 93
Proposed Correctional Code, punishes any public offic,er
ploY(~e"who shall detain any person for some legal ground
~alI fan to deliver such person to the proper judicial au-
es within the period of one hour." This provision has
tacked 011 behalf of the constabulary and the police on
the ground that it would greatly hamper them in the perf
ance of their duties in making investigations of crime. On
other hand, police methods under the provision in the old
(Art. 202) providing for 24 hours, have been the subj
numerous complaints and criticism, for which reason, pro
the Code Committee reduced the time to one hour. Cl
the time limit of one hour is not only arbitrary, but also
reasonable. It may well happen that a peace officer haEs
prehended a criminal in a remote barrio, 15 or 20 kilo
distant from the poblaci6n which is accessible therefrom
on foot or on horseback. How could he comply with the
in such a case? Should he merely take down the crim'
name and address and let him go, with instructions to
at headquarters at his earliest convenience? That, of c
would be absurd. On the other hand, the time of 24 hour
vided for in the old Code is also arbitrary because the
or detention may be made right in the poblaci6n, and
light offense, in which case the discretion given to peac
ficers to detain the person arrested for 24 hours would give
to serious abuse on the part of the unscrupulous ones.
believed that, instead of a fixed time limit, which neces
must be arbitrary, the law should merely provide por pu
ment in case of a "wrongful delay" so that each case will
to be considered in the light of the· particular circumstances.
tending it, and both the police and the public should hay
cause for complaint. In fact, Art. 93 of the Proposed Co
tional Code does not fix a time but uses instead the expre
"wrongfully delays" (dilatare indebidamente). On this
ject the new Penal Law of New York, passed in 1931,
vides as follows: "Sec. 1844. A public officer or other
having
\
arrested any person upon a criminal charge, who
:fully and wrongfully delays, to take such person before a
·gistrate having jurisdiction to take his examination, is
of a misdemeanor." Bender's Penal Law and Criminal C
p. 371.
5. Legiskttive immunity from search.
Article 145, which has merited much discussion and n
ous press editorials, in part provides for the imposition 0
penalty of prisi6n correccional (6 mos. and 1 day to 6
"upon any public officer or employee who shall, while th
gislature is in session, knowingly arrest or search ary me
thereof, except in case such member has commit •.ed a
punishable under this Code by a penalty highe:' than
mayor" (6 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs). The '~ode Co
 aims responsibility for the words "or search" now appear-
. the article. Gue'L'ara, Comm. on the Penal Code, pp. 223
~. The provision, fin.ds no counterpart, it is ?eli~ved,. in
I American law, and IS of very doubtful constitutIOnalIty.
t ~ shall not dwell upon it further ~cause Professor Sinco
already written a paper on the subject.
6. Qualified and simple seduction, and consented abduction.
Qualified seduction. Under 337, "the seduction of a virgin
twelve years and under eighteen years of age, committed
a person in public authority, priest, house-servant, domestic,
dian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be
sted with the education or custody of the woman seduced,
be punished by prisi6n correccional in its minimum and
imum periods."
Simple seduction. In article 338 "The seduction of a wo-
who is single or widow of good reputation, over twelve
under eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit,
I be punished by arresto mayor."
Consented abduction. Under article 343, "The abduction
a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, car-
out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punish-
with prisi6n correcional in its minimum and medium pe-
s."
These articles are substantially the same as articles 443
446 of the old Penal Code.
The word virgin in articles 337 and 343 appears as donce-
in the Spanish text of the law. But the character of being
ella, according to the Supreme Court of Spain in con-
ing articles 443 and 446 of the Code of 1870, is not required
the law in the sense of "mujer que desconoce varon, sino de
jer honesta y recatada, para establecer que la cualidad de
lla debe reconocerse en la mujer soltera de vida honesta
·or al hecho cuando las pruebas 0 circunstancias procesa-
no destruyen esa presunci6n". Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, May
1888, March 2, 1887, and June 4, 1896. The same require-
t of mujer honesta was made as to simple seduction, punish-
under art. 443 of the old Code. It, therefore, appears that
use of i: e word 'virgin in articles 337 and 343 is improper,
to avo d strid interpretation, the word doncella appear-
ti' la islJ ~ext, should have been changed to mujer ho-
, as e r e~.' ;::pa.nishPenal Code of 1928 has done in art-
605, b06, and 612. The expression, in article 338, "woman
sir. r\. or widow of good reputation," which in the Span
a ;.rs ~IS "mujer soltera 0 viuda", seems to find r,
parallel in any Penal Code in force in Continental Europe
South America. For simple seduction, the New Spanish
nal Code, in article 605, uses the same term "mujer hones
The Code Committee in drafting article 338 of the Revised
nal Code probably had in mind Viada's words: "Si hubiera
de difinir nosotros el estupro, diriamos que POl' el debe en
derse, in general, el concubito 0 acceso carnal legitimo con
jer soltera 0 viuda de buena fama, mayor de doce alios y me
de veintitres." 3 Viada, 132. As the original Spanish text
our law has seen it fit to use "donceUa" in articles 337 and 3
it should have used the same term in article 338, for, as sta
the word merely means "mujer honesta" in penal jurispruden
The English equivalent of "mujer honesta" or "doncella" as
is used in the statute would probably be an "unmarried wo
of good repute," but not a virgin. In this connection, it is 0

teresting to note that most American statutes require that

woman be of "previous chaste character," which has been
fined to be not external reputation for chastity, but actual
sonal possession of chastity: Wharton's Criminal Law,
2104.
7. Killing of spouse in act of adultery.
Article 247, which is similar to Art. 425 of the old Pe
Code as amended by Act 3195, states that: "Any legally
ried person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of co
mitting sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill eit
of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inf!o
upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the pena
of destierro" (banishment for 6 mos. and 1 day to 6 years).
provision of the old Code, on which Article 247 was based,
unanimously criticized in Spain particularly during the last f
years as being a cruel provision, indirectly authorizing the 0.
fended spouse to take away the life of the adulterers. Aceo
ingly, the new Spanish Penal Code, in article 5.23, merely co
siders the act as having been executed under passion and
fuscation as a special extenuating circumstance such that
offended spouse will have to suffer the penalty for the offen
committed, but lower by one degree. In the Philippines, wh
adultery is a ground for divorce, there is added reason for sU
pressing the antiquated and cruel provision preserved in arti
247 above quoted. The Code Committee, which was too mode
in punishing the impossible crime, was, perhaps, quite an
J;uated in preserving the provision of Article 423 of the
1n~nal Code.
 8. Civil Liability of the offender:
Articles 100 to 111, providin~ in. t?e m.ain that every p:r.-
iminally liable for a felony IS CIVIllylIable, and that CIVIl
nbTty
cr ipcludes restItutIOn,
., repara t'IOn 0f th e d'amage caused,
1
ad i~demnification of consequential damages, are substantially
same as articles 18 to 20, and 119 to 126 of the old Penal
~e. These provisions are antiquated. Under said provisions,
recovery can be had of the so called "daiios morales;" that
o pain, mental suffering, etc. and in cases of murder or homi-
'de the settled jurisprudence in this country generally allows
,000.00 as damages to the heirs of the deceased, which un-
uestionably is grossly inadequate. There has been an utter
eglect of the rights of the offended party, contrary to the mo-
dern tendency on the subject. Cuello Calan, Derecho Penal,
p.471-476. Modern Penal Codes like those of Argentina (Art.
29) and Peru (Arts, 65 and 67) allow the recovery of "moral
damages". The civil codes of Germany (secs. 347, 847- and
1,300) and of Austria (secs. 1293 to 1341), and the law od'
obligations of Switzerland (art. 54) also allow "moral dam-
ages." French, Italian' and Spanish jurisprudence have also,
of late, allowed the recovery of "moral damages." Cuello Calan,
Derecho Penal, pp. 474 and note 7; 485 and note: 30. The new
panish Penal Code, in article 75, allows indemnity for "daiios
morales". In reference to Anglo-American law, it is of com-
on knowledge that "moral damages" are recoverable there-
under, and have been for a long time. Again it seems that,
m respect to the civil liability of the offender, the Code Com-
mittee did not keep progress with the times.
9. Miscellaneous Provisions.
Lack of time forbids a discussion of many interesting and
noteworthy provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Only a brief
statement of the substance of some of these provisions will be
made.

a. Art. 13, par. 2, considers extreme old age (over 70

ears) as a mitigating circumstance.
Bta b. Article 14, par. 20, considers as an aggravating circum-
11 nee the commission of a crime "with the aid of persons un-
er fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, airships,
Or other similar means."
~. Article 194 punishes with prisian correccional or a fine
rn~lDg. from 300 to 10,000 pesos, or both, "any physician
~ntIst who shall prescribe opium for any person whose
YSlcalcondition does not require the use of the same."
 d. Article 268, no. 4, considers as murder the killing
person "on the occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a
cano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other public cala
e. Article 273 punishes with prisi6n correccioruU in its
nimum and maximum per:iods and a fine not exceeding 500
sos any person "who, under the pretext of reimbursing hi
for a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
trusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the la
will, retain him in his service."
f. Article 275, no. 2, penalizes with arresto mayor ••
one who shall fail to help or render assistance to another w
he has accidentally wounded or injured."
g. Article 289 punishes with arresto mayor and a fine
exceeding 300 pesos "any person who, for the purpose of
ganizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions of capital
labor, strike of laborers or lockout of employers, shall em
violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or force
laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their
dustry or work, if the act shall not constitute a more seriou
fense in accordance with the provision of this code."
h. Article, par. 5 and 6, punishes with arresto 1nayor
a fine "Any person who shall accept any compensation gi
him under the belief that it is in payment of services ren
or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not ac
perform such services or labor," and "Any person who
being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil
without express authority from the court or before the ca
'ation of his bond or before being relieved from the obli
cO"ltraeted by him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other man
incumber the real property or properties with which he
anteed the fulfillment of such obligation."
i. Article 335, par. 3, lowers the penalty for adultery
degree "If tne person guilty of adultery committed this of~
while being abandoned without justification -by the off
spouse."
j. Article 341 punishes with prisi6n correcC'ioncLl"Any
son who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engag
the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist
services of women for the purpose of prostitution."
k. Article 357 penalizes with arresto mayor or a fi
from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, "Any reporter, editor or
agel' of a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish f
connected with the private life of another and offensive
honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though
 , tion be made in connection with or under the pretext
btIIca . t h e narra t'IOn 0f any JU
't is necessary m . d'lCla
. I or a d"mmlS-
af~e proceedings wherein such facts have been -mentioned."
II Article 363 punishes with arresto mayor "any person
h 'by' any act not constituting per~ury, shall directly or in-
ir~tlY incriminate or impute to an innocent person the com-
'ssion of a crime.
m. Article 364 punishes with arresto mayor or a fine not
ceeding 200 pesos any person guilty of "any intrigue which
s for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputa-
ion of a person."
n. Article 365 punishes with prisi6n correccional in its
medium and maximum periods (2 yrs. 4 mos. 1 day to 6yrs.)
the crime of homicide though "imprudence or negligence and
ith violation of the Automobile Law."
10. A few notew01·thy features of the New Penal Code of
pain of 1928.
It is only natural that certain new features of the Spanish
Penal Code of 1928 be noted, at least for comparison with our
Revised Penal Code, Some of these have already been men-
tioned in the foregoing discussion,
a. The new Spanish Penal Code has abolished subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, or inability to pay a fine
or indemnity, because it creates an odious inequality between
the rich and the poor, and, gives facilities for the payment of
fines imposed, which may be made by installments and from the
income of the convict's property or business or of his personal
labor out of or in prison. Arts. 179 to 183; Alcubilla, Anuario
del 1928, pp. 275, 3-14-315. Our Revised Penal Code has re-
tained subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the
rate of P2.50 per day and further provides that "the subsidiary
.iability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
Insolvency shall not relieve him from reparation of the damage
~used, nor from indemnification for the consequential damages
an ,case his financial circumstances should improve; but shall
reheve him from pecuniary liability as to the fine." Art. 39.
b. For the purpose of putting an end to an old and cen-
urable custom, which is that of trying to influence judges and
adrni~istrative officers in the decision of pending cases, the new
P~l1lsh Penal Code, in article 425, punishes what are termed
:0 .recommendaciones punibles;" that is, recommendations made
~udges, justices, and administrative officers to. do any act
or InCur in any omission which because of its being unjust
Dstitutes prevarication of duty, as defined in articles 413 to
424. See also article 814, punishing similar but less
acts as misdemeanors.
A provision like the foregoing, it is believed, is nee
the Philippines, where the pernicious custom referred
prevails as a heritage from Spain.
c. The new Spanish Penal Code has abolished the pe
penalties. The lon~est prison term of imprisonment pro
for is thirty years. Arts. 108 et. seq. Our Revised Penal
still provides for reclusion perpet1la and perpetual absol
special disqualification. Art. 25.
d. Articles 538 and 539 penalize persons for conta
ing others with venereal diseases: They are as follows:
538. Quien sabiendo que se encuentra atacado de una enf
dad sexual en su periodo contagioso infectare a otro po
intersexual 0 de otra manera sera castigado con la pena d
meses y un dia a un ano de prision. Si el hecho se rea·
entre conyuges, solamente podra ser perseguido a instan .
parte"; "Art. 539. Sera castigado con la pena de dos m
un dia a un ana de prisi6n 0 de multa de 2,000 a 10,00 pe
el que, conociendo la enfermedad sifilitica 0 contagiosa qu
dece un nino lactante, 10 entrega a erial' 0 toma una n
con dicho fin y ocasiona el contagio de esta."
Some such provisions are, undoubtedly, needed
country.
e. Article 819 punishes the so called "piropo", a pa
not unknown in th~ Philippines due to Spanish influence.
article provides: "El que, aun con proposito de galanter
dirigiere a una mujer con gestos, ademanes 0 frases grose
chabacanas, 0 la asedie con insistencia molesta de palabra ()
escrito, sera castigado con la pena de arresto de cinco a v
dias 0 multa de 50 a 500 pesetas."

CONCLUSION
Like any other human, undertaking the Revis~d Penal
is not free from defects. or criticism, some of which have
touched upon in the foregoing discussion. In some respec
is extremely modern, but in other respects it is quite antiqu
On the whole, however, the Revised Penal Code is a fine pi
work.